Time to legalise jumping red lights - A guest blog by Lou Knee

Congratulations to Boris Johnson for abolishing his Stalinist Covid controls on the UK population. Adults do not need governments to run their lives and make decisions for them. For two long, the UK has become a sea of pointless regulations, designed by bureaucrats to make work and politicians who live in cloud cuckoo land. Many of these have the opposite effect of what they are designed to do. Take traffic lights as an example. Back in 2016, the Daily Express estimated that 18% of the time spent in cars is spent waiting for traffic lights to change. Traffic lights were introduced for two reasons. One was to improve traffic flow and the second was to improve safety at junctions. Proceeding through a traffic light will result in a £100 fine and three points on your license.

We all follow these rules, like sheep. No one ever asks "Why do we have to wait at a traffic light when there is clearly no traffic approaching". In the USA, motorists are sensibly allowed to turn right on a red if there is no traffic approaching. We always hear about the climate crisis, but no one ever says "How much carbon is generated whilst we wait at red lights when there is no sensible reason to?" I do much driving in the early morning, when there are no cars on the road, but my car sits at light after light burning petrol and creating CO2 to no good purpose. We have a very sensible law that forbids us from driving without due care and attention. It would be far more sensible to make traffic lights advisory symbols. A red light indicates that other traffic has right of way, but if there is none, then you can proceed. Just think how much CO2 would be saved. If the tree huggers are telling the truth, this will save lives and save the planet.

Of course,  if you cause a crash, or endanger a pedestrian or vehicle by performing a dangerous manouvre, then yes, you deserve a fine and points or loss of licence, but we all have eyes. The law should be, similar again to the USA, that if you approach a red light, you stop and then can proceed with caution if there are no hazards. Driving in the UK is a minefield of laws and restrictions, many of which lack common sense. Parking rules are often scams to generate cash. Yellow lines are deployed, not to keep traffic moving but to enforce the anti driving bias of local councils and governments.

If Boris feels we are grown up enough to decide for ourselves whether we can legally spread an infectious disease whilst infected, we are grown up enough to decide whether we can pass a red light when there is not another car in sight for miles.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lou Knee is a Barnet Resident and a libertarian (his description). Guest blogs are always welcome at the Barnet Eye

A question for James Cleverly GLA member and Boris Ambassador - Where is the common sense?

I despair of this country sometimes. It seems to me that that there is no such thing as common sense or common decency in the petty minded, bureaucrats we have to deal with. If you received an official letter from an arm of the government about one of your children, how would you react.

Putting aside the obnoxious and patronising tone for one second, you might think that my child had been up to some serious no good. Talk of courts and sentences. What henious crime do you think the offspring of Rog T have been getting up to.

Well one of my children went down to London for the day with some friends. On the way back, she decided to use the Thameslink Service from St Pancras to Mill Hill. She touched in at the Thameslink station and the barrier opened. She went and got on the train.At Mill Hill, she was stopped by a ticket inspector. "Where's your ticket" He asked. She produced her pay as you go Oyster card. He said "That's not valid at this station" My child replied "Oh, I'm sorry I didn't know, it let me get on the train and it's in zone 4 so I thought it was". The inspector replied "You should know that Thameslink isn't covered by Pay as you go". My child replied "There were no signs". The inspector was adamanant "You should have checked, I'm giving you a £20 penalty fare notice". My child has never been in trouble and was quite traumatised. As she'd touched in but not touched out, she'd actually been charged more than the cost of the journey, she'd been terrorised by a bully in a uniform and she'd been told she'd have to pay a fine.

My wife wrote a letter of appeal to the appeals service. She explained that my daughter, had made a genuine mistake. Shes not familiar with the ins and outs and arcane payment rules. She didn't realise that Thameslink is not in the scheme. There are even PAYG readers in the station. She explained that for young people, unfamiliar with all of this the system can be confusing. She explained that my daughter had used her Oyster PAYG at ST Pancras, so presumably had actually been charged for her journey. She assumed that as PAYG worked in St Pancras it would work in a Station in zone 4. The fact that Boris can't get the system to work at Mill Hill, despite having the readers installed for nearly a year, is not relevant. The fact that there are no big signs alerting kids. The fact that she'd never done it before. Nothing mattered to the cash hungry vultures. Here's what the reply said.  Click on the letter for a readable view.

Even more insulting to me was the letter from the "revenue collection" side. This is the bit of the organisation which wants your dosh. If this is how they treat youngsters who have made a genuine and understandable mistake, is there any wonder that we are losing respect for such institutions.

What justification can there possibly be for being so threatening and patronising to parents of a child who has made a genuine mistake. I can think of nothing worse than bullies in uniforms picking on children. Especially when they are backed by a cruel, heartless and aggressive bureaucracy. One other point I will make. Boris Johnson said when he took over that he'd sort out pay as you go Oyster cards on National Rail. There was a revenue protection hit squad at Mill Hill Broadway on Tuesday evening, giving penalty fares to people with PAYG Oyster cards. I asked one of these people when the PAYG Oyster, which they have readers for at Mill Hill would be available. His reply "I'm not here to answer questions". Boris's deputy mayor for Young People is a Conservative GLA member called James Cleverely. He's a good guy, by all accounts. He talks straight and seems honest. I have this question for you James. What message has all of this sent to my child? What opinion of authority will she have now? Have a word with your boss Boris and get him to sort these numskulls out. By all means fine kids if they lie, repeatedly get caught or try and evade fares. In this case a polite explanation and a warning not to do it again would have sufficed. It appalls me. Here is the full letter from the purple nasties.

I learned something today

We went to a friends birthday party last night in Chippenham. We booked a nice hotel for the night and managed to arrange sleepovers for our three children at various friends. We thought that we could take advantage of some of the facilities and have a pleasant and chilled out time. I can't remember the last time we went away as a childless couple. We arrived in Chippenham at around 4 pm, had a cup of tea, a bite to eat and then went around to our friends for a drink at 6pm as a prelude to the main party at Chippenham Sports Club at 7.30.

At around 8.30pm, after we'd had a few drinks each (too many to drive), the phone went. It was our friend who was looking after one of our daughters for the night. They'd been at a roller skating party and our daughter had fallen and broken her wrist. Not only that but she needed an operation to fix it. Now if we'd been local we could have given our consent and it would have been done there and then. As it was they wouldn't take consent by phone. They needed a signature. We were stuck, over the drink driving limit, 100 miles away. As a result my daughter was patched up and given pain killers. We agreed that we'd drive back first thing.

On arrival at the hospital, we were told that the theatre was in use, treating people with life threatening conditions. The earliest they could treat her was 7pm, assuming no one else came in with a more urgent need. So for want of a piece of paper with my name on, my daughter has now had to wait 24 hours to be fixed up. What would have happened if she'd been the person with the "life threatening condition"? Would they still have withheld treatment. What sort of parent would refuse consent? I am completely bemused by the situation.

The friends who were looking after her, have a daughter who we took to Barcelona earlier this year. What would have happened if she'd broken her wrist in Spain. I asked how this could this situation be avoided? I was told that if we'd signed a piece of paper making our friends the official Guardians for our daughter for the night, they could have authorised the operation.

It was explained to me that this bureaucracy is to protect my daughter. From what? She's had 24 hours of pain as a result of this "child protection" procedure. I must be insane, because I cannot for the life of me see any benefit in this for her. Just suppose the doctor advised me that she needed the operation and I'd said no. In my opinion, that would make me unfit to have responsibility for a child. It would be grounds to take my children into care, as I was clearly negligent in my role. I asked the doctor to assess the risk of the procedure. He said that it was one of the more straightforward procedures they could do. The risks he outlined were neglegible (various minor complications no greater than 4%).

I believe that this is an example of a madness which has taken over our society. The Cambridge Online Dictionary describes Madness as "stupid or dangerous behaviour". Is it stupid? Well it's consigned a 12 year old girl to needless pain and stress for 24 hours. That seems stupid to me. Is it dangerous? I'm not a doctor, but I was under the impression that the quicker injuries are treated, the greater the prospects of success. As such it strikes me as dangerous. If you need treatment and they can treat you, they should do it there and then.

Of course, we all know the real reason for this form. It's not child protection at all. It's to protect the Hospital trust, in case they cock up. You see the form is also a disclaimer. It makes it harder for me to sue them. That is the society we live in, one where children are denied treatment to protect organisations. I happen to believe that my daughters medical needs should be the paramount consideration in this whole business. I don't believe they were. I will be writing to the chief of Barnet General Hospital to explain to me how her medical needs were served by this sorry episode. I have no issue at all with the clinical staff or her treatment. I thank God every day for making me lucky enough to be born in Great Britain and live with the NHS. That doesn't mean that I don't think we should challenge bad bureaucracy when we find it.

If anyone can persuade me that what has happened benefitted my daughter, I will most certainly post it on this blog so you can all rest sound. Oh, you may ask what I learned today. That if a hospital trust has the choice between treating a little girl who is in a lot of pain or covering it's arse, I learned what their choice is.

What isn't in the risk assessment

My boy plays for The Watling Club under 9 football team. They've had a great season and have just won the Harrow & District Under 9 5th division. As you might imagine, I'm a rather proud Dad! At training on Wednesday, I was chatting with the club secretary and other club officials. Watling is affiliated to Barnet Council and the subject of the paperwork came up.

Let me give you a couple of examples of some of the new bureaucracy that is coming in.

Parental consent forms required for every child for every away game.
Risk assessments for all venues that boys play at.

A blanket consent to say "yes it's OK for my boy to play" is no longer good enough. This means that for our team of 16 players, who play 20 away games, 320 forms are required a season.

As for the risk assessment, the majority of the grounds are council property. They already have risk assessments. The rest are owned by clubs or firms, again requiring assessments for insurance. For Watling a council official came down to Montrose Park and performed a risk assessment with the club. Now our secretary takes all of this as part and parcel of the hasle of running a club, but I ask - how much does all this cost and what does it achieve?

One thing it certainly does is put many people off. Who does the risk assessment for the cost of the clubs folding. All the kids becoming couch potatoes. All the kids falling in with the wrong crowd.

It seems to me that all of this bureaucracy is a complete waste of time and money. It achieves nothing useful and denies children the chance to develop themselves. I've broken limbs playing football. It wasn't nice, but it was worth it