This is interesting, its an article from The Daily Mail where the Health Minster has criticised Britain’s weird relationship with food. She has reportedly said that eating lunch at your desk is disgusting and that office workers should take a proper lunch break. I’m not not sure about others but I find the comments to be a little out of touch with our work culture. I am now fortunate to work from home and do make time for lunch as I also have to feed my 1 year old daughter at the same time.

Whilst working in an office environment, admittedly in the publishing industry which meant I was always up against a deadline, I never had time for lunch. If I had left my desk to have a lunch break not only would the publication I was working on, not have made the printing slot but I would have been frowned upon by the others around me who also worked through their lunch. The comments at the bottom of the article seem to indicate that others work in similar environments and also have to work through lunch to get a heavy work load done. Perhaps the Health Minster needs to go out into the real world a little more often.

It seems all is not well at Downing Street with the cats from number 10 and number 11 being far from good friends. Whilst Downing Street have played down the disagreement, it seems the cats are not getting along.

A previous story detailed how the Chancellors cat, Freya had been drafted in to take Larry’s place as chief mouse catcher. Freya it seems won this particular fight and is perhaps asserting her place as top cat in the area.

Larry the cat (left), who was previously the chief mouser at Downing Street could soon be seeking new employment after being replaced in the post. It seems Larry was simply not doing the job properly, with the last straw being when the Prime Minister spotted a mouse making it’s way across the floor whilst Larry slept.

Larry will be replaced by Chancellor George Osborne's cat, Freya (pictured right) who will now patrol numbers 10, 11 and 12. The new arrangement has been described as a job share although it seems more like a reshuffle. Something tells me Larry has been fed a little too many kitty treats and lost his hunting edge.

If you are driving in Scotland you may soon have to take into account different drink drive limits to those in the rest of the UK. That’s according to this article which says Scotland intends to lower their drink drive limit. It is proposed that the limit will be cut to just 50mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood. This will mean that people drinking half a pint or beer or a glass of wine could face prosecution. The new limit whilst it might seem quite low would bring Scotland into line with the rest of Europe, most of which have lower drink drive limits than the UK. Personally this is something I was unaware of, whilst I rarely drive outside of the UK it is worth bearing in mind that even one glass of wine could put you over the limit in Europe. I guess the only safe thing to do is to not drink at all if you are driving, that way you can be sure you complying with the local law.

I was unaware until recently that divorce was illegal in Malta. The country which has recently voted to change the legalisation did not allow divorce making it the last European country to do so. People could, however, obtain a divorce from overseas and it would be recognised within Malta or they could seek a church annulment, a process that takes up to eight years to complete. This will now all change, due to a recent referendum in which over half of voters voted to allow couples to divorce after four years of separation. The issue has been under debate for a number of years but in a country where 95% of the population claim to be Catholic it will be interesting to see what the outcome means for the inhabitants.

That’s according to this article which suggest ministers are unveiling new proposals on speed limits. Under the proposals the speed limit on motorways could be raised to 80pmh whilst those on other roads could be cut. The Government is looking to cut the number of people killed and seriously injured in car crashes. They will look into how speed limits should be set and take into account the benefits of shorter journey times and the implications for road users. Already 52% of traffic on motorways travels at more than 70 mph with 35% of cars being driven between 70 and 79 mph. In this case, then it may make sense to raise the speed limit, although driving at higher speeds does burn more fuel so is unlikely to be popular with environmental campaigners. It is also likely that speed limits would be cut on roads such as single carriageways where they are thought to be too high. It will be interesting to see what if any changes are actually made.

People who claim they are too sick to work could soon have to prove it under a new scheme. The scheme which is currently being piloted in Greater Manchester would see benefits claimants being sent to their GP for fitness tests. They would have to perform tests such as climbing stairs and picking up objects. It has already been used on some claimants and 70% have actually been deemed fit enough to work. Those who are deemed fit enough to work would lose up to £30 a week from their weekly benefits. It is hoped the scheme will help to get more people off welfare and into work.

Lord Adonis has suggested that the drink drive limit should be lowered in England and Wales. The Government is currently waiting on the results of a report on whether the current limit of 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood should be cut to 50. This could mean that motorists will be over the limit if they drink just one pint of beer and would be the first change to drink drive laws since the introduction of the breathalyser in 1967. It is also thought that there will be lower limit of just 20 milligrams for novice drivers, lorry drivers and bus drivers as well as tightened laws on driving under the influence of narcotics. The changes are likely to come into place only if Labour stay in power as the Conservatives would leave the limit unchanged.

According to this article immigrants will be taught the fine art of queuing in an effort to help them integrate into society. If the article is correct foreigners wanting to settle here would need to learn how to queue in a test of aspects of British life. Ministers believe that queue jumping is damaging social cohesion and that immigrants don’t understand that they need to wait in line for services rather than simply going to the front as may the custom is some other cultures. According to the article 91% of Britons object to queue jumping but personally I’m not entirely sure that the problem is caused by immigrants.

I will start this post by stating that I in no way agree with any view expressed by the BNP or support them in any way. I was, however, interested to watch last weeks Question Time, in which the leader of the BNP Nick Griffin appeared. Whilst I don’t watch Question Time every week, from time to time I am interested to see what issues are being debated and usually find it a fairly impartial programme.

From my past experience of this I watched last weeks programme hoping to gain an insight into the BNP’s policies and their views on topical issues. I was surprised, then to find that the whole programme was simply about the BNP and instead of questions about other issues, it was simply an excuse for everyone to stand up and show how much they hate the party. By the end of the programme I was left wondering how the BBC can call itself impartial when they clearly invited Nick Griffin onto the programme simply to attack him rather than to have an informed debate.

It appears from this article that the BNP will be invited back in the future, I wonder whether the next programme might be a little more objective and allow us to hear the views of a BNP member. Whilst I don’t agree with these views the BNP have been elected in some areas to represent the people and should be able to take part in an informed impartial debate as the other political parties can. If they are allowed to do this then I am sure that most people will see that their policies are unacceptable and not compatible with our multicultural society. It would also give others a chance to showed how flawed the views are using sensible arguments. Personally I think we should be asking ourselves what is wrong with the country when people choose to elect a representative with such extreme views but none the less elected he is and as such should be able to enter into political debate without a public witch hunt. What did you think of the programme? Leave a comment and let me know.

The postal strikes are an inconvenience to everyone, whether you run a small business or just simply want your mail delivered in the morning. Putting myself in the first category and at one of the busiest times of the year for my business strikes are certainly the last thing that I need as they lose me money. That said, I can also sympathise with the postal workers as I have family and friends who have been postmen for many years. There is certainly a very one sided dispute view of the dispute being publicised by Royal Mail and the government and many people who I talk to do not know why postal workers are on strike or the personal cost to those workers. Postman are not paid to strike, they have mortgages and bills to pay the same as every one else but many feel they have no option but to support strike action to protect the future of the postal service. If you want a little perspective on the subject I suggest reading the following article which shows a postman’s view of the situation and highlights working practices and pressures faced daily by your postman.

If this article can be believed the government is looking for an alternative to the pint glass because the traditional one is too dangerous. According to the article the Home Office has called in a team of designers who will look at creating a safer alternative to the pint glass. The move comes because there are around 87,000 violent incidents involving glass every year which cost an estimated £100 million in NHS and police costs. It will be interesting to see what they come up with but personally I quite like my pint in its proper glass.

When the governments scrappage scheme was launched I was sceptical about how successful it would be. Whilst it has not persuaded me to purchase a new car it does appear to have met with some success. The scheme gives motorists £2,000 towards a new car if they trade in a vehicle over ten years old. According to this article more than 35,000 new cars have been ordered through the scheme since it was launched in April. However, only around 7,000 of these vehicles are likely to have been brought in British factories so its hard to gauge whether the scheme has had the intended impact. The rapid take up of the scheme does also mean that more than a tenth of the total £300m subsidy has already been used up, so if you want to trade in your old banger you better be quick, it is estimated all the funds will have been allocated by the end of the year.

Since I heard that the government was introducing a scrappage scheme to encourage people to trade in their old cars for a newer model I have watching with interest. My car has now reached the 20 year old mark and its a miracle every year when it gets through the MOT. I would happily trade my car in a for a newer one, the only thing that is really stopping me is that I simply cannot afford to get a new car. I was hoping that the government scheme might give me an extra little bit of help to be able to purchase something a little newer, perhaps a car that is only five years old rather than twenty. It appears, however, that the scheme only allows you purchase a car that is less than a year old. I have been looking around at the prices of new cars and even if I were to purchase one with finance it is simply too expensive. I don’t want a particularly big car perhaps a Ford Fiesta or similar but prices of these start at around £12,295. It looks as though my car will be on the road for some time yet whilst I continue saving for a newer one.

Some stories that I come across take the biscuit, this one takes the whole tin. It’s about a family of four who say they are unable to work because they are too fat. What’s more they believe that the £22,000 they currently receive in benefits is not enough to live on. The family say "What we get barely covers the bills and puts food on the table. It's not our fault we can't work. We deserve more.” They were also quoted as saying "We have cereal for breakfast, bacon butties for lunch and microwave pies with mashed potato or chips for dinner" and "All that healthy food, like fruit and veg, is too expensive. We're fat because it's in our genes. Our whole family is overweight." Am I the only one who thinks perhaps the money barely covers the bills because they simply eat too much? Does it take a genius to figure out they might be overweight simply because they live on microwave pies and bacon butties? Equally the argument regarding fresh food is flawed, food is currently expensive but I have certainly learnt to economise whilst still eating a healthy diet.

This story is wrong on so many levels, the family obviously lack a basic understanding of why they are fat, that said I have nothing against people who are overweight. What I do have a problem with is people like this family that blame the problem on factors they believe are out of their control such as their genes, rather than going on a diet and following an exercise regime. In addition to this I find it difficult to believe that you would be unable to sit at a desk and work no matter how fat you happen to be. The fact that this family are responsible for their situation, expect the taxpayer to fund their lifestyle whilst giving nothing back in return and still have the gall to moan about it, really annoys me. There is no reason why they cannot get a job, why should the hardworking taxpayer fund this type of person?

The government has come up with a new scheme that it hopes will stop people taking advantage of the sick note system. Sick notes have been in place for around 60 years, however, what started as a scheme designed to protect vulnerable people has effectively turned into a means for some people to be consigned to long term unemployment. Under the new scheme instead of receiving a sick note saying that they cannot work a patient will instead receive a note detailing what work they can do and well as what they are unable to do. The idea is that the it will make it easier for people who have been sick to return to the workplace and encourage people to stay in work. The scheme will be introduced in 2010 and it is hoped that it will encourage doctors and employers to work together to help people with a disability to stay in employment. Its an interesting idea and I can see that is is aimed at benefiting those with genuine disabilities. I wonder whether it will go any way towards cutting down on those people who use the sick note culture as an excuse not to work.

Recently the news has been full of details about the case of Baby P who died after sustaining shocking injuries inflicted upon him by his parents over a long period of time. In the case of this child, he was seen by social workers more than 60 times and also examined by a doctor just days before he died and no one picked up the extent of his injuries or felt that the child should be taken into care. A postmortem examination showed he had a broken back, eight fractured ribs, missing fingernails and toenails, multiple bruises and an injury to the inside of his mouth. He had also swallowed one of his own teeth. This is clearly a shocking case and one where social services have failed to protect a vulnerable child. I do think, however, that shocking as the case is that cases of extreme child abuse such as this are in the minority and that this should be taken into account.

The majority of parents would not consider causing harm to their child and are perfectly capable of raising happy well adjusted children. Whilst I can understand the strength of public feeling regarding this case, I do feel that the backlash from this case will mean that the majority of good parents will now be under more intense and often unnecessary scrutiny. These cases often lead to unnecessary measures such as the call to ban smacking which apparently "infringes children's rights to dignity". There have already been cases of parents being taken to court for simply smacking their children. Smacking, however, is not child abuse and should not be compared in the same light, after all children are children not adults, they do need discipline but within reason and only when necessary.

I can't help thinking that the many inquiries that follow this case will not help to protect the minority of children that are really at risk but will simply lead to more cases where parents have their children taken into care simply because the authorities have unsubstantiated suspicions. In my opinion the inquiries into the case of Baby P should concentrate upon the failings directly related to this case, such as why his injuries went unnoticed for so long and why social workers did not notice the physical signs of abuse. Perhaps the focus should be on better training for those who have to determine whether a child is at risk and not introducing new rules and regulations that could penalise the majority of good parents.

I found this flood game the other day. Basically it allows you to make decisions about what flood defences to implement in the UK and how much money to spend over a three year period. You can do things like build a flagship project, plant trees and repair the drainage system. You also need to choose which regions of the country to protect and how much to spend on each project. After you have made your decisions it then shows you exactly how much of the country gets flooded based on your choices. I didn't do badly but I managed to keep flooding Scotland.

As of last weekend alcohol has been banned on the tube and its easy to see why when you see the scenes from the so called "tube alcohol party". The party was organised on Facebook so that people could enjoy the last night of being allowed to drink on the tube. During the party six tube stations has to be closed and services were seriously delayed. Predictably it ended with 17 people being arrested and four train drivers, three London Underground staff and two police officers being assaulted. All good reasons why the ban is a good idea.

It's St George's Day today, a day that I feel should be national holiday. After all St Patrick's Day is a public holiday in Ireland and St Andrew's Day is a voluntary public holiday in Scotland so why should England not have a public holiday to celebrate our national day. You can sign the petition here if you agree with me.

I read this article about a class of junior school children that were told to copy out The Call to Prayer for handwriting practice. The Muslim text was chosen despite the fact that none of the class was Muslim. It makes me wonder how Muslims would feel about their children copying out a page from the bible. I think in today’s environment there would be outcry if the situation were reversed.

If you read my husband's blog you will know that our wheelie bin was stolen a few months ago. Bearing this in mind I found this article interesting. A wheelie bin which belongs to Peterborough City Council apparently turned up 1,200 miles away in Bulgaria. The bin was spotted by a council employee whilst she was on holiday. She was surprised to see the council's logo clearly in place. It makes me wonder where my bin ended up. Perhaps it is also sunning itself on a beach 1000 miles away.

It's St George's Day today, a day that I feel should be a national holiday. You can sign the petition here.

An interesting article here about why George Bush is actually a genius. Among the reasons are that he has contributed more new words to the English language then anyone since William Shakespeare. We really shouldn't "misunderestimate" him.

Further to my previous post about YouTube being banned in Turkey a similar ban has now been enforced in Thailand. Thailand's government have blocked access to the website because it was showing a video which insulted their King. Insulting the monarchy is currently a criminal offence in Thailand. I wonder how many people would call for a ban if YouTube showed a video which insulted Tony Blair. Not many is my guess.

Further to Rory’s article about naval defence cuts I came across this article on The Daily Referendum that Portsmouth Naval Base is under threat of closure. To help keep it open you can sign this petition.

I read an article in The Daily Mail about dolls being confiscated from a village shop following allegations of racism. Apparently a woman customer complained after seeing the dolls which she thought were racially offensive because they were based on a golliwog. The following day two police officers arrested the offending dolls which were taken away for questioning. A statement was taken from the owner of the shop and he was told he could be convicted of a public order offence and could also face a large fine. However after an investigation it was concluded that no offence had been committed and the dolls went back on sale. It makes me wonder how much police time was spent investigating such a trivial issue. It seems if you call the police to investigate a burglary it can take several days for them to investigate but if you say the word racism then its given top priority even when there is no case to investigate.

In an another article also in The Daily Mail a junior school renamed the story of the Three Little Pigs to the Three Little Puppies so that it would be more sensitive to a multicultural cast and audience. The organisers thought that Muslim children in the school might have an issue singing about pigs. The change however has been widely condemned by Islamic leaders who said the issue is with eating pork not with stories about pigs. These decisions always seem to be made by white middle class people who assume other faiths are going to be offended. Often they could save themselves a lot of embarrassment by simply asking people whether they find the matter offensive before making silly decisions. Many of these fairytales have been around for hundreds of years without causing any offence but it seems nothing is left untouched by the today’s overly politically correct culture. Does this mean that Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs will now be changed to Snow White and the seven perfectly ordinary sized people? And looking deeper into the issue it is also apparent that fairy tales are filled with discrimination against ugly people. All princesses are beautiful and all witches are ugly, indicating that not attractive equals bad whilst beautiful is associated with good. Let’s introduce more ugly princesses and more beautiful witches to redress this balance and change all our most loved fairytales. One problem is it makes the story less attractive, which little girl wants to read a story about the ugly princess who marries the fat prince; we can do that in real life.

The government has recently brought in tougher penalties for people who use a mobile phone whilst driving. These new penalties apply to using a hand held mobile phone whilst driving; so it is still possible to use a hands free set with your phone. The fine has now doubled from £30 to £60 and it is also possible that three points could be added to your licence if you are caught.

I’m not sure that these changes are going to have any effect on drivers that persistently drive whilst using a mobile. As someone who uses my car rarely I find that my safety as a pedestrian has been compromised on numerous occasions by drivers who are simply having a good chat on their phone and are more intent on the conversation than watching the road. There has been legislation in place to fine these people since 2003 and I still see just as many drivers flouting the law. Only the other day a driver failed to notice me on a pedestrian crossing because he was talking on his mobile and was lucky to stop before hitting me. Of course the driver seemed to think that this was my fault.

The fact is that even with this legislation in place and even if people were to obey it, you still have the option to use a hands free set with your mobile whilst driving. Independent research shows that this can be as dangerous as driving whilst drunk because it reduces you concentration and awareness of your surroundings. While I appreciate that it is reassuring to have a mobile phone with you whilst driving in case you get lost or break down I think that this legislation needs to be still tougher to discourage drivers from putting others in danger. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6382077.stm

I learnt today that my local council is thinking of bringing in fortnightly refuse collections instead of the current weekly collection.

I and my husband already take recycling very seriously and recycle all our bottles, cans and paper waste through the current blue box scheme. We also compost all of our vegetable and garden waste. I have recently taken further steps to reduce waste such as getting my milk delivered so we can use the reusable glass bottles instead of plastic ones. I have also started buying all of fruit and vegetables from a local box scheme to further cut down on packaging. However we find that due to the fact that nearly everything you buy from the supermarket is wrapped in plastic that our wheeled bin is always full by the time of the Wednesday rubbish collection and that the bulk of this rubbish is plastic shrink wrap.

When the council does start a fortnightly collection of household waste it is my opinion this will only lead to piles of rotting rubbish beside peoples wheeled bins that will remain uncollected. This has already been the case in other councils that have already introduced this scheme see the following article and comments. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6234893.stm In the summer this could start to pose a health risk especially if it starts to attract higher number of rats as mentioned in the BBC article. A fortnightly collection does not reduce the amount of waste that a household produces it just forces people to find other ways to dispose of the uncollected waste such as fly tipping. The problem needs to be addressed in a more logical way perhaps looking at ways to recycle the ever increasing amount of plastic packaging that we currently have to include in household waste and makes up 90% of the waste in our household.

On another note if I am forced to do a trip to the local tip every other week to dispose of my household waste, does this mean I will get a reduction in council tax as I will only be getting half the service I used to from the council?