#Genderpaygap important to understand what it is - and more importantly to understand why it exists.

Historically women have been paid less than men for the same work. Of course no reasonable person would argue this was justifiable. It is rightly against the law and has been since The Equal Pay Act 1970. In all my working life I have never come across unequal pay based on gender or for that mater any other type of discrimination - ie same grade - same pay - regardless.

As a consequence I was of the view men and women are paid equally in the UK - the battle had been won.

However the term "gender pay gap" has been regularly featuring in the news media. Like many people I think - I have been rather dismissive of it - viewing the simple headlines as an exaggeration. I do not believe men and women are paid differently for the same job in the UK - and I stand by that. (of course there may still be some dark ages employers who are breaking the law). So my standpoint has been - any statistics that say a gender pay gap exists are biased to promote a particular feminist cause - and any consequent lazy headline - to sell tabloid newspapers!

Subsequently of course I take the trouble to understand the "gender pay gap" is not revealing that women are paid less than men for doing the same job - but that in any given company the total earnt by the average male employee is typically greater than that earnt by the average female employee. This of course puts a whole new slant and significance on the statistics - on "the gender pay gap" (as now understood!).

At this point I commend you to go to the link below. It is Kate Andrews  - Associate Director of the Institute of Economic Affairs.

Here's

@KateAndrs

on why the 'Gender Pay Gap' reporting measures are worse than useless, and why women should be working to reclaim the better side of feminism, rooted in fairness, equality and truth!

https://twitter.com/iealondon/status/1055564925807091712?s=17

Like Kate I think the way the gender pay gap statistics have typically been used (as lurid and misleading headlines) has undermined their value - undermined the fair and reasonable objective of treating everyone fairly when it comes to pay.

Once you get over the irksome misimpression/lie that women are typically paid less for the same work (in the UK) than men you can move on to something more meaningful.

Undoubtedly in most companies the average male pay is greater than the average female pay. (although it is fair to say the gap is closing). Why does a gap exist? Is there a gender bias? Are women being treated unfairly? How can it happen when we have an Equal Pay Act? 

It is these questions I want to focus on now - I don't know the answers. I want to know/consider them (and campaign for changes if there is a problem) - not least because I have a daughter and two little granddaughters. I want them to be able to be anything they want to be - I want them to have an equal chance - be treated fairly and on their merit.

So question - why in a typical company is average male pay greater than average female pay?

It could be because ( I have fired off a few reasons from the top of my head!) :

• When it comes to promotion men are better qualified. It is widely understood that on average young women coming out of education have a higher standard of examination passes than average young men. I do not think anyone would seriously argue men are more intelligent.
• It could be men are more ambitious. There might be something in this perhaps. I don't know the answer. Is there still some sort of hangover - the man is the breadwinner - a woman's career is not so important. Whose attitudes need to change here?
• It could be men are more competitive. This has been suggested as a significant contributory factor in as much as men might push themselves forward more readily - to ask for promotion - to ask for more pay. Whose attitude needs to change here?
• It could be at job selection there is a bias in favour of men. It is likely this still exists. The Equal Opportunities Act and other employment law offers protection but how effective this is in reality I am not sure? 
• It could be promotions are based on subjective rather than objective criteria. It is likely - almost certain this happens - probably happens widely. Good employment/recruitment practices should outline the assessment criteria and be subject to legal claim for unfair treatment. How effective this is I do not know.
• It could be because women have children. Commonsense tells me this is a massive factor. I am sure many small scale employers or department managers take the likely prospect of maternity leave in to account when offering jobs. Commonsense too tells you that many women's careers - their CPD - is interrupted by pregnancy. Men get ahead? Having children may also affect ambition - may affect commitment - may affect the ability to work. There is an honest discussion to be had here although often it is a polarised debate. Some would argue pregnancy is a female issue and it is disingenuous to deny its inevitable and practical impact on work and career. Others argue in modern employment practices companies must discount pregnancy as any sort of negative factor and do everything possible to negate its impact by way of legal requirement. Are women still forced to choose between career and children? Is this inevitable?
• It could be because women do not apply for certain jobs. It seems this is still a factor although there are few taboos left. The SAS now recruit women. However it surely is the case that young girls are channelled towards certain types of occupations and away from others. Is that unreasonable? Whose fault is it? What needs to change?
• It could be qualification requirements for a particular role are specific and there are not enough women that hold those qualifications. This is tied in with the point above. Are female students directed towards certain academic subjects and away from others? Is there a gender difference in disposition/capacity towards certain academic subjects? Easyjet find it difficult to find and train female pilots. Whose fault? What needs to change?
• It could be men are better suited to particular jobs and those jobs are paid more. Undoubtedly this is a factor. For instance heavy dirty jobs might be paid more. These jobs might be judged more suitable for men. Job Evaluation is a recognised process. Currently Tesco are being sued by shop floor workers (predominantly women) who claim they are paid less (unfairly so) than the companies warehouse staff. (predominantly men). My own view here is largely to do with supply and demand. 

WHAT CAN BE DONE TO NARROW THE GAP?

From 6 April 2017 employers in Great Britain with more than 250 staff are required by law to publish the following four types of figures annually on their own website and on a government website:

• Gender pay gap (mean and median averages)
• Gender bonus gap (mean and median averages)
• Proportion of men and women receiving bonuses
• Proportion of men and women in each quartile of the organisation’s pay structure

This information is valuable. It does put pressure on companies to justify their gender pay differences. However to be credible it must be used well and I am sure to date there are plenty of examples where that has not been the case. Analysis of the factors behind the figures is vital because without accurate and objective analysis little will change.

POSITIVE DESCRIMINATION - AND ALL WOMEN SHORTLISTS - it is argued this is a sensible and practical solution to change a culture. Some women argue it is patronising. Hayley Turner the accomplished flat race jockey poured scorn on the idea of giving women jockeys a weight carrying advantage to help more women get rides. She said she wanted to get her rides on merit not for a gender reason.

I am sure the vast majority believe in gender equality and want to create a fair society if it does not exist. However there is a feminist movement that at its extremes blame any evidence of gender inequality on men conspiring to keep women in their place. It is easy to point to male dominated boardrooms. There is no doubt systemic problems exist - there is no doubt - some chauvinism. This needs to change. I am going to argue however that there are women who perpetuate a victim mentality and I would suggest to them that work in a capitalist system at its core is based on meritocracy, profit motive and supply and demand. Women like men must compete on that basis. The key is for society to establish a level playing field. I remain unsure how pregnancy and physical difference between men and women should be dealt with in this respect. 

#Brexit by Tony Abbott writing in The Spectator : How to save Brexit. Britain has nothing to fear from no deal.

This is a very succinct and objective article written by Tony Abbott (former Prime Minister of Australia) a man of real and relevant experience of the world. His advice is both practical and simple. It will be a tragedy - a disaster for the UK if we do not heed it. It is not too late to wake up to the EU ploy. We need backbone and self confidence. We literally need some dogged war time spirit in order to preserve our democracy, our nation status and our economic well being.

I have copied and pasted Mr Abbott's article below from The Spectator :

How to save Brexit. Britain has nothing to fear from no deal by Tony Abbott writing in The Spectator (dated 27th October 2018).

It’s pretty hard for Britain’s friends, here in Australia, to make sense of the mess that’s being made of Brexit. The referendum result was perhaps the biggest-ever vote of confidence in the United Kingdom, its past and its future. But the British establishment doesn’t seem to share that confidence and instead looks desperate to cut a deal, even if that means staying under the rule of Brussels. Looking at this from abroad, it’s baffling: the country that did the most to bring democracy into the modern world might yet throw away the chance to take charge of its own destiny.

Let’s get one thing straight: a negotiation that you’re not prepared to walk away from is not a negotiation — it’s surrender. It’s all give and no get. When David Cameron tried to renegotiate Britain’s EU membership, he was sent packing because Brussels judged (rightly) that he’d never actually back leaving. And since then, Brussels has made no real concessions to Theresa May because it judges (rightly, it seems) that she’s desperate for whatever deal she can get.

The EU’s palpable desire to punish Britain for leaving vindicates the Brexit project. Its position, now, is that there’s only one ‘deal’ on offer, whereby the UK retains all of the burdens of EU membership but with no say in setting the rules. The EU seems to think that Britain will go along with this because it’s terrified of no deal. Or, to put it another way, terrified of the prospect of its own independence.

But even after two years of fearmongering and vacillation, it’s not too late for robust leadership to deliver the Brexit that people voted for. It’s time for Britain to announce what it will do if the EU can’t make an acceptable offer by March 29 next year — and how it would handle no deal. Freed from EU rules, Britain would automatically revert to world trade, using rules agreed by the World Trade Organization. It works pretty well for Australia. So why on earth would it not work just as well for the world’s fifth-largest economy?

A world trade Brexit lets Britain set its own rules. It can say, right now, that it will not impose any tariff or quota on European produce and would recognise all EU product standards. That means no border controls for goods coming from Europe to Britain. You don’t need to negotiate this: just do it. If Europe knows what’s in its own best interests, it would fully reciprocate in order to maintain entirely free trade and full mutual recognition of standards right across Europe.

Next, the UK should declare that Europeans already living here should have the right to remain permanently — and, of course, become British citizens if they wish. This should be a unilateral offer. Again, you don’t need a deal. You don’t need Michel Barnier’s permission. If Europe knows what’s best for itself, it would likewise allow Britons to stay where they are.

Third, there should continue to be free movement of people from Europe into Britain — but with a few conditions. Only for work, not welfare. And with a foreign worker’s tax on the employer, to make sure anyone coming in would not be displacing British workers.

Fourth, no ‘divorce bill’ whatsoever should be paid to Brussels. The UK government would assume the EU’s property and liabilities in Britain, and the EU would assume Britain’s share of these in Europe. If Britain was getting its fair share, these would balance out; and if Britain wasn’t getting its fair share, it’s the EU that should be paying Britain.

Finally, there’s no need on Britain’s part for a hard border with Ireland. Britain wouldn’t be imposing tariffs on European goods, so there’s no money to collect. The UK has exactly the same product standards as the Republic, so let’s not pretend you need to check for problems we all know don’t exist. Some changes may be needed but technology allows for smart borders: there was never any need for a Cold War-style Checkpoint Charlie. Irish citizens, of course, have the right to live and work in the UK in an agreement that long predates EU membership.

Of course, the EU might not like this British leap for independence. It might hit out with tariffs and impose burdens on Britain as it does on the US — but WTO rules put a cap on any retaliatory action. The worst it can get? We’re talking levies of an average 4 or 5 per cent. Which would be more than offset by a post-Brexit devaluation of the pound (which would have the added bonus of making British goods more competitive everywhere).

UK officialdom assumes that a deal is vital, which is why so little thought has been put into how Britain might just walk away. Instead, officials have concocted lurid scenarios featuring runs on the pound, gridlock at ports, grounded aircraft, hoarding of medicines and flights of investment. It’s been the pre-referendum Project Fear campaign on steroids. And let’s not forget how employment, investment and economic growth ticked up after the referendum.

As a former prime minister of Australia and a lifelong friend of your country, I would say this: Britain has nothing to lose except the shackles that the EU imposes on it. After the courage shown by its citizens in the referendum, it would be a tragedy if political leaders go wobbly now. Britain’s future has always been global, rather than just with Europe. Like so many of Britain’s admirers, I want to see this great country seize this chance and make the most of it.

Tony Abbott served as Prime Minister of Australia from 2013 to 2015

#PeoplesVote Divided Britain - it is - and stopping a full Brexit will make it much worse.

I am not advocating that the Brexit voter was only motivated by an opportunity to stop free movement. Many like me see democracy and self determination as the principle reasons to leave the EU. I believe the EU has become a bureaucratic anti democratic self serving inefficient nightmare. I actually believe it is going to fail and we can do far better outside it.) 

HOWEVER

As a father of four tremendous young people and a grandfather of two beautiful and innocent little girls I am very worried about the future for our country.

Last week a significant report has been released evidencing an increasingly divided Britain. I have copied and pasted the summary below :

"Britain is hugely divided across cultural, age and education lines, a major study of national attitudes has concluded, warning of a potential rise in far-right and anti-Islam sentiments unless politicians tackle long-standing disaffections behind the Brexit vote.

There is a particular chasm between people living in affluent, multicultural cities and those from struggling post-industrial towns, according to the report from Hope Not Hate, based on six years of polling and focus groups.

The study by the anti-fascism advocacy group uncovers the often glaring extent of geographic splits between people of varying attitudes, with opposition to immigration and multiculturalism correlating closely with socio-economic deprivation."

It is evident to me that this report is essentially correct in its conclusions. In fact I would argue values and attitudes are becoming even more polarised and destructive than the report references. (the fight for Brexit and the Peoples Vote.)

This is when the problem starts. From now on everything you read below is likely to be considered in polarised terms - either (or at least bordering on) racist, xenophobic, far right, ignorant, badly informed, typical Brexit mentality on the one hand or I agree and I am fed up with it and want to get our country back on track - on the other.  

It is evident many in the UK feel a London centric way of life is so untypical of the rest of the UK - it almost constitutes a different county and neither want part of each others world - or at least feel very uncomfortable or suspicious of it.

So many of the issues have been bubbling away in our society - I will list a few :

• feeling politicians have failed or are wilfully reluctant to acknowledge the impact of vast and uncontrolled inward migration on our way of life.
• overpopulation.The UK is forecast to have the largest population in Europe by 2035. SE the densest populated area in the EU?
• disputed need and benefits for and of inward migration.
• feeling a there has been a failure and wilful reluctance to acknowledge the impact of inward migration on wage rates and or do much about it in practical terms. Suspicion the privileged liberal elites massively benefit from cheap foreign labour to clean their cars and houses etc.
• relentless portrayal of inward migration as positive for the UK by politicians and the liberal elites when many feel otherwise. 
• denial of serious debate to engage with the real and commonsense based observed negatives expressed by some communities resulting from inward migration (either for self interest, for politically correct reasons and or reluctance to upset sensitive minorities (and the disorder that could arise as a result).
• misplaced political correctness silencing reasonable and objective debate on the issues of migration and particularly the integration of followers of Islam into our society.
• overplaying of the "racism" and "racist" cards to shut down reasonable debate.

• dispute that migrants make a positive contribution when taking into account benefits such as GP's, school places, NHS services, social services, housing etc.
• failure of government to differentiate between economic migration and political asylum.
• strong adolescent men seeking asylum being portrayed as vulnerable children. ( asylum seekers predominantly men -  obvious question - where are the women - left behind in the war zone?)
• failure of government to remove illegal migrants and failed asylum seekers. (made worse by porous borders and a chronically/wilfully inefficient legal system.

So far the approach of liberal elites (who largely control the media) and by politicians in the main has been to play down these issues, stifle debate  - and use terms like populists, extreme right wing, xenophobia, islamophobia  and racist - in an attempt to marginalise ordinary people with their "superior" intellect or more worthy values. It is trendy to do so. These attitudes and tactics have got us to the place we are now in - a deeply divided and fragile society.

Halleluiah - Brexit was the democratic opportunity for people wanting change to voice their desire for change. The end of free movement - the ability to control our own borders - an ability to universally change our benefits system - an opportunity to prioritize housing for our own - an opportunity to reset the NHS to be the national rather than international health service again - an opportunity to stop communities - their values and customs being distorted and undermined by uncontrolled economic migration.

Many people with liberal values will despair at these motivations. Many despise the Brexit voter. Many want to overcome the democratically held referendum result.

What if they are successful. What if the liberal elites manage to massively water down the Brexit vote or stop Brexit. What is the effect. What is going to happen? Two things. I) these deeply held and passionate feelings will again be ignored - will be trampled over by the nominally more powerful - and 2) our system of democracy will very publicly have been circumvented - broken down.

Democracy is the thread that holds our divided society together. The damage this will do to our society could be manifest. What precedent has been set. What defence will there be against anarchy?

I believe even the most passionate liberal would be sensible to support a democratic Brexit - to uphold our democracy. They can then work democratically with their arguments and points of view to build the society they want - to change views - but for now they have democratically lost the vote. A full Brexit as promised and as understood will be the only way our fractured society has any chance of healing - because it will take the heat out of a potential maelstrom.

(I appreciate many believe Brexit gives a green light to more racism - more anti migrant rhetoric. I do not agree. I think the opposite is true. If you rob the people of their democratic Brexit - what are they left with? If it is not the ballot box what? There will be an even greater sense of grievance against our political system and liberal elites and that will mean even more polarisation. A very dangerous state. A state of anarchy may be. A state of retribution ?At least and so far those that want change have observed our democratic system to bring it about - high minded liberal elites and Europhiles  seem to have forgotten it.)) 

#DividedBritain it is - and stopping a full Brexit will make it much worse.

(I am not advocating that the Brexit voter was only motivated by an opportunity to stop free movement. Many like me see democracy and self determination as the principle reasons to leave the EU. I believe the EU has become a bureaucratic anti democratic self serving inefficient nightmare. I actually believe it is going to fail and we can do far better outside it.) 

HOWEVER

As a father of four tremendous young people and a grandfather of two beautiful and innocent little girls I am very worried about the future for our country.

Last week a significant report has been released evidencing an increasingly divided Britain. I have copied and pasted the summary below :

"Britain is hugely divided across cultural, age and education lines, a major study of national attitudes has concluded, warning of a potential rise in far-right and anti-Islam sentiments unless politicians tackle long-standing disaffections behind the Brexit vote.

There is a particular chasm between people living in affluent, multicultural cities and those from struggling post-industrial towns, according to the report from Hope Not Hate, based on six years of polling and focus groups.

The study by the anti-fascism advocacy group uncovers the often glaring extent of geographic splits between people of varying attitudes, with opposition to immigration and multiculturalism correlating closely with socio-economic deprivation."

It is evident to me that this report is essentially correct in its conclusions. In fact I would argue values and attitudes are becoming even more polarised and destructive than the report references. (in the heat of the protracted Brexit conclusion).

This is when the problem starts. From now on everything you read below is likely to be considered in polarised terms - either (or at least bordering on) racist, xenophobic, far right, ignorant, badly informed, typical Brexit mentality on the one hand or I agree and I am fed up with it and want to get our country back on track - on the other.  

It is evident many in the UK feel a London centric way of life is so untypical of the rest of the UK - it almost constitutes a different county and neither want part of each others world - or at least feel very uncomfortable or suspicious of it.

So many of the issues have been bubbling away in our society - I will list a few :

• feeling politicians have failed or are wilfully reluctant to acknowledge the impact of vast and uncontrolled inward migration on our way of life.
• overpopulation.The UK is forecast to have the largest population in Europe by 2035. SE the densest populated area in the EU?
• disputed need and benefits for and of inward migration.
• feeling a there has been a failure and wilful reluctance to acknowledge the impact of inward migration on wage rates and or do much about it in practical terms. Suspicion the privileged liberal elites massively benefit from cheap foreign labour to clean their cars and houses etc.
• relentless portrayal of inward migration as positive for the UK by politicians and the liberal elites when many feel otherwise. 
• denial of serious debate to engage with the real and commonsense based observed negatives expressed by some communities resulting from inward migration (either for self interest, for politically correct reasons and or reluctance to upset sensitive minorities (and the disorder that could arise as a result).
• misplaced political correctness silencing reasonable and objective debate on the issues of migration and particularly the integration of followers of Islam into our society.
• overplaying of the "racism" and "racist" cards to shut down reasonable debate.

• dispute that migrants make a positive contribution when taking into account benefits such as GP's, school places, NHS services, social services, housing etc.
• failure of government to differentiate between economic migration and political asylum.
• strong adolescent men seeking asylum being portrayed as vulnerable children. ( asylum seekers predominantly men -  obvious question - where are the women - left behind in the war zone?)
• failure of government to remove illegal migrants and failed asylum seekers. (made worse by porous borders and a chronically/wilfully inefficient legal system.

So far the approach of liberal elites (who largely control the media) and by politicians in the main has been to play down these issues, stifle debate  - and use terms like populists, extreme right wing, xenophobia, islamophobia  and racist - in an attempt to marginalise ordinary people with their "superior" intellect or more worthy values. It is trendy to do so. 

These attitudes and tactics have got us to the place we are now in - a deeply divided and fragile society.

Halleluiah - Brexit was the democratic opportunity for people wanting change to voice their desire for change. The end of free movement - the ability to control our own borders - an ability to universally change our benefits system - an opportunity to prioritize housing for our own - an opportunity to reset the NHS to be the national rather than international health service again - an opportunity to stop communities - their values and customs being distorted and undermined by uncontrolled economic migration.

Many people with liberal values will despair at these motivations. Many despise the Brexit voter. Many want to overcome the democratically held referendum result.

What if they are successful. What if the liberal elites manage to massively water down the Brexit vote or stop Brexit. What is the effect. What is going to happen? Two things. I) these deeply held and passionate feelings will again be ignored - will be trampled over by the nominally more powerful - and 2) our system of democracy will very publicly have been circumvented - broken down.

Democracy is the thread that holds our divided society together. The damage this will do to our society could be manifest. What precedent has been set. What defence will there be against anarchy?

I believe even the most passionate liberal would be sensible to support a democratic Brexit - to uphold our democracy. They can then work democratically with their arguments and points of view to build the society they want - to change views - but for now they have democratically lost the vote. A full Brexit as promised and as understood will be the only way our fractured society has any chance of healing - because it will take the heat out of a potential maelstrom.

(I appreciate many believe Brexit gives a green light to more racism - more anti migrant rhetoric. I do not agree. I think the opposite is true. If you rob the people of their democratic Brexit - what are they left with? If it is not the ballot box what? There will be an even greater sense of grievance against our political system and liberal elites and that will mean even more polarisation. A very dangerous state. A state of anarchy may be. A state of retribution ? At least and so far those that want change have observed our democratic system to bring it about - high minded liberal elites and Europhiles  seem to have forgotten it.)

#innocentuntilprovedguilty Kavanaugh - Me Too.

I have copied and pasted this article because it highlights the possible diminution of a principle that should be very important to our society - "innocence until proved guilty".

#foodsafety Pret a Manger

I have copied this article because I believe it is well written, balanced and relevant. I do so in the knowledge that allergies pose practical and emotional issues to live and deal with. Above all we must want to prevent tragedy. The question is who is best placed to ensure that. My default position on all health and safety related debate as in most things is personal responsibility should always be a live consideration.

Don’t blame Pret a Manger for Natasha Ednan-Laperouse’s death


Dominic Lawson


Food safety is vital, but we must take some responsibility ourselves

Share

Save

Where should corporate responsibility end and individual responsibility begin? Over decades the line has moved inexorably in the direction of the former: the law has accorded more and more protection to the consumer. That is a good thing. But the principle of caveat emptor cannot be entirely extinguished, or we would be living in a world where businesses would be forced to treat all their customers as if they were helpless infants. Which would be, well, infantilising.

These thoughts are provoked by two much-reported incidents involving injury and death. The injured party is a 49-year-old Frenchwoman, Corine Remande, who said she was planning to sue the organisers of the Ryder Cup after being struck in the eye by a wayward golf ball during that encounter between America and Europe.

Remande, who had travelled to France with her husband from her home in Egypt to witness this epic contest in the flesh, experienced what her doctors described as “a fracture of the right socket and the explosion of the eyeball” after a misdirected drive by the US player Brooks Koepka plunged into a phalanx of spectators on the sixth hole of Le Golf National course in Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines.

It was impossible not to feel great sympathy for Remande, as, with her now useless right eye heavily bandaged, she bravely appeared before the cameras a few days later, to complain that “officials did not shout any warning as the player’s ball went into the crowd”. Actually, they did: loud cries of “fore” could clearly be heard on the TV replays of the incident.

But even if those warning shouts did not reach her, she stands no chance — I hope — of a successful litigation. All Ryder Cup tickets were issued in accordance with the ground regulations of the event, which state that spectators acknowledge the risks associated with being present (at a sport in which balls are struck with immense force, not always in the direction intended). And the reason golf fans stand so close to the path of the ball is to feel part of the action. They are, in a sense, participants themselves, with all the attendant risks in a hard-ball game. Sorry, Corine: public sympathy will be for your great bad luck, not your litigation.

Her misfortune is as nothing to that experienced by the family of Natasha Ednan-Laperouse. West London Coroner’s Court heard last week how this 15-year-old had died of anaphylactic shock on a BA flight from London to Nice. The daughter of the toy tycoon Nadim Ednan-Laperouse (who was with her on the flight and spoke heartrendingly to the court about her final moments in his arms) suffered from a range of acute food allergies, including to milk, eggs, bananas, avocados and sesame seeds. It was the sesame seeds hidden in a Pret a Manger artichoke, olive and tapenade baguette, purchased at one of the chain’s Heathrow airport outlets, that killed her.

It’s not surprising that Pret has come in for ferocious attack (big company v bereaved family). For me, its slogan that all its products are “lovingly” handmade is emetic in itself. Its other sales shtick is that, unlike those beastly supermarkets, Pret offers 100% “natural” food. But as the Advertising Standards Authority observed in censure a few months ago, it too uses chemicals in its bread (E472e, E471 and E300 if you must know). However, it does make up its sandwiches and other meals “fresh” on site. And under EU regulations, this means it is exempt from the legal requirement to label every product with allergen warnings.

It seems the Ednan-Laperouses were unaware of this: Natasha’s father told the court that as the baguette did not have a label declaring the presence of sesame seeds, “Natasha and I relied on food information and saw no need to ask Pret counter staff if any other information was needed.” But as the coroner pointed out, there are stickers in Pret’s display units that urge customers to consult staff or the company’s website if they have concerns about allergens in any individual product. Natasha and her father did not see these stickers.

While this case was being reported, I went to Pret’s website, and found its allergen guide. It states at the outset: “We really can’t guarantee any of our food or drink is allergen-free. Please take care.” Below that is a list of all its regular products with the allergens contained in each. At the very top (it’s in alphabetical order) is the artichoke, olive and tapenade baguette, marked as containing sesame.

As a result of what happened to Natasha, Pret will now include such information on the products themselves. But — and I realise this might seem callous — it surprised me that Natasha and her father even considered buying her baguette from a chain such as Pret, rather than make up her sandwich at home, given the profound extent of her allergies. In their deeply affecting article for last week’s Sunday Times, Tanya and Nadim Ednan-Laperouse wrote: “Pret markets itself as selling natural products you can trust, but it was a wolf in sheep’s clothing.” Yet “natural” is not the same as “safe” — and Natasha’s allergies were not to E numbers but to basic ingredients.

Worried that my reaction was unfeeling or unreasonable, I consulted both a food safety inspector and my doctor. To my slight surprise, the former said that Pret had not cut any corners and that in such circumstances “people must take some responsibility themselves”. And the only company my doctor criticised was BA. He said it was “appalling” that when Natasha’s heart had stopped beating (as the plane was coming in to land) the crew would not supply the plane’s defibrillator to the recently qualified doctor on board desperately trying to save the girl’s life. BA told the coroner that the requirement for each of the flight crew to man the doors (“in case of an emergency”) took precedence over the frantic calls of that doctor pounding Natasha’s chest.

The defibrillator might well not have helped. But no wonder Natasha’s mother burst into tears at the inquest when she heard BA’s representative explain why her daughter’s plight was not the highest priority: that, in effect, the possible emergency for passengers if something were to happen to one of the exit doors was more urgent than the real emergency of a dying 15-year-old.

Yet my wise old doctor (he’s nearing retirement) was also surprised the situation had even arisen. He said that, hard as it is for people who want to lead a normal family life, if you have a complex range of life-threatening food allergies “it’s crazy to eat out at all. You’ve no idea what might have got into what you are served and those serving it might not, either. You have to give yourself the best chance.”

But I don’t blame the coroner for not saying that to Natasha’s bereaved parents. There but for the grace of God. . .

#People'svote duplicitous - deceiteful - mendacious - dangerous - and Universal Sufferage.

Here I am using strong words to associate with those that are calling for a "People's Vote". How can I justify them?

Well the most obvious deceit - they are trying to pass off a call for a second referendum as a more wholesome sounding "People's Vote". They want to reverse the Brexit decision and while it is a shocking betrayal of our democratic system I would have marginally more respect for them if they just admitted they are calling for a re run of the referendum in order to try and change the decision to leave. However as their whole position is built on one of massive lies we should not be surprised by the weasel words behind the so called Peoples Vote.

The massive lies I refer to?

Even the most staunch remainer - remoaner - People's Vote advocate - know deep down that is was stated clearly before the referendum vote - that the referendum was called to determine a fundamental question - to leave the EU or stay in the EU. It was also understood that the decision was a once in a generation vote and Parliament would deliver the outcome. (not least because the Government spent millions delivering a glossy brochure to every household in the country that said so.) EVERYONE understood that was the basis of the referendum when they voted. To dispute that now is a lie. 

The second lie is "it was never stated clearly what a vote to leave meant". This is a lie. EVERYONE understood the campaign to leave was to achieve again full control of our laws, money and borders and be able to trade on our own terms with the rest of the world. To those that conveniently dispute that now I might ask - what other reasons were there to vote leave? Nobody voted to half leave.

The third lie is anything can be certain down the line. Everyone who voted in the referendum understood there was the possibility of economic risk by staying but particularly by leaving. Project Fear set out to inform or some argue to scare voters. Everyone understood there were risks and benefits of leaving were disputed and uncertain. (it is a ridiculous claim that the vote was determined by the bus as the validity of the claim was flogged do death in the lead up to the vote.) Those that voted to leave understood there were economic risks and they either thought they were overstated or there were other more important reasons to leave - to get our democracy and self determination back. I am one of them.

To those remoaners calling for a "peoples vote" I accuse of lying. I accuse them of lying to themselves and everyone they are trying to influence. That is bad - but it happens - it is up to them - maybe they feel the end justifies the means or their self interest trumps every other moral consideration. What is much worse - what is unforgiveable - what is dangerous - is they are undermining the one thing that holds our society together - our democratic system. They want to overturn a democratically held referendum because it did not throw up the result they wanted. They should stop for a minute and consider what that actually means - what message it sends out for the future - what message it sends out to subsequent votes and subsequent generations. It is playing with fire. If we do not have a democratic system that people believe in and trust what are you left with - what will hold our complex multi cultural society together? Shame on you if you are supporting the call for a second referendum. You should not be doing it.

My final point - it is a bit of an aside but important. You have to trust the people. As soon as you go down the road of people did not know what they voted for, understood what they voted for, were not well enough informed, actually were voting for something else, were lied to, were gullible etc etc you are heading down a very dodgy road indeed. Are you advocating you have to pass a test to prove you are qualified to vote? Are some peoples vote worth more than others? The battle for UNIVERSAL SUFFERAGE was one of the most honourable and decent battles ever fought by people in this country. We led the world. Shame on those remoaners who think they know best - that their view is more valid - that they can thwart democracy because they are cleverer and have a better insight into what the future holds.

This young man gets it. Watch this extract from last weeks BBC question time. Everyone should respect the first peoples vote and get behind their country and make the best of it. That is the democratic thing to do.

https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1045433395885604864