Peter Hain's parting shot!

Readers of my previous postings, regarding the questionable association of the DWP and the American "outlaw" insurance company UNUM, may be aware of the awkward question that I have persistently asked, as yet avoided and unanswered.

Q.........Please provide your observations on Governmental association with UNUM insurance, who have been described as an "outlaw company who have acted in an illegal fashion for many years" and who "operate claims denial factories".

Peter Hain was asked this question just before Christmas by one of our NONE of THESE TURKEYS supporters, with little expectation of a response.

Surprise, surprise! He has responded thus:

"It would not be appropriate for me to comment on what has been said about UNUM's operation, either in Great Britain or overseas".

I wonder why? Is it a secret?

The question was not about what was SAID but about their record in the USA of being fined many millions of Dollars as a result of their illegal denial of legitimate claims.

UNUM have two main products and two main goals.

Products:

1. Disability and ill health Insurance.

2. Medical treatment insurance.

Goals:

1. To eradicate Social Welfare (The Welfare State). This makes the need for their disability and illness insurance product clearer in the marketplace.

2. To eradicate the NHS as we know it . This makes the need for their medical insurance product clearer in the marketplace.

The following statement by UNUM's Chairman in 2001 confirms this:


Chairman, Ward E Graffam recognised the ‘exciting developments’ in Britain: ‘The impending changes to the State ill-health benefits system will create unique sales opportunities across the entire disability market and we will be launching a concerted effort to harness the potential in these.’

Despite UNUM's clear influence in government, Hain deems it "inappropriate to comment".

Again, I wonder why? What had he to hide?....................as if I didn't know!!!

As a result of UNUM's business aspirations in the UK, it seems highly suspicious to me that politicians seem to reluctant to answer this particularly awkward question.

Come on Huw Lewis AM, I asked YOU politely, at least do me the courtesy of a response or has the cat got your tongue?

I refer to Huw in particular as he is the AM that endorses UNUM's local agent, Prof. Mansel Aylward as the fit and proper person to reconfigure Welsh NHS services. He describes Aylward as a person of "stature and integrity" despite Aylward's employment by an "OUTLAW" company.

Rhodri was asked the question before Christmas and promised a response, he's still dithering and I'm still waiting. A little reminder is due.

How's about someone asking Edwina Hart AM, Health Minister for a response. We need to know.

I would earnestly ask my reader to ask the same awkward question at every opportunity. I certainly intend to.

This matter will eventually affect ALL of the population of the UK, including YOU!

Beware, UNUM have you in their sights, whether you like it or not.

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.

Your publicly pensioned pal.

johnny.

Brunstrom strikes again. Hypocrites tremble.

Richard Brunstrom, Wales' favourite Chief Constable has done it again.

This time, it's a suggestion that illegal drugs be made legal in order to avoid the need for addicts to commit crimes in order to feed their addiction. Further, that it also allows monitoring and, hopefully, may allow an addict to free themselves from their addiction.

This seems perfectly sensible to me, as all the figures available seem to suggest that a high proportion of crimes are committed for drug purchase, by addicts who have no real interest in criminal activity, apart from, as a means of 'survival'.

I will not dwell too much on the whys and wherefores of the matter except to voice my support for the Chief Constable's view.

Naturally his words have attracted much opprobrium from many, who obviously still believe the spin that the 'war on drugs' is winnable. That 'war' is continually lost until tobacco and alcohol are added to the list of proscribed drugs.

Paul Flynn's blog kindly sets out the Lancet's opinion of the relative dangers of the common 'recreational' drugs. Paul also scoffs at Chris Bryant's hysterical outburst containing yet another call for Brunstrom to resign. This doesn't really help Chris's desperate attempts to lose his Y-front image.

Over at Normal Mouth's, the ever predictable Glyn Davies also makes his second call in as many months for Brunstrom's resignation. He claims that Brunstrom's "campaign to legalise drugs that are currently illegal, is not consistant with him remaining as a Chief Constable".

Normal has asked Glyn for an explanation and Glyn has yet to respond.

Don't hold your breath Normal.

The 'Brunstrom' saga has appeared previously on Glyn's blog and, having asked some quite pertinent questions, I was fobbed off with some rubbish about having moved on. Perhaps it was my mention of the fact that if Alcohol were to be proscribed it would cause him great personal despair as his beloved game of Rugby would not survive without its booze culture. Further, I would also suggest that it would mean and end to most of what we euphemistically describe as Welsh culture. Ban booze and Wales dies.

Well, now that Glyn has broached the subject I might as well mention it here again. Maybe my reader would care to respond as well.

Mind altering substances have been an integral part of our Islands' 'culture' since time immemorial. There have been opinions cast over millenia regarding the use or misuse of these substances, none of these opinions having had the slightest effect.

People just seem to love their drug induced altered states of consciousness. In today's 'culture' there appears to be a strong liking for drugs such as cocaine, cannabis, opiates and various fungi. These are illegal to use but, nevertheless, are enjoyed by many.

Two of the most pernicious and deadly drugs, Alcohol and Tobacco, are sold with the full encouragement of Government, by way of taxation. Whatever happened to our sense of fair play?

Alcohol, in particular, does massive societal damage, yet is accepted with an attitude of casuality until the harmful effects are a matter of personal or family concern.

I am at a loss to understand how Glyn can call for the resignation of a professional policeman at the top of his 'tree', with a clearly considered professional opinion, as opposed to Glyn, snuffling around at the 'roots', with little knowledge of 'drug' matters, apart, that is, from what he reads in the papers.

It seems somewhat hypocritical of Glyn to call for Brunstrom's resignation when Glyn is an active proponent and user of one of the most dangerous and deadly drugs in today's society.

Despite the legality of Glyn's chosen recreational drug, it would appear to be a standpoint hardly consistent with prospective Parliamentary candidature.

Your pal.

johnny.