Giving the public what they want: the British are often mocked by people from other countries as a nation that likes to queue. It seems Brexit has exacerbated that tendency.
The Port of Dover has declared a critical incident as coach passengers faced long delays before boarding ferries.
It’s another Brexit benefit, isn’t it?
Here’s the story:
P&O Ferries and DFDS Seaways … reported delays to ferry and coach services, citing bad weather and hold-ups at French border controls.
P&O Ferries announced on Twitter just before 9pm that it was providing refreshments to coach passengers waiting at the cruise terminal and working on getting food and drink to passengers waiting in the buffer zone at the entrance to the port.
The port said high volumes of coach traffic were due to the Easter holidays.
That may seem like common sense to you – anybody’s allegations should be tested, right?
But it also means that it will be easier for those with something to hide to attack the credibility of people who are naturally likely to be highly nervous of authority figures and under extreme stress, simply from coming forward.
And of course, if you are making a historic child sex abuse claim against another member of the public, your chances of being believed have always been low – especially if the allegation is against somebody who has a good relationship with the police.
Mrs Mike has personal experience of that, which means that This Writer has first-hand experience of it as well.
For that matter, how many allegations of sexual abuse and/or rape carried out against adult women actually end in a successful prosecution? I’ll tell you: one-fifteenth – and that’s one-fifteenth of the three-seventeenths of rapes that are actually reported (according to figures that are – I’m sorry to say – several years old).
Don’t mistake me – any investigation that puts a paedophile in jail is welcome.
It’s just a shame our society refuses to apply the same standards to everybody.
A former Newcastle United footballer has become the latest to say he was abused by coach George Ormond.
David Eatock told the BBC’s Victoria Derbyshire show he had been groomed by Ormond, later to be jailed for six years, between the ages of 18 and 21.
Mr Eatock, now 40, was not part of the court case that saw Ormond convicted in 2002 for assaulting seven boys, but has now filed a complaint to the police.
He said he had left the club “a shell” of his former self.
It comes as the NSPCC said its hotline – set up to offer support to victims of child sex abuse within football – had received 860 calls in its first week.
Within the first three days of it launching, the organisation made more than 60 referrals to a range of agencies across the UK.
Isn’t it nice to see some clear blue water emerge between the main political parties on an important issue?
Less than two weeks after Ed Miliband announced that he would tackle the “epidemic” of zero-hours contracts if Labour wins the next general election, the Conservatives have confirmed that Universal Credit – if they can ever get it working – will force jobseekers into those very contracts.
Labour said workers on zero-hours contracts should not be obliged to be available outside contracted hours; be free to work for other employers; have a right to compensation if shifts are cancelled at short notice; have ‘clarity’ from their employer about their employment status, terms and conditions; have the right to request a contract with a ‘minimum amount of work’ after six months, that could only be refused if employers could prove their business could not operate any other way; and have an automatic right to a fixed-hours contract after 12 months with the same employer.
At the time, the Tories said the number of zero-hours contracts had increased under the last Labour government, which had done nothing about it.
This tired excuse has been trotted out far too many times to be taken seriously any more, but it may have led some members of the public to believe that the Tories were distancing themselves from zero-hours contracts as well. They are, after all, supposed to be The Party of More Choice. Perhaps they are, themselves, less than keen on this kind of exploitation.
Currently, people on Jobseekers’ Allowance are able to refuse such jobs without facing penalties.
The policy change was revealed in a letter from employment minister Esther McVey to Labour MP Sheila Gilmore. She said Job Centre “coaches” would be able to “mandate to zero-hours contracts” – basically forcing them to accept this kind of exploitation by employers.
The DWP has also stated: “We expect claimants to do all they reasonably can to look for and move into paid work. If a claimant turns down a particular vacancy (including zero-hours contract jobs) a sanction may be applied.”
The message from the Conservatives – the Party of More Choice – is clear: Beggars can’t be choosers.
Their chums on the boards of big businesses want more profits, and know the way to get it – employ people on low pay and with no employee benefits. Zero-hours contracts mean you can be made to work fewer hours than you need in order for employers to have to pay National Insurance credits for you. You don’t get sick pay; holiday pay; or a pension. And you’ll probably still be on benefits, meaning the work that you do is subsidised by other hardworking taxpayers, most of whom earn only a little more than you do.
It’s a racket – as bad as workfare/mandatory work activity/the work programme/whatever-they’re-calling-it-today, in which taxpayers subsidise work carried out by jobseekers for participating employers, hugely boosting those firms’ profits while ensuring that the number of people without proper, paid jobs remains high.
Their attitude is that, if you don’t have a job, you are a beggar.
Beggars can’t be choosers.
So they’ll choose what you do, and they – or their boardroom chums – will benefit from it.
If you are a working taxpayer, think about this before casting your vote later this month – and especially before you do so in May 2015: A vote for the Conservative Party means more of your fellow citizens will be prevented from getting proper jobs and becoming contributing members of society by the greedy – and idle – rich.
A vote for the Conservative Party means more of your tax money going to subsidise fat business board members who already have more money than they can ever use.
A vote for the Conservative Party means a better life for them and their friends – and a poorer life for you.
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.