Stop the world I want to get off.

[Hopesy]

A couple of years ago in the small market town where i work two lads were playing conkers in the playground of the comp. One lad suffered an injury to his eye. The parent of the injured lad reported the matter to the police and wanted to pursue a complaint of assault and wouldn't take no for an answer. So it's not just HSE or school teachers and governers sometimes these rules are peolpe driven and the stupid rules are a reaction to the publics complaints and concerns :-S .We sometimes shoot ourselves in the foot as a society.

[CliveH]

I think we are probably arguing the same point but from a different perspective. I see examples of our civil servants in the UK interpreting sensible EU guidelines into UK Law.

 

A good example is the cheese industry. In France which has the same EU guidelines they mature some cheeses in caves and the way they produce the cheese is by a centuries old method well divorced from the stainless steel industrial process set out in the EU guidelines. The French sensibly simply looked at these guidelines and said "OK - that is fine - but where local industry does it another way - that is fine - the guidelines do not strictly apply"

 

In the UK those EU guidelines were set down as law and applied rigorously such that small local cheese makers were put out of business.

 

It is known as "Gold Plating" - and we have a Civil Service that is passionate about giving themselves more and more rules.

 

Graham - you say blame the MP's not the person who has to interpret the rules. To be honest (not a word that easily springs to mind when dealing with MP's :-S ) - I feel, from my experience, that the rules are often OK. It is those who apply their interpretation of the rules that are the problem.

 

You quote Michelle’s post above - and that is a classic case of a Mum battling with a "jobsworth" who has interpreted the rules so that they can say "No".

 

It has happened to me and as I say - the smug smile on that chaps face when we were forced to cancel was an awful sight to see.

 

As for the Canadian volunteers - again it is someone’s interpretation of the rules that allows this to happen. All it takes is for a judge to rule that the case is a vexatious nonsense and the volunteers will be able to start again. If the judge rules that the volunteers are responsible then no one will volunteer. End of story.

 

I am not saying all rules and all rule makers are good. But from where I stand - the rules are not at the core of the problem. It is the jobsworths who delight in perverse interpretations of said rules that need challenging.

 

I would suggest that in Michelle’s case, she simply asks to see where that rule is written and add that in her view her and her families human rights are being compromised by the wrong interpretation of guidelines and I predict that there will be a rush of blood to the head of the numpty concerned and the silly rule will suddenly disappear.

 

[GJH]

CliveH - 2009-06-20 9:39 AM

 

I think we are probably arguing the same point but from a different perspective. I see examples of our civil servants in the UK interpreting sensible EU guidelines into UK Law.

 

A good example is the cheese industry. In France which has the same EU guidelines they mature some cheeses in caves and the way they produce the cheese is by a centuries old method well divorced from the stainless steel industrial process set out in the EU guidelines. The French sensibly simply looked at these guidelines and said "OK - that is fine - but where local industry does it another way - that is fine - the guidelines do not strictly apply"

 

In the UK those EU guidelines were set down as law and applied rigorously such that small local cheese makers were put out of business.

 

It is known as "Gold Plating" - and we have a Civil Service that is passionate about giving themselves more and more rules.

Come on Clive, the civil servants may draft the legislation but it is MPs who pass it or not. It is MPs who decide what derogations to apply. The fact that derogations are applied less in the UK than elsewhere in Europe is down to MPs.

 

Graham - you say blame the MP's not the person who has to interpret the rules. To be honest (not a word that easily springs to mind when dealing with MP's :-S ) - I feel, from my experience, that the rules are often OK. It is those who apply their interpretation of the rules that are the problem.

I've already dealt with that one, see above.

 

You quote Michelle’s post above - and that is a classic case of a Mum battling with a "jobsworth" who has interpreted the rules so that they can say "No".

You have absolutely no evidence to back up that allegation. Again, I've dealt with the question of teachers above. It is much more likely that the person concerned simply hasn't had training so doesn't understand the law.

 

It has happened to me and as I say - the smug smile on that chaps face when we were forced to cancel was an awful sight to see.

There possible scenarios with your carnival are:

1. The law changed thus putting a liability on the committee which did not previously exist

2. The law didn't change and either:

a) the committee knew it was liable but did not bother taking out insurance

b) the committee was ignorant of the law and hadn't bothered to check its liability.

Whatever is the case the chap concerned had, perfectly correctly, brought the true situation to the committee's notice - i.e. he had done his job properly. Isn't anyone allowed to smile when they have done their job correctly? Isn't it possible that interpreting the smile as smug comes from a somewhat biased perspective?

 

As for the Canadian volunteers - again it is someone’s interpretation of the rules that allows this to happen. All it takes is for a judge to rule that the case is a vexatious nonsense and the volunteers will be able to start again. If the judge rules that the volunteers are responsible then no one will volunteer. End of story.

First of all, the interpretation is that of the person suing the volunteers, not any government official. I hope the judge does throw the case out - but it all depends what the applicable law says. Stupid laws (made by stupid MPs) produces stupid results.

 

I am not saying all rules and all rule makers are good. But from where I stand - the rules are not at the core of the problem. It is the jobsworths who delight in perverse interpretations of said rules that need challenging.

Again, you have no evidence to say that, as a whole, people implementing legislation are jobsworths. As I mentioned previously, most people in any occupation will be doing the job correctly. There will always be some in any occupation who get it wrong for all sorts of reasons but that is no reason to simply label a whole class of people as jobsworths. I can think of a financial adviser I knew who was high up in the local branch of his professional association until he was jailed for being a loan shark - but I would never extrapolate that to imply that all financial advisers were similarly bent.

 

I would suggest that in Michelle’s case, she simply asks to see where that rule is written and add that in her view her and her families human rights are being compromised by the wrong interpretation of guidelines and I predict that there will be a rush of blood to the head of the numpty concerned and the silly rule will suddenly disappear.

I think the implication in Michele's post is that the rule did disappear - but see above, it was probably there through lask of taraining rather than out of any spite.

 

Graham

[CliveH]

Graham - you seem to have some sort of vested interest in passing the buck! (lol)

 

I really do not care how you dress up the reasons why people like me and Michelle have had jobsworths saying "No". Be it lack of training or misinterpretation or just plain spite.

 

The point is it happens and nothing you can say can justify that.

 

As for the role of MP's - Yes they make the rules no doubt with all the good intentions in the world. But when you have the classic case of a well meaning rule re waiting times in NHS GP surgeries and A&E depts being manipulated by the jobsworths so that A) GP surgeries insist that you can only have an appt if you ring that day so that they can "score" maximum points for patients being seen in 24 hours and b) a special nurse being deployed in A&E depts so that all patients can be put on a list that "proves" they were seen by someone within 30 min of arrival, after which they go back to the waiting room for as many hours as before! - people like me do not tend to blame the politicians for the inconvenience.

 

I for one blame the jobsworth who sits down and works out how to bend the rules to get the bonus rather than actually do what the rules were laid down to do.

 

So like I say - MY experience is not that civil servants in general see their role as facilitators - quite the opposite. Now I am sure this is a generalisation and it is based upon just one persons experience. But the point you forget Graham is that it is MY experience and it is very real to me.

 

Your (sorry to say rather desperate) defence and wonderfully colourful extrapolations of the real reasons why it really isn't these people fault but the big bad nasty expense claiming MP's - is a bandwagon jump too far to be credible in my book.

:-S

[GJH]

No vested interest Clive, other than the fact that I don't like to see a whole group of people abused because of the shortcomings of one or two.

 

No problem at all getting an appointment when we want it in our GP surgery. Far from insisting on us ringing on the day we want an appointment we actually receive apologies if they can't fit us in the same day.

 

As I keep saying, most people in any occupation will be doing the job correctly but there will always be some in any occupation who get it wrong for all sorts of reasons.

 

Your experience of a few people getting things wrong may be real to you but that is no reason to simply label a whole class of people as jobsworths.

 

BTW, you never answered my question, did the person who labelled the H&SE guy a spherical idiot actually take the trouble to check the law? Or was it the case that he didn't actually bother because he knew he wouldn't find the answer he wanted?

 

Graham

[ROON]

Did anyone hear the outcome of the case last week of a woman suing someone because she was walking through a public wood when a branch fell off the tree on her head. I can see thre time when we will be stopped from public footpath walks because of fear of us suing over tripping over a branch. :-(

[Guest Tracker]

Perhaps she could take a leaf from the book of life, get to the root of the problem, bark at the parasites in charge, and ask the copse if she can sue the local branches and sap them into sawdust?

 

Or something?

[CliveH]

Morning Graham

 

The spherical idiot was so named by one on the team members and there was no law change that we were aware of or mentioned. What was mentioned was the fact that the powers that be did not want the carnival as it required policing and that cost money. In previous years we had a beer tent - no trouble at all but even so, the licence was refused. So we went to the local pubs and they were happy to supply drinks in plastic glasses. That was not liked at all.

 

And again - we KNOW they were not happy about that or that we bought plastic glasses and insisted that anyone with a glass poured their drinks into a plastic one before entering the arena area.

 

As regards our liability as organisers we had insurance but it did require a certain level of policing. So the spherical idiot delighted in informing us that only a couple of special constables would be attending and that is when the insurance companies started getting edgy as a carnival of 20 to 25 floats plus walkers requires effective policing. Nothing against the Specials myself but to comply we needed a greater police presence.

 

So that was when we got the smug smile. And believe me - it was smug! We all saw it. We all made a comment on it afterwards.

 

I am not labelling all civil servants "jobsworths" but you have to admit that they do exist. And I stand by my experience of civil servants in general NOT being facilitators. They want to apply rules as they see them or interpret them.

 

We have an issue here now where we have to deal with Wiltshire, Hampshire and Dorset local government interpretations of the national guidelines and rules pertaining to Long Term Care and the assessment of individuals. Now we know that the same national rules and guidelines are interpreted totally differently by each area and so what help you get depends on where you live.

 

 

 

So, methinks you take the time to try to dismantle my posts and pick off every nuance you can with a explanation as to why what happened was somehow all "perfectly reasonable" and that the poor old Civil Servant was a greatly put upon chap just doing his best, is indicative of being very defensive.

 

I would like to say again, that MY experience as a self employed business man is that I make appointments with people every day - sometimes for that day but usually weeks ahead. That is "normal" it is what diaries are for! - it is how the world works! and this is what we used to be able to do that with our GP. But a while back our surgery started this crazy system of having to phone in at 0830 for a that day appointment. The classic case of a jobsworth (not a civil servant please note!!!) interpreting the rules to suit them not the customer/patient.

 

So what am I supposed to do if the only appt then clashes with one of mine?

 

People in business often just shake their heads in disbelief at those that Gold Plate an otherwise sensible rule so as to apply their silly self serving interpretation.

 

:-S

[GJH]

CliveH - 2009-06-21 7:10 AM

 

Morning Graham

 

The spherical idiot was so named by one on the team members and there was no law change that we were aware of or mentioned. What was mentioned was the fact that the powers that be did not want the carnival as it required policing and that cost money. In previous years we had a beer tent - no trouble at all but even so, the licence was refused. So we went to the local pubs and they were happy to supply drinks in plastic glasses. That was not liked at all.

 

And again - we KNOW they were not happy about that or that we bought plastic glasses and insisted that anyone with a glass poured their drinks into a plastic one before entering the arena area.

 

As regards our liability as organisers we had insurance but it did require a certain level of policing. So the spherical idiot delighted in informing us that only a couple of special constables would be attending and that is when the insurance companies started getting edgy as a carnival of 20 to 25 floats plus walkers requires effective policing. Nothing against the Specials myself but to comply we needed a greater police presence.

 

So that was when we got the smug smile. And believe me - it was smug! We all saw it. We all made a comment on it afterwards.

Thank you for that explanation Clive, especially the second sentence "What was mentioned was the fact that the powers that be did not want the carnival as it required policing and that cost money.". Nothing really to do with health & safety then but the type of clash between two bodies which is almost bound to end in recrimination.

 

I am not labelling all civil servants "jobsworths" but you have to admit that they do exist. And I stand by my experience of civil servants in general NOT being facilitators. They want to apply rules as they see them or interpret them.

I've never denied that there are good and bad in all occupations. Having spent over 36 years in local government, though, my experience is that the vast majority of public servants (like the vast majority of people working in the private sector) are doing their jobs properly and conscientiously.

 

We have an issue here now where we have to deal with Wiltshire, Hampshire and Dorset local government interpretations of the national guidelines and rules pertaining to Long Term Care and the assessment of individuals. Now we know that the same national rules and guidelines are interpreted totally differently by each area and so what help you get depends on where you live.

In my first posting on this thread I made the point that where there are areas which are open to interpretation (in which case some people will interpret harder than others) that is because parliament (our MPs) have not done their job properly to make sure that legislation isn't ambiguous. As pointed out subsequently (with reference to Michele's post) if you think the interpretation is wrong, challenge it constructively.

 

There is another possibility, of course. Some legislation gives local authorities the powers to choose between alternatives according to what, in the judgement of the elected members concerned, is best for their area. Those decisions are open to challenge by local electors.

 

So, methinks you take the time to try to dismantle my posts and pick off every nuance you can with a explanation as to why what happened was somehow all "perfectly reasonable" and that the poor old Civil Servant was a greatly put upon chap just doing his best, is indicative of being very defensive.

Is one not allowed to mount a defence against an offensive remark labelling a whole class of individuals as jobsworths? Is it inappropriate to address separate points separately? When I worked in local government I got sick and tired of criticisms from people who didn't like certain decisions and whose complaints had no sound basis because they hadn't a clue what they were talking about. As a local government officer I had to bite my tongue and not hit back. That restriction does not apply now that I am a private citizen running my own business.

 

I would like to say again, that MY experience as a self employed business man is that I make appointments with people every day - sometimes for that day but usually weeks ahead. That is "normal" it is what diaries are for! - it is how the world works! and this is what we used to be able to do that with our GP. But a while back our surgery started this crazy system of having to phone in at 0830 for a that day appointment. The classic case of a jobsworth (not a civil servant please note!!!) interpreting the rules to suit them not the customer/patient.

So what am I supposed to do if the only appt then clashes with one of mine?

The fact that you write that paragraph as if diaries are the preserve of the private sector indicates that the underlying thrust is to have a go at the public sector. You have a case of a single surgery (though quite possibly one of several) which you believe to have come up with the wrong solution to compliance with government policy. Have you discussed the situation with the doctor(s) concerned? Have you complained to your MP or your local PCT? That is what I should do in your situation.

 

People in business often just shake their heads in disbelief at those that Gold Plate an otherwise sensible rule so as to apply their silly self serving interpretation.

I've done a fair bit of head shaking myself when working with colleagues in trading standards and seeing the antics that some "people in business" get up to. Self serving doesn't go any near far enough with some - which is why they ended up being prosecuted :-)

 

As I keep saying, most people in any occupation will be doing the job correctly but there will always be some in any occupation who get it wrong for all sorts of reasons. When one doesn't agree with an interpretation the constructive response is to challenge it. Simply bandying about insults like "self serving" and "jobsworth" helps nobody.

 

Graham

[CliveH]

Morning Graham

 

I think I can understand why you are defensive – but please try to see it from the other persons point of view. To dismiss my description of a smug smile as you do is unfair. You were not there and as I have tried to explain – it was clear to us that the rules were being bent to close the carnival down. Why that was is not the main issue – and if you were to suggest that this was done by the “jobsworths” for some kind of “greater good then I would have to suggest that there really is a problem here but one you would not see even if it was set out in black and white in front of you.

 

In the end it was the H&S side of things re the policing that allowed them to apply the coup de grace. It died. And when this was admitted by a group of volunteers that fought damn hard to keep it going we all saw a smug smile. That you cannot deny or justify. The guy was smug. We had wone a few battles in previous years and struggled on. When we finally said – “But if you do that the Carnival will have to be cancelled” – we got the “smile”. I will never forget it.

 

As for the comments re the Trading standards – well done – good job – we all need protecting from the unscrupulous. But earlier on you mentioned a Mortgage Broker that turned out to be as bent as a nine bob note (my description) – well sadly all walks of life have their unscrupulous. But have a look at the following and perhaps you can see why I feel that some of us are hard done by the “jobsworths”.

 

Because the reality is that IFA’s provide about 65% of all Financial transactions in the UK – but the latest data from the Financial Ombudsman’s service show that only 3% of all complaints are made about IFA’s and of that three percent only about one third are upheld. So your cited chap will be in that third of 3% and whilst I am not happy that there is any wrongdoing at all – you have to admit that those percentages are pretty damn low given that we IFA’s are by far the largest distribution outlet in the UK.

 

http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=187738&d=pnd2&h=pndh2&f=pndf2

 

So where are all the other complaints coming from? - Well perhaps not surprisingly – the Banks are the main culprit.

 

“IFAs are responsible for just 3 per cent of complaints to the FOS and only 33 per cent of those are upheld. Banks on the other hand are responsible for 59 per cent of complaints and a whopping 69 per cent are upheld.”

 

But what you may not know is that the civil servants of the FSA want to restrict the activities of the IFA’s under their new “Retail Distribution Review” (RDR) and hand a far bigger slice of the market to the Banks.

 

You have to ask why is this? – And the main reason seems to be that the Civil Servants of the FSA listens to the Banks but not the largest distribution channel with the lowest number of complaints. And of course the Civil Servants of the FSA welcomed the now disgraced RBS executive to advise them. And so we have a “review” that has very little to do with consumer protection and all about getting the banks more market share.

 

Thank God the credit crunch and the role of the banks has meant that even this government now admits that the RDR was designed for aggressive banks rather than the consumer and are having second thoughts.

 

On top of which, the FSA has been asked by the Joint committee on human rights chairman Andrew Dismore to account for the fact that IFA’s are the only trade of profession that has Government department that acts as judge jury and executioner and grants no appeal process whatsoever.

 

http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=187115&d=pnd2&h=pndh2&f=pndf2

 

Now this breaks Human Rights legislation but you know what???? – the Civil servants at the FSA do not care. They even insist that IFA’s must carry their liabilities to the grave.

 

http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=188221&d=pnd2&h=pndh2&f=pndf2

 

No other trade or profession suffers such abuse of their basic human rights – and than goodness this has been picked up by the EU commission on Human rights. On top of which despite being asked the FSA is refusing to provide the legal documentation it says it has to support its stance. Most of us believe it took no advice whatsoever – the “jobsworths” just made their own mind up! The fact that they then broke the law is something that they never thought would see the light of day. A bit like MP’s and their expenses.

 

So Graham – PLEASE! – stop being so defensive about the hard put on public/civil servant. I am certain there are many of guys like you trying to do a good job. But the ones I have bumped up against both in my voluntary work for the carnival and my professional work as an IFA indicates that there are many that will bend the rules and the interpretation of the rules to get the result THEY want. The original good intentions of those rules go out of the window.

 

That is why I use the label “Jobsworth” – because to my mind, from my experience, that is a good description of them. And I would tactfully suggest that the reason why you seem so defensive is that even you can see that there is no smoke without fire. If I was so totally wrong you could dismiss my views as the rantings of a lunatic and move on.

 

But I am not wrong – I have to deal with the numpty nonsence of “jobsworths” who pontificate about “rules” when they do not understand even the basics and so the rules are applied badly and in a notable example – in a way that actually breaks the law.

 

I could call them something else other than “Jobsworths” – but believe me – you would like that description a lot less. But it is probably more accurate.

(lol)

[GJH]

Let's deal with the carnival business first. You said "the powers that be did not want the carnival as it required policing and that cost money". Basically the authority concerned was being asked to subsidise the carnival from taxpayers' money and didn't want to do so. From your description it was obviously a long running dispute, no doubt with strong feelings on both sides - but even if the person described as a spherical idiot were at fault that is just one person.

 

The same is true of the IFA I mentioned, just one person.

 

The difference is, though, that you used your experience to label public servants as a whole as jobsworths where I specifically pointed out that "I would never extrapolate that to imply that all financial advisers were similarly bent". My stance is not defensive, just plain common sense, a point you actually acknowledge with your example of percentages.

 

You have now raised the subject of the FSA (won the bet with myself that you would do so). I looked at the link you gave - http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=187115&d=pnd2&h=pndh2&f=pndf2 - but, as some of the comments on the original story point out, it doesn't actually substantiate the claim that Human Rights legislation has been breached does it? Another matter of dispute like your carnival.

 

Interesting that Human Rights legislation should be quoted as the HRA 1998 is the most compelling evidence in support of one of my original points - "So please let us blame the correct people, MPs, when this type of thing occurs and not the poor beggars at the sharp end who have to deal with implementation of their idiocy".

 

Time after time we have seen the government lose court cases because their actions breach the HRA which was their fiirst flagship act. They have the majority available to change the HRA to introduce derogations which actually reflect the needs of this country but they will not do so because the HRA owes all its faults to their political dogma. The same principle applies to the cheese making example you quoted earlier. MPs are the ones with the power to make changes, not public servants.

 

I'm sure each of us could cite more examples of stupidity in both public and private sectors but none of them would be sufficient to justify labelling all of their fellows with a derogatory name.

 

Graham

 

[CliveH]

Hi Graham

 

Errr! No, No and No!

 

"Let's deal with the carnival business first. You said "the powers that be did not want the carnival as it required policing and that cost money". Basically the authority concerned was being asked to subsidise the carnival from taxpayers' money and didn't want to do so. From your description it was obviously a long running dispute, no doubt with strong feelings on both sides - but even if the person described as a spherical idiot were at fault that is just one person."

 

No! – Subsidising the carnival? – is that how you civil service types justify NOT providing the service that thousands of people want? If that were the case then no Football match would ever be played. Graham – you show your true colours here. And they aren’t pretty! A strange idea of what is fair from you here.

 

 

"The same is true of the IFA I mentioned, just one person.

 

The difference is, though, that you used your experience to label public servants as a whole as jobsworths where I specifically pointed out that "I would never extrapolate that to imply that all financial advisers were similarly bent". My stance is not defensive, just plain common sense, a point you actually acknowledge with your example of percentages. "

 

No! – Public servants is not what I complain about – I complain about “Jobsworths” of which I come across most, but not exclusively, in the arena of Civil Servants. In fact the example I gave of our Surgery fiddling the rules to comply with a Civil Servant lead wheeze to “fix” the number of patients seen within 24 hours, is where the GP’s are self employed contractors to the NHS PCT (as about 99% of all GP’s are) and the admin staff are employees of the surgery. So not a Civil Servant in sight! - So again you say I berate “Public Servants” when the truth is very different. Again a strange idea of fairness from you.

 

 

"You have now raised the subject of the FSA (won the bet with myself that you would do so). I looked at the link you gave - http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=187115&d=pnd2&h=pndh2&f=pndf2 - but, as some of the comments on the original story point out, it doesn't actually substantiate the claim that Human Rights legislation has been breached does it? Another matter of dispute like your carnival."

 

Errr! Yes it does! – That is why the FSA is being asked by another government Dept to justify its actions. This has been rumbling on for some time. As for my mentioning the FSA – what do you expect – I am regulated by this government agency. You quote you role in Trading Standards – but you don’t want me mention the government agency I work with? – Strange idea of fairness here again.

 

 

"Interesting that Human Rights legislation should be quoted as the HRA 1998 is the most compelling evidence in support of one of my original points - "So please let us blame the correct people, MPs, when this type of thing occurs and not the poor beggars at the sharp end who have to deal with implementation of their idiocy"."

 

No! – It is the “poor beggars” (your words – certainly not mine!) that from my experience use and bend the rules to get what they want – NOT what the rules where originally intended."

 

 

"Time after time we have seen the government lose court cases because their actions breach the HRA which was their fiirst flagship act. They have the majority available to change the HRA to introduce derogations which actually reflect the needs of this country but they will not do so because the HRA owes all its faults to their political dogma. The same principle applies to the cheese making example you quoted earlier. MPs are the ones with the power to make changes, not public servants. "

 

No! – The HRA is a good act, badly written in places and needs updating granted. BUT – without it we would be as badly of as those in Iran who have had an election stolen from them and are now fighting for their voice. And you quote my previous example of Cheese Manufacture in the same paragraph as the HRA!!!! - Bizarre or what!!!

 

My point RE THE CHEESE was that the EU published guidelines on good dairy food procedures - NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HRA! - which were sensibly incorporated in France where they make some of the most amazing local Cheeses, and what happens in the UK? The rules are gold plated into legislation – NOT by MP’s but by the Civil servants. The new rules kill off a lot of local specialist cheese makers because the stainless steel kitchens now required under the Gold Plated UK interpretation of sensible EU guidelines means that they could never make a profit. So no more local speciality cheeses, jobs are lost, and no doubt the Civil Servants who instigated this went home with they satisfaction of a job well done with a smile on their face. I may have been a rather smug smile – I don’t know I was not there. But I was there at that Carnival meeting and once again I am telling you – the smile I saw was smug.

 

 

"I'm sure each of us could cite more examples of stupidity in both public and private sectors but none of them would be sufficient to justify labelling all of their fellows with a derogatory name."

 

My experience – both as a volunteer and in my work indicates that many deserve such title – and I do not use it lightly. When I say it - I mean it.

 

We now have the debacle of the New Forest National Park plan - instigated by another set of jobsworths that have tried to insist that no horses in the Forest should be rugged (the local vets (when they stopped laughing) put a stop to that) and that dog walkers can only use certain areas.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3216596/Horse-owners-and-dog-walkers-in-revolt-against-New-Forest-plans.html

 

So just have a look at some of the things we are now up against:-

 

*Tina Cant, 46, who has been riding horses in the forest since she was eight, said: "The plans say that if you feed your horse supplements or rug them, then you must change the planning status to leisure.

 

"But horses need supplements and elderly or infirm animals need to be rugged."

 

"The plans also state that each horse should have a hectare of land, which is 2.47 acres. At present they need three-quarters-of-an acre.

 

"Vets have warned that this could lead to horses suffering from laminitis, a really painful condition of the feet brought about by eating too much grass."

 

And as for the "jobsworths" themselves:-

 

*"The forest, set aside by William the conqueror for his hunting, was turned into a national park by the Labour government, five years ago. It is run by the authority, which is an appointed rather than an elected authority.

 

Until the formation of the park authority planning matters were handled by the local district council, but then the authority formed its own planning department."

 

So yet again we have a battle with an unelected "jobsworth" For me - the first was the spherical idiot that wanted to stop the carnival.

 

Now we have an unelected body wanting to take away our right to walk our dogs, ride our horses, and they even think they have the power to tell us we cannot put rugs on our horses and dictate what grazing they should have!

 

Thank God the Vets just laughed at them and pointed out the RSPCA would insist on a prosecution for animal cruelty if the numpty nonsence went ahead.

 

So forgive me Graham if I have strong views on this subject and I understand that you do as well. But what you fail to see is the frustration of an average bloke who has bumped up against the "jobsworths" on a number of occasions.

 

And I do not feel that I am alone in my frustration.

 

And yes I do complain - I did complain to my PCT and I am active in opposing the stupidity of the New Forest Park Authority.

 

Trouble is that brings me into yet more contact with the same "jobsworths" I have come across before. And believe me - these people are not facilitators - they play games and hold grudges.

 

So the rather rose tinted version of "Public Service" that you paint Graham is some way over the reality horizon and accelerating compared to the reality I regularly deal with.

 

 

[GJH]

CliveH - 2009-06-22 10:45 PM

 

Hi Graham

 

Errr! No, No and No!

 

"Let's deal with the carnival business first. You said "the powers that be did not want the carnival as it required policing and that cost money". Basically the authority concerned was being asked to subsidise the carnival from taxpayers' money and didn't want to do so. From your description it was obviously a long running dispute, no doubt with strong feelings on both sides - but even if the person described as a spherical idiot were at fault that is just one person."

 

No! – Subsidising the carnival? – is that how you civil service types justify NOT providing the service that thousands of people want? If that were the case then no Football match would ever be played. Graham – you show your true colours here. And they aren’t pretty! A strange idea of what is fair from you here.

Rubbish. You can't expect the public purse to subsidise every event just because people want it. There would soon be complaints about the rises in taxation that would result. Football clubs pay the cost of policing inside their grounds and in the area immediately around them so why should the cost of police stewarding a carnival be subsidised by the public purse?

 

 

"The same is true of the IFA I mentioned, just one person.

 

The difference is, though, that you used your experience to label public servants as a whole as jobsworths where I specifically pointed out that "I would never extrapolate that to imply that all financial advisers were similarly bent". My stance is not defensive, just plain common sense, a point you actually acknowledge with your example of percentages. "

 

No! – Public servants is not what I complain about – I complain about “Jobsworths” of which I come across most, but not exclusively, in the arena of Civil Servants. In fact the example I gave of our Surgery fiddling the rules to comply with a Civil Servant lead wheeze to “fix” the number of patients seen within 24 hours, is where the GP’s are self employed contractors to the NHS PCT (as about 99% of all GP’s are) and the admin staff are employees of the surgery. So not a Civil Servant in sight! - So again you say I berate “Public Servants” when the truth is very different. Again a strange idea of fairness from you.

I suggest you re-read your posts. May I remind you that you said

I would like to say again, that MY experience as a self employed business man is that I make appointments with people every day - sometimes for that day but usually weeks ahead. That is "normal" it is what diaries are for! - it is how the world works!

which looks very much like an anti-public sector stance to me, as it implies that only the private sector understands diaries.

 

"You have now raised the subject of the FSA (won the bet with myself that you would do so). I looked at the link you gave - http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=187115&d=pnd2&h=pndh2&f=pndf2 - but, as some of the comments on the original story point out, it doesn't actually substantiate the claim that Human Rights legislation has been breached does it? Another matter of dispute like your carnival."

 

Errr! Yes it does! – That is why the FSA is being asked by another government Dept to justify its actions. This has been rumbling on for some time.

It doesn't matter who is asking whom. Your statement was "Now this breaks Human Rights legislation" but the reference you gave plainly does not support that, it merely reports an unresolved dispute.

 

As for my mentioning the FSA – what do you expect – I am regulated by this government agency. You quote you role in Trading Standards – but you don’t want me mention the government agency I work with? – Strange idea of fairness here again.

It seems that, whatever the discussion is, criticism of the FSA comes into it eventually to support your failing arguments. My mention of Trading Standards, on the other hand, was only anciliary to explaining how I experienced the antics some get up to.

 

"Interesting that Human Rights legislation should be quoted as the HRA 1998 is the most compelling evidence in support of one of my original points - "So please let us blame the correct people, MPs, when this type of thing occurs and not the poor beggars at the sharp end who have to deal with implementation of their idiocy"."

 

No! – It is the “poor beggars” (your words – certainly not mine!) that from my experience use and bend the rules to get what they want – NOT what the rules where originally intended."

 

 

"Time after time we have seen the government lose court cases because their actions breach the HRA which was their fiirst flagship act. They have the majority available to change the HRA to introduce derogations which actually reflect the needs of this country but they will not do so because the HRA owes all its faults to their political dogma. The same principle applies to the cheese making example you quoted earlier. MPs are the ones with the power to make changes, not public servants. "

 

No! – The HRA is a good act, badly written in places and needs updating granted. BUT – without it we would be as badly of as those in Iran who have had an election stolen from them and are now fighting for their voice.

I actually used to work with the HRA, Clive , so I do actually know what I'm talking about. It is the ECHR which defines the rights, not the HRA - but it is the HRA which is at fault compared to how the ECHR has been implemented in other countries. That the government has lost court cases because of HRA inadequacies is fact.

The HRA only dates from 11 years ago but I don't remember any election disputes in this country on anywhere near a similar scale to the current events in Iran. Must have been asleep that day.

 

And you quote my previous example of Cheese Manufacture in the same paragraph as the HRA!!!! - Bizarre or what!!!

 

My point RE THE CHEESE was that the EU published guidelines on good dairy food procedures - NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HRA! - which were sensibly incorporated in France where they make some of the most amazing local Cheeses, and what happens in the UK? The rules are gold plated into legislation – NOT by MP’s but by the Civil servants. The new rules kill off a lot of local specialist cheese makers because the stainless steel kitchens now required under the Gold Plated UK interpretation of sensible EU guidelines means that they could never make a profit. So no more local speciality cheeses, jobs are lost, and no doubt the Civil Servants who instigated this went home with they satisfaction of a job well done with a smile on their face. I may have been a rather smug smile – I don’t know I was not there. But I was there at that Carnival meeting and once again I am telling you – the smile I saw was smug.

Please read what I said properly. I was referring to the ability of the government to change legislation by applying derogations. They can do that with the legislation covering cheese making in exactly the same manner as they can with the HRA - if they have a mind to.

 

We now have the debacle of the New Forest National Park plan - instigated by another set of jobsworths that have tried to insist that no horses in the Forest should be rugged (the local vets (when they stopped laughing) put a stop to that) and that dog walkers can only use certain areas.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3216596/Horse-owners-and-dog-walkers-in-revolt-against-New-Forest-plans.html

 

So just have a look at some of the things we are now up against:-

 

*Tina Cant, 46, who has been riding horses in the forest since she was eight, said: "The plans say that if you feed your horse supplements or rug them, then you must change the planning status to leisure.

 

"But horses need supplements and elderly or infirm animals need to be rugged."

 

"The plans also state that each horse should have a hectare of land, which is 2.47 acres. At present they need three-quarters-of-an acre.

 

"Vets have warned that this could lead to horses suffering from laminitis, a really painful condition of the feet brought about by eating too much grass."

This is simply another unresolved dispute, just like your FSA/HRA example. Once again, because somebody doesn't agree with your point of view you label them jobsworths.

 

And as for the "jobsworths" themselves:-

 

*"The forest, set aside by William the conqueror for his hunting, was turned into a national park by the Labour government, five years ago. It is run by the authority, which is an appointed rather than an elected authority.

 

Until the formation of the park authority planning matters were handled by the local district council, but then the authority formed its own planning department."

 

So yet again we have a battle with an unelected "jobsworth" For me - the first was the spherical idiot that wanted to stop the carnival.

 

Now we have an unelected body wanting to take away our right to walk our dogs, ride our horses, and they even think they have the power to tell us we cannot put rugs on our horses and dictate what grazing they should have!

 

Thank God the Vets just laughed at them and pointed out the RSPCA would insist on a prosecution for animal cruelty if the numpty nonsence went ahead.

NPAs have been running successfully for 60 years and National Parks have been created by both Labour and Conservative governments. The fact that they bring in restrictions on what some people have got away with for years is quite deliberate to preserve areas for the population as a whole rather than minority vested interests.

 

So forgive me Graham if I have strong views on this subject and I understand that you do as well. But what you fail to see is the frustration of an average bloke who has bumped up against the "jobsworths" on a number of occasions.

 

And I do not feel that I am alone in my frustration.

 

And yes I do complain - I did complain to my PCT and I am active in opposing the stupidity of the New Forest Park Authority.

 

Trouble is that brings me into yet more contact with the same "jobsworths" I have come across before. And believe me - these people are not facilitators - they play games and hold grudges.

 

So the rather rose tinted version of "Public Service" that you paint Graham is some way over the reality horizon and accelerating compared to the reality I regularly deal with.

Once again you use words like "stupid" and "jobsworth" to describe people who have opposing views to your own.

 

I repeat what I said yesterday

I'm sure each of us could cite more examples of stupidity in both public and private sectors but none of them would be sufficient to justify labelling all of their fellows with a derogatory name.

 

That seems to sum up the difference between our approaches.

 

Perhaps that's why I don't want the world to stop so I can get off. I shall be content to stay in my world and leave you to enjoy yours.

 

Graham

[CliveH]

It seems to me Graham that the old adage when you are in a hole stop digging very much applies to your situation.

 

You ask that I read your posts again and again and again until I somehow "understand" you view point.

 

And yet all the time you read into my posts what you want.

 

I was talking about my local surgery when I mentioned diaries. Nothing was mentioned about civil servants apart from the fact that civil servants collate the data and report to MP's.

 

As for the Carnival - sorry but you are very wrong there. Citizens do have a right to the policing of events. Though I am not surprised you are ignorant of that fact because it does not fit with your view of the world.

 

Re the FSA and the HMA - if you re read the reference you will see that the case is clear and that under the HRA no individual can be convicted of wrongdoing by a single agency - government or otherwise, without access to legal representation and an appeal process.

 

Unless you are an IFA where the FSA acts as judge jury and executioner.

It also is trying to apply responsibility past the normal 15 year long stop. So this is not a "dispute" as you in typical civil service "speak" try to dismiss a valid abuse of my human rights. Typical of your increasingly belligerent tone Graham. Calm down - try to see the real world - I know it can be difficult for those of a rather tunnel vision view of the world - but do try old chap - you won't regret it. (lol)

 

 

As for your comment;- "It seems that, whatever the discussion is, criticism of the FSA comes into it eventually to support your failing arguments."

 

This seems more to me that you are on some sort of crusade against anything I say!!! Whereas of course your mention of Trading Standards was only "ancillary to explaining". Yeah right!

 

One rule for you - another for everyone else. Jeez! - just another example aren't you!

 

A good example of this is the truly bizarre inference you make re the Cheese and the HRA and then somehow go onto state that what I said had little relevance because there has been no election disputes in this country!

 

Are you genuinely missing the point or just being deliberately obtuse? Sorry to sound harsh but goodness me - can you not see the inference I was making? - For all its faults the HRA protects us as individuals - the people of Iran have no such protection and there is death on the streets! - Just a scan of U-Tube and today’s Guardian should give you an idea of what is really happening.

 

As for your being asleep when all this is going on - well yes ! that would be one explanation!! (lol) (lol)

 

What is going on with the New Forest Park Authority is not simply explained away by civil service speak - "This is simply another unresolved dispute"

 

It is not. It is far more serious than that in that it is an unelected body riding roughshod over peoples rights. More than that - it is uneducated drivel that could have had a huge negative implication on the welfare of horses. As for the dig walking the NFDOA just told them that we would ignore any such stupid rules.

 

It seems to me that any valid criticisms of "Public Servants" can not be dismissed as an "unresolved dispute" as if that is some sort of valid explanation in itself!

 

An unresolved dispute is just that. And when you have unelected officials being stupid as the New Forest Park Authority was doing then they are going to get called a lot worse by many than Jobsworths and stupid.

 

Likewise, when a H&SE tries for years to halt one of the most popular carnivals in the South and then finally succeeds and marks the occasion with "that smile" - then if we at the time saw it as smug then you should respect our viewpoint as we were there.

 

And finally - My knowledge of the HRA is extensive as well. And I know that my rights by way of the FSA being able to act as Judge Jury and Executioner are being compromised. That is a fact that has now been picked up by many greater minds than ours, both here in the UK and in the EU.

 

The FSA when asked to provide the legal advice it said it took when formulating its rules says that it cannot do so because it could compromise "ongoing disputes". How convenient!

 

But perhaps not surprising that you try to wriggle out of a similar hole you have dug for yourself by hiding behind the same weasily words of the paid Jobsworth.

 

I have heard the same "words" from the H&SE at Carnival meetings, I have seen the same "words" in correspondence from the FSA and I have seen and heard the same "words" from the NFPA.

 

Only good thing is that whilst we lost the carnival, the FSA will be hauled up and forced to change its dictatorial stance now that its abuse of its powers have come to light. Similarly the laughable numpty nonsense of the Jobsworths at the NFPA have been challenged and they have gone away for a rethink.

 

Meanwhile those of us whose rights were under threat are now better organised than we ever were before. And that is good. And so valid critics of the excesses of "Public Servants" is on the agenda and thanks to the internet better organised than ever before.

 

 

 

 

[GJH]

CliveH - 2009-06-23 4:45 PM

(snip)Calm down - try to see the real world - I know it can be difficult for those of a rather tunnel vision view of the world - but do try old chap - you won't regret it. (lol)

(snip)

One rule for you - another for everyone else. Jeez! - just another example aren't you!

(snip)

As for your being asleep when all this is going on - well yes ! that would be one explanation!! (lol) (lol)

(snip)

Thanks for the compliments.

 

ROFL (smugly of course)

[CliveH]

No more - no less than I expected. And if you can spin the true meaning of the comments like that - you are a true civil servant!

 

Ever thought of trying your hand at politics Graham. You seem to have all the right attributes! (lol) (lol) (lol)

[GJH]

GJH - 2009-06-21 9:16 AM

When I worked in local government I got sick and tired of criticisms from people who didn't like certain decisions and whose complaints had no sound basis because they hadn't a clue what they were talking about. As a local government officer I had to bite my tongue and not hit back. That restriction does not apply now that I am a private citizen running my own business.

[CliveH]

Point is Graham - it is all too easy for the jobsworths to dismiss VALID complaints as "whose complaints had no sound basis because they hadn't a clue what they were talking about".

 

When in fact - we do know what we are talking about. It is the arrogance of the officials assuming that they are all knowledgeable that is staggering.

 

The manipulation of the appt. timings by surgery staff, the ignoring of the HRA legislation by the FSA, the unelected NFPA setting up its own planning department and making rules to the detriment of good animal husbandry are just three examples that I have come across and have had to deal with. And that does not include the smug smile from the H&SE chap!

 

Other people bump up against other abuses as well. Only last year a family not far from where I sit now, were subjected to Local officials using anti-terrorist legislation to spy on them to make sure they were in a school catchment area! The MP's that wrote the legislation were appalled at this abuse and said so in no uncertain terms.

 

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/2319425.0/?act=complaint&cid=1626264

 

When you state that individuals “complaints had no sound basis because they hadn't a clue what they were talking about" - you can hardly be taking into account the very real examples I have given. And to dismiss them as somehow being "unresolved disputes" as tho this is an answer in its own right is yet further cause for concern.

 

There are none so blind as those that will not see. If people like yourself in, or were in "public service" positions would step back and look at how you come across then that would be a start.

 

Thank the Lord for the FoIA and the HRA. - it helps keep the excesses of the unelected "Public Servants" (joke?) in check.

 

[CliveH]

“You may recognise them by their ability to say “no”. Anybody who lives in the countryside will recognise the type, because it is here that their rules are most rigorously imposed – you may not block a path, run water off a hill, bury a farm animal, dig a ditch, light a bonfire, put up a fence or erect a shed without fulfilling the most rigorous set of procedures, and with the threat of sanctions should you fall down on the job.”

 

This from a good article in the Times.

 

Worth a full read.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/magnus_linklater/article2176099.ece

 

[GJH]

CliveH - 2009-06-24 7:57 AM

(snip)

 

Other people bump up against other abuses as well. Only last year a family not far from where I sit now, were subjected to Local officials using anti-terrorist legislation to spy on them to make sure they were in a school catchment area! The MP's that wrote the legislation were appalled at this abuse and said so in no uncertain terms.

 

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/2319425.0/?act=complaint&cid=1626264

Thank you for that as it is a prime example of people not having a clue what they are talking about.

 

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) is not anti-terrorist legislation. It is legislation which was brought in after it was realised that the Human Rights Act 1998 made it unlawful for public authorities (which include the armed forces, government departments, police, local authorities and even the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain) to exercise (investigatory) powers which had been available to them prior to the passing of the HRA.

 

Those powers include some given to police and intelligence services by anti-terrorist legislation but they also include powers which local authorities have to investigate rogue traders, housing benefit cheats, fly-tippers and so on.

 

RIPA regulates how those powers may be used so that they do not breach the HRA. RIPA does not provide extra powers.

 

The question at Poole was whether the requirement within RIPA for the use of covert surveillance to be proportionate had been met. The council was rightly found to have allowed covert surveillance even though it was not proportionate.

 

Having been (as co-ordinator of RIPA implementation) at the sharp end of two of the regular inspections which the Office of the Surveillance Commissioner undertakes (both of which we passed with flying colours by the way) I have no doubt that the people responsible for the mistake in Poole were not the happiest of bunnies after their OSC inspection. The people who work for the OSC (retired senior judges and retired senior police officers) are definitely not people you mess with.

 

(snip)

Thank the Lord for the FoIA and the HRA. - it helps keep the excesses of the unelected "Public Servants" (joke?) in check.

But what a pity that FoIA and HRA only apply to the public sector. How many excesses might be uncovered if the acts also covered the private sector?

 

I can imagine the sort of outcry there would be if it were to be suggested by a future government that private sector organisations should be subject to acts which mde them be totally open about how they treat their customers and prevent them from abusing their customers. We would never hear the last of it.

 

Graham

 

 

[CliveH]

Spherical Objects! Graham!

 

How can you say that when the Hansard statement is as follows:-

 

"Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (c. 23) - Provides for the interception of user logs and e-mails of suspected criminals by the security and intelligence services.

 

I suppose a family wrongly suspected if fiddling the schools admission system is fair game for the "Security and Intelligence services!

 

Unbelievable codswallop!

 

As is your statement _

 

"But what a pity that FoIA and HRA only apply to the public sector. How many excesses might be uncovered if the acts also covered the private sector?

 

I can imagine the sort of outcry there would be if it were to be suggested by a future government that private sector organisations should be subject to acts which made them be totally open about how they treat their customers and prevent them from abusing their customers. We would never hear the last of it. "

 

Both the FoIA and the HRA do apply to the Private and public sector.

 

As regards the FoIA a "Subject Access" request can be made to any organisation and each organisation Public or Private sector must have a designated "Data Controller" authorised by the information Commissioner. And I am the Data Controller here and my registration with the ICO was renewed on the 28th Jan 2009.

 

So once again you show your ignorance.

 

As you do with the HRA. This does not just apply to the Public sector as you infer. And to make such a crazy ill-informed inference underlines perhaps why you seem so belligerent.

 

Because all along I have tactfully and in an adult manner pointed out a succession of reasons why I say what I do and all you have managed to do is state untruths about various Acts, stated that the issues can be dismissed as "ongoing disputes” and that the FoIA and the HRA only applies to the Public Sector. When in fact the true facts show that the Public Sector can try to dismiss the requests – as indeed did the MP’s over their expenses! And the FSA re the legal advice it took 0r more likely did not take.

 

Exactly how wrong do you want to be seen to be before you acknowledge that the premise from which you argue your point of view is deeply flawed by your own admission?

 

About time you did some proper research Graham.

 

 

 

 

[Guest Tracker]

Please guys - stop the mudslinging!

 

You are both well respected contributors and both have a fund of very worthwhile knowledge to disseminate and personal jibes don't help the cause.

 

The fact that you are from very different backgrounds makes two very different opinions just as relevant to the rest of us - if not to each other.

 

Communication is always open to interpretation and when the communicators are not in direct sight or even hearing of each other it is even harder sometimes to read an article the way the originator intended.

 

That's the way it is so please can we keep the argument to the issues and not bring in personalities.

 

If you want to have a go at anyone to let off steam and frustration - have a go at me instead - that's what many others do!

 

Thanks.

[CliveH]

Thank you Tracker - i take on board what you say and i will take a deep breath! :-D

 

And Graham please do not take this in a personal way, but I have now shown catagorically that your wrong assumption that the FoIA and the HRA only applies to the Public Sector is the core of the problem in that if you wrongly assume that, then i can see why you as an ex-civil servant would feel "got at". But you must see now that you are incorrect.

 

And seeing as, in reality, these Acts apply to all of us, both Private and Public sector, I really do not see where this leaves you.

 

(?)

[GJH]

Yes, thank you Tracker.

 

I agree with what you say but I would like to clear up this point.

CliveH - 2009-06-24 11:06 AM

And Graham please do not take this in a personal way, but I have now shown catagorically that your wrong assumption that the FoIA and the HRA only applies to the Public Sector is the core of the problem in that if you wrongly assume that, then i can see why you as an ex-civil servant would feel "got at". But you must see now that you are incorrect.

 

And seeing as, in reality, these Acts apply to all of us, both Private and Public sector, I really do not see where this leaves you.

 

(?)

 

CliveH - 2009-06-24 10:05 AM

Both the FoIA and the HRA do apply to the Private and public sector.

As regards the FoIA a "Subject Access" request can be made to any organisation and each organisation Public or Private sector must have a designated "Data Controller" authorised by the information Commissioner. And I am the Data Controller here and my registration with the ICO was renewed on the 28th Jan 2009.

So once again you show your ignorance.

As you do with the HRA. This does not just apply to the Public sector as you infer. And to make such a crazy ill-informed inference underlines perhaps why you seem so belligerent.

I'm afraid you are confusing the Freedom of Information Act with the Data Protection Act. It is the latter under which one registers as a Data Controller and which provides Subject Access Rights.

 

As the Introductory Text to FoIA states, it is

An Act to make provision for the disclosure of information held by public authorities or by persons providing services for them and to amend the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Public Records Act 1958; and for connected purposes.

My emphasis of public authorities.

 

As regards the HRA, ss 6 to 9 make it clear that the Act applies only to public authorities. See also Wikipedia

In particular, the Act makes it unlawful for any public body to act in a way which is incompatible with the Convention, unless the wording of an Act of Parliament means they have no other choice.

My emphasis of public body.

 

I think this leaves me in a position to say "Q.E.D." as my final word on the subject.

 

Graham

[CliveH]

 

 

"which was to be demonstrated"(QED) - but wasn't.