Political Correctness

This is indeed a sad story in the Mail on Sunday.

Reading the Mail on Sunday story what I find is sad is that there seems to have been a private conversation between two individuals, perhaps more accurately brief exchange who have over time grown friendly and got to know one-and-other, and yet when the exchange was overheard it was a third person that took offence to the remark and they who raised a complaint on the grounds of racism, which seemingly led to the sad events that followed.

My question is, without knowing the particulars of Mr Amors case and set in a broad context, is it not really the case anymore that it is for individuals to take offence for themselves?  It would seem that two of the three people concerned had an association based on knowing each other and that the remark made was within the acceptable perameters of their friendship.  In such a case there would appear to have been no offence caused. 

Can someone cause no offence and yet still potentially be punished for making an offensive remark?  Are we comfortable with that?

Perhaps the unnamed third party could have consulted privately with Mr Amors associate and established whether offence had been caused or not, and in doing so if he or she felt appropriate offered assistance?

At what point, or volume, or context does a private conversation now become other people's business?  Am I alone in thinking that we would struggle to define such limits and that we really ought not need to? 

I am in no doubt of the need for laws to protect people from discrimination, for the need for HR departments, and the need for Social Workers.  But are we now smothered by too many protections, laws and directives?  Can common sense and individual conscience survive in a world determined to legislate everybody into one-world-thinking?  Can two or three people no longer sit down and air their opinions and feelings openly with each other before feeling the need to refer the matter to the appropriate "authority" or have we now surrendered the right of privacy and the right to take offence to higher powers?  

The terror of being scolded for the remark after having been suspended seems to have sadly overwhelmed Mr Amors into taking a tragic course of action.  It just seems very sad to me that had this particular third party not raised a formal complaint that no offence had been rendered, no discriminating behavior disadvantaged anyone and Mr Amor would still be alive.

Bully Brown

There has been speculation for weeks, but in the Sunday Mail they have the taster of Andrew Rawnsley's soon to be released book.  Seeing as it is Saturday night, I am little tipsy, so I will therefore link to the Mail and copy and paste a few talking points regarding our shameful PM below.  I will add my comments that he, Harperson and many in this Labour cabinet will claim that they are the people that fight against this kind of behaviour in the work place... The word we all can therefore use is "hypocrites" as they once again are shown not to practice what they preach.  Additionally, he is again characterised as a man clearly not of the stuff to hold such high office; he is not standing down so we must ensure he is removed.

From the Mail:

Britain's top civil servant ordered Gordon Brown to 'curb your volcanic temper' after complaints that he was abusive to his Downing Street staff, it has emerged.
The unprecedented rebuke, delivered by Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell, was revealed amid explosive disclosures about Mr Brown's wild and violent outbursts.
The Prime Minister was forced to go on television to deny he had physically assaulted his aides as a new book claimed:

• Sir Gus ordered an official inquiry into allegations of bullying by Mr Brown.
• Paranoid Mr Brown grabbed an aide violently and shouted: 'They're out to get me!'
• The raging PM thumped the rear of the front seat of his car so hard that it scared the bodyguard sitting in it; while an aide sitting next to Mr Brown thought the PM was going to smash him in the face.
• Mr Brown dragged a No10 secretary from her chair and took over at her keyboard.
• He manhandled a senior adviser who told him he was late for a meeting with VIPs, yelling: 'Why do I have to meet these ****ing people!'

Mail On Sunday

I find myself wondering already which minister will be the focus of next Sunday's expenses story.

Wankergate

In response to this story in the Mail on Sunday, I would like to add my voice to those demanding that Jacqui Smith be sacked. Not allowed to resign, sacked.

The payment of expenses for her husband Richard Timney to be her Commons Assistant needs to be investigated, starting with checking how many times he has been to the Commons in the capacity of that role, and ending with deciphering who is actually submitting Jacqui Smith expenses and by what criteria items were and were not submitted. Any improper payments should be immediately paid back.

A successor Home Secretary will be able to immediately move into the vacant grace and favour home already being subsidised by the tax payer, which has been left empty while the Home Secretary lodges with her sister.

David Cameron would, in my opinion be well advised to conscript a liked backbencher to draw up proposals to be implemented with immediate effect of a Conservative government coming to power, those guidelines should be published immediately. David Davis, Doug Carswell, Bill Cash are all good names for such a task.

Unite's Leader Staying In Waldorf Despite Grace And Favour House

The Mail has the story that Derek Simpson, leader of the union Unite has been staying in a £399 per night suite at the Waldorf despite having a £800,000 grace and favour house just 35 minutes away.

The full story is here.

I wonder what Unites members will make of their money being spent in such a way?

Simpson, along with other union leaders has been very vocal about bankers large salaries and bonuses. But the Sunday Mail lists a number what they call Fat Cat Perks that Simpson enjoys from the union, including a chauffeur-driven-car.