Is Corby Borough Council fit for purpose?

We live in a country (the UK that is) which is fast becoming ruled by bureaucrats. These bureaucrats live in a world where negligence is a non-word, where duty is something from the last century and where the citizens are now deemed to be customers of their sevices. It's not very civic and it's not very democratic.

Corby Borough Council has been found negligent in its clean-up of former steel works. This clean-up may have led to birth defects in some children. However, the council is none too happy about being blamed and is to appeal against the High Court ruling. I fully accept that councils have a duty to look after council taxpayers' money, but it seems now that they are more keen to look after it to suit themselves rather than to suit the citizens. Many councils now see the local citizenry as a necessary nuisance which needs to be bothered and bewildered by bureaucracy in order to obtain compliance.

This council is taking a "twin-track" approach to the ruling. By that they mean they will appeal at the same time as meeting the parents group to try to buy them off with a gagging-clause type out-of-court settlement. Is this local democracy? Sounds to be more like local bureaucracy.

It always seems a hard slog for parents of children in such a situation. Thalidomide was probably the worst. Full of cover-ups, deceits and lies. I hope the people involved in this Corby case can get proper satisfaction. The chief executive, Chris Mallender, is playing a long game. If I were the parents, I'd look out for an Erin Brockovich type. Fancy lawyers are one thing, determined women with nothing to lose are something else!

OJ Simpson convicted on all counts

O J Simpson must be wondering about his life. Thirteen years ago to the day he was in a court to hear a jury say he wasn't guilty of killing his wife. Most of America, white that is, disagreed with the verdict. Now, on the anniversay of that court case, he is found guilty of robbery and menacing people with weapons. He claims he was only going to get back what was rightfully his.

You know, there may be a terrible irony in all this. I know he is going to appeal this verdict, but the thought occurs to me that he got off the first when evidence is compelling that he did it, but that he may not have been doing other than what he said in the second. So the verdicts are round the wrong way?

People like OJ live in the fast lane. He appears both charming and chilling in equal measure. Dr.Jekyll and Mr.Hyde have been to visit him. But it would be a rough justice indeed if he has been found guilty now because "we didn't get him the first time!".