Oh I do like to be beside the seaside, but no-one has told me how to do it.

I'm struggling to comprehend this:

A council spokeswoman said: "Data has shown there are people who don't go to the beach.

"We have families in Margate and Ramsgate - the more deprived areas - who have never taken their children."

She said when children from Newington Kids Club in Ramsgate were taken to Dumpton Gap, some of them said they had never been to the beach before.

And when council project officers go into schools, they regularly ask children if they have visited the beach. In nearly every session, there are some children who say no.

Whoa there. You mean to tell me that the reason some parents have never put a pair of shoes on and walked, for free, to the beach, which is free, in their own town is because they are deprived?

*boggle*

That is to say, that it has never occurred to these parents, on a nice day in the school holidays when the kids are bored and climbing the walls to take them down to the bloody beach?

Thanet (Ramsgate, Margate & Broadstairs) has much going against it, however one of the greatest strengths it has are its beaches, most of which are gorgeous sandy affairs. Ramsgate has a corker, Margate's beach is enormous, literally a five minute walk from the town centre and probably the only high spot in a town which is so faded it is almost transparent. Just outside Broadstairs is the sublime Joss Bay, a beach so beautiful that it could make angels cry, it has surf, numerous rockpools, caves, sea eroded arches in the magnificent cliffs that surround the beach which can be explored at low tide. It's a great place, look:

You see? Who wouldn't want to take their kids there? Which child wouldn't want to go and play in the rock pools looking for crabs and shellfish, or explore the caves and arches? Incidentally, through that arch you see is another enormous beach which on the far side turns into a moonscape of chalky rocks, it really is a wonderful place. And it is free.

How is being deprived preventing you from using this?

Still somebody has a job to protect and so has made sure that a problem is identified. Of course now that the problem has been identified, we need the solution. Can we guess what it is?

The authority has received £100,000 from the Big Lottery Fund to encourage locals to explore the coast.

Whaaaaaaat? A hundred grand, to tell people to walk out from their own bloody front door? You are joking aren't you?

No, of course not, these are council people, their sense of humour is surgically removed upon induction to the office.

OK, look, perhaps an advertising campaign for the beaches isn't such a bad idea, there are people from all over Kent who would love using them, plus it could bring some much needed revenue into the towns. It's going to stop there though, isn't it?

Activities coming up include a fun day on Margate beach and a "fit and healthy" day on the sands at Ramsgate.

Oh, no, come on, you're ruining it. A fit and healthy day? Why does everything councils touch have to turn to bland? Kids don't want that, they want danger, excitement. They want pirates and smugglers, they want a tide race. A tide race is so fun that it would probably be banned if it became widespread. The idea is that on a sandy beach you divvy people up into teams and at low tide, with the aid of shovels, you dig out and build the biggest sand castle you can, at the sound of a whistle, everyone in each team has to jump on, the tide comes in and the last team to be washed away wins.

But no, it'll have to be an eco-friendly, tofu pimping, five-a-day, socially inclusive, fit and healthy fun day.

Give me strength.

Once again, the state steps in and tells parents; "we will tell you how to raise your kids. Indeed, you can't be trusted, so we'll do it for you."

This is why kids aren't being taken to the beach - it's nothing to do with deprivation, it's to do with being told that your kids aren't your responsibility and you can only do things when someone organises it for you.

How very tragic.

For the people.

Twitter was alive last night with talk of events down at the council chamber where Lambeth council do their business. There have been a number of demonstrations against the cuts to public spending which are planned by the council and things came to a head last night when, well, I'll let 'uncutter' at Indymedia London take over:

Lambeth town hall in Brixton was taken over and occupied by protestors as the council met to vote through budget cuts of tens of millions of pounds. Hundreds of people gathered outside the town hall (as they'd done previously two weeks ago) and at around 7pm took over the chamber chanting "This is what democracy looks like" and "No ifs, no buts, no public services cuts!", before holding a people's assembly.

After withdrawing the council members met under a police guard to vote through the cuts. The occupation ended at around 9pm as people marched out after 2 hours of discussions and speeches at the 'people's council'.

This sort of thing chills me to the bone. I always get very uneasy when activists and politicians talk about 'the people'. I'm afraid that in a population of 272,000, a group of hundreds does not represent democracy, it does not even represent double figures of the population in terms of percentage. To try and pass it off as democracy is misleading.

I'm not going to get into the whole Keynsian discussion again, but I will state that I do support public spending cuts, because there is so much that goverment is involved in. that it has no business doing. I do not trust the politicians and civil servants to cut where the fat is, though. They will always protect their own empires and pet projects.

A 'people's council' (sic) does not represent the people. It never can, even the most representative, even handed and well regarded assembly cannot represent the people, it can only represent the majority. I am not convinced that a hastily convened peoples' council in Lambeth is representative of the majority. This is a term used to marginalise and stigmatise people. What we saw last night was a trailer of things to come, or things that have happened elsewhere. A group of people, through force and violence, establish themselves and then claim to speak for 'the people' as if the population is one homogenous mass with identical wishes, desires and aspirations.

This is always a mistake made by authoritarian (mainly left-wing) regimes, people are individuals. What you are doing is trying to project your view of what you think the people should be onto that population. You believe that your ideas and policies are right. Well, I think the same of mine, of course I do, otherwise I wouldn't hold them, the same holds true for you. The difference between us, is that I do not seek to impose my vision on others. What happens when people do not share you views, do not want your vision? We've seen it time and time again, Stalin, Hoxha, Pot, Mao, all ruled in the name of 'the people'. How many of them were the wrong sort of people? How many of them were imprisoned, executed and subjected to horrific treatment as a result? Kim Jong-Il rules in the name of the people. I didn't see any election, he was annointed. What do the people think of him? I'm sure his approval rates are through the roof, his population wouldn't dare express anything but satisfaction. What about Gaddafi? Ask him this morning, he'll still tell you he's ruling in the name of the people, it is the enemies of the people who are stirring up trouble, the real people love him. So much do they love him, he would submit, that they are happy that 10,000 lie dead on the streets of Libya. This is what rule in the name of the people looks like.

Let us not kid ourselves here. When you claim you are acting for the people, you are using it as a crutch to prop up your own crumbling credibility. Oh, you know that the majority follow you. You know you have the support of tens of thousands in your borough. You know that everyone is up in arms at the cuts.

Everyone? He asks with eyebrow raised in a questioning fashion.

Well, everyone that counts.

Ah, there we go. No. Not everyone, otherwise in the recent general election your lot would have found themselves with an increased majority. That, no matter how flawed, how un-representative, is the closest we have to democracy in this country. And when people stop counting, that is where the trouble begins.

I'm not suggesting that we're about to see RAF air strikes on the population of Brixton, but unelected, unaccountable people make odd decisions and have, what appears to me, a skewed view of the world. I'll give you an example.

I was watching the first episode of Heston's Mission Impossible on C4 the other night. (The link is to the 4od player) I like Heston, he is imaginative, passionate and practical. His series on the overhaul of the Little Chef menu was very good. In this, the first episode of his new series where he does the same to different sectors of the catering industry, he was working his magic at Alder Hey hospital. No hectoring and lecturing in the style of Jamie Wotsisname here, just getting on with the job.

Notes from a hospital bed is an established critique of the terrible food on offer in our hospitals, so head over there, and you'll see the form guide. Needless to say, the food given to the kids in the hospital was terrible. Without wanting to come over all lisping and mockney, surely, kids in hospital need decent scran to aid their recovery? Yet they were served dross and plates were returned, untouched. Parents, who have paid for this food, without the option to opt-out, in the form of their taxes, were having to bring in grub for their kids. It is a story reproduced throughout the NHS.

In the first portion of the show, Heston went to the kitchens to investigate and was shown a menu, it looked alright, it transpired it was for the staff canteen, public restaurant and (I really couldn't believe this) outside functions. The head of catering stated that 90% of food prepared in the hozzie kitchens was fresh, from scratch. The 10% excluded? Yes, the children. The group that is the hospital's enitre reason for being. Out of a cooking staff of 14, only two were making the childrens' food. 'Welcome to the NHS' was the response from the head of catering.

He would maintain that he is absolutely acting in the best interest of the children. However, there was no communication between the kids and the kitchens.

Gaddafi, Kim and the Lambeth Peoples' Council would maintain that they are absolutely acting in the best interest of the people. However, there is no communication between the people and the government.

Of course, those occupying Lambeth council chamber last night would say they were different, just as every unelected, unaccountable, dictatorial regime that has gone before is different. This time it will be different, this time we're not the same as all the others, we care, we know what is wrong, we know the answers. Every time the end result is the same.

When you invoke the name of the people, you are hiding behind a legend, in the same way that Westboro Baptist Church invoke the name of God when they indulge in their revolting homophobic activities. When the Islamic fundamentalists bomb innocent people, or beat, maim and execute people, they do it whilst hiding behind the shield of an unspeaking God, you would no doubt condemn their actions, yet from where I'm sitting, you don't look so different when you hide behind the shield of a silent supposed majority.

No, you'll get no support from this quarter.

Boobies offensive, potty mouth words not.

There is no greater crime in this country at the moment than being ‘offensive’. Despite the fact that it is a subjective term, a single accusation of the act of causing offence is enough to get the authorities jumping on you like a ton bricks.

Don’t be offensive, OK? It isn’t worth the hassle. Don’t worry about what is offensive, and what isn’t, it’s not your place to make that judgement. Someone else will do that for you. You’ll probably never find out who that person is, or whatever it is that you have done which has offended them so, but hey, that’s your problem. Don’t produce anything offensive, don’t act in a manner likely to offend, and certainly don’t say anything which isn’t likely to offend, but causes offence anyway just because someone has decided they quite like the idea of taking offence at something trivial and fairly un-offensive.

One of the best places to find the professional offendee is in the public sector. Believe me, I work there, I know.

So it is not in the least bit surprising to find that North Norfolk District Council has pounced with the speed of a famished jaguar upon a display of artwork in its own offices which contains examples of . . .

. . . I hesitate to say it, it really is quite shocking. . .

. . . how best to put it without making you all fall into an unseemly swoon?

Ah yes, some of the paintings are of naked ladies.

Can you imagine? Have you ever heard of the like? Well, not surprisingly, this display has generated quite the controversy in the corridors of power.

Before the morning was out, the artwork had been taken down and packed up, ready to be returned to sender.

The reason, according to council leisure and cultural services manager Karl Read, was because there had been "a number of complaints from members of staff and union representatives who found the paintings offensive".

Let’s hope this doesn’t set a trend, it could be a worrying precedent for places like Florence’s Uffizi, I’m pretty sure that’s council owned. What would the future hold for Boticelli’s Birth of Venus?
Shockingly, the paintings weren’t torn down from the walls and thrown on a bonfire whilst the equality and diversity department shrieked curses of intolerance and exploitation at the conflagration. No, they’ve been put up in an art gallery. So they’ve gone from council offices where no-one will see them to an area where everyone can see them and be offended to such an extent that I wonder if the local ambulance service will be able to cope with the strain on their resources.

No matter, the important thing is that a ‘number’ of people (note that, not tens, dozens, scores or legions. One person is a number of people) found them offensive, so they have been removed.

Phew.

Oh, hullo, what’s this I spy?

You know what I’m going to say, don’t you? Yes, that’s right it’s one rule for us and another for them. It’s not a problem with being offensive, it’s a problem with you being offensive. They can be as offensive as they like.

Council leaders have defended their use of swear words on posters in Sussex to try to tackle dog fouling.
Hastings Borough Council has urged residents to download the new posters from its website, which tell dog walkers to clear up after their pets.

One reads: "Oi! Have you got s**t for brains?" Another says: "Oi! We're not taking your s**t any more!"

Well to be frank, people that don’t clear up after their dogs couldn’t give a shit. This ad campaign will have zero effect. So when Kevin Boorman, says that:

the authority believed it was a "good campaign" and believed it would work.

It has the same effect on me as saying the council work boots department believe that leaving footwear in need of repair out on a work bench with needles and thread will result in the magic elves coming out at night and doing the job for them. It is wishful thinking, and some advertising exec who has no doubt been paid a handsome consultancy fee from the public purse is probably down the pub telling his advertising mates about the cringe inducingly poor campaign he got the council to swallow.

Needless to say there have been complaints that the campaign is offensive.

One resident, who did not want to be named, told the BBC: "They are horrible.
"What kind of impression does this give of the town? And for children - I don't want to be explaining to children why they can't use that word but it's ok to see it on posters."

And she has a point.

It doesn’t matter though, because it is their offence, so none has been called. Public bodies are incapable of making a mistake, it is your perception which is at fault, not their actions.

"The overwhelming support so far is for the campaign, not against it."

Is it, is it really? I’ll bet the good townsfolk of Hastings are queuing around the block to shake the council officials by the hand and that those same officials can’t walk down the street without getting high fives or being given babies to kiss.

Give me strength.

Still it continues.

Time and time and time and time again the message is sent out.

You cannot do this.

Time and time and time and time again this message is ignored.

Two stories today.

Firstly the NUJ report that a photographer has again, amazingly, been threatened with arrest by the Met Police for taking photos in public, and was made, quite unlawfully, to delete the images she had taken.

How many times do they have to be told? You cannot do this. It is illegal. If a police officer is incapable of acting within the law, then he/she should be sacked. Possibly prosecuted. It is the one message that ACPO send out which is actually correct and desirable.

It may be irksome, it may be inconvenient. But you cannot prevent people from taking photographs in a public area, or arbitrarily destroy the images that have been taken just because you don't like it.

This is not how the police in a civilised, free society act.

I support the police, but fuck me, they make it difficult to justify that support sometimes.

Stupid, thoughtless and unilateral acts like this do nothing but stir up resentment and mistrust.

And if it isn't the police, it's the local council.

If you or I were to break the law, we'd be arrested and probably locked up. Well, that's not true, if we put a brick through someone's window, or knocked a granny off her electric buggy we'd suffer no penalty at all. If we didn't pay our council tax or TV licence, then it would be land of the stripy sunshine.

Is anyone going to lose their job over this? Anyone going to be locked up for a shocking episode of overbearing surveillance?

The bloke on the front line might, but the chap who authorised the operation will probably get out unscathed.

Not good enough.

Actions like these are incitement to civil disobedience.