It’s been a long-held belief of the Conservative party that marriage is good for their constituents. Marriage is moral! Marriage is proper! All the best people get married! Marriage is RIGHT!

Well, hoorah for the Conservative Party – we’re all entitled to our opinions. It becomes worrying however, when personal opinions move into politics and last weekend David Cameron announced that should his party win the next general election, he will be granting a tax break to married couples. Love is love, commitment is commitment, he tweeted.

Now, I’ve always believed that personal opinion has no place in politics, and that politicians have no place in our personal lives. They are there to look after us; they are there to protect us in times of war and prevent unnecessary war; they are there to manage the finances of the country; to pick up litter, to oversee our hospitals and make decisions that it would be difficult to reach at a local level. They are not there to tell us how to live our lives.

With 42% of marriages ending in divorce, how is a wedding a bigger sign of commitment than living together, having children and buying a house together? While irresponsible parents may walk away from their children, a wedding certificate won’t hinder them anymore than their internal morals, and it's far more difficult to extricate yourself from a mortgage with equality than it is to end a marriage.

I find myself baffled by the Prime Minister’s arguments.

Why should I be penalised because I have no religious convictions, don't need to 'affirm' my love for my partner with an embarrassing public ceremony, have no wish to be 'the centre of attention' for a single, expensive day as the birth of my children have already given me 'the happiest day of my life', and don't see the point in wasting money I need to use elsewhere on a day I have no wish for? Who is to say that my life choices are less valid than my married neighbours? Why do they need more money than me simply because they were inclined towards public spectacle and I am not? Well, those wedding ceremonies are expensive, so perhaps they could use the extra cash!

Getting married is expensive; even if you don’t go for the big dress, photographer, posh venue and demonstrative reception – risking the annoyance of all your friends and family – you still have to pay for the registrar, notice, certificate and various other administrative fees. Personally, I’d prefer to spend that on household bills; a holiday; clothes for the family; weekend treats.

The problem is, when I say ‘I don’t want to get married’ people automatically think ‘aww, what a pity; he obviously hasn’t asked her.’ But I don’t want to get married. I really, really, honestly do not want to get to married. I never have wanted to, even as a child. In fact, the idea mildly appals me – speaking publicly, wearing uncomfortable clothes; there’s little I’d rather do less. And yet if I maintain that standpoint I’m likely to be financially penalised... Even though my ‘sinful’ relationship may last longer than the multitude condoned by church and state.

And what of those who have no wish for a permanent relationship? They’re not promiscuous, but solitary beings, who prefer not live with other people; they’re not necessarily anti-social, they just like to have space of their own. What of those who just never found the person they were looking for? At the beginning of 2013 there were 10.9 million single people living in the UK. They too will find themselves being discriminated against.

I have nothing against marriage, no bad experiences to report – my parents have been married for more than 40 years, so they’re a reasonable poster couple for the institution.

On the other hand, I have a lot against being morally dictated to and being told that my choices are wrong.

My message? There is no room in politics for nannying Mr Cameron; we’re all grown-ups; we’re all able to make our own choices. Don’t try to bribe us all into forming your idealised state; it will simply lead to even more divorces.

Now, I’m all for charitable donations and it’s always heart-warming to see one of the bigger brands supporting those in need, but sometimes you have to question the logic behind certain decisions and on happening upon the current charitable promotion in the Ludlow (Shropshire) branch of Tesco, I’m doing just that. 

‘Pick a square for the chance to win this luxury chocolate hamper... All proceeds to Diabetes UK’

You can imagine the team meeting.

Manager: Come on guys! Diabetes UK is the Tesco charidy of the year; we need some fresh ideas on how to raise some dough! Let’s workshop.

Fresh Produce Team Leader: I guess we could always dress up in costumes for the weekend and ask people to sponsor us again?

Personnel Manager: The team are a bit iffy on that one; after the Christmas incident I had more meetings with union reps than hot dinners.

Manager: Good point. Come on guys, it’s not rocket science; let’s get some blue-sky thinking out of the box!

Customer Services Manager: We could do a raffle; you know, give away some sporting equipment or something... Isn’t that meant to be good for diabetes? Exercise?

Manager: Hmm, a raffle, I like it! Sport’s not very... sexy though; we need something that will get the pounds coming in. Ideas? Anyone?

Ambient Goods Team Leader: How about a fruit basket?

Manager: Mah-aaahhh, boorrrrrrrring!

Checkout Supervisor: Win your weekly shop?

Manager: What? Are we made of money?

Marketing Manager: How about chocolate? We could do a chocolate hamper! Everyone loves chocolate; that would really get the money coming in from the good people of Ludlow to the Diabetes sufferers of the world... And they’re all fatty’s, right? People who get diabetes are only ever fat, so chocolate should appeal!

Manager: I love it! It’s sexy; it’s smart; it’s cheap!... No wonder you’re head of marketing...

Cynicism comes easily and I don’t want to knock the spirit of giving, but... Really?

Type 2 diabetes develops when the body becomes unable to make enough insulin, or when the insulin that is produced does not work properly, which means that glucose builds up in the blood and various health implications ensue. It is most common in people over the age of 40, but it is becoming a growing problem in children. Although there are many reasons for the development of diabetes, poor diet and lack of exercise are thought to be major contributors. Chocolate, as a general rule, isn’t considered to be a good idea.

In 2012 the Tesco group made £1.6bn of profit – they were unhappy with this as it was the first time in the company’s history that their profitability dropped.  Bless. (Hands up who had a pay rise last year... No; me neither.) Even still, with that amount of cash to play with, you’d think that they could afford to donate to their ‘charity of the year’ without resorting to fleecing their customers with poorly thought out publicity... Perhaps the plan was actually to increase the number of people who need support from the charity, rather than the number who donate to it?

If you would like to support Diabetes UK – without inducing your own diabetic coma with the consumption of a chocolate hamper – visit http://www.diabetes.org.uk

If you would like to support Diabetes UK and be in with the chance of winning a chocolate-induced diabetic coma, just head on over to Tesco in Ludlow... 

When you work as a freelance anything there are certain tiresome topics that have to be dealt with, particularly if you wish to be financially savvy. 

To do this, certain information needs to be gathered and phone calls need to be made.  In my experience thus far, getting advice from the Department of Work and Pensions and HMRC isn’t so much like pulling teeth, as trying to fit the teeth back into the oozing bloody sockets once they’ve been removed with a sledgehammer and run over by a steamroller. Painful is not the word. 

I must admit to currently experiencing a very unladylike fit of pique. A little vein is throbbing in my temple; my jaw is clenched and my frustration has escalated to a point hitherto unknown. 

The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘bureaucracy’ as ‘Government by bureaux; usually officialism,’ and ‘officialism’ as the ‘perfunctory and literal discharge of the duties of office’. 

As if to prove a point, today, in one of my many phone calls I’ve listened politely as the following words were delivered ‘we’re not paid to help you with that in this department’. This is a direct quote from someone whose blushes I will spare for no other reason than the fact that I can’t remember her name. If, as a Civil Servant, you are not paid to answer the queries of the public, what are you paid for?

It was dear old Oscar Wilde who said; ‘The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.’ If only he knew how apt those words would be 113 years after his death! It really does show some extraordinary foresight and greatness of mind.

I have a number of questions to ask, fairly straightforward questions, but I still need clarification. In the last three hours I have made 12 phone calls, been on hold for roughly an hour and a half, been transferred to innumerable departments – each time with the assurance that the destination in question was exactly where I needed to be, even when I’d already been transferred from it – and been cut off four times.

If this is what it takes to gain information related to self employment, I can only pity the poor souls who are having to fight their way through the benefits system.

 ... Or when are we going to get over this issue of forced
  resignation?


 Before I begin, I must admit to being partisan. I’m a
fan of the Beeb, always have been. I trust and value the news reportage. I enjoy the dramas and panel shows. I even have faith in the documentaries, in spite of recent faux pas. Yes, ok, I would like to wave bye-bye to Strictly..., Eastenders and most of the modern sitcoms (Citizen Kahn? Honestly!), but I appreciate that my views are not shared by all, so fine; I like the BBC.


There we have it, my partisanship on show for all to see. For all
that, I am fully prepared to admit that there have been a number of monumental cock-ups of late, and that the BBC should have to take the flack for these goes without saying. What galls me is this continuing national obsession with the removal of jobs.


As a writer, I am my own manager and if I miss a deadline for a
client I expect to not be paid... Being a money-grabbing freelancer, I make sure  that this never happens! However, should I make an error, I would not expect to have to go and find some other form of work. In the case of the current BBC ‘crisis’, as in the case of oh-so-many political scandals, I see little point in
slaughtering the sacrificial lamb for a misdemeanour that they are best suited to remedy... And before the harangue begins, I realise that ‘misdemeanour’is trivialising a very serious matter, but the point remains.


The BBC Director General is nudged into jumping, then the head of news, Helen Boaden, and her deputy, Steve Mitchell, ‘step aside’, leaving junior members of the corporation to pick up the pieces. When a person’s position is undermined so completely that their role becomes untenable, such as the case of Andrew ‘PC
Pleb’ Mitchell, then of course they have to go, and I think that few of us mourn their passing. However, in a sensible world, it surely would be logical for the experienced lamb to help resolve the outstanding issues before making their way towards the abattoir? Or, at the very least, to delay their journey to the great green retirement village in the sky, until a suitable replacement has been found.


When a person makes a mistake, they should deal with the consequences. However, one mistake, regardless of size, does not nullify years of experience and I would rather see problems thoughtfully and carefully resolved by a person who knows what they are doing, rather than rushed through by people struggling under the additional pressure of a new job that has  hastily been dropped on their shoulders while the pertinent points are lost in  the fray.


As Sue Perkins so succinctly Tweeted; ‘Well done attack dogs, you have your man. And when your braying stops we might be able to hear the REAL issues being discussed...’

Up to this point, we have seen three people lose their livelihoods (albeit just for a temporary period for two of them) while the  victims at the heart of the story – those who were abused as children – have been more or less ignored. The moral? Let people who know how, do their jobs while everyone else focuses on the issues that matter.