MPs take note: We are in this together

Many of them have made stirring speeches to the effect that people would go to work as normal, come home as normal and generally live their lives as normal.

One of those politicians said: “We will all move forward together. Never giving in to terror. And never allowing the voices of hate and evil to drive us apart.”

In the unlikely event that any senior politicians happen to be reading this, hello and thanks for your concern.

Much as I appreciate your comments, there are one or two points I’d like to pick up on. I hope you don’t mind.

Most of what you said is perfectly correct. We shall indeed carry on as normal.

We shall do so because we are a defiant people and because the alternative - cowering like frightened animals - is repugnant to us and always has been.

You are also perfectly correct when you say we shall never allow the voices of hate and evil to drive us apart. That is because we know that defining entire faiths and cultures by the foul acts of a tiny few makes absolutely no sense and is thoroughly unjust.

A faith is no more responsible for what happened last week than another faith is responsible for the firebombing of family planning clinics in America, or still another is responsible for that odious Israeli border officer in Hebron who stamped on a little girl’s bike and threw it into bushes a while back.

Admittedly, some of us wonder in idle moments whether the world would be a better place if people wishing to proclaim themselves a member of any religion were obliged to take an IQ test first. Or at the very least, some sort of questionnaire designed to root out the hateful.

Pass it and they’d get their holy book of choice. Fail it and they’d just get a piece of laminated paper with a message in big letters: “God says hurting people is bad!”

But I digress. Sorry about that, senior politicians.

Your statements are mostly excellent, but your grasp of the word “We” seems a little lacking. You seem to believe it includes you. It does not.

We are people of a breathtaking array of backgrounds, origins, ethnicities, nationalities, spiritualities, educational attainment, opinions, aspirations and degrees of financial security.

You are overwhelmingly from a small number of backgrounds. Well under one in 100 of us studied at Oxford or Cambridge, for example, while a quarter of you did.

A relatively tiny proportion of us went to private schools, whereas a third of you did.

Today and every day, we walk along pavements and drive along roads and use public transport and live in homes which are all vulnerable to terrorist attack.

Today and every day, you travel in armoured vehicles, work in protected offices, live in protected homes and are guarded at work and at home by some of the very best and most courageous of us.

Most of us do not begrudge you your protected status. I certainly do not. Your safety is necessary in order for our system of government to function.

Still, if you could see your way clear to protecting us a bit more effectively, that would be great.

Doing more to prevent embittered crooks from becoming radicalised in prison might be a good start.

That and keeping more of an eye on anybody with a history of sympathising with terrorists. I know we’re not as important as you, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have loved ones to mourn or be mourned by should the worst happen.

• IT’S good to see Swindon schools and other relevant bodies liaising with Ofsted, which recently claimed the borough’s children were being failed by educators.

Teachers and parents alike were a bit bewildered by the assessment, what with vast numbers of pupils doing very well in exams, but that’s a matter for a different discussion.

There should be a bargain between all parties involved: Schools agree to work toward what Ofsted says is the right way of doing things, and Ofsted agrees not to change what it says is the right way of doing things for the next few years.

Share and share alike for water firm shareholders

I SEE Thames Water, that exemplar of all which is wonderful about privatised utilities, has been fined £20.3m for dumping 1.4m litres of raw sewage in the Thames.

According to one of the bosses, the cost will be met not by bill-paying customers but by shareholders.

I daresay this means their dividends will be reduced, but when I first heard the announcement I thought for a glorious moment it meant the actual fine would be divided among them, and they’d be criminally liable.

If only that were possible. If only anybody with shares worth more than, say, £1,000 got official letters from the Government in such circumstances: “Dear sir/madam, “We note that the above company, of which you are a part-owner, has committed a horrific and entirely avoidable environmental crime which turned a significant section of waterway into a big, stinking toilet.

“Your share of the fine has been calculated in proportion to the percentage of the company you own and is detailed below.

“Please indicate whether you’ll be paying in cash or spending the relevant period in prison. We calculate that a day per £10 owed would be appropriate.

“If you lack the funds to pay the fine but prefer not to go to prison, we suggest you sell your car. Or some household goods. Or your house. You may feel hard done by but frankly we don’t give a tuppenny damn.

“You should have thought of that when you bought the shares in the first place, greedy guts.

“In fact, you’re lucky we didn’t calculate your share of the sewage, bring a similar amount round to your house in a tanker and squirt it through your letterbox with a big hosepipe.”