The Footballer and the Social Network Site

A Championship footballer with a Twitter account decided this morning to offer his followers a brief Q & A session before heading off to training.

I don't mean to be disingenuous, but I am pretty certain that this player honestly believed that he would be asked questions like "who snores the loudest on away trips" or "what is your favourite flavour Monster Munch". Despite this player's performances being under par, in spite of his recent spate of goals, in an average Championship side, I would happily wager that he did not expect questions relating to his form, the form of his team-mates, and further, that of his team.

Which is a pity, because those are the kinds of questions that he did get; some from genuinely concerned supporters, some maybe tinged with sarcasm. Needless to say, those questions went unanswered, and in fact, were retweeted, probably under some misguided notion that the player felt "picked on".

Footballers are not like us ordinary folk. They lead sheltered lives, to an extent, and then use their status to live the kind of lives us mere mortals can dream of. Footballers of even a modest level can hide behind their clubs, their agents, and various PR people. Social networking can seem, to players and fans alike, a great way of engaging with each other, but it is also presents potential problems. Time and time again, some footballers have shown that despite all of their training and advice, they are not able to engage constructively with members of the public.

If this player did not want to answer questions relating to his and his club's on-field performances, he could have avoided it by adding a simple caveat to his initial invitation.

If he had inadvertently omitted to do this, he could have tweeted after receiving awkward questions, that he could not, or was not able to discuss these matters.

However, by retweeting those questions without a reply, he has made himself out to be a victim, whether intentionally or not, and set genuinely concerned fans, who will be with his club long after he has left, up to be abused.

Not a great way of dealing with fans who are already struggling to justify his inclusion in their team's line-up.

When decisions of the European Court of Human Rights aren't reported

It is a well reported "fact" that foreign criminals are permitted to stay in the UK despite their convictions. MP for North-West Leicestershire, Andrew Brigden has raised the concerns of some his constituents to the Minister of State for Immigration.

Maybe he should direct those concerned to this latest decision by the European Court of Human Rights, where a Pakistani national has failed to prevent his deportation. A decision that, interestingly, hasn't yet made the news, well, not online in any case.

As the Bubble disappears...

...and as Hampshire police congratulate themselves on a relatively trouble-free Sunday afternoon, we will never know if the early kick-off, or if the fact the vast majority of football fans want to support their teams without resorting to yobbish behaviour would have been the winner today.

One thing I'm fairly certain of is it gives the powers that be more justification to interfere with the civil liberties of law-abiding football supporters, who make up the majority of those attending matches.

Watching football is not a crime.

Youtube racist tram woman released on bail

I've been ill over the last few days, but I noticed last week that the "racist tram rant woman", Emma West, was released on bail, as reported by the BBC.

I have read comments on various social network sites, and on forums expressing outrage that this woman has been locked up, whilst others have been allowed to walk. It's worth explaining that she had been remanded into custody for her own safety, following a plea before venue hearing on 6th December 2011. 

The news of her release has been muted in comparison to the reporting of her remand into custody. Either the media are concerned for her safety, and have decided not to go over the top with this news, or the story does not fit in with the agendas of certain publications.

Ms West is due back in court in the New Year, where she will be committed to the Crown Court for trial. It's worth pointing out to anyone reading this who doesn't understand court procedures, or hasn't followed the story in full, that she has chosen trial by jury. By indicating a "not guilty" plea, the magistrates have deemed the matter suitable to be tried in that court, where sentencing powers are limited. All defendants in this position are then given the choice to be tried in that court, or to have the matter dealt with in the Crown Court.

Statistically, there is more likelihood of an acquittal by jury than by magistrates, however if found guilty, the penalties could be more severe.

When court reporting falls short...

Another report in the Leicester Mercury, featuring the same Judge as in this post.

For the benefit of the lay person, a Plea In Mitigation is used to ensure that the appropriate sentence is given based upon the circumstances of the offence committed along with those of that particular defendant. If you are acting for a defendant, you are hoping to secure the most lenient sentence for your client. Bear in mind that advocates are acting on instruction from their client.

Reporting of sentencing hearings can fall woefully short, as seen in the earlier hearing. However, it's clearer from the later report that the defendant had previous convictions, and the Judge believed that he posed a risk. 

This isn't a new problem; sometimes, there can be outrage that a sentence is too high.

Media reports need to be taken at face value; ask what has not been reported, before questioning what has been reported.

When Neuroscience met Law

Findings by The Royal Society have shown what parents have known all along; it can take up to the age of 20 for the parts of the brain that govern our judgment and decision making ability to fully develop.

When considering the arguments for and against raising the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales from the age of 10, physical development of the brain is not enough to decide if and when a young person should be held accountable for their actions. Environmental factors, most importantly, the role of parents and the wider family, or even community, can also have a significant impact on whether or not a child acts outside of the criminal law. If children are so susceptible to making decisions mean that they commit crimes, then why do most children manage to stay on the "right path"?

Most children by the age of 10 know the difference between right and wrong. I've read comments that this is not enough in itself to make children criminals. To an extent this is true; however it is a starting point, and one factor to be used. In 2010, the Children's Commissioner, Maggie Atkinson reported to the Government that under 12s did not fully understand their actions. I can remember being 12, even younger, and I can remember some children were very adapt at manipulating adults. Overhearing teenage conversations can be a real eye-opener as to what to say and what not to say to parents or teachers.

Whilst these findings are interesting, caution should be exercised in how they are applied. Children develop at different rates; plenty of adults don't make the right choices at times. There is a danger that unavoidable excuses are being provided, and that this could detract from the real reasons why children commit crimes, such as poor or irresponsible parenting, gang culture and peer pressure, and problems with society in general. Brain development is one part of an important jigsaw.

As the Muslim Girl Gang saga rumbles on...

I have been doing a bit of digging.

Last week, I wrote about a case in my home town of Leicester, which has sparked off debates on Twitter and Facebook, and to other blog posts, some of which are blatantly racist and pandering to an agenda.

Without going into the details again, many people are saying that no white girl would be "let off", and that she would be facing a jail term.

It's difficult to find a story that proves that white women are don't always receive an immediate custodial sentence. Sadly, there are many cases being processed through the criminal justice system involving alcohol-related violence; you just need to visit to the local Magistrates' or Crown Court to see this. Not every case is reported in the local media, let alone the nationals.

But I did find this story, from 2009.

Imagine the scene; a 16 year old girl has been out drinking. She is carrying a vodka glass. She gets into an argument with some other girls, and hits one of them in the face with the glass. The other girl receives injuries that required medical treatment, including stitches.

Is this an immigrant? Or someone, who because of her religion, that isn't used to drinking?

No. This is a white girl, in fact, a pretty, white girl. Like the Muslim girls causing scandal, she received a 6 month suspended prison sentence, despite having the added aggravating factor of using a weapon.

This story had passed me by, in all honesty. It's very easy to get blasé about drunken yob culture. It also appears to have passed everyone else by, as there are no comments on this story calling for this girl to actually serve the sentence handed to her. There isn't a petition either, urging the powers that be to review the sentence. The Telegraph also reports this incident, as well as The Mirror, in an article condemning the behaviour of young, drunken females. This includes another young woman given a suspended sentence after using a stiletto heel to stab someone.

In fact, the purpose and the tone of the article is to warn against the dangers of drinking, and the damaging consequences getting drunk can lead to. Again, the article doesn't go into the full reasons why that particular Judge decided to suspend the sentence, but it's a sad day when I have to take the time, trouble, and effort to find an example to show that it's not just minority groups given the benefit of the doubt in this country. The uproar surrounding the incident in Leicester smacks more of stirring up racial tensions than of shock, sadness, or surprise that girls from a religious group that normally shun alcohol have actually fully integrated into British society by drinking to excess and brawling.

A Tale of Two Reports: the Scandal of the Muslim Girl Gang

The Daily Mail has picked up on a story that was in my local newspaper, the Leicester Mercury, almost two weeks ago. Since its appearance online yesterday, it has sparked outrage amongst many, and now an online petition.

My suspicions were raised purely by the fact it was the Daily Mail, but a little digging has gone a long way.

The original headline was "Gang of women who assaulted me should have been sent to jail". A young, white, British woman, and her white, British boyfriend were set upon by four, drunk women of Somalian origin. It was a nasty, and a vicious attack, with words exchanged, and allegations of racism from both sides. The female victim sustained some nasty, but relatively superficial injuries, however the Judge accepted the basis that her partner had subjected the attackers to some kind of "unreasonable force".

Each of the four attackers received a six month prison sentence, suspended for 12 months after pleading guilty to assault occasioning actual bodily harm (s.47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861).

A look at the Sentencing Guidelines suggests that the six month sentence is at the top end of the sentence range for a s.47 offence, this being an attack that was not pre-meditated with no lasting physical injury.

Of course the Judge, as far as I understand, has the discretion to suspend a custodial sentence, which he has done on this occasion. There are no real reasons given in the report for this, such as antecedent history, personal circumstances such as family and employment. The only mention of what was said in mitigation was:

"the attack was down to alcohol"

with the further explanation that excessive drinking is not something that is culturally usual with the attackers' community.

This report in itself makes the sentence given seen lenient, however when contrasted with the report in the Daily Mail, where the headline screams "Girl gang who kicked woman in the head while yelling 'kill the white slag' freed after judge hears 'they weren't used to drinking because they're Muslims", a totally different version of events is already painted. 

"Freed" - were they ever in custody in the first place?

"Kill the white slag" - the local report says that the victim was called a "white bitch". No mention of death threats.

Was the reason these women were not imprisoned really down to their inability to take their drink?

Yet again, I have that horrible, sinking feeling I get whenever I read a report from the Daily Mail involving an immigrant group. The fact that it's two weeks since sentencing was passed does nothing to allay my fears. Here is another opportunity for this particular publication to whip up an hysterical frenzy to create a "them and us" situation between the so-called indigenous population and any Muslim group in existence in this country.

"You wouldn't see a white person get away with it", I read, as people focus on the racist element of this offence, more than the actual violence itself, or so it seems. As pointed out in the local report, both parties have made allegations of racism. It is something that is very difficult to prove without scores of witnesses, or recorded evidence. Even then, video footage is not enough. I cannot find a link, but an Aston Villa fan was cleared of racist chanting at Leicester City's old stadium, Filbert Street. Whilst CCTV footage showed him mouthing along to the chants, his defence was he had lost his voice, and therefore he didn't actually say anything racist. It was enough.

Both reports leave many unanswered questions; I wouldn't like to conclusively say if these sentences were or were not lenient based upon the information reported. I'm certainly not condoning the actions of these vile creatures. But my experience of seeing the Judges and Counsel in Leicester Crown Court, and of observing sentencing procedures, I am swayed towards this being the correct decision by this Judge. I would prefer to see a transcript before making up my mind.

* * * * *

I know that this case helps the argument for TV cameras in court. But I still don't think televising cases helps, as production companies are capable of editing those bits and pieces that fit their own agenda. The courts are open to the public, and live coverage offers nothing more. In fact, it may offer less, as it would no doubt have to be restricted for various reasons. It would not encourage more people to take an interest in local justice. Further, there aren't the resources to deal with every matter, especially instances like this one. I don't believe that there's the resources or the interest to video ever single thing that happens in court.

Leics Police Celebrate Falling Crime Rates

Today, the local Constabulary is slapping itself on it's metaphorical back.

Before joining in with the plaudits, I may be being cynical, but I do have the following questions:

• How many cautions have been issued in the 12 months in question?

• Similarly, how many fixed penalty notices have been issued?

• How many crimes have been "downgraded" so that they are not "notifiable"?

• How many Crime Related Incidents were reported but not included?

• How many incidents were reported to the Police, but they didn't turn up in time to deal with the incident effectively? 

• What are the British Crime Survey results for the county during the same period?

• How many recordable offences haven't been reported to the Police?

Obviously the answers to some questions will be harder to answer than others, but had the figures increased, I can see the headlines telling us all that the Police are reacting more quickly to incidents, and that the Force is working harder than ever to identify and bring criminals to justice.

But, as I say, I may be being cynical.

Capital punishment; further thoughts

This article, that features on the thisisleicestershire website, leaves me cold for a number of reasons.

I have every sympathy with Kath Eastwood but I was left cold by this comment; "I think the politicians should accept there is a public appetite for capital punishment".


It's such a strong choice, and not one I feel is backed up even by supporters of the death penalty. I'm left with the image of the mob braying for blood.


Even more chilling though is the fact that another man had originally confessed to the murder of Lynda Mann, Mrs Eastwood's daughter. Forensic evidence at the time backed up this confession, and it was only because of the work of scientists pioneering the use of DNA evidence that proved that he had not actually committed these crimes.


In essence, Colin Pitchfork might not have been caught, and had the death penalty been in place for child killers, another man would have died at the hands of the State for a crime that he did not commit.


Given the history of this case, I am shocked that somebody associated with it could think that State sanctioned killing is acceptable.


It begs the question; is capital punishment really about punishment, or is it simply allowing victims to exact their revenge?


Whilst I'm on this subject, capital punishment cannot be compared to sending soldiers out to war, abortion, or assisted suicide. These are three completely different scenarios with different moral objections and arguments and should be considered independently and upon their own merits.

Capital punishment - my thoughts

There is an online petition calling for the return of the death penalty in the UK. It's qualified so that it would only apply to those who killed cops and kids, but any reintroduction of the death penalty leads to a slippery slope.

My understanding is that we, living in the UK, live in a civilised society. So where, in a civilised society, is there the place for retribution in our criminal justice system? Because that's what capital punishment is, at the end of the day.

What gives the State the right to choose who is to die, how, and when? How does that make "us" any better than the people capital punishment is purporting to protect us from?

Does capital punishment protect our society from killers? Looking at data from the US, I would say no, it does not.

Acting after the event does not lead to prevention. Put simply, the death penalty does not act as a deterrent. It will not stop people from killing, let alone killing the police or our children.

The notion appears, to me, to appeal to the braying mob baying for blood. 

This is not the measure of a civilised society.

Park & Ride?

This Monday, the Leicestershire County Council and Leicester City Council opened the third park and ride scheme, aimed at those coming in from the north of the county. Take up has been slow; it is the first week of the county's school holidays, if you didn't already know. However, going by the comments on this article in the Leicester Mercury, it would appear that the scheme is doomed to failure. Some even revel in the prospect.

Public transport in Leicester and the county is notoriously poor. Services are split between different operators, with no integration between any of the companies involved. Travelling from one part of the county to another can mean buying multiple tickets. There is a Flexi Ticket, that allows travel across most operators, but this is not widely advertised, and when I once asked an Arriva bus driver about it, he denied all knowledge. The cost is higher than a day ticket with just one operator, and is limited to the city and suburbs.

On top of that, services often run to a timetable of their own making; I have often waited ridiculously lengthy times for a bus in the past, with the longest wait being close to an hour for a service that should have been running every 8 minutes.

Unreliability can be blamed on other motorists. It is true that in Leicestershire, we have some of the worst road systems in the UK. The BBC East Midlands news programme reported last year that the A426 into the city was the most congested road in the region. Calls to use public transport fall on deaf ears, as motorists know that bus services are unreliable, yet don't see that they are part of this problem.

Getting motorists out of their cars and onto public transport is also thwarted by the cost. The main operators in the city appear to be more concerned with increasing profit margins, as I blogged back in February. 

But even so, where the cost of running a car and the cost of parking outweighs the cost of a bus ride, some people will not give up their cars. They see the car as giving them more freedom, even if it's to sit in a traffic jam.

The Park & Ride scheme, to me, is the best of both worlds. The buses are clean, and unless there are major problems on the roads, they are very reliable, having been planned to use routes that have bus lanes. You also get the comfort of your car at the very start and end of your journey, so if you are ladened with shopping, or it's raining, you don't have to suffer.

I do think that the Leicester schemes are somewhat short-sighted.

Firstly, the services only operate until 7pm. Given that Leicester wants to compete with Nottingham, and the improvements to the city centre to give it a more cosmopolitan vibe with the bars and restaurants, it seems bizarre that there is no evening or night service. In Nottingham, there are Park & Ride schemes that operate until 1am.

For extra revenue, why not use the Park & Ride sites as taxi hubs at night? For a £2 flat fare from the city centre, anyone who has been out in town could get the bus to Enderby, or Birstall, and then pay for a taxi to the outlying towns and villages, reducing the cost of getting home. Wouldn't something like this encourage more people into the city?

The second shortfall is the limited stops. Say I wanted to go to Braunstone Gate, and not the city centre. I would have to get off the bus at St Nicholas Place, which has driven past the bus stop opposite Duns Lane, a shorter walk in stupid heels.

The original Enderby service did a loop around the city centre that has been cut. This served the Infirmary, and had been recommended for the football and rugby. Now that this loop has gone, that's fewer people potentially using the service.

As for the football and rugby, it surely can't be difficult to re-route the service to drop off and stop on Aylestone Road, thus easing congestion on an already busy road?

Oh, and provide an evening service when required.

I really do hope that the numbers at the Birstall site do pick up. Just to annoy some of the blinkered car users who refuse to accept that they are a big part of the problem with traffic in this city.

As if pupillage applications weren't hard enough...

The Bar Council yesterday made candidates who used the online Pupillage Portal aware that there have been problems again with the system. This time, it would appear that a software glitch meant that part of the application form was not printed out for assessment; in this case, the questionnaire section.

For those not familiar with the process, around 250 sets of chambers use the Portal to recruit pupil barristers. It's an online application system separated into sections. Some of the information required is saved for use with all application, however the questionnaire section contains questions that are specific to the chambers that the candidate is applying to.

Candidates can select up to 12 sets to apply to. This in itself doesn't help prospective pupils, who are limiting their chances of securing pupillage by restricting the number of applications that can be made. As the system operates once a year, and to a strict timetable, it is important to get an application right.

Because of this, the aspiring barrister will spend a lot of time and effort researching and selecting which chambers to apply to.

Further, many hours can be spent drafting, redrafting, and redrafting again, their answers to each of the questions posed. it's a long and laborious process, and one that I personally started well in advance of the opening date.

So to find out that my application may not have been complete, when assessed by the chambers that I applied to was, well, bloody annoying.

The whole process of trying to find a pupillage is soul-destroying enough as it is. Having gone through the waiting process, and the disappointment of rejection, to now have this bombshell dropped upon me has sent my fragile ego into turmoil.

Has my lack of success been down to the fact that half my application was missing? After all, I had been encouraged to apply to a number of sets, and advised as to how to deal with the questionnaire section.

Or, most likely, will I find out that there was nothing wrong with the way my form was printed, and I am just setting myself up for further "rejection" and disappointment?

Of course, what does this mean for applicants who have been affected? The Bar Council article mentions delaying pupillage offers. This suggests that it's to allow chambers to reassess and possibly interview those affected. 

Will chambers do this? I am sure some will, but what's to stop a pupillage committee from saying "sorry, you didn't meet our rigorous criteria" because they've already settled on their new pupil(s), or they can't get the same panel together to make a fair assessment?

Reading some of the forums, and tweets, there are those who think that doing this is equally unfair, after all, if chambers have already decided on their pupil(s), how can there be a fair assessment of an affected candidate? Or even of the candidates already interviewed?

This episode is another in a long line of errors that leads me to believe that the whole process needs to be looked at. Is it right and fair that aspiring barristers should be limited in such a way? After all, the odds on getting pupillage are bad enough as it is.

Also, I would ask is a system such as the Portal the right way to go about selecting prospective barristers. I can see that the form is very good for sifting based on academic achievement, but how much weight is given to the questionnaire itself? Is this only considered after the initial sifting? If so, then there is no point in applying through the Portal if, for example, you needed to explain a career break, a lack of mooting experience, or a poor result.

Whilst I understand that the Bar is unforgiving and tough, the Portal system doesn't seem to be forgiving for those who haven't managed not to cock up along the way. Chambers who recruit from CVs and covering letters seem to be more understanding than those using the Portal, contrary to what I had been told....

Whilst it is right that we have been informed of this error, a huge part of me wishes that the Bar Council had kept it quiet. I, for one, don't want to suffer the disappointment all over again.

And they say women take their time getting ready...

What a morning.

Had a bit of a lazy start, as I wasn't due in court until 12pm. I'd just finished my cuppa, brekkie and my meds (asthma & hayfever, before you start...), when the Agency phoned me to ask me to take an emergency application at 9.45am.

I accepted.

Bearing in mind, I was still in my pyjamas, and it was 8.37am when I was called, I managed to shower, brush teeth, brush hair, dress, gather my bits and pieces together, drive 16.4 miles without breaking the speed limit, park the car, walk to the court house, get through security, and find a quiet spot to take telephone instructions by 9.26am.

Not bad.

Plus, I "won".

If this kind of dedication isn't worthy of a pupillage, then I don't know what is.

Overseas Aid - another view

The news of cuts at local and national Government level has sparked a flurry of comments on my Twitter and Facebook timelines, mostly along the lines that if we are making so many cuts here, why the hell are we sending money abroad?

On the face of it, there appears to be no logic. Old people suffering, kids being brought up in homes that can only look up to the poverty line, it does seem stupid to help those in need elsewhere.

However, most of these people also support closing our borders.

International Aid is a fraction of Government spending. If that Aid can be used to make conditions better in a person's own country, then surely that negates the need for that person to up sticks and move to the UK.

Which would cost the UK taxpayer more, wouldn't it?

Food for thought...

You're watching Sky Courts News

"Good morning, it's set to be a busy day ahead. Don't forget our County Court round up on the half hour, and you can keep up to date with the latest fixtures and results on the InfoBar. 

Coming up, we've the news in the big murder trial in Portsmouth, but first, we have some breaking news from Derby Crown Court; let's go over to our reporter".

"Yes, extraordinary happenings here this morning in the case of the Crown versus Whiley. Mr Whiley has been charged with a number of offences, and had indicated at the preliminary hearing he would be entering a 'Not Guilty' plea at today's Plea and Case Management Hearing. 

However, when arraigned, Mr Whiley shocked the Court by entering 'Guilty' pleas to all charges. That includes the serious charge of perverting the course of justice".

"Unbelievable. So what's next?"

"Well, the case has been postponed for the preparation of pre-sentence reports, and Mr Whiley will be sentenced in three weeks time, here at Derby Crown Crown, where our cameras will be live to show you the events as they unfold."

"Thanks for that update.

We are hearing that the start of the big murder trial in Portsmouth has been delayed. We can go live to our reporter in Portsmouth for the latest".

"Yes, the start here has been delayed by an application being heard in Chambers, but this trial should be due to start within the next thirty minutes or so. Don't forget, it's live on Sky Courts 1 and Sky Courts 1HD.

With that, it's back to the studio".

"Thanks for that update, and as you heard, it's our featured trial on our Sky Courts 1 channels. You can also see the continuing burglary trial in Newcastle Crown Court on Sky Courts 2, whilst Sky Courts 3 will be showing you events as they unfold from Court No 3 in Leicester.

Coming up after the break, our new "Briefs, Close and Personal" series continues with a barrister who will surprise you with his after court activities. Stay tuned to Sky Courts News, your number one source for Open Justice in Britain".

Royal Junk Mail

Dear Royal Mail

I have signed up to the Mail Preference Service; you might have heard of it. It's a service that tells people that I don't want to receive any junk mail. That includes the advertising leaflets that you are paying the postie to shove through my letterbox on an almost daily basis. This money-grabbing opportunity you have taken on really smacks of desperation. Is distributing advertising really the way to make up for a naff service, and more convenient methods of communication?

I don't need to be told that Pizza Hut and Dominoes are in competition on Tuesdays, offering more pizza than me and the hubby could eat. Similarly, I have never, ever been into a Farm Foods store. The leaflet that came through my door will not persuade me otherwise; in fact it went straight into the recycling bin.

So thanks for cluttering up my doormat with more useless crap. I might well start reciprocating by shoving it all into your pillar boxes.

Yours etc etc

P Doff

Aylestone Meadows

Aylestone Meadows is a nature reserve situated approximately 2-3 miles from Leicester city centre. It is located next to the old Great Central Railway, near to the River Soar and the Grand Union canal, and gives local residents somewhere green and tranquil to walk, jog, run or cycle, away from the hustle and bustle of the traffic and everyday suburban/city life. Being in the southern part of the Soar Valley, the area is susceptible to flooding, however the main paths have been designed to accommodate this.

The area plays host to an disused velodrome to the north, and to the west, an empty school. Neither are affected by any flooding, and are easily accessible to the public. Leicester City Council has decided it wants to build a number of artificial football pitches, complete with club house, changing facilities and car parking. It is already in the process of building pitches close to the old velodrome, but the city, apparently needs more.

Both the velodrome or the school would be ideal locations for these new pitches, however according Leicester City, in its ultimate wisdom, the best location is bang smack in the middle of the nature reserve. Not only will they need to create access, but no doubt the area requires significant work done to prevent the new pitches from flooding. One can only assume that the old school and bike track are going to be sold off for residential development, with the short-sighted council rubbing its hands at the thought of the millions it could raise by selling this land.

Will the money raised from selling land to developers be used to stave off cuts to front line services? I doubt it. It will be needed to pay to make a natural flood plain into a playable surface for football teams that will soon be inundated with pitches to choose from.

In the mean time, those local (and not so local) residents who enjoy the peace and quiet of the nature reserve will be forced to use smaller recreation areas.  Leicester City Council has proposed 'giving' land to angry residents, but these are small pockets that are already being used for other purposes (a horse charity, being one), or are further away and not so accessible to the residents of Aylestone (Glen Parva). 

It also goes without saying that there will be irreparable damage to the habitat and local wildlife, and Leicester City Council doesn't appear to have taken that into perspective.

Leicester City Council has shown time and time again that its attitude towards local planning is both short-sighted and backwards thinking. If it's not demolishing historical buildings that give our city character, and replacing them with monstrosities, then it seeks to take away any green space it has. Oh look, there's some land, let's build on it.

If you wish to speak against this development, you have until the 16th March to do so. To make a comment, follow the guidelines set out here. 

Out Of Sight....

From next year, cigarettes will not be allowed to be displayed in larger stores, with smaller retail outlets having to remove them from public view by 2015. Apparently "out of sight, out of mind" will discourage smokers, new and old. With most smokers already hooked to a particular brand, there would appear to be no point in displaying countless arrays of competing products. If smokers cannot see packets of fags on the shelves when they go shopping, they won't be tempted to buy them when they pop to the supermarket. It is also thought that non-smokers won't be tempted into smoking if they can't see cigarettes on display.

I am not a smoker; I actually hate the filthy, disgusting, cancer inducing habit. But I fail to see how this course of action will work. Smokers are already addicted, they are already loyal to a brand, yes, but how many times do they go shopping purely for the purpose of buying more cigarettes?

Supermarkets do indeed have cigarette counters, but how many times have you, the average shopper going through a 'normal' non-ciggy counter checkout, been held up because a member of staff has had to go and fetch 200 for the customer in front? Not seeing packs of fags isn't going to stop smokers from buying them; a smoker will stop smoking because they want to.

As for tempting new smokers, as mentioned, I am not a smoker, I have never smoked a cigarette in my life. I've also worked on a cigarette counter at my local supermarket as an impressionable 17-18 year old. Was I ever tempted by the many packets stacked up behind me? No. Of course I wasn't. Children and young adults start smoking because of other factors; peer pressure, seeing celebrities, misguided information such as "smoking helps you lose weight" and not because they see them in the corner shop.

"At least there'll be more room for booze....
you what....are Walkers okay? Normal
size? Not grab bags, obviously....."

If the mere sight of a product in a shop is enough to tempt the paying customer, then why do so many people eat an unhealthy diet, despite the aisles of fresh fruit and veg in the local supermarket? Furthermore, where will it stop? Once cigarettes are off the shelves, what next? Alcohol? Chocolate? Crisps?

By all means, educate people and inform them of the risks, but people must be allowed to make their own decisions and take responsibility (or not, as the case may be) for what they put inside their own bodies.

The English Patient

It was announced last week that Scotland was to join Wales and Northern Ireland in abolishing prescription charges from April 1st.

Two days later, it was announced that the cost of a prescription in England would rise from £7.20 to £7.40 per item from the same date.

Hmmm....

"Thanks for subsidising prescription charges
elsewhere in the UK, *mug*"

Leave Me Alone!

People, on the whole, are like sheep. Where one person goes, someone else is bound to follow. I choose a parking spot at the supermarket that is the furthest away from the main entrance on purpose. I go to the emptiest area so that nobody has to park next to my car, and dent or scratch it. I don't want to come back to my car and find some lazy so and so has left a trolley in my way. But despite the plethora of empty spaces, it's a nailed on certainty I will return to find that not only has someone parked next to my car, they've parked it far too close. On one occasion, I had to climb over the passenger seat to get in, even though there were plenty of empty spaces elsewhere.

What goes through the minds of these people? What is it about the spot that I choose that makes it so attractive to another shopper? Is my car really that cool? Seriously, why do they do it?

Those who don't know me very well (actually those who do too...) might think I am a misanthrope. Believe it or not, I do like to socialise with people, it's just I like to think I am more discerning as to whose company I keep.... 

It's just that I like to do my own thing. I have a great deal of admiration for those who also like to do their own thing. I have come to a theory that intrepid explorers don't go off for the thrill of things, or for the satisfaction of discovering something new. I honestly believe that they are looking for somewhere no other bugger will come along and disturb them.

There are times I would love to go off and find somewhere vast, and I could be left alone to wander by myself. I could take in the stunning scenery, and enjoy the peace and quiet, taking time to think about life, the universe and all that jive. I could pitch a tent, knowing I could get a decent night's rest without someone disturbing it. But deep down, I know if I did that, I would wake in the morning to find someone had decided to put their tent up right next to mine. I bet they would also be frying mushrooms for breakfast. Grr.

First Cuts, Then First Increases Fares

It's been reported that First Leicester will increase bus fares from this weekend, citing 

"operational costs, including diesel, lighting and wages"

for the no doubt inevitable increase. Bus companies are very quick to use increasing diesel prices to put up their fares, but it's amazing how those fares never revert back to pre-increase prices when fuel prices eventually go down.

"Not in service" - about right

Worse still, this announcement comes just two weeks after it was announced that the public transport provider will be cutting some of its services. Those cuts were prompted by the cut in council subsidies.

First Leicester is part of the FirstGroup, that provides bus and rail travel around the country. With increasing fuel costs, insurance premiums at a high (Arriva's excuse), wages etc, on top of councils cutting their subsidies, it would be hard to imagine how companies like FirstGroup survive. It would be totally flabbergasting if an operating profit of £55.4m was reported, an increase of 9.1%. I mean, you wouldn't want to be increasing fares if that was the case, would you? It would be totally underhanded and short-sighted to make customers, who will probably struggling financially and dependant on buses, after all.....

Fat Nation

It's been reported today that Britain's women are the fattest in Europe, with our men the 5th fattest. Whilst lagging behind in the world stakes, it's the first time in decades the UK has seen such unparalleled success in Europe.

Coming soon to a beach in Ibiza....

Rather than revelling in the fact we can do something bigger and better than our European counterparts, the popular press has been quick to raise blood pressures amongst our ever-increasing population - probably not the wisest move, given health and fitness levels. The Sun refers to it as a "crisis", for example. The Torygraph has also sensationalised the news somewhat, but has done some investigation into the causes of our obesity problems. Rather interestingly, Tam Fry, of the National Obesity Forum, puts the blame down to the successive Governments

"feeding children junk food in school, selling off playing fields, and failing to tackle the food industry"

Nothing to do with:

• Overeating
• Driving everywhere
• Giving kids games consoles, TVs and DVD players
• Increase in using conditions such as asthma to excuse children from what PE schools can and do provide

Nobody is forcing parents to buy junk food. Nobody is stopping them from taking their precious ones to the local park for a kickabout. It doesn't take a genius to work out what's healthy food, and what isn't, and surely even the thickest person out there must realise that if you consume more calories than you burn off, YOU WILL PUT ON WEIGHT!

The sooner the "Great" British public start to take responsibility for their actions (or inactions, as is most probably the case) and stops looking to blame everyone else, the sooner this "crisis" will be dealt with.

Second Chance University Education Increase

University might not be out of
the equation after all....

It has just been reported that those who don't pass their A levels may not have the door completely closed on university. Apparently a third of those admitted have no "recognised qualifications".

I don't know what the purpose of this report is; is it supposed to show universities as money grabbing businesses who would rather fill their coffers than maintain their integrity? Or is it ammunition for those already concerned at the over-saturated graduate jobs market?

What this report doesn't make clear is whether or not this applies to all higher education courses, or just to degrees. It also doesn't stipulate if the 'unqualified' students are straight out of 6th form, or whether they are mature students returning to education with life experience in lieu of academic qualifications.

It also doesn't point out that part time higher education, which is outside of the UCAS system, will quite often take on students that don't quite meet the grade, but have shown a desire to take on the challenges of further study, either for self-improvement, careers, or whatever.

Omissions like these will no doubt affect the way Joe Public views this report.

Another High Profile Gagging Order....

Last month, I blogged on how the rich and famous appear to want a one- way relationship with the media; the Press scratches their back but cannot in turn stab celebs in theirs. 

Today it has been reported that yet another supposed big name TV star has successfully prevented his indiscretions from being made public knowledge. This follows a decision earlier in the week to give a Premier League footballer protection from what appears to be further confirmation that he can't keep it in his trousers.

I have two problems with super-injunctions, both closely interwoven; the first is that if you are rich and famous, you are able to have control over the media. Celebs are very quick to wheel out the Article 8 arguments if it suits them. Caught with your pants down? "That's an infringement of my Article 8 rights". Been a bit naughty? "You can't report that, that's my privacy you're violating". But it's funny how quickly stars will waive any rights to their private and family life when it comes with a huge pay cheque, or if it will publicise a new film, TV programme, album etc.

Of course, this right is qualified, and in these cases needs to be balanced with the Press' Article 10 rights. If a person is happy to share their private life with the general public, then surely they should expect interest in the areas that they don't want to share as well. Self-publicity should not lead to self-censorship, should it?

This leads on to my second gripe; celebs are able to create an image about themselves that is favourable to them. They want the world to see the fruits of their success, and are happy to flaunt this. However, some are able to live behind a mask of domestic bliss that, in some cases, couldn't be further from the truth. It is perfectly possible for those with enough money to conveniently forget their moral compass; it's a world of Dorian Grays. Men and women who can behave as they please, without judgment or recourse for their actions, safe in the knowledge that if you can't pay off your indiscretions, then the courts will gag them for you.

Why I Won't Be Booing Joe Mattock

My team, Leicester City, will be travelling to Bramall Lane next Tuesday evening to face Sheffield United, and possibly their latest acquisition, ex-City defender, Joe Mattock. If some of the fans are to be believed, Mattock is due some stick for his decision to leave in 2009. 

Fans learn at a young age
how to get angry

For some fans, Mattock's departure to rivals West Bromwich Albion was the act of ultimate disloyalty; many saw it as a sideways step, after all, both clubs would be playing in the same division. However, whilst City performed better than most supporters expected, reaching the play-offs, WBA went that step better and were actually promoted to the Premier League.

For others. it was the comments made at the time that Mattock moved that caused most upset, most notably:

"I was ecstatic that a club like this was interested in me"

So much so, that within weeks of leaving City, he was involved in an incident in a nightclub that lead him to pleading guilty to affray after the player threw punches at two men and two women. It was stated that the first man punched had been the latest in a number of people who had been giving Mattock grief for his move. This isn't the first time that a player has courted the support of his new fans, by saying that his new club offers him brighter prospects and a better future. Some players are noted for claiming that they are joining the club of their dreams as they are unveiled to the Press, so much so it has become a joke when they are transferred. But what are players supposed to say? "I didn't really want to join [insert team name] - they made me do it". There are more tactful ways of leaving a club, thanking the former club, mentioning the fans, but we aren't dealing with the sharpest tools in the box. Plus the manner in which players leave doesn't help. In this case, Mattock wanted to leave. How much of this is down to the player himself, and how much if the influence of an agent is not known. Unless there is a serious problem at the club that a player is leaving, there is no real point in handing in a transfer request unless he knows that there is interest elsewhere, surely?

Mattock manages to contain
his excitement

Sideways step or not, ultimately the decision to move to WBA might have been the right thing to do had Mattock not had the spectre of a court case hanging over him. Mattock did not feature regularly for his new team; how much of that was down to his ability and how much was down to his off field problems is anyone's guess. After all, the two sides are playing in different divisions, and if Mattock had kept out of trouble, who knows how much he would have played a part in WBA's promotion and Premier League campaign.

Players moving clubs is no new thing, and Mattock isn't the first, and certainly won't be the last, player to be subjected to grief from those supporting a former club. Many fans measure football players by their own 'moral' standards. I say 'moral'; when it comes to sport, and football especially, there is a code that fans live and die by. Loyalty is very much top of the agenda for supporters. You pick your team, or your team is determined by other factors such as family history, geography, whatever, and when you have your team, you stick by it through thick or thin. Why does Joe Mattock apparently deserve so much criticism?

"It isn't an easy decision - obviously I grew up in Leicester and all I wanted to do when I was a lad was play for Leicester"

A player and a fan - at
the time

Fans would do anything to play for their club. It is now possible to buy charity places to represent your club at charity events, or to buy a place on a team that will grace the hallowed turf of your club. Of course none of this comes close to joining YOUR club as a fully fledged professional player. The higher up the leagues your team is, the less likelihood this will happen. So when a player comes up through the ranks, like Mattock did, a self-proclaimed fan, for him to turn around and say how thrilled he is to be joining not just any old club, but a rival, well, it is the ultimate sin.

As a football fan, it's my dream job to be a professional player. But looking at things with perspective, it's easy for me to say I would never play for any other club than Leicester City. I will never be a professional player, I am the wrong gender for a start. I'm also too old, and if I'm totally honest, I was never good enough. Not really. If, on the other hand, I was in a position where I could have been a player, would I really turn down a move to a club I, as a supporter, don't actually like? Really, truly, honestly? Even if it meant a substantial increase in salary? Or the chance to take my game to the next level?

Of course I wouldn't. I'm not that daft.

This where many fans fail to empathise with players. They appear to be unable to put themselves into a position where the question even arises. Fans do not seem to be able to make that distinction between playing football for the love of your team and playing for the sake of your career. At the end of the day, to a professional footballer, it is a job. There is so much money in the game now, players cannot afford to let their hearts rule their heads. The days where players stay with a club for the bulk of their career is long gone, unless they are lucky enough to play for one of the biggest clubs in their country, even the world, where staying is an easier decision than leaving. People are quick to justify extortionate salaries on the basis that playing careers are short meaning that players would be stupid not to take advantage of what is offered to them. That is unless that player is leaving your club. Criticism isn't always aimed at players who say that they support the club that they play for either.

An easy analogy is to think about your own career; if a rival firm head-hunted you, and offered to double your salary, would your loyalty to your current employer prevent you from accepting? Or would you be handing in your notice at the first opportunity? I'm sure most people would opt for the latter, unless there was something substantially flawed with moving. If that's the case, then why should footballers be criticised for making the same decision?

For me personally, I cannot get too upset about players leaving. That's not to say I don't find it disappointing that someone has to go elsewhere because my club cannot afford to pay ridiculous sums of money, or just isn't good enough. It does dent the pride, admittedly. But players come and go all of the time, just as managers do, even owners. A football club is always in a state of evolution, and things can never be expected to remain the same. For me, the fans are what make the club, and even they can disappear over time. Not unlike the ones on the field wearing the shirt. This is why I won't be booing Mattock next Tuesday evening.

Baby On Board

Or not, as the case may be. 

The Chelsea Tractor only came to my attention, as the driver was struggling to manoeuvre it into the extra large space in the "Parent & Child" bays at a local supermarket. There were no other cars parked in the area, but the driver was making a meal out of such a simple thing. I have to admit, I was transfixed.

So you can imagine my shock when the woman who had struggled to badly to park, calmly and coolly left the vehicle, and nonchalantly walked into the supermarket. "Hang on" I thought, what about the baby in the car?

I had to walk past, so as I did, I had a look in the window. I expected to see an abandoned child, maybe a confused toddler; what I didn't expect to see was absolutely no evidence of any child ever having been in the car. Which was the case.

Now, I appreciate that mums don't have their kids with them all of the time, but surely the purpose of a 'Baby on board' sign is to let people know that, er well, there's a baby in the car? What I didn't realise is that they are, in fact, parking permits for those nice, wide parking bays nearer to the store entrance for the totally bone idle among us.

To be honest, I don't really see why I need to know why someone has a baby in their car. Most drivers with them tend to be selfish numpties who really shouldn't be allowed behind a wheel in the first place - "hey I might drive like a t**t, but think of the kiddy before beeping or flashing at me". 

I am lead to believe that the signs were the brainchild (no pun intended) of a parent who's child was catapulted out of the car after a collision. Something along the lines of the driver being unconscious and the emergency services didn't know that the baby was in the car. A fine idea in principle, but seriously, how quickly or badly do you have to drive for a baby's car seat is propelled not just out of a car, but so far away it can't be spotted? Aren't these things supposed to be strapped in so they don't even hit the back of the seat in front, let alone fly several hundred feet into a ditch? And how the hell does it manage to go anywhere if it did get loose? Surely you'd have to be driving a car with the roof down, so you wouldn't be able to display your sign very well any way? 

More importantly, even the creator said that you only displayed the sign when the child is in the car. This then prevents hapless rescuers searching for a kid that is safely tucked up at home.

It doesn't just stop at baby signs; you can get "Naughty person on board" signs, which I guess means "my kid's a little sh*t, but we try and laugh it off", or "Babe on board". D'ya gerrit? Ha ha. Why is it they only appear in the windows of super-minis being driven by young women who the only "Babe" they resemble is the pig? 

Privacy - a privilege?

Max Mosley believes that he should be notified before any stories about him are published. I am sure Premiership footballers up and down the country will be rubbing their hands (keep it clean....) at the prospect of having to be informed if a slapper sells her story to the popular press. They'll no doubt be joined by a number of obvious candidates who have been the subject of negative stories.

Rather than wasting money on taking matters like this through the courts, shouldn't self-absorbed, attention seekers stop living their lives in the public eye? There are numerous celebs out there who I have no idea what the hell they do with their lives outside of a film or tv studio, or the sports field, or wherever. People who don't try and capitalise on every little detail of their insecure lives. 

Then there are the media whores, who use every tiny little piece of publicity to their own advantage. Yet they also seem to be the first to go running to their lawyers at the first sign of any negative publicity. Don't they realise that they have made themselves the subject of such scrutiny? The public are just as much interested in their downfalls, failings and mistakes because they are being spoon fed all of the good times.

If I was the editor of a newspaper, magazine or TV programme, and the ECHR do indeed rule that the media should be subject to rules of 'prior notification', I wouldn't give any of them an ounce of publicity. What's that Price, you want to talk about your marriage again? Go and shout about it in Trafalgar Square, then. I wouldn't be wasting any more of my time on you.

Privacy and press reporting has to be balanced. My concern is that if it was to swing too far towards protecting privacy, many parts of the popular press will become promotional tools for those who can afford it. If you put yourself in the spotlight, then you have to be able to deal with the consequences of your actions, good or bad. When self-censorship comes into play, there is no freedom of the press.

Celebs live in a strange world. Some crave attention, but don't like it when what they get isn't what they wanted. It's no different to the locals gossiping in the village pub; it's on a much bigger scale. The main difference is the ordinary bloke in the street won't be able to pay someone not to tell the other drinkers about his sordid little affair or his dubious sexual preferences. Is this the start of a two-tier system of dealing with what can and can't be reported about people?

Some light....

Until someone is prepared to pay me, I decided some time ago to put all of my expensive legal training to use by helping the wider community. I am volunteering myself to a well known charitable organisation.

Compared with the BVC, the training has been a breeze. For me though, I have got more out of the observation sessions. This involves shadowing an experienced volunteer and seeing the practical side of things. I've seen almost every type of situation. What I haven't seen is the client who kicks off when they don't get the answer that they want - I am certain that one is waiting for me!

Today though, I have almost reached the point where I can be let loose among the general public, without supervision. To think that this time next week I could have someone's life literally in my hands is daunting, but somewhat humbling. Some of the clients that I have seen really do need a good kick up the arse, but there are those out there who really would be in the messy stuff if it wasn't for the volunteers and organisations out there who aim to help them.

I have completed two interviews, under supervision. All of my coursemates have been dreading this part of the training, but the BVC has prepared me well for this. The scrutiny of not just a tutor, but my peers too, whilst being recorded onto DVD has taken away any inhibitions or self-consciousness. I've learned that all I need to do is take a deep breath and dive straight in there. Once it's over and done with, that's it.

I now have one more to go, then hopefully I will be allowed to get stuck into the nitty-gritty. This is the part that I have been looking forward to. Even though it's not strictly proper legal experience, the fact that I will be doing something constructive and potentially beneficial will certainly stop me feeling as worthless as I have during the past few months.

My gripes with the immigration debate

We are currently living in very unhappy times; rising costs, rising unemployment and now rising taxes are an everyday part of our sad lives. Some of the blame is being directed, quite rightly, to the Government, both past and present. However I have noticed that my social networking feeds are becoming increasingly littered with updates telling me that increasing immigration is responsible for this.

Immigration is a sore subject with some; there are legitimate concerns, but there is also a fair bit of ignorance and hypocrisy in some attitudes towards the subject. I may return to the subject in later blogs, but wanted to deal with the hypocrisy in the way that some of the Great British public view immigration.

Immigrants are taking our jobs....

With many companies laying off workers, and unemployment rising again, it is impossible to fathom out why our leaders allow foreigners to come over here and take jobs that our own, indigenous, unemployed could be doing. We all know someone who has been out of work for months, who has applied for countless jobs, and is yet to find gainful employment. Sickening, isn't it.

But take a closer look at the positions being filled by non-Brits; many menial and undesirable roles, for example. All of the cleaners at my gym are immigrants. Why? Because nobody born and bred here wants to clean the remnants of your hair removal cream from a shower for minimum wage, that's why. Would you be happy to receive £5.93 ph to clean up after the bone idle, pseudo-middle classes? Of course not.

Even if you were prepared to take on any job going, regardless of the remuneration (and fair play to you if you would), if you have qualifications over a certain level, and have experience over and above such lowly work, an employer is not going to take on a person who could quite easily move on to bigger and better things, when there is a person who is more likely to stick with the role for longer, saving on recruitment cost.

Ah, but it's not just the lower end of the job market, is it. Companies are bringing in graduates from overseas. Many young adults leaving university are unable to find work as it is, without Johnny Foreigner nicking the graduate roles available. Hah!

The bigger picture in all of this, of course, is the shift in attitudes in education, in particular, higher education. There was a time when the top 2% of school leavers made it to university. Labour decided that at least 50% of children should be allowed the opportunity to go to university. Great thinking, but the number of graduate roles available hasn't increased to fulfil the new demand. More courses are available; careers that would have been available to a school leaver at 16 are no longer viable options at that age, because there is a degree available in that subject. Furthermore, there has been an increase in degrees that aren't related to any vocation, and are not strictly academic in nature. A cynic would suggest that such degrees are available as an option for students who would never have been able to obtain a university place under the old regime. Either way, parents and children now view a degree as the best way of securing employment in the future.

The problem is that some careers need a degree that is relevant to the subject area. Whilst some areas, such as medicine and law, remain competitive, fewer students are opting to study sciences. This leaves employers finding that they are unable to recruit from British born graduates, and having to look abroad to fill their vacancies. Ultimately, a policy made with good intentions has backfired, but with immigration taking the blame.

Immigrants cost the British taxpayer billions in benefit payments....

Actually, immigrants don't cost as much as people think, but that is a blog in itself.

My gripe is that the popular press, and consequently sections of the public, focus far too much on immigrants and what they are claiming. Up and down the country, however, there are British families, generations of whom have never done a day's work. This can also be related to the above issue; thousands of people claim benefits on the basis that they are not fit to work, yet they then go on to spend that money on booze and ciggies. You may not be fit for work, but you can drag yourself to the bookies? Have a word, sunshine.

Or there are, of course, the Baby Machines; 'women' who would rather churn out another sprog than get off their oversized backsides and get a job. I would like to say that I was exxagerating but unfortunately I am not.

Of course, this is linked with the issue above. Ironically, I have overheard such people moaning about foreigners coming here and taking our jobs, the fact that they do all that they can to avoid employment is lost on them. It comes across as a diversion tactic, an attempt to deflect attention away from themselves. Let's blame the immigrants, they might not notice we're just as bad....

Worse still is the assumption that as a British subject, there is an entitlement to benefits, nay right. Immigrants haven't earned the right to claim these, y'know. Well, neither have some of you, actually. Being born here shouldn't give you a bigger entitlement, in all fairness. The welfare system is unfortunately open to abuse from all sections of the community. The indigenous population costs more to the taxpayer than immigrants do. It seems that it is easier for all concerned to focus attention on a small group than to admit that the system needs to be overhauled to prevent fraud and abuse. Shouldn't we, as a nation, be sorting out our own problems before blaming others?

Immigrants are taking over; they create ghettoes in our towns and cities....

Several hundred years of history are conveniently forgotten to promote the argument against immigration.

For a start, we are a mongrel nation, the product of different invading nations who came, conquered and brought their families along to settle down here. If we all go far enough back into our ancestry, we are bound to find that our origins were in fact overseas.

Then of course, there is the Great British Empire. You know, the one where we went and took over other countries, taking with us our cultural influences and all that jive? What makes it different to today's immigration 'problems' is that in this instance, people coming to the UK today, do so without wanting to take over and turn us into their slaves.

Of course, we have learnt, as a nation. No Brits ever leave this country to try to find a better life elsewhere. No. No siree.

I am sure that there are people in Spain, Portugal, Greece etc who wish that was the case. Just like the immigrants moaned at for creating their own small communities in the UK, Brits have turned places like Benidorm into just another British seaside resort. Of course, some will say that this is not a fair comparison. This is us doing it, not some dirty foreigner, after all. There is a failure to see that it is human nature to gravitate to what we know and what we are comfortable with. This includes moving to another country. When it comes to failing to integrate with the natives, we surely must be number one in the list. How can people fail to see that we are just as bad, if not worse, than any other nation's people? "If I moved to the Middle East, I would live the way that they do" - which is why most Brits tend to move somewhere that is more in tune with our own cultural upbringing, unsurprisingly. Even then, not everybody is keen to leave behind the lager, the roast dinners and the fish and chips. So why complain when someone who comes here is also reluctant to leave their culture behind?

There is also the point that integrating into our society must be difficult when the locals regard you with suspicion as they accuse you of stealing jobs and benefits.

British society is not perfect. There are a lot of problems that need to be addressed and dealt with, but it seems to me that it is easier to lay the blame at the door of immigrants than it is to hold our hands up as a nation, and say "hey, we've mucked up somewhere, let's do something to sort it out".