pumpkinstrokemarrow

I see from the DT that someone who does not believe in eating pig became some sort of a cook for the Metropolitan Police. Perhaps a supervising cook rather than someone who actually gets his hands on the grub. Now it seems that police men and women, in the round, are rather keen on bacon, sausages, black pudding and all that sort of thing. A fact that presumably would have quickly become apparent in a visit or an interview. Now why would someone to whom the eating of pig is offensive chose to work in such a place? Would not supervising someone else to cook pig be as offensive in the sight of The Lord as doing it yourself? However, the someone did so chose and the Metropolitan Police, in their wisdom, initially said that his employment would not involve pig. But now they have transferred him to somewhere where his employment would involve pig. Problem. So he has now been suspended on full pay for a year or something while the difficult business is all sorted out.

What a lot of nonsense sez I. Why do people like this cook have to be pushing at boundaries all the time? Why can't he not eat pig quietly at home rather than burning up all this taxpayer money? Maybe he should go and live somewhere where they take all this sort of thing with the seriousness he presumably thinks that it deserves. No prizes for guessing where.

And then there was a piece celebrating the closure of the last large unit for the asylum of people with learning difficulties (as the current euphemism for the mentally handicapped goes). Explaining that these places and the people that worked in them were a blot on the landscape, not be tolerated in the 21st century when we know how to do these things properly. I found all this rather irritating. Firstly, because it showed no respect for the many decent people who gave their working lives to such places and to those with learning difficulties who lived in them. Secondly, because I am not convinced that we have not chucked the baby out with the bathwater. I think there is more place for such large units (which often had extensive and excellent grounds with splendid trees) than is presently allowed. And while many people with learning difficulties would rather be supported in the community than in a large unit, this is not a cheap option and this is not the right option for those with severe difficulties. They really do need asylum. And I bet that plenty of small care-in-the-community units run out of large houses for gain by contractors are every bit as bad as the large units which used to be run by the state are alleged to have been.

But there are some winners in this sorry area. Viz, the people that write all the regulations with which it is now festooned. To adapt an old adage, if you can't do it, write regulations about it. Not to mention all the people who make a crust by policing the application of the regulations.