Thursday, December 20, 2007

Government (or an unreasonable facsimile of) by degree

'Insidious' is not a nice word. But by heck it is apt for what seems to be happening these days.

Hardly a BBC bulletin goes by without the latest 'could' being trotted out from those who claim the responsibility of governing us, but who will seek any and all ways to avoid any accountability, from announcement through to consequences.

Hence this 'could' will ooze into an 'is' and end up as a 'has', with little or no challenge from anyone, most especially our lazy media.

Just this morning I sat amazed as just two were dutifully trotted out, with the sofa set primed with just the right balance of warm and fuzzy to ease things in.

First up was the latest on mobile phones. I've blogged on this before. If it's illegal, then fine (and I don't mean that in the fiscal manner, as too much law seems to be revenue targeted than spirit or even letter of the law), I know where I stand. But now there seems to be yet another, and predictably more aggressive, though equally vague set of ways to hold 'us' accountable for something or other at the whim of a police officer, supported by a compliant justice system.

Then there was middle-age drinking. It seems that if you go over a daily 105ml daily, you are a raving alcky bent on self-destruction. Now this would be laughable but for the less than subtle between-lines message read out by a truly frighteningly smooth government spokeslady (she had a sense of humour and so charmingly trotted out her facts that even the already pliant blonde and bouffant felt it rude to do anything else but giggle). And this seems to be that if you can even remotely be deemed to have done something in your history that may or may not be proven to be in any way due to lifestyle choices, then 'they' can decide to opt you out of the health system you have paid into all your life.

There is a sickening predictability to all this, along with inevitability.

And what really gets me is that the vagueness seems only to work one way. By being guilty until proven innocent the doors are opened for institutional abuse at every level and across every branch.

And it all seems dedicated to one simple aim, and that is to divert money away from those who work hard and pay their way (because all those who do not will be exceptions to such rules, though withdrawing votes on the basis of self-harm, poor lifestyle, non-contribution, etc would not seem on the cards) to ensure a ready supply of the dwindling cash resources to ensure this bunch of breeding parasites keep their pay, bonuses (what the heck are a raft of government types on bonuses for?) and pensions.

Sorry, today has not been a much better day than yesterday.


Dave said...

Peter, bravo and well said; a voice of sanity in an ever increasingly insane world.

I'd really love to see you on the BBC Breakfast couch between the blond and the bouffant - watching their paper thin comments/lies/spin [pick whichever is most apt for the particular discussion] being ripped apart by your good self would make for genuinely entertaining TV!

But sadly, it's unlikely to happen - I think you have to be 'part of the establishment' or a recognisable media 'luvvie' to even be considered for a breakfast couch spot.

Dave said...

Oh, and if you can't get enough revenue from fining the drivers of cars (whether for speeding, smoking, using a hands-free mobile phone, changing radio stations, or even taking one hand off the wheel in order to change gear), then how about a scheme to make the vehicle manufacturers pay fines for exceeding their permitted fleet CO2 emissions? See SpiegelOnline.