Sorry

I have a confession to make. I've made the most dreadful mistake! It's been haunting me for quite a while now and I feel that it is time to stand up and to properly address the issue, before it completely overwhelms me, causing my char-blackened soul to shrivel within, until I become nothing but a hollowed-out and pointless husk. Obviously I won't be occupying any less physical space, but look into my eyes and you'll be able to sense the betrayal; it'll be slowly leaking out to colour grey all that I touch.

In my defence I should like to point out that, even at the time of the afore-alluded-to mistake, I was probably deluding myself; it'd been another tough day 'at the office' and my mind really wasn't 'up to the job'. Suddenly, completely out of the blue, the ultimate prize seemed to loom before me and I was completely dazzled, corrupted almost! I took my eye off the ball, so to speak, and when I looked down again somebody had stolen the ball, moved the match to another venue, bribed the referee, blown the final whistle and ploughed up the pitch. Another Tesco, I should imagine...

Thanks to Liberal Democrats

It was then, back at that, pre pledge, time that I felt I'd arrived at some sort of deal, certainly a contractual obligation. Of course, looking back now, the deal was obviously far too good to have been true, but, at the time, I honestly felt committed to it. I duly signed upon the dotted line, almost literally, and, for as long as I could bear to look at my own reflection of a morning, I stuck with it.

Well, you should, shouldn't you? What sort of future world, for the next generation, would we be endorsing if nobody could be entrusted to tell the truth, if nobody could ever be taken at their word? Imagine!

With hindsight I now recognise that I should never have made such a pledge. It's certainly the  type of pledge that I shall never make again. And, by addressing it via this blog, I'm hoping to draw a line under the whole sorry issue and to move on with my life.

You see, I voted for Nick's Liberal Democrats and, in return, Nick pledged not to raise tuition fees.

Obviously, this is now recognised as a mistake on both sides of the deal, so if I can just have back my vote, then Nick, you can carry on selling your deflated husk of a soul, and we need both say no more about it

..?

..?

..?

..?

Thanks to Liberal Democrats

But, we can't can we? That's the thing, isn't it Nick? I, along with tens (or hundreds?) of thousands of other voters, 'democratically' selected you and your bods, largely attracted by, amongst other allusions to a fairer society, your impassioned commitment not to raise tuition fees.

Otherwise, you wouldn't be where you currently are, misrepresenting current Tory austerity measures as having no alternative, continuing to delude yourself that you operate under even the most infinitesimally minute political mandate. Rather you'd, more than likely, be teetering upon the precipice of 'lost in the annuls of political oblivion'.

For myself, observing your desperate evasiveness from a safe distance, this kind of role- that of political oblivion- seems far more aptly suited to your capabilities; so should you, at any time soon, require some sort of reference, please feel free to ask. I've had time to reflect upon my misguided pledge, learned from my mistakes, and, fully enlightened, I'll be more than happy to oblige.

Lies, damned lies and pledges...

A Penny For Your Thoughts

Legs propped-up upon the cushion of choice, placed there for optimum comfort, I supped at my early morning decaffeinated beverage, singeing lips. Health dictates that I don't overdo the caffein, and being somewhat addicted to coffee I invariably prefer to savour that particular small concession rather later in the day.

At my side, perched upon a small occasional table and not yet fully consumed, nestling alongside a half-read novel, sat a far healthier breakfast option than any that is ever likely have been advertised upon the vast array of alternative, more-commercial, TV channels- sugar, also in later life, having become a growing issue. The BBC was 'dutifully' 'updating' me with the latest 'news'- seldom a spotless start to the new day- ever more of a duty than a pleasure.

Much better, Moyan_Brenn

As my early-morning brain set about the task of gearing up for the day ahead it would probably be fair to write that much of what was being broadcast was drifting randomly across my consciousness, rather than in any way efficiently filing itself away for later easy-access reference. The BBC News Team had opted to share, with the viewer, the thoughts of one Stephen Birch, of Bierce Technical Services. If, at some point, the nature of the man's work had been revealed to the viewer, I confess that I must have missed it. I really didn't know the man 'from Adam', yet I felt 'certain', or more I hoped, that there would be thoughts, opinions or expertise, secreted somewhere amongst his ponderous words.

However, it very soon occurred to me that such was not going to be the case. No doubt one can quickly avail oneself of the 'user-friendly' version of the technical nature of Bierce's talents, or the degree of support that such Services might afford, if one chooses to Google the company. But for my part, in so far as Bierce Technical Services are concerned, I have opted to remain comfortably in the darkness. There is only so much information that one 'needs' and I have decided that Bierce Technical Services are currently entirely superfluous to my requirements. Maybe, at some point in the indeterminate future, circumstances shall dictate that I regard them differently, who can say?

As I have already made clear, I know nothing, almost nothing, about the man. He may well be a wonderful individual, the perfect father, a technical genius of some kind; I really don't know. I know his stated name, that of his company or employer- I think the former, for reasons that might soon become apparent- and, most significant to this blog entry, that he is one man, one adult male. Just the one!

Stephen- I hope that he won't mind if I here adopt the less formal approach- was sharing his views regarding what 'our' government 'needs' to do in order to attract 'the voter'. Already slightly irritated- it's so easily done these days- I persevered. The message was a short one, not unduly arduous upon the brain, not too demanding of one's precious time. I even partially rewound the short news item, in order to ensure that I caught the man's name, along with that of his company.

What Stephen actually had to say is almost, if not entirely, irrelevant to my imminent point. This point being that he was, and remains, one man; one man, shackled to just the single vote. One vote that is not any more nor less significant than your's or mine. Nor is it of greater significance than that lorry driver's, nor that lady's at the supermarket checkout, nor that street busker's. So, just in case you're not up to speed yet, my thought is this, "Why place far greater import upon what this one man might consider politically pertinent than that of any other individual?"

Lest you should think it relevant, and honestly, it absolutely isn't, Stephen was expressing an opinion that the government 'needed' to adopt an even more business-friendly approach to its methodology, that they (The Coalition) needed to listen even more closely to what businesses wanted.

A short while later, during an altogether-presented-as-different-and-unrelated-news-item (you be the judge) the never-comforting voice of one Ed Balls was to be heard, very much in appeasement to entirely the same ilk of business-friendly 'wishes'. Obviously 'our' Ed didn't refer directly, or even obliquely, to the earlier, and 'unrelated' news item; the opinion of Ed was an altogether separate 'newsworthy' item. Or so we were being permitted to believe.

Thanks to tantrum_dan

I certainly can't quote dear Ed- a rewind was absolutely out of the question- but, let it suffice to be written that, he pushed his face at the camera and gushed 'positively' about 'a need' to nurture all of those business-friendly policies. Apparently, it would seem that we have moved on apace from those Government-getting-too-close-to-business days, those days that, in one highly significant way, helped to bring about the current global monetary meltdown; oh, and the absolute disillusionment of the electorate with the machinations of New Labour. That's you, that is, Balls! Some of us do possess memories.

I know that we're constantly being told that voting is our 'inalienable right', indeed that it's really virtually an obligation, that the universal vote has been fiercely fought for and that the right to use it (that vote) needs to be rigorously defended. "If you don't vote, then what right have you got to criticise the system we end up with?" I know the arguments, I've heard them and taken part in some of them, many, many times. Really, dozens if not hundreds of times.

And I also know this; that in a Feudal Britain the ordinary citizen didn't tend to bring about a great deal, in the manner of positive changes to 'The System', by queuing in order to place an orderly cross in a box and then waiting patiently for things to kick in. I'm sure that if one of Britain's feudal masters had thought of such a system, as a means of appeasing the unsettled peasants, way back when, voting would have caught on during Medieval Times.

Feudal, that's as in absolute control, exercised by the landed and privileged very-few, over the less-fortunate very-many. You know, the sort of absolute power that might, for example, enable a widely-known-about injustice to perpetuate, despite anyone and everyone who is even remotely interested being able to immediately identify and recognise this injustice.

Thanks to industriarts

The now twenty-three-years-past Hillsborough Tragedy could be said to fit comfortably into this category; that is in so far as it can sit 'comfortably' anywhere. A national state in which huge numbers of police officers can be seen to almost 'openly' collude in a massive cover-up. Many of the facts of the case are, as of now, even more widely available, and have been reported in far greater detail than I intend so to do here, the ninety-six deaths, the one-hundred-and-sixteen police-altered statements, the inexplicable Coroner's cut-off time for 'acceptable' evidence and the unanswerable question regarding just how many of the nearly one-hundred deaths that might have been avoided.

Much of this awful event was actually televised, thousands of eye-witnesses lived through this tragedy, and yet the nationally reported and peddled 'version of events' persisted for nearly a quarter of a century. If this isn't symptomatic of a state that falls alarmingly short of democratically accountable then perhaps someone could explain to me exactly what it is symptomatic of. No wonder the political 'elite' are lining up to disown the original 'verdict', hoping to put a great deal of distance between themselves and anyone finally judged to be even remotely culpable.

The Sun 'newspaper', a paper that, despite its atrocious history, still regularly holds sway over the political 'opinions' of numerous British adults, brazenly addressed the findings of the Hillsborough Enquiry with the banner headline of "The Real Truth." And, while it would be unfair of us, even in judgement of a paper of The Sun's lowly calibre, to blame those currently in charge, for something that happened a quarter of a century ago, to see this newspaper attempting to lead the charge against the, now official, injustice must still, for so many of us, feel desperately uncomfortable.

I am sure, I cannot be alone in sensing a less than unreserved remorse, from a paper that chooses to allude so very, very closely to its original headline verdict of "The Truth." The Sun newspaper of twenty-three years ago, elected for political expediency over honest reporting, much as it so often does today. And despite its uncomfortable show of pretended progress there is just too much evidence to the contrary to suggest any real move towards the largely uncharted realms of honest reporting. I wouldn't doubt for a moment that The Sun has learned a lesson, but I would doubt, with every fibre of my being, that it's the very same lesson learned as the one presented.

Instead I would guess that, in future, we might all have to dig that little bit harder, to unearth the next major Sun subterfuge; that is at least until its editors feel that the dust has safely settled.

In the good ol' US of A the Republican Tea Party- such a benign-sounding name, don't you think?- appear to be less concerned with such subtleties. Recent voting law changes in this Land of the Free, driven largely by Tea Party Republicans- even typing these words curiously leaves an unpleasant taste in the mouth- require photo identification before US citizens will be allowed to vote. Although all US states have not yet adopted this 'rigourous defence against voter fraud' it is estimated that perhaps 11,000,000 US citizens are currently thus being denied access to due democratic process.

It obviously hasn't slipped the mind of certain Republicans that those without passports and/or driving licenses, that would be the necessary photo-ID, tend to number amongst the elderly, ethnic minorities and the poorer citizens. And, as a general rule of thumb, the less-well-off tend not to endorse the policies of billionaires who are seeking to push through ever more blatant regulations, or lack thereof, to concentrate all power and wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people. And, oh so often, what's happening in the USA today is a bit of a pointer to the route that the UK will, at some time, be looking to tread.

So, just to finally draw all of those cunningly, widely scattered earlier-mentioned-points together- an internationally scaled-up dot-to-dot, if you like- permit me please to summarise thus. My contention being that, inexplicably still dissatisfied with a state of almost absolute power, there is much evidence to suggest that the uber-wealthy-and-landed elite have grown tired of a state of 'almost' and are now looking to consolidate further. Recognising the cachet of the word 'Democracy' upon the CV, yet also the bothersome practical issue of having to suppress any genuine moves towards such a 'messy' state of affairs, the dark underbelly, operating somewhere that is barely short of a coup, is becoming ever more blatant in its thrust towards a modern day feudal-type system.

Perfect, from @Doug88888

Short of abolishing general elections, misdirection of political thought and denial of contrary thought are really the only means by which the wolf of modern-day feudalism is able to slip 'stealthily' within the skin of the summarily slaughtered democratic lamb. Just a thought!

Is that the kettle I hear boiling?

While You Were Sleeping

Don't get me wrong, I really loved watching a great deal of the Olympic and Paralympic coverage. Like so many I prized my elderly frame from its familiar haunt, camped in front of the TV, and added my own particular decibels to the final moments of Mo Farah's incredible 10,000m triumph, at the end of a memorable night for British athletics. And then, only the blink of an eye later, seemingly during the very same uninterrupted broadcast, I marvelled to watch Johnny Peacock complete the 100m in a time that most fully-able-bodied athletes could only dream of. Amazing!

In the light of Andy Murray's even more recent achievements in the US of A, one can also assume that some of these sporting feats are already beginning to inspire higher things. "Inspire a generation," isn't that what they said?

Obviously we will want to celebrate the incredible successes of our athletes, to applaud the almost superhuman feats that have kept us enthralled for the whole summer- not forgetting the thousands of helpers who gave their time for free- and to prepare ourselves for whatever comes next.

So, ever one to appease the popular vote, let's allow that warn glow of satisfaction to nestle in the pit of our stomach for a moment, rub the glittery sleep from our eyes and, once more, awake!

Many thanks to Medicinemansam

Because it's also important to place such brilliance into some sort of context, and I'm not referring to "The Legacy" that's even now gearing-up in the wings, to wave its distracting arms in the air and prolong the dream; I'm referring to that other world, the one that never really went away, as much as we would have loved it so to do. Party-pooper, I may well be, but I'm writing about the bigger, realer world, the one beyond the entertaining world of sport, the one of bankers' bonuses, MPs' expenses, tabloid phone-hacking. Remember?

To take a less nationalistic view, a more cynical view if you like- something to which I have become surprisingly adept- one might even be forgiven for thinking that there are some individuals out there who have seen these sporting events as something of a convenient smokescreen, and not just a sporting spectacle. So allow me, if you will, to just wave this tea-towel about a bit, to see if we can't waft some of that smoke towards a conveniently-left-ajar window, and afford ourselves a less smoky view of the world.

It was with just such a clearer vision that I recently sought to avail myself of some of that 'Inspiration', that of which we've heard so much of late. A lifelong cricket fan, I thought I'd give the home test series against South Africa a go. Home series, please note! But, alas, no 'Inspiration' to be had there; the whole series had been packed off to Sky TV, for subscription viewing only- the kind of 'Inspiration' for which one has to pay through the nose, obviously.

And thanks to MartinaYach

Cricket's absolutely my thing, but I'll give all manner of other sports a go (football and motor'sport' obviously excluded), so why not watch 'our' number one tennis player battle his way, hopefully, towards his first Open Title; I'll settle for some of that, I consoled myself. I realise, of course, that so many of you are already well ahead here, but for those that aren't I should point out that The US Masters tennis tournament was also found to be entirely the preserve of Sky TV. Where to look for that "Inspiration" with which to motivate" a Generation", I mused.

Maybe, if you're mind-numbingly naive, you're thinking, "But, surely these deals had already been agreed and signed." If you believe this to be so- but it really isn't the case- keep your eye firmly upon next summer's cricket schedule; let's see if the much heralded 'Inspiration' outweighs the corporate interests, shall we? It was 'your' Government who chose, and chose again, not to ring-fence these 'Inspirational' sports.

Oh, and are we still selling off school playing fields to the highest commercial interests, Mr Gove? Just a passing thought.

And, should you lull yourself into thinking, "Well, I suppose, when all is said and done, it's only a few sports," you'd be oh so alarmingly wrong. Permit me please, to draw your attention away from the now pending Olympic Legacy, and back towards the rather more pressing concerns of 'our' NHS. Let's just take a quick glance at what's been happening there, whilst we've been asleep, shall we?

Should you be a tad less healthy, a tad less privately-health-covered than so many of 'our' athletes, you might just have wondered exactly when it was that your GP 'seamlessly' slipped into the accountant's chair. You might have wondered, or worried passionately, about your GP's or Consultant's growing concern for the cost of your much-needed medicine or operation, the alarming drift towards the, "Let's just keep an eye on things for a while, shall we?" approach. Is your GP, like mine, tending to adopt a somewhat more cost-conscious attitude towards your ailments? Ever wondered who your GP is ultimately far more answerable to, than his or her patients?

Also, thanks toThe Library of Congress

Purely in the interests of retaining an even-handed approach to this crisis, it would be grossly unfair to brand all doctors as having slipped easily, and without protest, into this role. I can't even offer any support for the sort of contention that most have. I'm sure, as with many of 'our' deteriorating 'services' that there are many, within the NHS, fighting the valiant fight, either covertly or, more brazenly, really sticking their necks out for a cause that is right and just. But, on the other hand, experience and circumstance has certainly introduced me to more than a smattering of those who aren't.  

Thanks to Misters Blair, Brown, Major and Cameron and their respective bods, quite regardless of who might have been pulling the strings, 'our' NHS is now over £300,000,000,000 in debt to private interests, through that 'wonderful' scheme, the Private Finance Initiative, whereby disingenuous private companies heavily invest in the NHS, in order to recoup a life-long profit from the British taxpayer. Never has the short hop from scheme to scheming been made more simple. Let's not forget that Blair is now one of the world's richest individuals and that Brown, Major (this is where it all started, back in 1992) and Cameron are all unlikely to ever become paupers. I think it would be more than safe to assume that they all recognise(d) that private companies were always going to place profits and shareholders before other considerations. And that is, effectively, what you, dear reader, have become, 'an other consideration'. Naturally, in this instance, there's been a great deal less emphasis upon the actual consideration.

So, 'While You Were Sleeping' Private Finance Initiatives have stealthily, and with the aid of consecutive UK PMs, managed to almost completely hijack 'our' NHS. And, if you, for one more sleepy moment, might have thought that this is where the damage might stop, just take a peek at who's now been entrusted with the NHS. If you somehow managed to conspire to miss the end of the BSkyB-Leveson enquiry, you're almost certainly wondering why JC isn't currently serving some sort of prison sentence, instead of being 'entrusted' with having a bit of a play with 'our' NHS.

Finally, thanks to Centophobia

There are currently 118 PFI-National Health Service 'contracts' crippling what remains of 'our' NHS. If your NHS 'Trust', being one such victim, finally collapses under the huge burden of debt that PFI has thrust upon it, you'll find it very little consolation to know that it won't have been the first. And should your MP choose to deflect your just indignation with disingenuous claims of "unprecedented or unforeseen circumstances" you might wonder why the lying so-and-so never saw fit to more publicly question the liberal cloaking of all of these deals, behind 'commercial confidentiality' clauses.

Seeking to 'save' 'your' NHS with 'much-needed' private funds, but always behind permanently closed and locked doors; all in 'your' interests, you understand. Somewhere in that contract, that 'commercially confidential' contract, you can assure yourself that the private investor will have been safeguarded. Phew, so at least the private investors and their shareholders won't be losing out, care of you, the taxpayer.

And finally, the absolute highlight of either Olympic spectacle? For me, it simply had to be when George Osborne was booed at the Paralympics Medal Ceremony. It wasn't disrespectful to the athletes or the organisers, as some public spin-doctor wrote; it was far more the slightly reassuring sign that, despite all of those locked doors, all of that dizzying spin, all of those mirrors, all of that smoke, there were still many in the crowds who still saw Osborne for what he will forever remain.

Common decency prevents me from further elaboration.
        

Squatters in the Fast Lane

Like a great many people I've always had a view upon the act of 'squatting.'

In the spirit of modernisation here I've applied the word 'always' very much in line with popular usage, that is incorrectly! Of course I haven't always had an opinion on squatting; there was a time, many years past, when I didn't even know, or probably care, what squatting was. At that time I would have been a child, a young child, more than likely a child still shackled with a great deal of egocentrically-clouded thought. An approaching meal, a favourite possession, what would I be getting for Christmas; those issues would have been of far greater concern. As I raced from one moment to the next, with an energy that has long since deserted me, undoubtedly causing my own fair share of thoughtless damage to the family home, I wouldn't have given so much as a passing thought to those less fortunate than myself.

Many thanks to SnaPsi Сталкер

Probably, my first 'thoughts' upon the subject of squatters and squatting would have been 'helpfully' squidged in amongst all of that overriding self-interest by an early evening news report or 'care' of 'our' daily newspaper, more than likely accidentally chanced upon. At which time, I'm guessing that I may have been of junior school age.

All of those years ago, in a seemingly more innocent time, I resided within a stable family home, in a comfortable outer London suburb. The chances of encountering a squatter or even a suitably squattable building would have been less than minimal. The daily 'news'paper that would, of a morning, have flopped 'invitingly' upon our doormat would have been The Daily Mail, although I seem also to also recall the Daily Express intermittently featuring, thus any first view, upon the act of squatting, would very much have been one siding towards reactionary.

So, since the age of approximately eight or nine, I've always had a view upon the act of squatting.

This statement is more accurate, but is still left open to misinterpretation or misrepresentation; thus is, in effect, only rather less inaccurate. You see, it would be fairer to write that, since any first thoughts upon the act of someone occupying a 'left-vaccant' property, without the consent of the 'legal owner', I have always maintained an opinion. It would be even more informative to clarify that the opinions of that long-ago child and those of the older and far slower pensioner that he eventually became are currently ranged upon almost entirely different sides of the political fence. The variable opinion was always there, but it has had decades in which to morph through periods of serious self-doubt, a great deal of back-tracking and rehashing, and much heavy revision, so much so that in the mind of an ever-interested pensioner the opinion is far less clear now than ever it was in the mind of that long-ago disinterested child.

And thanks to Greenstone Girl

To further clarify, the opinion that I currently hold, I like to think, is neither blindly pro nor anti but merely informed by events. As a home-owner, who regards his one small home as something of a sanctuary from so much of the largely dispassionate world, I absolutely recognise the benefits of safeguarding some properties from the unwelcome attentions of squatters. I recognise the anger and even violence that one might feel towards those who may have turned one's life upside-down. Although not personally given to acts of violence I can still truly imagine sharing such a desire should someone choose to squat in my home.

And, on the surface, that's much the line of thought that 'our' government would like to present to the wider population, as it prepares to soon make the act of squatting illegal. But, is this 'argument' really as black and white as 'our' (mis)representatives would have us believe? Surely, there is also another side to this issue. Nick Ferrari certainly 'thinks' not. I had the misfortune to stumble upon some of his thoughts on the subject only this Sunday, on BBC 1 (Sunday Morning Live, 2nd Sept 2012).

At the programme's outset Nick, the 'shock jock', Nick the 'combative journalist', sat fidgeting, somewhat like a rather truculent schoolboy, awaiting the opportunity to 'share' his 'wisdoms' with the world. His facial expressions appeared to range from disinterested to affronted anger, towards anyone who might dare to think differently to himself. Presumably, we might, oh so briefly, have been forgiven for hoping that Nick's opinions would transpire to be those of the informed adult and not those of the ego-what-will-I-be-getting-for Christmas-centric child. He looked like an adult, at the very least an overfed and somewhat angry child trapped in an adult's body.

So what, in a country quite literally heaving under the weight of nearly a quarter of a million 'intentionally-left-empty'-homes, were Nick's 'informed' views? Was he quick and eager to jump at the opportunity to condemn a society that seeks to covertly protect billionaires, who seek to buy up thousands of empty properties, purely for tax purposes, a society where huge numbers of these homes are boarded-up and left unoccupied to rot for years on end? He's an adult, we might have reasoned, he's had the time and the experience to develop informed opinions, hasn't he?

Also, thank you to alfromelkhorn

Allow me, please, to here deviate, briefly, a tad from the chronology of the broadcast. This, I really need to do, in order to accurately prepare the canvass awaiting Nick's broad-stroke analysis of the situation.

Thus, the second issue to be debated upon the programme was to be the pros and 'cons' of Britain's continued aid to the Third World.' Nick, never shy in coming forward, had also already pre-prepared a short piece, clarifying his 'opinions' upon this subject. You'll probably already have gathered that he was/is rabidly anti such benevolence- no real surprises there- yet, it is more/entirely the evidence he cites, in this short film, that leaves his arguments so much more akin to those of the aforementioned egocentric child than those of the informed adult. At this point, Nick, in an apparently hermetically-sealed bubble of ignorance, suddenly feigns concern for all of those, unable-to-afford-to-heat-their-own-homes-pensioners, all of those Brits who can't afford to buy food and rent a 'home.' Nick would rather, in a far from ideal world, witness a steepling rise in the number of deaths from malaria, than allow money to be diverted from 'solving' these problems closer to home.

"But, many of these unfortunates would be the same people, over whom you were eager to argue the right of billionaires to guarantee the sanctity of their empty townships!" one might have wished, at this point, to scream at the TV, "The very same people!"

Nick, with an apparent balletic prowess that belies his frame, also recognises that the UK's waste-bin-packed front garden culture has proven to be the blight of millions of homes, spinning suddenly through one-hundred-and-eighty political degrees, to 'champion' the ordinary citizen again. In reality, we can only deduce from this evidence, that at least one of Nick's homes is an inner city terrace, with minimal front garden space. Any other conclusion would require Nick to have developed the far more demanding skill of empathy. All evidence to date would suggest that this is highly unlikely to be the case.

Finally, thanks to - reuben -

So, back to the main theme, that of squatting. Nick- and just why he was deemed more worthy of air-time than any reactionary tabloid reader plucked randomly off the street, here remains a complete mystery- without apparent embarrassment or conscience, gave the subject both barrels. He contested that there was absolutely no argument whereby the rights of a homeless or 'criminally' underpaid individual, or parent with young child, was to be deemed more important than the rights of a billionaire to own and leave vacant hundreds of boarded-up properties, purely for the purposes of tax gains. He saw no division between the use of one such property to avoid freezing to death of a winter's night and theft, curiously whilst failing to recognise the abuse of massive property ownership as an act of far greater theft on the part of the billionaire. As far as 'our' Nick was concerned such properties could be boarded up for not just four or five years but forty-five years. And, from such eloquently spoken thoughts, we might also gather that Nick has never, even for the briefest of moments, slipped from the lap of luxury and that he remains thus, very much, a beneficiary of the inner machinations of that much abused tool, networking.

I would contend that Nick 'also' has always had a view upon the act of squatting.' Far more consistent than my own views, probably cemented into place at an early age, Nick's views appear entirely indicative of those of the egocentric child, rather than those of the informed adult.

Finally, of note during Sunday's broadcast, the, unsupported, global figure of 'one in seven people currently being a squatter' was mentioned. I would imagine that this is, if anything, an extremely conservative estimate. And, if those like Nick Ferrari continue to misrepresent the issue upon the national stage, this figure is going to continue to head very much in the wrong direction.