With the Government looking at future cuts to try to slash their deficit, it’s no surprise that they might be trying to increase the amount of tax gathered in.  Of course, if they took Liberal Democrat advice to stop the highly paid from side-stepping their obligations to pay tax it would go a long way, however it looks like the Government might have hit on another lucrative source of income.  Hammering the lower paid.

Having two paid jobs isn’t just for the rich, indeed many of the lowest paid in society juggle two or three jobs to make ends meet.  Councillors are usually at neither extreme, but our allowances do count as a second income, which is taxed (as it should be), though most Councillors with a job tend to use their allowance to help us to afford to take unpaid leave from our main jobs as on the whole Councillors’ allowances are not enough (and not intended to be enough) to replace a normal job by any means.

So, as far as the tax people are concerned I have two jobs.  Obviously my allowances go onto my main paying job, so the rest is taxed without allowances, so far so good.  I got a new tax code last week telling me that my Councillors’ allowance would now be D0.  Checking this means that my Councillors’ allowance would be taxed in its entirety at 40%.  Now I’m reasonably good at sums so quickly established that my main job does not take me very close to the higher tax threshold and never has, but unless I complained, they were going to assume that I earned at the higher tax rate and tax my entire Council pay accordingly.  I’m not the only one, some other Councillors seem to be in the same boat and I’m starting to get reports of other people getting recoded likewise for their second jobs.

I phoned up, waited for ages in the queue spoke to a person, had the figures to hand and they were very nice and quickly put me back on tax code BR, where it belongs.  However there are a lot of people who are terrified of phoning the Tax people and who would find phoning the local-rate national number for half an hour or more unaffordable from a mobile on contract.  Fear of getting into trouble (or just inertia) means that if this is widespread then there’s going to be a lot of people out there, many on low wages who will be paying twice the tax which they should on their second incomes.  Am I being uncharitable in my conclusion as to what might be going on, or are those in charge of the Country’s finances really that cynical?

Although the Government has tinkered with this right, it is still embedded in our legal system that somebody cannot be tried twice and punished twice for the same offence.  This has altered somewhat so that if it turns out that the evidence was not understood at the time, or new evidence is discovered or (more controversial) it turns out that the prosecution made a total mess of the case at the time.  However, if somebody has been tried, found guilty and carried out in full the punishment required by the Courts they can not and should not be tried and punished for it all over again at a later date.

This is at the heart of the issue with the man formerly known as Jon Venables.  He was responsible for a nasty murder, however he was tried, found guilty did his time, cooperated with the programs which were trying to turn him into a responsible person (and actually does seem to have managed 9 years staying relatively out of trouble following his release, which I suspect he might not have managed had he not committed that murder but instead grown up whilst continuing down the path of be his increasingly criminal ways at the time). 

If the sentence for that murder was seen by many as too lenient then that is one thing which isn’t Jon Venables’ fault (unlike the murder itself, which clearly was), at ten he could barely grasp what was going on in Court, he can’t be held responsible for the rules around sentencing which the judge followed.

There seems to be a nasty subcurrent around whatever he is alleged to have done that if he comes to court with his cover blown, it will be a chance for the jury to ensure that he’s given yet more punishment for what he did when he was ten.  That is unjust, if he has been accused of doing something wrong then he should be tried on the facts of whether he has done what he is accused of doing and if guilty punished for that and only that.  That is why if justice is to be done, he cannot come to court as Jon Venables.  If we start dragging people back to prison to be repeatedly punished for past offences for which they have already done the punishment which the law has demanded, then we will no longer have a criminal justice system.

Tomorrow, another drop-in session at the Market (with the police) will be held.  We’ll be in the seated area between 12 and 1.  All welcome.

I’m quite happy to be a Standard Class traveller.  Of course I’d like to be wealthy enough for First Class to be my choice, but I travel standard.  However, maybe I’m being picky but when I’ve paid (often a high price if at short notice) to travel on the West Coast Main Line to London I’d like to have a seat.  Ideally, I’d like a seat and maybe a bit of table to put stuff on.  Nothing special, space for a cup of tea and maybe a laptop, or a newspaper or a book (not being greedy, I know that I’m unlikely to get share of a table big enough to accommodate them all).  The reailty as most of us who know what the West Coast main line is like, is 4 carriages of standard class where we’re crammed like sardines with many standing for the entire journey with four empty carriages of luxury taunting us at the front.  To add insult to injury, many of those in first class who booked in adavance are paying less than some standard class passengers who had to buy a ticket on the day!  Paying nearly £200 pounds for enough standing room for a battery hen is no joke.

Now Sir Nicholas revealed an unpleasant snobbery when he talked about the “sort of people” who travel standard class.  Oddly enough we don’t like standing from London Manchester any more than he does, but the fact that conditions are not acceptable in standard class cannot be denied.  It is a pity that he didn’t choose to spend more of his many years in Parliament getting this situation rectified instead of buying a first class ticket, leaving us commoners to cram together in standard while he quietly despised us all.  His choice of words reflect badly upon him.  The conditions endured by us standard class travellers reflect very badly upon Virgin.

There’s another advice session at Emmanuel Church, Blackwin Street tonight, 7:30 to 8:30.  All welcome.

It’s hard to believe that it’s 20 years since we saw Nelson Mandela’s epic walk to freedom.  Or rather since those of us watching in the UK at the time saw the BBC2 ident (known as the logo in those days) whilst the continuity announcer wittered endlessly on about forthcoming events, such as snooker and darts for an agonising age followed by the switch to South Africa just in time to see a fleet of cars head off into the distance while the commentator assured us that we’d just seen one of the iconic images of the 20^th Century.  Oh well, we caught up with it later on the news.

What has always struck me as truly impressive about Nelson Mandela was his ability to deal fairly and without any obvious public bitterness with the people who had wronged him.  We all like to hope that if we were in that position we’d be able to deal justly with our former oppressors, but the capacity never to allow a bitter word about it in public is truly the measure of a great man.

South Africa still has a long way to go, but Nelson Mandela has shown us that reaching out to people and finding common ground is far more effective than violence and retribution.

It is appalling that the MPs which have been charged with fraud on their expenses appear to be wanting to claim Parliamentary immunity.  The point of having the rule of law is that everybody is subject to it (the Magna Carta was about forcing the King to acknowledge that the law even applied to him).  MPs who break the law should be subject to it as much as anybody else.

Parliamentary immunity is expressly intended to ensure that MPs may speak freely in the Houses of Parliament without fear of the libel laws or being arrested for their words.  Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom to invent a mortgage and make fraudulent claims.

MPs who make fraudulent claims should be treated like benefits cheats, not given immunity.

The Pope’s attack on the UK Equality laws are interesting for several reasons, but the main one is the notion that discrimination might be reasonable if there’s a religious belief behind it.  There are many religions in the World, some of which hold views which might justify discrimination on a range of reasons.

For instance, is it acceptable for a school to refuse to appoint the most able candidate as a Headteacher purely on the grounds of their gender, if it is a faith school?  If that’s considered acceptable, what about racial discrimination if it’s a point of doctrine?

There are some sects of the Christian faith (some churches in the Deep South of the USA for example) which teach that the races are not equal and that racial mixing is against God’s will.  Is racism OK if somebody can claim that it’s part of their faith?  Until Vatican II, the view that the Jews should be held responsible for the death of Jesus Christ was considered a mainstream Roman Catholic belief and some individuals still hold those views.  Does that make anti-semitism OK provided it’s done by somebody religious who can quote the Bible, rather than a shaven-headed knuckle-dragging thug?

Attacking the very principle of equality whereby people are treated equally before the law leads to some very unsavoury conclusions.  Churches already have a huge amount of freedom to choose to discriminate against who is able to join priesthoods, but they should not be able to sack somebody from their jobs because of their gender, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.  The Pope should know better than to argue for intolerance and discrimination.

Some jobs that Councillors are asked to do are a joy.  Before Christmas, Gorton Market had a contest for local children where they had to hunt for well-concealed Santas on the stalls and in the communal area.  It wasn’t easy - I had a go (but not as a contestant, obviously) and couldn’t find half of them!  Today, the two winners Kyle and Chloe were presented with their prizes - a new mountain bike each.

It was clear that both were delighted to have won, as were their families, and Gorton Market put on a nice little presentation event.  I hope that they both get years of enjoyment out of their bikes.

Gorton is famous for ite neighbourliness and I know that a lot of people have been helping each other out during the freeze.  However this weekend, it’s worth everybody having a think if they know of any neighbours who might be likely to have problems getting out and about (for a range of reasons) and check that they’re ok, that they are able to keep warm and have enough supplies to get them through the cold snap.

That little bit of human contact might make all the difference to an elderly or vulnerable neighbour.

Parallels have been drawn between this winter and the winter of 1978/79, now remembered as The Winter of Discontent.  However, although we have indeed had the economy going rapidly down the tubes, huge rises in public spending, floods followed by huge snow (and looking in my crystal ball I won’t be amazed if we have floods again when this lot melts), we haven’t had the wall-to-wall strikes which dogged us in 1979.  Just lots of grumbles and threats of industrial action by many people who are understandable annoyed that our pay freezes and extra taxes appear to be funding lavish bonuses for the bankers who got the economy into the mess that it’s in.

Then as now, a not very popular Labour Government was hanging on to power as long as they could by their well-chewed fingernails, (although their majority is such that they don’t need to ship MPs from intensive care by ambulance to “vote” in the Commons Courtyard - yet).  There’s a lot going on which reminds me of 1979 except that then people got angry, now we’re grouchily resigned and vent our spleen in trolley rage rather than express a desire to get out and vote for change.

The problem is, the Conservatives aren’t offering much as an alternative.  There’s no feeling that Cameron will grab the economy by the scruff of the neck and act.  The fact that one of their priorities seems to be to reopen the fox-hunting debate suggests a desire to waste as much Parliamentary time as possible on a debate which occupied such a huge amount of Parliament’s time for years from 1997 suggests the opposite.  It certainly doesn’t indicate a desire to get Parliament back making real decisions again, the ones which matter on housing, the economy and jobs.

So when the other two parties are concerned with sounding good but delivering nothing, it’s hardly a surprise that we’re all turning into a nation of irritated grumblers.

I’d like to wish everybody who visits this site a very Happy New Year for 2010.  Surely I’m not the only one who can’t believe that it’s ten years since we saw a glum-looking Queen staring disdainfully at Tony Blair’s attempts to get her to link hands to Auld Land Sine before the wall of fire failed to materialise on the Thames?

Whatever else this decade has been, it’s been quick!

As this blog approaches its first Christmas, I’d like to wish everybody who drops in a very Merry Christmas.

The whole argument about “non-doms” is astonishing.  People who are either member of our Parliament (in the Lords) or are seeking to become MPs who are registered for tax in another Country.  Or to put it another way, people elected or appointed to decide on taxation levels for us, spending requirements for our services and to oversee the process of tax collection - from us - choose to be subject to somebody else’s tax regime and avoid paying the taxes about which they are voting.  Whatever party these non-doms are in, it smacks of the view that only the “little people” (that’s you or me) pay tax, the “big people” can employ clever accountants to ensure they never have to pay their fair share, even though they can afford it better than most.  The fact it, the difference in standard of living due take-home pay between half a million pounds and a million pounds is far less than the difference of a fiver a week to somebody on a low wage.

Surely the first requirement of a Parliamentarian (Commons or Lords) should be that they pay the same taxes which the people on whose behalf they are deciding these matters have to pay?  Frankly, non-doms should not be eligible for standing for Parliament or sitting in the Lords.

On the surface, the Tories plans to give tax relief for married couples seems attractive to some, but a moment’s thought makes it look darker.  Looking at it another way, it seems a punishment for being single.  Especially being a single parent.

It is not clear to me why somebody who is grieving for their wife or husband who has just died should be punished for their newly-found (and unwanted) single status and taxed extra.  Similarly, it seems strange that somebody who is plucking up courage to leave a violent partner with the children should be financially penalised by the tax system, in addition to all of the other financial penalties which somebody in that situation is already be likely to face.  Or why punish somebody who has been abandoned by their husband or wife?  And is it really more desirable that a couple who are making each other miserable, daily exposing their children to a toxic home environment stay together rather than splitting and being able to bring their children up in happier homes?

Tax relief for being married means additional penalties when that status is lost, regardless of whether or not that single status is anybody’s “fault”.  The last thing that somebody who has just lost their partner needs is an additional tax bill on top of their worries about how to bring up their children alone.

The Conservative plans seem to treat a War Widow as being morally the same as somebody who walks out of their family and equally worthy of punishment.  Why?

What is emerging from the Iraq War Enquiry is a clear picture that, despite assurances given by Tony Blair at the time that everything possible was being done to avoid war, the decision to go to war was in fact taken long before Parliament properly got to debate it, or the UN resolutions were passed.  At the same time an equally depressing picture is emerging of a near total failure to plan for the aftermath.

At the time, many of us felt that the case for weapons of mass destruction posing a credible threat from Iraq had not been made and also felt that the Government had decided to go to war whatever Saddam Hussein did or did not do, but it’s still shocking to see our most cynical fears proven true.  It is pretty clear that our own Government did not believe that there were any such weapons capable of being used by Iraq either.  Let us not forget either that a good man, Dr. David Kelly was hounded to his death for suggesting that the Government had overstated the evidence.

I am proud that I took part in the Stop the War protests, but it is now clear that no amount of protest would have stopped them.  It was a done deal.

Saddam Hussein’s regime was indeed odious and despite the years of chaos inflicted in Iraq since due to our failure to plan for after his overthrow many in Iraq are pleased that he and his henchmen are no longer in power there, but there are many other equally appalling regimes around the World which we choose to do nothing about.  It’s almost funny (well, it would be if it wasn’t so serious we could weep) how some regimes are not attacked by our oh-so-ethical Government for their record on torture when they are counted as “allies” or when they have no assets worth exploiting. 

There is no satisfaction in this enquiry though for those many families who are missing a loved one this Christmas because they died in that illegal war.  Members of our armed forces put themselves in harm’s way to protect us all, they deserve better from our Government than to have their lives wasted in pursuit of a pack of lies.

I should be helping to review the papers on GMR tomorrow at 12 noon.  I’ve not actually read tomorrow’s papers yet, so have absolutely no idea what I’ll be saying.  Witty suggestions welcomed.

So Nick Griffin has now decided to call foul on the fact that the audience was against him after his inept performance on Question Time, claiming that London was no longer “British enough” for his message.

Ah, and there I was thinking that he’d been trounced by a load of ordinary people from a wide range of ethnic groups, including what he likes to describe as British, who all showed themselves to be his superior both morally and intellectually.

Fact is, every political party is aware that Question Time is difficult and tend to put up their best performers to ensure a good showing.  If Nick Griffin is the best that the BNP can manage, then that says more about the BNP than anybody else.  Meanwhile I’d have liked a Question Time talking about the issues of the day, not a Question Time talking about the BNP.

The family fun day at Aspinal School takes place today - 11 till 3.  There wiill be fun and games, lots of events and residents and Councillors in period dress.  On the last point, yes I do know what I look like in the rig.  You have been warned!

Gorton 100 rolls out its next big event on Saturday 17th October with a Fun Day at Aspinal School.  There’s lots on offer from a demonstration of Raptors, period events, old games and lots of us dressed in period dress from 100 years ago.  That includes myself and my Gorton Councillor colleagues, Councillors Wendy Helsby, Simon Ashley, John Bridges and Charles Glover, with other members of the Focus Team, like Rob Copeland also promising to cut a dash in period dress.  However,  I didn’t manage to get to my fitting until after certain residents (you know who you are) had snaffled the better outfits for the larger lady.

So be warned, when I looked in the mirror I looked horribly like those stern faced women from old family photos and even frightened myself…

Not much blogging this week, as it is Party Conference Season.  There is so much more to conference than what is iappening in the main hall.  Lots of interesting meetings, events, and the chance to see news being made by the press.

So, from Richard Dawkins plugging his book to a down the line chat with Manchester Radio, it’s a busy time and reminds me that politics can be fun too.  However it makes me wonder why the South Coast seems to have an entirely different climate.  I’ve seen more sunshine this week than I’ve seen all Summer.

Most importantly, however the Liberal Democrats have been debating a wide range of important issues on housing, unemployment, rights, crime and the economy so that our General Election Policies will be the right ones for Britain.

Like the other mainstream political parties, the Liberal Democrats were delighted to be part of the Pride Parade this weekend.  I was struck by the sheer numbers of people of all ages, shapes and sizes who’d come to watch and had a great day watching the parade go by.  Except for one small group of very unhappy looking people at the Peace Garden.  Some held biblical references which we were all supposed to look up in the bibles which the protesters presumed that we were carrying as we went past (doesn’t everybody carry a bible at all times in order to look up stray quotations?).  One however struck me as something odd, it said “God hates Fags”.  Now my first thought as a lifelong non-smoker was to agree that they are vile things, cost a fortune and I know a lot of people who’ve been trying to give up for years.  James I famously wrote a treatise on how it was Ungodly and bad for the health Centuries before the link with lung cancer was proven.  However I suspect on reflection that the person holding the banner wasn’t simply expressing Jesus’ views on the Smoking Ban, nor were they using the opportunity to show solidarity with one of our more prominently bisexual monarchs.

In fact it seems that these protesters had come there just to be offended by what they saw.  Many people who think that they’d not enjoy the event simply do not choose to watch the parade and do something else with their bank holiday free time, but this group seems to have come to the parade with banners ready in advance simply to be offended and to tell everybody else just how offended they were.  Of course, it being a family show, with lots of police around there wasn’t anything offensive in the parade as such, unless they were offended by the mere fact of gay people existing and I’m not sure if they’d be able to admit it if they weren’t upset at all (besides, what a waste of a banner).

So I hope that everybody who turned up in order to enjoy themselves did so and that those who came for the sole purpose of being miserable got what they wanted out of the event.

There seems to be a real enthusiasm now for “Independent” people to do politics instead of politicians.  But is independent always better?

In effect an Independent is somebody who hasn’t nailed their colours to a political mast.  There can be several reasons for this, e.g.:

1.      The person has no opinions at all on anything – this might not be good if elected to office, even if they’re famous for something else.

2.     The person has opinions but they don’t fit within a broad remit of any existing party or movement – this might produce an effective outcome if elected to office, depending on what those opinions are.

3.     The person does have opinions which fit with a political grouping but choose to conceal this from the electorate – this is dishonest.

Of those three outcomes, the second sort might well produce an effective Mayor, MP or Councillor, but the question remains as to what those opinions are.  I know many independent-minded people who hold views on some issues which I find objectionable or very strange.  This might not matter in some areas, but might matter very much if these are views which will influence what services should be offered to local residents, or even which local residents should be entitled to services.

The problem with Independents is that on every subject which is important, it’s necessary to try to establish what they believe before being able to judge where they are coming from.  A political label will generally guide people as to where somebody is coming from and how they are likely to vote on an issue of which they know relatively little themselves (for instance I’d be happy to go along with Vince Cable’s guidance on economic matters).

At the end of the day, it’s what somebody elected wants to do in office which counts.  A question which should be directed at “Independent” celebrities as much as everybody else.

There’s a conversation which I’m sure that people of all political parties have had on the doorsteps  more than once, it runs along the lines of:

“I never vote.  Nobody’s ever told me what they all stand for”

“Have you read any of the leaflets?”

“No, they go straight in the bin.”

“Have you watched any of the broadcasts or the news?”

“Why would I do that?  Anyway, if they wanted me to vote, they’d tell me what they’re all about.”

It’s depressing becuase such individuals tend to blame the politicians for not informing them, whilst carefully ensuring that every way in which people do try to communicate is ignored or disposed of unread.  Which is food for thought today when Manchester will be commemorating the Peterloo Massacre.  Ordinary men and women gathered to hear speeches on why ordinary people should be allowed to vote and why a City like Manchester should have representation both at Council and Parliamentary level.  The authorities charged and many were killed or maimed.

People without a vote knew very well why it mattered.  It was more than a Century later before universal male suffrage came in and longer still before all women were given the vote.  It still does matter.

There was a lovely meeting of the Thomas Regan Court Tenants today.  There was a useful talk from Eastlands about the work of their section to help ensure that tenants avoid financial problems.

Then they let me know that they’d filled in a sponsor form for my Great Manchester Run and they’ve added £80 to my total for Cancer Research.  That’s just really wonderful.  Thank you all.

A reminder that there’s an Advice Session at “Belle Vue House” tomorrow, 11 - 12.  All welcome.

Sadly, I missed the Procession yesterday, as I was in meetings all day.  However it looked like it was a fun event, enjoyed by the crowd.  Clearly the floats and banners were intended to be witty and a bit provocative, but I suspect that some in the City Council suddenly lost their senses of humour when it came to the smokers.

Now I’m a lifelong non-smoker, who rejoiced when an evening out finally became smoke-free.  Coming home without my clothes reeking of stale smoke is a genuine benefit of banning smoking at places of work (including pubs and clubs).  However given the number of anti-smoking messages everywhere (including on the packets) I really don’t think that the mere sight of a smoker is going to make kids want to smoke.  It is getting to the stage where starting to smoke is increasingly a deliberate choice and it’s hard to imagine anybody choosing to start smoking can really be unaware of the risks (and the huge “SMOKING KILLS” on the packet might give a last gasp hint).  At the end of the day, if adults freely choose to do this, it’s a legal activity and as long as they don’t make me smoke their waste smoke, and dispose of their dog-ends thoughtfully, let them get on with it.

So the “Unrepentant Smokers” wheezing and spluttering their way down Deansgate in the procession (followed by a “SMOKING KILLS” banner) yesterday can only be taken as satire which flagged up some double standards.  After all, there weren’t people demonstrating against the cholesterol being openly celebrated on the “Fish and Chips” float (where people were cheerfully urging everybody to “eat more chips”).  And the smokers, a group now exiled to the streets were parading with a lot of groups, many marginalised, such as the Big Issue Sellers (also exiled to the streets, but for very different reasons).  Po-faced Councillors (you know who you are) complaining that a single group like this on a short walk will undo a lifetime of health education are really showing themselves up as missing something vital in the sense of humour department.  That, or they really will do anything to get on tv!

The worst has happened, my trusty electronic organiser and diary has suddenly appeared to die on me.  As a result, my main brain for remembering where I’m supposed to be has gone.  Please can any Gorton Community Group with meetings coming up in the near future which you arranged with me, please send me a reminder.  Many thanks.

I was never particularly a Michael Jackson fan (or even a Jacksons fan), but over the last few days so much of his much of his music has been played that it brought home how much of his music had provided an audio-track to my life.  It was also a shock to realise how long it had been since he had produced anything new, with the last years of his life seeming to have descended into a form of freak show which should serve as a warning to people seeking fame as a desirable end in itself.

The real sadness is that there are three young children who have never know any parent but himself (thanks to some rather disturbing legal agreements which seemed to have been designed to remove their mothers from their lives, which seem ok for the rich and famous, but would set alarm bells ringing with Social Services if the rest of us try it) now being the subject of custody battles between some who might be more interested in the remainder of the back-catalogue than their welfare.   I hope that whoever wins this battle will work to ensure that they have as normal an upbringing as possible and that they will no longer have to live their lives veiled from the outside World.

A lot of local people have friends and family who serve in the armed forces.  On Remembrance Day, I always notice how many familiar Gorton faces are in the crowd, cheering on the veterans and current serving soldiers.  There’s an unwritten understanding with the Armed Forces.  They are willing to put their lives on the line when asked to serve, but in exchange it is the responsibility of those in Government to ensure that they are only asked to do so for a good reason and a just cause.

There are good arguments for the involvement in Afghanistan.  The Taliban did shelter those behind the September 11 atrocities, their regime was exporting terrorism across the region and their human rights record particularly appalling.  Iraq is a different matter.  Saddam Hussein was a dreadful dictator (though there are many in the World with equally appalling records against whom there is no intention to take action), but Ba’athism was a creed of a secular state, which is exactly opposed to what al-Qaeda always wanted - a religious dictatorship.  Attempts to link the Iraqi regime to al-Qaeda didn’t wash when the invasion was being prepared and won’t wash now.

It is becoming clear that the motivations for the Iraqi War were other than were publicly proclaimed at the time.  This means that people might have died for a lie.  This breaks the deal with our Armed Forces.  Those who have lost loved ones, those who have been maimed in the conflict and the rest of us (who paid for it) have a right to know why we did it, the real reasons why we sent people to die and why we didn’t seem to plan for the aftermath of the invasion, resulting in many hundreds of Iraqi casualties as their Country descended into lawless chaos.  In short, we need a proper, public investigation into why we went to war and the lessons to be learned.  That is the best way to honour the memory of those who lost their lives.

A private inquiry, held behind closed doors with only the sanitised conclusions released will answer nothing and is an insult to those who have lost loved ones in Iraq.

A new directory enquiries service is being launched on 18 June, but it isn’t very funny. It is almost certain that you (like me) will have been told nothing about it.  The 118 800 database now has millions of private mobile phone numbers, including those bought from various companies’ marketing departments and from Thursday next week, they’ll be letting anybody ask for it (at a price, of course). 

Cheekily, they’ve made it up to us to opt out, rather than for us to ask to opt in whilst keeping it as low-key as possible.  Whilst it may suit many people, especially those who do not have landlines to be in the directory, most of us regard our mobile numbers as something which we tend to be fairly careful handing out, to stop us being buzzed while we’re at work for instance.

Frankly, this isn’t right.  However with the limited time available before it goes live, all that can be done about it is for us to opt out, if we wish.  Apparently, the phone number is nearly always solidly engaged, as they didn’t anticipate any advance publicity so weren’t expecting many people to try to get off their list, which says a lot about them and the clandestine way in which they’ve been bringing in this service.

It is just wrong for such a large-scale invasion of privacy to be brought in so quietly.  118800 should be ashamed of themselves.

From their FAQ page:

How did you get the mobile numbers?

Our mobile phone directory is made up from various sources. Generally it comes from companies who collect mobile telephone numbers from customers in the course of doing business and have been given permission by the customers to share those numbers.Your mobile phone number may be on the database without you realising it, and children’s numbers may also be held, particularly if a parent is managing the account for them.If you don’t want to be contacted via the service, it’s up to you to opt out. This will take up to four weeks to take effect. There are three ways to opt out:

• Visit the 118 800 website

• Text the letter E to 118800 from your mobile phone

• Call 0800 138 6263 (although, not surprisingly, this number is currently experiencing high volumes of calls).

One of the big problems with a Euro election is that most of the campaign isn’t actually about what MEPs can and should do in Europe and the domestic focus of the campaigns (from all parties) can lead people to believe that it doesn’t much matter at all whether they vote or not, or who they vote for.

However what happens in Europe does matter.  It matters a lot.  Most of the main issues facing us all today, from climate change to the economic crisis simply cannot be dealt with by one Country alone.  If we want to stop employers switching their factories to Countries with lower standards of pay and working conditions, we need Europe to guarantee minimum standards, stopping employers trying to force conditions down.  If we are serious about tackling climate change, Britain cutting our carbon emissions alone simply will not do.  Europe works best when we positively engage with it and work with other European nations to get the best deal for us all.

If we end up with a BNP MEP in the North West, we will all be represented by somebody who believes that anybody who doesn’t pass their racial purity standards has no right to exist, cannot be classed as British and should be sent “back” to wherever.  Looking around Manchester, that’s a lot of people whose grandchildren could be outlawed.  A BNP MEP will gain access to enough funding to employ an office full of full-time staff to churn out statements such as why a sports star such as Amir Khan should not be allowed to live here and they will use their funding to try to stir up racial hatred in communities which are currently getting along fine.

We need MEPs who will work for all residents of the North West regardless of the colour of their skin or faiths (or no faiths).    All our votes matter on Thursday.

I’d like to thank everybody who stood by the roads today and cheered all of us “runners” on.  Especially those who stayed after the heavens opened and the wind started blowing horizontal rain into our faces all the way back from Old Trafford.  People’s encouragement from the side of the road is part of what makes the Great Manchester Run special.

My time was nothing to blog about, though I was within the hour and a half, but it looks as though I’m going to be well over my initial target of £400 for Cancer Research, so thanks for everybody who sponsored me.

It’s now time for a little lie down.

Well, I can’t say that the training has gone well, but I am looking forward to Sunday - or rather the run being over.  The good news is that the generosity of local people, friends, colleagues and relatives means that I’ve nearly reached my initial target of £400 for Cancer Research, though it would be wonderful to exceed this.  I’m trying to get a button to appear next to this blog.

The Great Manchester Run is a lovely event and it’s always cheering to see how many people turn out to encourage us all on our way.  An occasional shout-out by name from the side of the road really does spur us on.  I don’t know if I was the “Jackie” referred to when somebody yelled “Come on Jackie” last year, but it did help.  However, I felt less appreciative when somebody bellowed “Come on Councillor, move your a***” with 400m to go.

Whilst I think that one or two MPs have been rather roughly treated on the grounds of taste rather than sleaze, the scale of some of the expenses abuses takes the breath away.  I can understand somebody asking the relevant officials if certain furnishings qualify, but I cannot possibly comprehend how somebody could not notice that he’d finished paying off his mortgage for over two years.

If somebody made that sort of “error” on housing benefit, claiming mortgage interest and not noticing that the mortgage had ended, they’d be facing prosecution with the prospect of time inside if convicted.  Indeed, the authorities can be terrifyingly threatening to people who have made an honest mistake (such as an elderly couple getting the different types of disability allowances mixed up) which I have had to help clear up as a local Councillor.

Deliberate fraud is deliberate fraud, whether claiming ordinary housing benefit or MPs’ housing benefit and should be treated the same.

Next week, 17th May 2009, I will be once more doing the Great Manchester Run (for a given value of the word “run”).  As far as I know, I’m the only Councillor in Manchester who has “run” this race every year since it started.  I can’t confess to having done much training this time, but I am hoping to raise money for Cancer Research  UK.   My target is £400 and so far, the online and offline donations total over £100.  The link to the left labelled “Great Manchester Run” should arrive at my fundraising site.  All donations gratefully received.