With dreadful irony and tragic foreboding the following chain of events unfolded, virtually within an hour of one another, some four or five weeks ago.

Along with my daily newspaper a letter arrived from Cancer Research asking for money and carrying their slogan that “together we can beat cancer.” I then read in my daily paper that a young lady had died from cancer; following endless visits to her GP over six years and being told that all was well. While in another article the plight of cancer sufferers being denied potentially life extending drugs was given a public airing. Finally the tragic foreboding I mentioned came in the form of a phone call saying that a much loved relative had been given a matter of weeks to live, as her cancer had spread rapidly and could not be contained.

Once the full impact of these items sank in, particularly the last one, I became angry!

Angry because as a non medical man I feel that cancer has already had plenty of money thrown at it, yet it still manages to claim an excessive number of victims. An online visit to the obituaries section of my old Forces association website confirms the many names listed who became victims of cancer!

Understandably much of the money donated to charities has been put to good use and produced results. But where is the point in raising yet more money to develop drugs that are too expensive for general release, or that end up being distributed by committee or are only available via the so called “postcode lottery”? As I see things life is a precious gift; one that should be placed well beyond the reach of any organisation believing it has an appointed right to sit in judgement on life expectancy of seriously ill people. Although a few weeks, or months, of extended life may not seem long to an autocratic and detached committee, balanced against eternity for the sufferer they are beyond price.

Of course the medical professionals tirelessly giving care to cancer sufferers are to be congratulated for doing their best, but might their efforts be misplaced? By this I mean is it not better to have a system designed to detect and eradicate cancer in its infancy, as opposed to trying to tackle the problem once it has gained a foothold?

As one business leader said “forget fire fighting, catch the arsonist.”

In the same way that police forces, and fire services, spend both time and money trying to prevent crimes and fires before they occur, should we not adopt a similar approach when it comes to tackling the scourge of cancer? Might it not make more sense to give every citizen the annual version of an MOT health test in which detecting the early signs of cancer would be an essential part of the process?

Expensive yes, but might not such a cost be offset by the savings made by reductions in providing advanced cancer treatments, hospital places, surgery and end of life care processes? When travelling by air we do so safe in the knowledge that our aircraft will have undergone rigorous and routine inspections to identify potential faults before they become life threatening.

Might not such a human checking process show similar benefits?

While I have no objection to donating to cancer charities, from now on I will ask and implore such bodies to join forces and utilise the money collected to lobby Parliament for the introduction of the human version of the MOT. To further support this approach might not those courageous and admirable people who embark upon marathons and other tremendous physical fund raising activities, in support of cancer research, make the same request with regard to how the money they raise is used?

In support of this approach how many times have we read newspaper stories concerning people who have gone into hospital with an unrelated condition yet, while undergoing treatment, have been found with developing cancer cells? Is this not “proof positive” that, when seen early on by suitably qualified staff, patients with detected cancers can benefit from the prompt action needed to address their illness in its formative stages?

However, with final irony, my telephone has just rung and delivered the sad news that our relative has died.

It is hoped that readers of this “blog” will share the views expressed.

However, once all the fuss has died down, there are two groups of people that I feel genuinely sorry for. Firstly the youngster; that is the young children who have been encouraged to give their support to players they felt it was right to idolise, in the name of sport and national pride. These are the real casualties, left disillusioned by a group of players who, for some, putting on an England shirt seemed to have little or no significance at all. Some of the “super stars” even selected not to sing the National Anthem. Was this just to show their complete indifference for the occasion, or perhaps a simple childish sulk rebelling against team discipline?

Either way it is to the youngsters to whom the players should apologise. Perhaps a nationwide tour to all the schools in the UK, in an open top bus and wearing sack cloth and ashes might go some way to appeasing the youngsters. Youngsters who had mistakenly placed the England players upon the pedestal of role model suitability, only to be left deluded.

Yes defeat in sport is an occupational hazard, even when giving ones best, but if Sunday’s lack lustre performance was supposed to be their best then the unemployment total should rise by eleven, plus the substitutes who played; oh and their manager.

And then I feel sorry for the many talented players who were left behind, left to watch a display that lacked commitment or direction. Talented players denied the trip to South Africa must have been fuming with frustration, having been overlooked in favour of the tired and familiar names that did make the plane.

Next will come the final irony as we wait for the next Saturday evening round of Match of the Day programmes that will be peppered with shouts of “what a great goal from Rooney,” or perhaps “another brilliant effort from Gerrard.”

What a pity these guys cannot perform when their country needs it!

To start with I think the non smoking ban they brought in, covering public places, was a great move. Far be it for me to interfere with people’s choices but, unfortunately, smoking is a “shared activity,” one in which non smokers prefer not to get involved with.

Next the Government are to be warmly congratulated for keeping Great Britain out of the Euro. As a non economist I could never see the need for a shared currency, on the basis of boosting trade and travel. Why make other people’s problems ours? What was there already seemed to work pretty well, so why change it? And now, most certainly, events in Greece indicate the wisdom of retaining our old faithful pound.

Mind you, ever the cynic, the only reason we stayed clear of the Euro was our so called inability to meet the five criteria. Of which, doubtless I guess the first of these was that all concerned in the decision making process ought to have their snouts well into the trough first!

Staying with matters political, my Tuesday evening meal was interrupted by our local MP doing the rounds and asking for support. As this gentleman has always seen fit to look into matters I have raised with him, and sent well worded replies, my allegiance stays in place. Mind you, in conversation, I did raise the point of asking why we could not have a political system that linked voting to employment. No representation without taxation is the simple message.

Returning to Greece, as a non economist I am at a complete loss to understand the current state of rioting. Having voted in their Government (and any comparison to GB PLC here is coincidental) why complain now when austerity measures have to be introduced? Surely belt tightening is better than national bankruptcy, and that having half a loaf beats going hungry?

Or am I missing the plot in thinking that the population over there expect the party to go on forever, and that someone will keep funding their life style?

In my last blog I lamented how Brunel, the great Victorian engineer, had lost the railway “gauge war,” so denying us a track width of seven feet. I also expressed deep regret that the sixties saw the decimation of much of our rail network. Taken together these two points had me wondering how “lorry free” our highways might now be, given that vast railway freight cars could have been taken directly to the middle of just about every major city, town or rural community. From these depots onward distribution would have been but a few miles.

Clearly, with the benefit of hindsight, these could probably be classified as two historical “wrong turns.” Today I was given another pointed reminder, linked to the above, as my twenty mile journey was reduced to nothing better than a crawl, by dozens of heavy goods vehicles seemingly welded together.

Needless to say, at the first sight of a dual carriage way, the driver of a lorry carrying forty tons of high priority dog food lunged onto the outside lane and proceeded to overtake the lorry in front, at a speed differential of half a mile an hour. An act of selfishness that denied scores of following drivers the chance to get by.

Silently fuming, behind the dog food, I reflected that back in the early sixties an uncle of mine was a senior director of the Pressed Steel Company in Oxford. This was the birth place of countless car bodies and, during this period, they developed an ingenious prototype vehicle called a “road railer.” While this was basically a railway freight wagon, it also had a set of road wheels and tyres as well. The logic was simple, goods travelled by rail into town or city freight yards, the road wheels were lowered and the rail wheels retracted. A tractor unit would have then been hooked, so allowing the entire freight wagon to have been driven the short distance to where the goods it contained were required.

Had this well thought out project succeeded, and been allowed to run on the then intact railway system, just imagine how free of heavy traffic our roads would be today? Goods from the Continent could have arrived on “road railers” via the Channel Tunnel, so freeing other road users of from the curse of left hand drive lorries; leviathans where drivers often claim to not always see cars behind or the ones that are overtaking them.

Of course hindsight is 20 / 20 vision, but if only certain brains had been engaged more effectively in the past, how much easier life might of been for all of us car drivers now?

Because upon reflection a study will show that history is littered with decision making crossroads and, from time to time, I find it thought provoking to ask what might have happened if the people involved had “turned left rather than right”? If only.

Early in the nineteenth century Brunel, master engineer and creator of the Great Western Railway (GWR) built the tracks for his locomotives to a gauge of 7 feet. Elsewhere other engineers favoured having a gauge of 4ft 8 inches. Arguments still abound whether this gauge was originally used by a horse drawn tramway, or older still as the wheelbase of a roman chariot! Who knows but, either way, differing gauges meant that a nationwide integrated railway system could not be possible. The “gauge war,” as it was known, rattled on for several years before Brunel finally accepted 4ft 8 inches for his railway. For the enquiring mind evidence of the broad gauge can still be seen today. For example, note the distance between some platforms on the original GWR lines, or perhaps ask why the cutting, at Sonning near Reading, was dug out to such a width?

Having therefore standardised the railways, so to speak, one hundred or so years later a well meaning, but vastly short sighted Doctor advocated tearing up miles of track and closing hundreds of stations, in the interests of economy. (Nothing changes much) This was probably done in the mistaken belief that the UK would benefit from endless supplies of oil and that petrol would not rise above four and nine pence a gallon. (That is about 25p to all you post decimalisation readers.)

Now, looking back, imagine the effect of merging these two decisions and then reversing them. Had Brunel and won the “gauge war” and the good Doctor stuck to matters to which he may well have been more suited, might we now have a magnificent railway system serving every corner of the UK? A system handling huge freight trucks up to eight or nine feet wide, bringing every item required by shops, businesses and households right into the centre of every city, town or village!

Might we just have ended up with our roads free from legions of heavy lorries and the associated problems they bring with them?

Running a modern bodyshop is a costly business and owners, needing to maximise the supply of work, find the redirecting of anticipated repairs away from their bodyshops galling and frustrating to say the least.

However at last someone in the form of Andrew Moody, of Retail Motor Law, is taking a stand on behalf of repairers who feel aggrieved and has organised a petition to draw attention to what many owners allege to be an unfair practice. The petition has been approved by the Downing Street Number 10 web team and it is hoped that as many people as possible will support it. Remember this is not just for owners to sign; staff and customers should be encouraged to do so as well. Simply put loss of work can lead to loss of jobs, hence the need for staff to sign. Likewise customers being directed away from a known repairer, and into an unknown one, may find the experience to be inconvenient or unnerving, especially at times of stress when a friendly face is always welcome.

Qualified barrister and solicitor Mr Moody, director of RML, comments: “The practice of vehicle insurers and fleet management companies ‘steering’ customers is widespread and it is bad for both the repair industry and consumers. I strongly urge those in the bodyshop trade and members of the public to pressure the PM to introduce anti-steering legislation by signing the petition on the Downing Street website.” The petition to the Prime Minister can be accessed at the following on line address.

Please do not hesitate to contact Andrew on 01832 293003 if you require any further information

As an organisation firmly committed to supporting the interests of repairers, the Bodyshop Fellowship supports the action being taken by Andrew Moody. It is hoped that visitors to this website, be they repairers, bodyshop staff or customers will stand up and be counted by adding their names to this important document.

To my mind this brings to the forefront two issues that must have a direct bearing on “our industry.” Firstly, Insurers still seem to be swamping prime time television advertising space with invitations to check out the savings they can offer. So, given their alleged losses, surely this beggars the question, why spend money to lose money? And, despite bargain price premiums (unless you happen to be under 25), an estimated two million or so drivers still seem to regard having insurance cover as an optional extra. So, even the attraction of lower priced premiums is not appealing enough to the hard core who deliberately choose to ignore their legal responsibilities. In fact, as reported in the national press, some areas of the country are vying for the title of being the uninsured capital of the UK! And this is despite intensified police activity supported by number plate recognition systems and access to a date base of insured registrations.

So, with the “boys in blue” not being seen as a deterrent, and Court fines for uninsured driving generally being lower than average premiums, why should this section of society bother about insurance?

Therefore, might one ask if we are missing the point here altogether? Because, while the continuing inter Insurer “range war,” on low cost premiums is clearly not getting the “can’t pay won’t pay brigade” back on side, might it actually be part of a campaign to drive out some Insurers? As two Insurers have recently ceased trading is this an indicator of the future? Could this be seen as a comparison with the long term contest between the supermarkets and the corner shops? In this contest, as we know, a small number of big players triumphed over legions of small shop keepers. Clearly, when push comes to shove, we are all motivated by the prospect of lower prices even if does mean that they can come with some disadvantages.

Therefore, and given that Insurers would now seem to have even less money to play with, this must move repairers further down the line when hoping for any much needed improvement in the terms being offered by their work providers.

In 1963 the railways were in a period of transition, being midway between steam engines and diesel locomotives. In sub zero conditions the former suffered from permanently frozen water towers and troughs while the latter suffered from frozen fuel. And then, collectively, all suffered from frozen points. Needless to say travelling was a nightmare and the papers were full of horror stories.

Fast forward forty six years and travellers have now faced horrendous disruption when trying to use the cross channel rail link. Can one really be expected to understand why, with the technology to explore deep space, our engineers are still unable to design a railway system capable of surviving a swing in temperature of a few extra degrees! And this is at the time when the nation is spending more than ever on education, and getting folks into university. There are times when I lose the plot.

Talking of losing the plot, what about Copenhagen? How can anyone set out “to square the circle” when thousands of people congregate in one place, spend millions of pounds to do so and expound more hot air than umpteen coal fired power station to discuss the issue of global warming that to many, me included, is not an issue anyway? And, while this Danish “circus” was under way, temperatures over Northern Europe plummeted and many countries were covered in snow. What price global warming and, by adding these temperatures, to those of the last few years how does the ten year average pan out then I wonder?

To my mind the issue of supposed global warming is just a blind for extra tax collecting. Taking a dispassionate view history books, and even my World Atlas, show how most of the Northern hemisphere was covered in ice, thousands of years ago, and that the Sahara desert was once covered in grass! Given that these are unassailable facts, the ice melted and the grass became sand without any help, or hindrance, from mankind what so ever. Proof, if it were needed that global temperature rises and falls are all part of a natural and ongoing cycle. These cycles started long before man arrived on the planet, and they will go on long after we have gone!

Before the 1963 “big freeze” the prophets of doom had set out to foretell that the world would be decimated by the round of nuclear testing that took place in the fifties. The sun would be blotted out and the world would be knocked of its axis, being two of the popular myths put about by the ill informed. Nobody told the atmosphere, it just got on with its job, remaining intact and unharmed.

Yet, perhaps the saddest outcome of the current situation is the amount of air time and publicity given to people wishing to support what, to me is at best a very tenuous thread. Yet, without doubt officialdom will welcome the arrival of this multi national league of cheerleaders. What an unexpected bonus for Government to be gifted with a noisy, unpaid, well organised and well publicised army of storm troopers to support their latest ploy to extract yet more taxes from an already over burdened nation.

Wishing all readers a Happy Christmas and a Successful New Year.

Sadly, in our Industry, another 41 bodyshops “crossed the bar” last October. This is sickening news because each collapse brings with it a trail of misery, ranging from job losses, unsecured creditors, disappointed customers and, of course, personal tragedy for the owners. Then as the ashes are raked over comes the harsh realisation that each failure represents the dreams of someone who was “prepared to have a go,” and who inevitably became embroiled in a set of circumstances that were allowed to get out of control.

Later the “automotive autopsy” will unearth two more harsh truths. One is that having a busy bodyshop is no guarantee of having a profitable one, and secondly that being a good painter or panel beater are not necessarily the right credentials for being a successful business manager. All too often history has shown that work provider packages can so easily be a “poison chalice” for the unwary, and that cash flow will always be the silent assassin lurking in the shadows seeking the moment to strike. And then, because running a business is always a lonely place, exactly who can the struggling owner turn to when in need of help or guidance? As a fact many “autopsies” may well show that the owner did not take time to talk to anyone and simply struggled on in the hope that “things would get better!

Recently I had the privilege of “chairing” a meeting made up from a mixture of independent bodyshop owners and a selection of experienced individuals supplying service and product to bodyshops. The message coming out of that meeting was clear; while a supply of work for the bodyshop is important, maximising margins by having the right staff, systems, controls and processes in place was essential for survival. One contributor, a specialist in vehicle assessing, told how management in one bodyshop failed to spot hundreds of pounds that had been missed from a selection of estimates. At the same time the owner remained blissfully unaware of the losses, while believing the staff to be capable. Never forget, the Estimator / VDA is arguably the most important member of staff, as they alone have the best control on securing the best margins. But, in fairness, do owners always know that the estimators are always getting it right? Remember, it is most unlikely that any Insurer has even gone back to a bodyshop and told them they had forgotten to claim for something on the estimate.

Also expressed, at the meeting, was the view that far too many bodyshops fell short in the” marketing department,” being only too eager to let the Fax machine take the strain. It expressed the view that finding alternative sources of work was paramount, and that related selling must become an essential discipline. Of course maximising efficiency and gross profit are necessary, but it is more important to know the breakeven point of the bodyshop and what is required to steer it into the profit gap. Never forget that while your accounts will show what your staff did, or did not do, the real trick is for management to make sure that they (the staff) are doing what is necessary to produce the right figures for you!

Finally, never lose sight of the fact that all great athlete use coaches to help them deliver top performances. Yet while the coaches are not better performers than the athletes, the athletes will always perform better with the right coaches. So, if in doubt, find the right person to talk to as it is a better alternative than “crossing the bar.”

Never forget, as the blinkered “greens” have allowed themselves to become the Government’s storm troopers in this exercise, it is necessary to defuse their arguments. Consider a few simple facts. 5,000 years ago we are told that the Sahara desert was lush grassland and, for years before that, the whole of Northern Europe was one vast ice cap. Yet, was this transition brought about by coal fired power stations, aeroplanes or motor cars? No, it happened as part of an on-going and natural cycle of events. My late father was born in 1909 and raised in Stoke on Trent and I can recall him telling me that, if sun shine actually reached ground level it was reported in the local paper. In those days every house burnt coal, as did every factory, every railway locomotive and every steam ship. So, with pollution rife, did that stop us from having severe winters and frozen rivers? Of course not. Then, in the fifties, the prophets of doom told us that testing atom bombs would destabilise the world’s climate, but they lost that one as well didn’t they?

With regard to floating ice caps, such as the North Pole, consider that a glass filled to the brim with water and ice does not overflow when the ice melts. The laws of physics tell us that matter cannot be destroyed or created, it can only undergo a change of state. For example boiling water converts it into steam.

Yes, if the global temperature rises, ice on land masses such as Greenland and the Antarctic will certainly melt and flow into the sea. But, when one looks at the world, noting how much is already covered by sea, a lot of ice will need to melt to greatly affect levels worldwide. Yes some islands already close to existing sea levels will experience problems, but evaporation may well turn some of this excess water into rain clouds. Maybe bringing the grass back to the deserts?

To turn the issue of our changing climate into a tax revenue jamboree is unfair to say the least as people can easily find themselves presented with a barrage of uneven information. In astronomical terms the earth moves progressively nearer to, and then further away from the sun by tilting on its axis, causing temperature changes. The ancient Egyptians charted this astronomical movement and called it “precession.” So why cannot we as mere tenants, be told the facts and allowed to keep our money. Mother earth is older, wiser and more powerful that we will ever be. As the old prayer says “give us the strength to change what can be changed, and the fortitude to endure what cannot be changed. Simply put people need to be told that spending money in an attempt to alter nature’s pre planned pattern will not only be horribly expensive, it will alter nothing apart from reducing people’s bank balances and swelling Government coffers. Even King Canute’s advisers on sea levels knew they were on a loser, but ours are far better paid when it comes to proving that trying to alter the inevitable will have an inevitable outcome!