Moral Standards - no wonder they are on the slide

The so-called moral decline in society is simply because we have been very bad at drawing lines and continually confuse cause and effect.  At some point, you have to draw a line or guess where you end up?

Here is a trivial, but perfect example of both.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/stoke-city/9160895/Stoke-City-manager-Tony-Pulis-avoids-driving-ban-after-mounting-successful-relegation-defence.html

We are continually told we must be responsible for and will be held accountable for our own actions. Fine.  Now look at the excuses here.  The REAL point is that if having a driving license is so critically important to so many lives, what the hell was he doing speeding anyway?  Clearly this man is irresponsible, is unsuitable for the position he holds and should be replaced.  If someone else was that dependent upon me, I would not even take the risk.

Now do you see why this let-off is arse about face and places just one more small panel pin in the coffin of moral standards.

Tourism & Debt

A German tourist walks into an Irish hotel in a village where pretty much everyone owes money to someone and they are all struggling to get by and repay their debts.  The German want to see a room before deciding to take one for the night.  He offers the hotel owner 100euros as a deposit, on the condition he gets it back if he doesn’t like the room and sets off up the stairs to look at it.

Seeing an opportunity, the hotel owner quickly runs round to the local restaurant and uses the 100 Euros to pay off some of his debt to the chef. Finding himself unexpectedly 100 Euros better off, the chef trots round to the local butcher to pay off some of his debt.

This continues from the butcher to the owner of an abattoir and on to a local prostitute, who herself owes money on rooms she has rented and finally ends up handing the money back to the hotel owner where the story started.

Just at that point, the German reappeared and, deciding he didn’t want the room, picked up his 100 Euros and left.

Nobody has any more cash, but everyone has less debt.

Tebitt & Cameron - Same DNA???

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9034237/David-Cameron-Dont-complain-about-welfare-cuts-go-and-find-work.html

No immediate resemblance until you read this article and recall the "get on your bike" advice.  Then look at the photos again and image DC 30 years on . . . . . . . .

Firstly Mr Cameron, if we do stop complaining (as you put it) about the Welfare Cuts, who will defend the vulnerable & stand up for fairness and compassion - clearly not you!

Secondly, can you point me to where I can find this work because I'm buggered if I can.

Oh and thirdly, sadly I had to sell my bike.

The bleeding obvious!!!

We really should expect more from our MPs that pontificating over what is blindingly obvious.  Today it was the PM himself.

For all its shortcomings, today’s Daily Telegraph contained a couple of gems.  

First, there was the timely reminder from the PM of the growing divide in society, with a suitably thoughtful portrait of him to emphasise the point. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/yourbusiness/8995757/David-Cameron-says-tax-cuts-will-restore-business-confidence.html ).  He didn’t quite put it this way though, he just pointed out that some people are doing OK thank you very much.  So the central heating bills have gone up a bit and the £50k+ salaries have not moved much, but the new telly was heavily discounted and the company pays for the petrol – yes, these people have a job and a good one at that.  You don’t have to puzzle too long over why John Lewis is not seeing much of a recession – and it’s not solely because that’s where the MP’s themselves shop!  No highly paid retail guru needed to work this out.

In contrast there are all those on benefits of one kind or another being squeezed on both sides, which are too embarrassing to talk about very often – better to remember and concentrate on their nice Waitrose-patronising counterparts.

Secondly, there was the article by Fraser Nelson “Poverty, not colour, is the real dividing line in modern Britain”, which echoes the same theme (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8995295/Poverty-not-colour-is-the-real-dividing-line-in-modern-Britain.html) and whilst I don’t agree with all of what he says, I do with the headline.  (Remember too that there are not different types of poverty (so-called fuel poverty etc.), just poverty!)

No politician will openly say that they are happy for the social divide to increase, but there clearly comes a point where through the actions they have taken, wilfulness to do just this is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn.

Career Decision

Employers' Charter - support for poor management

In his speech today George Osborne confirmed government plans to restrict eligibility for protection from unfair dismissal to people employed for two years and is going to introduce a deposit for taking a case to a tribunal that will be lost if the case is lost.

Can anyone please explain to me precisely what this will do to help whom?

The PM seems to think that industry is riddled with underperformers that are dragging back growth or force their employers through time consuming and expensive tribunals when they have no case are are just angling for a settlement.  I have however never seen any data that backs this up.  On what information is the PM drawing – surely not just the “word” of a few business associates?

Ironically, the only area where I have generally found this kind of problem is in the public sector.

Yes, as always there will be a few chancers, but in my own extensive experience, the incompetence is far more with employers who either do not approach recruitment methodically, fail to make their expectations clear during and after recruitment and do not give employees sufficient guidance and support once in post.  There is nothing wrong with the present legislation for a good employer and it encourages all employers to act responsibly – yes, the process you have to go through can be a bit frustrating at times, but this is a small price to pay.

This legislation effectively sanctions poor management and says “if you cock up recruitment, don’t worry just sack them and try again” and “you can legitimately dismiss someone completely unfairly without any worries”.  What about the poor souls who have moved house, left their roots behind, changed their kids’ schools only then to find they are sacked on a whim with just the limited protection of an employment contract, with no parachute payments or any other safety net?

Does anyone honestly regard this as fair?