Easter - it's more than just chocolate bunnies you know.

It's been nice to have a few days off. Not done a lot mind; went to see Sixfold playing in Forest Hill on Friday - which was really enjoyable. And since then have been to the gym a couple of times, done some paperwork and slept. All things that needed to be done, but lacking the wow factor.

But Easter is a time for reflection, so I guess that's OK. I am not a believer - far from it - but I'm not evangelical about it any more. There are bigoted idiot Christians; but there are bigoted atheists too. Most in either camp have their hearts in the right place and we should fight against dogma and bigotry regardless of source. I don't buy Christian morals and values or Christian generosity; I can quite easily refrain from killing sprees without feeling the hand of God on my shoulder. Most of us are good, most of the time.

So it was nice to see the Mail on Sunday today lay into food banks for being a soft touch. I am ashamed to think that we are in a country where kids go to school hungry. Where people have to choose between heating and food. Or ask at the foodbank for stuff that doesn't have to be cooked because they cannot afford the power. Could you find one person who has exaggerated a bit to get stuff from a charity? I'm guessing so. Just like people exaggerate their insurance claims or their CVs.

Many people must be hugely ashamed to have to go to strangers for food. It's not begging, but it's not far off. And foodbanks do have criteria, requiring a referral and limiting the number of visits.

Most of the foodbanks, at least in South London, are run by churches. This is an area where religions do score over atheists. Not generosity, but organisation. Churches have buildings and regular meetings - it makes that easier. It's just a shame that they have to.

So, as you unwrap your next Lindt chocolate bunny, say a word of thanks. To God, dumb luck, the invisible Pink Unicorn (Bless Her Holy Hooves), whatever you like, for the fact you are one of those who have enough to eat. And next time a foodbank is collecting outside your supermarket, but something extra and give it to them. Perhaps buy it instead of a newspaper.

Or give them some money direct - The Trussell Trust is running a drive on Just Giving for Easter. I did, and the good feeling lasted a lot longer than the one that the chocolate gives.

(Sort of) in Defence of the Daily Mail

I apologise for (or perhaps, see below, I only regret) the intermittent service at the moment. I am just incredibly busy with work stuff. Which I don't talk about here as a matter of policy - but lets just say i) not enough hours in the day and ii) fairly major expectation gap.

So I have just grabbed five minutes while I have a sandwich and, rather than looking out of window at sunny Croydon, I thought I'd drop in a few words.

I'm not really sure what is going on in the world right now (due to general busy-ness). But I saw one of those wretched interviews on Newsnight where Harriet Harman and Laura Kuenssberg got all semantic about "apologise" as opposed to "regret". Whilst I don't think that we can hold Harriet responsible for things she had little influence on 30 years ago, I was left thinking "oh just answer the f**king question" - my loathing of the political class generally has now evidently come so far that they have lost all sympathy.

Not (as if you would ever think it) that I have any time for the Dai1y Mai1 - how ironic for a paper that printed the famous Charlotte Church "all grown up" story to say anything about paedophilia (and if you say "that's different" then the answer is that legally, no, it isn't really). But of course it must not be the case that we disregard a story merely because of the vile rag it is printed in. Let's face it, if ten years ago we had been asked "which newspaper will break the MPs expenses scandal?" who would have said the Telegraph? That's as typical a Guardian (or even Eye) story as you would ever see.

So it is troubling when I here people say "ignore it, because it's in the Mail", knowing they would get all serious if it was in the Independent.

Print journalism is hugely under threat. Why buy a paper when the internet is free and mobile? And then to seek to limit freedom to publish reduces them to pictures of kittens and drunk slebs. But when it comes to the next expenses scandal equivalent - who else is going to break the story? Some blogger writing whilst eating his sandwich? A free press with some power (and integrity) is needed to hold governments to account, and like it or not, that does mean you have to put up with the Daily Mail.

A political one....

I have had one of those talks today at work where an external consultant comes in to remind us of our duties as directors, Approved Persons (a financial services thing) etc. It’s quite amusing to see some of the newer members of the team blanch a little if they are getting the spiel for the first time. They now realise they are in a place where it’s not the “company” that takes the blame if something goes wrong, it’s them. But you run the business; you help decide its strategy and you take the key operational decisions. Responsibility comes with the territory. Doesn't it?

Most UK governments have been keen to stress personal responsibility for as long as I can remember. I don’t think I have lived through a truly socialist government – I am not sure what the Wilson/Callaghan 1974 / 79 administrations would have been like had they not been so horribly in debt. But everything I recall has been the State as (at best) a limited safety-net; not really seen as something that would look after people of my generation.

The impression we are given is that the current government has been at the more extreme end of this spectrum. It has looked for the individual to look after him or herself, says Mr Osborne, on the grounds that the government cannot afford it. And, although this grates with me, because I have always felt that looking after the disadvantaged is the most important thing a government should do, I see their point as arguable - we are in a financial mess.

And then I heard yesterday’s announcement from Mr Cameron that “money is no object” when dealing with the floods. I am very grateful that I am not in a flood-prone area, and have a lot of sympathy with those who are, but doesn't this astonishing comment strip away the facade of affordability? 

Home-owning middle-class people (more likely to vote Tory I guess) who are probably insured anyway, get the blank cheque, whilst the screw is tightened on lower income disadvantaged individuals (who probably won’t vote, but won’t vote Tory anyway). 

This says everything about the ideological background to much of what is being done. It does seem that there is an underlying “deserving v undeserving” logic to what we are now seeing. And I can say no more than it makes me ashamed to be British.

Oh, and the Daily Mail should refer to the reply given in Arkell v Pressdram as well.

This is what I am talking about

First post - and perhaps a lazy one, so I hope not indicative of future efforts. However, it's worthy of a mention.

Two things that annoy me are: The Daily Mail, and scare stories which are either groundless or blow something out of all proportion. It is remarkable how strong the positive correlation is between these two betes noires.

Early 80's new wave pop star Joe Jackson sang 'Everything Gives You Cancer". This was one of several songs he wrote lampooning the ability of popular culture to sensationalise pretty much anything. So, one generation (25 years) on, what have we learned?

Here is a nice little list of claims that the Mail has advanced over the years, which would make poor Joe pull his hair out. (Thinking about this, he wasn't exactly hirsute in the late 80's so this may be an inappropriate comment), but ....

Causes of Cancer - no honestly

Admittedly, I have yet to research the extent to which the Mail blames this on asylum seekers, or suggests the effect it is bound to have on house prices, but I am confident it is only a matter of time!