It's time for the family Stan annual holiday. Judging by the state of the "barbecue summer" we're not in much danger of over doing it with the sun and it may be that wellies and oilskins would be more appropriate than factor 50 and shorts, but what the hell - the far east* beckons.
*The far east being Lowestoft. You can't get much further east in England than that!
Friday, July 31, 2009
The motorist to get it in the neck ...... again!
I'm lucky enough to be able to work from home as often as I like, but I frequently go in to the office anyway - partly for the social aspect and partly to get out from under Mrs Stan's feet during the day.
I live just ten miles from my office and, thanks to my flexible working hours, I'm able to drive in early or late and avoid the rush hour so the journey only lasts around 20 minutes. Sometimes I cycle - though not that often anymore - and it takes around 45 minutes. Only once in the last 10 years have I tried to use public transport to get home - about four years ago - and it took almost two and a half hours.
Despite being just ten miles and living close to bus stops and railway stations there is no direct public transport link between where I live and where I work so I either have to use a combination of trains and buses to get to the office - a minimum of three changes - or take various buses where, in some cases, they actually go in the opposite direction to where I want to go!
It wasn't always this way. When I was a young lad we would often go to the town where I now work to visit an aged great aunt who lived there. We had no car back then so we relied on buses and they were plentiful and reliable. There was one change at Slough Bus Station and the whole journey took no more than 45-50 minutes.
So, given the time the journey takes public transport just isn't a viable option for me unless I want to give up five hours of my day to travelling to and from the office - which is why I am opposed to schemes like this.
The reason cited is that it is a bid to cut congestion - but that is rubbish. The reason is to raise money - nothing else. If they charge us for parking at work we are still going to drive to the office so it will not make the slightest difference to congestion. If they were serious about cutting congestion then they might consider having decent public transport systems that were a viable alternative to using cars.
If they really want to cut congestion then they would open more schools so that local children can walk to local schools without having to get mum or dad to drive them there every day - surely they must have noticed how congestion drops when the schools are on holiday? Everybody else does.
And if they want to raise money they should start getting the likes of ASDA, Tesco and Sainsbury's to levy a charge for people using their massive car parks - rather than those going to work.
I live just ten miles from my office and, thanks to my flexible working hours, I'm able to drive in early or late and avoid the rush hour so the journey only lasts around 20 minutes. Sometimes I cycle - though not that often anymore - and it takes around 45 minutes. Only once in the last 10 years have I tried to use public transport to get home - about four years ago - and it took almost two and a half hours.
Despite being just ten miles and living close to bus stops and railway stations there is no direct public transport link between where I live and where I work so I either have to use a combination of trains and buses to get to the office - a minimum of three changes - or take various buses where, in some cases, they actually go in the opposite direction to where I want to go!
It wasn't always this way. When I was a young lad we would often go to the town where I now work to visit an aged great aunt who lived there. We had no car back then so we relied on buses and they were plentiful and reliable. There was one change at Slough Bus Station and the whole journey took no more than 45-50 minutes.
So, given the time the journey takes public transport just isn't a viable option for me unless I want to give up five hours of my day to travelling to and from the office - which is why I am opposed to schemes like this.
The reason cited is that it is a bid to cut congestion - but that is rubbish. The reason is to raise money - nothing else. If they charge us for parking at work we are still going to drive to the office so it will not make the slightest difference to congestion. If they were serious about cutting congestion then they might consider having decent public transport systems that were a viable alternative to using cars.
If they really want to cut congestion then they would open more schools so that local children can walk to local schools without having to get mum or dad to drive them there every day - surely they must have noticed how congestion drops when the schools are on holiday? Everybody else does.
And if they want to raise money they should start getting the likes of ASDA, Tesco and Sainsbury's to levy a charge for people using their massive car parks - rather than those going to work.
Guilty
It's been two weeks since the incident that led to this post occurred. During those two weeks I have struggled to reconcile my feelings towards what happened and it has been difficult - God alone knows how hard it must be for the victim.
I have in turn fluctuated from simmering anger to all out rage coupled with frustration and feelings of helplessness. Some people seem to think that, as a Christian, I should forgive - but it is not my right to forgive those who perpetrated this hateful crime. That is between them, their God and their victim - I have no role to play in that process.
What has become apparent over the last few days is that my overwhelming emotion is guilt and shame.
Why guilt? After all, I didn't take part in this heinous act. No - but it is my generation that has allowed this country and our society to degenerate to such an extent that this sort of thing can happen in broad daylight and in front of witnesses - and is now so commonplace that it doesn't even warrant a mention in the local newspaper, although, as I hinted at before, there are other reasons why it is being kept quiet.
My generation is the current generation of power and we are going to have an awful lot to answer for when the history of our time is finally written. That we have taken an ordered, peaceful and moral society developed over hundreds of years and turned it into a hedonistic cesspool of vice, degeneracy and violence in the space of a generation is scarcely believable.
We've all heard stories of crimes and moral bankruptcy that have sickened and disgusted us - whether it be Baby P or greedy bankers - but people of my generation can shut ourselves away in our ivory towers and pretend that the world out there is somehow better than the one we inherited. It isn't.
My generation are not the ones who are suffering most from what we have wrought. The victims tend to be young and vulnerable or old and vulnerable. Occasionally, someone from my generation falls victim too - beaten to death by a feral gang of youths, but mostly it is the young and the old who have most to fear.
It is my generation that have allowed this situation to arise.
We are guilty. We should be ashamed.
I have in turn fluctuated from simmering anger to all out rage coupled with frustration and feelings of helplessness. Some people seem to think that, as a Christian, I should forgive - but it is not my right to forgive those who perpetrated this hateful crime. That is between them, their God and their victim - I have no role to play in that process.
What has become apparent over the last few days is that my overwhelming emotion is guilt and shame.
Why guilt? After all, I didn't take part in this heinous act. No - but it is my generation that has allowed this country and our society to degenerate to such an extent that this sort of thing can happen in broad daylight and in front of witnesses - and is now so commonplace that it doesn't even warrant a mention in the local newspaper, although, as I hinted at before, there are other reasons why it is being kept quiet.
My generation is the current generation of power and we are going to have an awful lot to answer for when the history of our time is finally written. That we have taken an ordered, peaceful and moral society developed over hundreds of years and turned it into a hedonistic cesspool of vice, degeneracy and violence in the space of a generation is scarcely believable.
We've all heard stories of crimes and moral bankruptcy that have sickened and disgusted us - whether it be Baby P or greedy bankers - but people of my generation can shut ourselves away in our ivory towers and pretend that the world out there is somehow better than the one we inherited. It isn't.
My generation are not the ones who are suffering most from what we have wrought. The victims tend to be young and vulnerable or old and vulnerable. Occasionally, someone from my generation falls victim too - beaten to death by a feral gang of youths, but mostly it is the young and the old who have most to fear.
It is my generation that have allowed this situation to arise.
We are guilty. We should be ashamed.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Ted Heath II: The Rise Of The Cameroons
A great comment piece (for a change!) in today's Telegraph from Simon Heffer as he points out that Cameron is likely to win an election, but that will not result in a conservative government.
Heffer lays into the lack of political principle and policy of Cameron and those he surrounds himself with and points out his blatant sectarianism and cronyism. Heffer dwells a little too long on the fact that Cameron seems to be alienating natural conservatives who would, usually, be predisposed to vote Tory. It's not that the issues he refers to are not conservative points - it's just that most conservatives will vote Tory regardless so there is little concern for Cameron about alienating them. I think Heffer labours over that "alienation" thing a little too long, but other than that he is right.
The reason I think Heffer goes on too much about the alienation issue is that he also points out the delusion of those self same voters.
Some of you cling to the hope that Mr Cameron knows what must be done, and is sparing details of the strong medicine until in power. Given that he has never exhibited the slightest scintilla of principle at any time during his political career, I cannot imagine what the evidence is for that.
I think this is the main reason why Cameron may win. Tory voters can not believe that Cameron is really the soft social liberal he appears to be and are expecting him to waltz into Downing Street before revealing his true colours. It's the people who believe that who will carry him to victory and it is they who are set to be the most disappointed.
Finally, Heffer echoes my own view that, rather than being the next Maggie Thatcher Cameron will in reality become the new Ted Heath.
What I fear most, as I watch this circus of gestures and promises, is a re-run of the Heath government. We are watching the preparations not for office, but for an orgy of managerialism. It could even be worse than 1970-74, for the economic situation was (at the start) nothing like so bad, and Heath did have around him people of sense and experience with some bottle-age on them.
Yep - that's my view too. And the outcome of such a government for Britain is dire to say the least.
Heffer lays into the lack of political principle and policy of Cameron and those he surrounds himself with and points out his blatant sectarianism and cronyism. Heffer dwells a little too long on the fact that Cameron seems to be alienating natural conservatives who would, usually, be predisposed to vote Tory. It's not that the issues he refers to are not conservative points - it's just that most conservatives will vote Tory regardless so there is little concern for Cameron about alienating them. I think Heffer labours over that "alienation" thing a little too long, but other than that he is right.
The reason I think Heffer goes on too much about the alienation issue is that he also points out the delusion of those self same voters.
Some of you cling to the hope that Mr Cameron knows what must be done, and is sparing details of the strong medicine until in power. Given that he has never exhibited the slightest scintilla of principle at any time during his political career, I cannot imagine what the evidence is for that.
I think this is the main reason why Cameron may win. Tory voters can not believe that Cameron is really the soft social liberal he appears to be and are expecting him to waltz into Downing Street before revealing his true colours. It's the people who believe that who will carry him to victory and it is they who are set to be the most disappointed.
Finally, Heffer echoes my own view that, rather than being the next Maggie Thatcher Cameron will in reality become the new Ted Heath.
What I fear most, as I watch this circus of gestures and promises, is a re-run of the Heath government. We are watching the preparations not for office, but for an orgy of managerialism. It could even be worse than 1970-74, for the economic situation was (at the start) nothing like so bad, and Heath did have around him people of sense and experience with some bottle-age on them.
Yep - that's my view too. And the outcome of such a government for Britain is dire to say the least.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Chinese puzzle
It's a bit worrying when the Business Editor of a newspaper as well respected as The Times comes up with such an extraordinary load of drivel as this.
Carl Mortished appears to grasp none of the realities of what he is saying. On one hand he seems to be suggesting that Britain future lies as a tourist resort while on the other he seems to think that we could become the producer nation feeding the Chinese consumer!
Even so, America and Europe are hoping for an invasion because [the Chinese] have something that speaks louder than manners: cash.
Well, some of them do, but the vast majority of Chinese remain pretty poor while the affluent classes prefer to spend their cash elsewhere. Even if you are a wealthy Chinaman you are unlikely to go jetting off halfway around the world to sit in a dreary English cafe on some rain soaked promenade when there are a myriad of delights awaiting you on your doorstep.
If Mortished really believes that our future depends on Britain attracting Chinese tourists then he's going to be disappointed - and coming from the Business Editor of The Times that is a chillingly poor outlook for this country and, indeed, Europe and America.
But it gets worse.
We must begin once again to make things Chinese people might be tempted to buy.
Like what? MG Rover? Notwithstanding the fact that the Chinese are quite capable of making everything they want to buy themselves and a darn sight cheaper than we can, what could we possibly produce that they want? The only thing I can think of is coal - but that isn't going to happen unless some Chinese company comes here and starts mining the bloody stuff for us!
What we need to do is start producing the things we want to buy and buying the things that we produce. Only that way can we become less dependent on - and addicted to - cheap foreign imports. That isn't going to happen either as that would involve the dreaded "protectionism" that the globalists so despise.
The Chinese economy continues to expand because they have a ready made consumer market for their goods and increasing numbers of their own people who want to buy them. We do not. So we better get used to earning a lot less and considerably lower living standards.
And I guess we'd all better learn how to say "would you like cream in your coffee, sir?" in Cantonese.
Carl Mortished appears to grasp none of the realities of what he is saying. On one hand he seems to be suggesting that Britain future lies as a tourist resort while on the other he seems to think that we could become the producer nation feeding the Chinese consumer!
Even so, America and Europe are hoping for an invasion because [the Chinese] have something that speaks louder than manners: cash.
Well, some of them do, but the vast majority of Chinese remain pretty poor while the affluent classes prefer to spend their cash elsewhere. Even if you are a wealthy Chinaman you are unlikely to go jetting off halfway around the world to sit in a dreary English cafe on some rain soaked promenade when there are a myriad of delights awaiting you on your doorstep.
If Mortished really believes that our future depends on Britain attracting Chinese tourists then he's going to be disappointed - and coming from the Business Editor of The Times that is a chillingly poor outlook for this country and, indeed, Europe and America.
But it gets worse.
We must begin once again to make things Chinese people might be tempted to buy.
Like what? MG Rover? Notwithstanding the fact that the Chinese are quite capable of making everything they want to buy themselves and a darn sight cheaper than we can, what could we possibly produce that they want? The only thing I can think of is coal - but that isn't going to happen unless some Chinese company comes here and starts mining the bloody stuff for us!
What we need to do is start producing the things we want to buy and buying the things that we produce. Only that way can we become less dependent on - and addicted to - cheap foreign imports. That isn't going to happen either as that would involve the dreaded "protectionism" that the globalists so despise.
The Chinese economy continues to expand because they have a ready made consumer market for their goods and increasing numbers of their own people who want to buy them. We do not. So we better get used to earning a lot less and considerably lower living standards.
And I guess we'd all better learn how to say "would you like cream in your coffee, sir?" in Cantonese.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Talking heads
Back in the days when the TV bulletin was fifteen to twenty minutes long once a night the news was just that - news. A newsreader would read out the headlines either accompanied by a picture of the related person/incident or a short film without commentary.
The nearest we would get to opinion would be a raised eyebrow or an inflection in the voice of the newsreader, but with the rise of 24 hour rolling news channels TV news reporting has changed radically.
One of the most disturbing changes - in my opinion - has been the rise of the talking head; a person who may or may not be employed by the news broadcaster, but is promoted by that organisation as an "expert" on a subject.
Now virtually every item of news includes the appearance of a talking head to explain what the news means - but this is almost invariably based purely on their own personal opinion or (if they are indeed employed by that broadcaster) the opinion of their bosses.
I have two problems with this. First of all, it doesn't allow much room for the viewer to form their own opinion. Although many will do so anyway, there is a huge number of people who will accept what that talking head says just because they are supposed to be an expert and they are appearing on a well regarded news channel which they trust.
My second problem is that it is not news broadcasting, but opinion forming which I believe should be kept out of television news reporting. Essentially, it is a form of propaganda which is insidious and damaging.
The nearest we would get to opinion would be a raised eyebrow or an inflection in the voice of the newsreader, but with the rise of 24 hour rolling news channels TV news reporting has changed radically.
One of the most disturbing changes - in my opinion - has been the rise of the talking head; a person who may or may not be employed by the news broadcaster, but is promoted by that organisation as an "expert" on a subject.
Now virtually every item of news includes the appearance of a talking head to explain what the news means - but this is almost invariably based purely on their own personal opinion or (if they are indeed employed by that broadcaster) the opinion of their bosses.
I have two problems with this. First of all, it doesn't allow much room for the viewer to form their own opinion. Although many will do so anyway, there is a huge number of people who will accept what that talking head says just because they are supposed to be an expert and they are appearing on a well regarded news channel which they trust.
My second problem is that it is not news broadcasting, but opinion forming which I believe should be kept out of television news reporting. Essentially, it is a form of propaganda which is insidious and damaging.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Fags and booze
I've never been a cigarette smoker, but I do like a pint or two and I know my limits when it comes to booze. I've never been a big drinker, but once upon a time I would have been out every night of the week and more often than not I'd spend the evening in a pub with my mates. As I got older I tended to do this less and less until I reached the point where, as a married man with two kids, my evenings out with my mates are restricted to once or twice a month.
Last night was one of those nights and I met up with a couple of guys I hadn't seen for quite a few years. One of those was a chap who used to be a heavy smoker, but after spending the last 10 years living and working in California he has since given up the fags and gained about five stone. It's not hard to see why.
When I used to see him regularly before he went to the USA he would drink, at most, about five pints in a night while smoking the best part of a packet of cigarettes. Last night I watched him put away eight pints of premium strength lager in three hours before staggering out of the pub. I was a little surprised to see him downing so much so I asked him why - and he told me that he tends to drink faster since he quit smoking.
Perhaps I've inadvertently stumbled across a link between the rise in binge drinking and the decline of cigarette smoking? If my mate is typical of cigarette smokers then it would seem that having a few fags with your beer moderates the intake of alcohol - and drinking less alcohol tends to make one less drunk.
And with the cost of a pint of beer what it is today it makes economic sense too - with three extra pints costing close to £9 compared with around a fiver for a packet of cigarettes. I don't know, but it's a thought isn't it?
One thing is certain - nobody wanders out of a pub and gets into a fight because they've had one too many cigarettes.
Last night was one of those nights and I met up with a couple of guys I hadn't seen for quite a few years. One of those was a chap who used to be a heavy smoker, but after spending the last 10 years living and working in California he has since given up the fags and gained about five stone. It's not hard to see why.
When I used to see him regularly before he went to the USA he would drink, at most, about five pints in a night while smoking the best part of a packet of cigarettes. Last night I watched him put away eight pints of premium strength lager in three hours before staggering out of the pub. I was a little surprised to see him downing so much so I asked him why - and he told me that he tends to drink faster since he quit smoking.
Perhaps I've inadvertently stumbled across a link between the rise in binge drinking and the decline of cigarette smoking? If my mate is typical of cigarette smokers then it would seem that having a few fags with your beer moderates the intake of alcohol - and drinking less alcohol tends to make one less drunk.
And with the cost of a pint of beer what it is today it makes economic sense too - with three extra pints costing close to £9 compared with around a fiver for a packet of cigarettes. I don't know, but it's a thought isn't it?
One thing is certain - nobody wanders out of a pub and gets into a fight because they've had one too many cigarettes.
Ranting Stan's Sunday Drive: Ford Escort Mexico
Following Hannu Mikkola's victory in the 1970 London-Mexico rally, Ford decided to cash in by releasing the Escort Mexico. Usually identified by wide body and roof stripes and four spot lights clustered between the short corner bumpers the Escort Mexico was an ideal choice for the shy, retiring type.
That modest, unassuming exterior belied the fact that underneath it all was a rather tame mid-sized family car. With just 86bhp from the 1600cc engine the Mexico struggled to a top speed of about 100mph and reached 60 in a respectable rather than pulse racing 10.5 seconds - hardly any better than the average family car of the time.
However, it wasn't the outright performance that made the Mexico desirable, but the very willing, responsive engine and slick gear change coupled to a well balanced rear wheel drive layout which made the Mexico a terrific fun drive. Not only that, but there were masses of post sale modifications and tweaks that could be added or done to the Mexico which meant that virtually every car could be significantly individualised with enhanced performance.
My experience of a Mexico comes from the early eighties when a colleague of mine acquired a second hand one in a rather sorry state. The car lived in the warehouse where we were worked for the next two years as he slowly acquired the bits he needed to get it running and back on the road.
Finally, one sunny summers weekend, he fitted the final piece to the jigsaw and, with a fresh MOT and tax he proudly took myself and another co-worker for a ride in his pride and joy. I must admit that I was a little nervous about going as, although the car had an MOT, it still looked pretty scruffy and worn out from the outside.
To be honest though, it sounded great and appeared to drive really well with my colleague flicking it through a series of twisty bends with great ease and poise. Unfortunately, at least from my point of view, my colleague had hopes of becoming a motor sport megastar and the next part of his project involved stripping out the interior, fitting a roll cage and painting it in a lurid colour scheme emblazoned with sponsorship logos from companies who hadn't paid him a penny to advertise their products.
I know that he felt he was only doing what the car was born for, but I still thought it was a shame - and is probably why today that I prefer to see my classic cars as original as possible rather than as souped up hot rods.
Friday, July 24, 2009
A dear old friend and travelling companion
It is with much sadness that I announce the "moving on" of a dear friend and travelling companion - Bertie.
It was as a young man in the halcyon days of the early 1980's when I first made Bertie's acquaintance in a pub car park just off the A4 near Maidenhead. We instantly hit it off and Bertie and I were to share our love of travel and make a number of trips together including a grand tour of Europe.
From Tromso in the Arctic Circle to the bustling tourist resorts of southern Spain and from the peaks of Snowdonia in the west and the islands of Kos and Rhodes in the east - Bertie was with me. A faithful friend who never let me down, never complained and often watched over me while I slept on beaches or by the side of a road. At times I would be cranky and hurl abuse at this old friend - particularly after a lengthy journey - but he never answered back and never gave up on me.
Bertie was my faithful old Yamaha XT500. A single pot 500cc Japanese motorbike of an "enduro" style, but one which resembled in many ways the old British thumpers of the 50's and 60's - except he didn't tend to leak oil all over the place.
Bertie had retired some years ago to the coast where he lived with my cousin - and it was only this morning that I learned that my cousin had decided to sell Bertie and had received the grand sum of £1500 for him (more than three times what I had paid when I bought him in the first place!). It's true to say that there was little left of Bertie that was still original - the frame, tank, front forks, switchgear and maybe a few other ancillary items, but that's not the point.
The point is that my cousin might at least have offered me first refusal!
It was as a young man in the halcyon days of the early 1980's when I first made Bertie's acquaintance in a pub car park just off the A4 near Maidenhead. We instantly hit it off and Bertie and I were to share our love of travel and make a number of trips together including a grand tour of Europe.
From Tromso in the Arctic Circle to the bustling tourist resorts of southern Spain and from the peaks of Snowdonia in the west and the islands of Kos and Rhodes in the east - Bertie was with me. A faithful friend who never let me down, never complained and often watched over me while I slept on beaches or by the side of a road. At times I would be cranky and hurl abuse at this old friend - particularly after a lengthy journey - but he never answered back and never gave up on me.
Bertie was my faithful old Yamaha XT500. A single pot 500cc Japanese motorbike of an "enduro" style, but one which resembled in many ways the old British thumpers of the 50's and 60's - except he didn't tend to leak oil all over the place.
Bertie had retired some years ago to the coast where he lived with my cousin - and it was only this morning that I learned that my cousin had decided to sell Bertie and had received the grand sum of £1500 for him (more than three times what I had paid when I bought him in the first place!). It's true to say that there was little left of Bertie that was still original - the frame, tank, front forks, switchgear and maybe a few other ancillary items, but that's not the point.
The point is that my cousin might at least have offered me first refusal!
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Defining moments in our lives
I mentioned yesterday that we had some family news, but what I didn't say was that the news was bad. It was only much later in the day when we found out just how bad the news was, however. I'm not going to go into detail - no one has died - but a family has been left devastated by a criminal act.
What I will say is this. There are things happening in this country which the authorities, including the police and with the collusion of the media are making sure we are not being informed about. They are doing this for political reasons and they are doing it to disguise the fact that this country has descended into a feral cesspool of vile, immoral criminality as a direct result of the policies pursued by this and previous governments over the last forty years or more.
More and more of us are now discovering the truth about just how bad things are - but only because something has happened to someone we care about.
This is not good.
What I will say is this. There are things happening in this country which the authorities, including the police and with the collusion of the media are making sure we are not being informed about. They are doing this for political reasons and they are doing it to disguise the fact that this country has descended into a feral cesspool of vile, immoral criminality as a direct result of the policies pursued by this and previous governments over the last forty years or more.
More and more of us are now discovering the truth about just how bad things are - but only because something has happened to someone we care about.
This is not good.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Whitehall 1212
My parents acquired our first telephone in 1970 - and that was only after much arm-twisting by my mum on my dad who was reluctant to get one for a number of reasons. One was the cost, but his main complaint was that it would be intrusive. My dad's social life revolved around his work at the factory and any event would be carefully arranged in the staff canteen. Consequently he had no need for a telephone and didn't want people ringing up at all hours of the night (which, for dad, would mean between 7 and 10 pm) and keeping mum chatting for hours.
Mum had a much wider social circle, though and argued successfully that she needed a phone to keep in touch with her friends and relatives and so it was that in July 1970 the Post Office installed a glorious cream telephone in our Slough semi. It was located in the hallway at the foot of the stairs between the kitchen and living room on a special shelf that dad had knocked up in his shed one afternoon.
It caused much excitement in our household at the time and we all became familiar with the phone number so that, when someone called, we could answer with the name of the exchange and the four figure number which I can still remember vividly to this day.
The reason the phone was in the hall was so that it could be heard wherever you were in the house, but also so that any of us could chat on the phone without having to compete with the sound of the television, radio or whatever else was going on in the house. Of course, as soon as it was installed my mum was ringing around all her friends to tell them the new number- and to natter.
So for the first hour or so the phone was constantly engaged, but we weren't expecting any calls anyway - so it came as a bit of a shock when five minutes after mum had hung up for the last time the phone rang. I wanted to be the first to answer the phone, but as it was "mum's phone" we let her be the first to answer it. Besides, it could only be a wrong number or one of mum's friends ringing back.
So off mum went and in her best telephone voice she said "Hello, Slough 6125" (that wasn't actually the exchange or number, but I don't want to give that away). Remarkably it wasn't a wrong number or one of my mum's friends she had called around to, but her sister who lived in St. Albans. My mum had written to her telling her that we were having the phone installed that day and her sister had got the number from directory enquiries that morning even before the phone had been installed!
Why am I telling you all this? Well, partly out of nostalgia, but also because I have just spent the morning ringing several people to pass on some family news. Invariably, every person I called answered with a blunt "hullo?" and nothing else. I then had to ask if I was through to the right person before I could go on - but more than that, one of the people I rang wasn't there so their flatmate said they'd ask him to call back. Great! He then asked me for my number - and do you know what?
I couldn't remember my bloody phone number! I never ring it and, like everyone else these days, I never say it. I know what the numbers are, but I couldn't remember the order of the last two digits. There was then an embarrassing silence until the guy at the other end said not to worry as the number shows up on his phone.
Maybe it's my age or maybe it's the fact that we don't answer phones like we used to and it's certainly true that we have a lot more numbers to remember these days - but that doesn't explain why a telephone number from almost 40 years ago remains fresh in my memory, but my current home phone number doesn't!
Mum had a much wider social circle, though and argued successfully that she needed a phone to keep in touch with her friends and relatives and so it was that in July 1970 the Post Office installed a glorious cream telephone in our Slough semi. It was located in the hallway at the foot of the stairs between the kitchen and living room on a special shelf that dad had knocked up in his shed one afternoon.
It caused much excitement in our household at the time and we all became familiar with the phone number so that, when someone called, we could answer with the name of the exchange and the four figure number which I can still remember vividly to this day.
The reason the phone was in the hall was so that it could be heard wherever you were in the house, but also so that any of us could chat on the phone without having to compete with the sound of the television, radio or whatever else was going on in the house. Of course, as soon as it was installed my mum was ringing around all her friends to tell them the new number- and to natter.
So for the first hour or so the phone was constantly engaged, but we weren't expecting any calls anyway - so it came as a bit of a shock when five minutes after mum had hung up for the last time the phone rang. I wanted to be the first to answer the phone, but as it was "mum's phone" we let her be the first to answer it. Besides, it could only be a wrong number or one of mum's friends ringing back.
So off mum went and in her best telephone voice she said "Hello, Slough 6125" (that wasn't actually the exchange or number, but I don't want to give that away). Remarkably it wasn't a wrong number or one of my mum's friends she had called around to, but her sister who lived in St. Albans. My mum had written to her telling her that we were having the phone installed that day and her sister had got the number from directory enquiries that morning even before the phone had been installed!
Why am I telling you all this? Well, partly out of nostalgia, but also because I have just spent the morning ringing several people to pass on some family news. Invariably, every person I called answered with a blunt "hullo?" and nothing else. I then had to ask if I was through to the right person before I could go on - but more than that, one of the people I rang wasn't there so their flatmate said they'd ask him to call back. Great! He then asked me for my number - and do you know what?
I couldn't remember my bloody phone number! I never ring it and, like everyone else these days, I never say it. I know what the numbers are, but I couldn't remember the order of the last two digits. There was then an embarrassing silence until the guy at the other end said not to worry as the number shows up on his phone.
Maybe it's my age or maybe it's the fact that we don't answer phones like we used to and it's certainly true that we have a lot more numbers to remember these days - but that doesn't explain why a telephone number from almost 40 years ago remains fresh in my memory, but my current home phone number doesn't!
Conflicting results
Given this governments fondness for using statistics to promote their "success" it would seem that the latest data on knife crime is showing that new policies are having a positive effect.
The government's Tackling Knives Action Programme started last July in 10 police areas in England and Wales.
Robberies with sharp instruments against those aged 19 and under also fell by 13% while knife-related hospital admissions fell 32%, compared to 18% in non-TKAP areas.
That's good isn't it? OK - it's clear from those statistics that there is something not quite right with the TKAP programme if those areas failed to reduce knife crime as much as non-TKAP areas, but overall it is positive surely?
Not entirely.
In its first nine months, 126 people died after being attacked with a knife or other sharp object - seven more than in the same period the previous year.
Hmmm - so there are fewer knife offences, but more people dying from knife wounds? Something isn't quite right here. Perhaps the knife users are getting better at using their tool of choice or maybe the NHS is getting worse at treating knife wounds?
Or maybe the statistics are complete and utter rubbish.
The government's Tackling Knives Action Programme started last July in 10 police areas in England and Wales.
Robberies with sharp instruments against those aged 19 and under also fell by 13% while knife-related hospital admissions fell 32%, compared to 18% in non-TKAP areas.
That's good isn't it? OK - it's clear from those statistics that there is something not quite right with the TKAP programme if those areas failed to reduce knife crime as much as non-TKAP areas, but overall it is positive surely?
Not entirely.
In its first nine months, 126 people died after being attacked with a knife or other sharp object - seven more than in the same period the previous year.
Hmmm - so there are fewer knife offences, but more people dying from knife wounds? Something isn't quite right here. Perhaps the knife users are getting better at using their tool of choice or maybe the NHS is getting worse at treating knife wounds?
Or maybe the statistics are complete and utter rubbish.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
In built bias at the BBC
As revealed by a senior controller.
Ben Stephenson, the controller of BBC drama commissioning, said that the corporation should encourage "peculiarity, idiosyncrasy, stubborn-mindedness, left-of-centre thinking."
Mr Stephenson then tried to excuse his bias by claiming that the phrase had no political meaning.
"Like 'left-field', it is a phrase that I use with frequency when talking to the creative community to encourage them to develop and approach their ideas from a completely new perspective," he said.
In which case Mr Stephenson is either a fool - and I don't think that someone that stupid should be a controller in the BBC - or is being deliberately disingenuous. Unless he is a complete idiot he will know damn well that "left of centre" is a political phrase meaning socialist. He'll also know that it does not mean the same as "left field" and is not interchangeable with that expression.
I don't think Mr Stephenson is a fool - I think he knows only too well what is meant by "left of centre" and slips it in to promote his own particular choice of politics - and I believe he is far from being the only one who is left of centre in the BBC who does this. I think he's got so used to doing it unchallenged that it didn't occur to him that some people might disagree with him.
Ben Stephenson, the controller of BBC drama commissioning, said that the corporation should encourage "peculiarity, idiosyncrasy, stubborn-mindedness, left-of-centre thinking."
Mr Stephenson then tried to excuse his bias by claiming that the phrase had no political meaning.
"Like 'left-field', it is a phrase that I use with frequency when talking to the creative community to encourage them to develop and approach their ideas from a completely new perspective," he said.
In which case Mr Stephenson is either a fool - and I don't think that someone that stupid should be a controller in the BBC - or is being deliberately disingenuous. Unless he is a complete idiot he will know damn well that "left of centre" is a political phrase meaning socialist. He'll also know that it does not mean the same as "left field" and is not interchangeable with that expression.
I don't think Mr Stephenson is a fool - I think he knows only too well what is meant by "left of centre" and slips it in to promote his own particular choice of politics - and I believe he is far from being the only one who is left of centre in the BBC who does this. I think he's got so used to doing it unchallenged that it didn't occur to him that some people might disagree with him.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Progress
As I've mentioned before, I'm not a great sports fan but one sport I do enjoy is cricket - and particularly test match cricket. As such, one of the sporting events I look forward to most is the Ashes series - the latest of which is currently underway.
My love of cricket was inspired by an uncle who used to tell me about how he would listen to the test matches on the radio. Of course, growing up in the sixties and seventies I was fortunate to be able to watch the test matches live on BBC television and it was through that medium that I developed the love of the game and all its subtleties, intricacies and strange terminology - third man, mid-off, short leg, covers, yorker, wrong 'un and so on.
Thirty years later I'm reduced to listening to the Ashes test via the Internet and I'm no better off than my uncle was in the forties.
My love of cricket was inspired by an uncle who used to tell me about how he would listen to the test matches on the radio. Of course, growing up in the sixties and seventies I was fortunate to be able to watch the test matches live on BBC television and it was through that medium that I developed the love of the game and all its subtleties, intricacies and strange terminology - third man, mid-off, short leg, covers, yorker, wrong 'un and so on.
Thirty years later I'm reduced to listening to the Ashes test via the Internet and I'm no better off than my uncle was in the forties.
Get the Brits out
I was watching Question Time last night - well, there was bugger all else on - and couldn't help noticing that the panel kept referring to Britons as "Brits".
Is it too hard to say Briton? I mean, the non-entities who appeared on the programme last night seemed to have no trouble spouting endless meaningless drivel with considerable verbosity - but seemed unable to extend that to the complete the word "Briton".
Would they show the same laxity if they were talking about some of our European neighbours? When discussing the attitudes of the German population would they refer to them as "Germs"? Or the Italians as "Its"? Or the Belgians as "Bellies"?
I'm not sure when the term Brit was first used, but I do recall that it was a derogatory term for Briton used by Irish Republicans back in the seventies and as such it has no place in common usage - certainly not by our politicians and commentators.
Is it too hard to say Briton? I mean, the non-entities who appeared on the programme last night seemed to have no trouble spouting endless meaningless drivel with considerable verbosity - but seemed unable to extend that to the complete the word "Briton".
Would they show the same laxity if they were talking about some of our European neighbours? When discussing the attitudes of the German population would they refer to them as "Germs"? Or the Italians as "Its"? Or the Belgians as "Bellies"?
I'm not sure when the term Brit was first used, but I do recall that it was a derogatory term for Briton used by Irish Republicans back in the seventies and as such it has no place in common usage - certainly not by our politicians and commentators.
Criminal failure
Sometime back in the last century when NuLabour stormed to power, the then leader of the party promised that his government would be "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" - a soundbite aimed at those suffering from Attention Span Deficit Disorder - or as they prefer to be known - journalists.
Well, Labour lived up to their promise and have, since coming to power, introduced 36 billion new offences* to criminal law including the offence of improperly weighing a herring. One wonders how we survived all this time with rogue herring weighing going on - thank Gord we've put a stop to this heinous crime.
Meanwhile, real crime - from petty low level stuff to violent assaults and life threatening attacks - has risen inexorably. Now I do not believe for one moment that this is what Labour wanted. I'm sure that - like most politicians - they really believed they had the ideas to tackle the crime and social disorder that blights the lives of more and more people in Britain today - but when it actually came to doing something about it they discovered it was a lot harder than they thought.
This is my problem with the position of "libertarians" who claim that they can somehow impose law and order on society by having fewer rules and laws. I've no doubt that there is plenty of scope for removing laws from our statute books, but the issue of dealing with real crime and disorder will still remain and I have never seen anyone provide an answer for dealing with that.
Labour introduced these myriad of new laws simply because they felt they had to be seen doing something. They genuinely want to reduce real crime and social disorder, but they have no plan for coping with the the thing which breeds crime and social disorder.
When Labour promised to be "tough on the causes of crime" they did so based on the belief that crime is caused by poverty but they ignored the fact that the bulk of their supporters in the first half of the last century were genuinely poor people - considerably poorer than the poor of today - who never ever felt the need to resort to criminal activity as a consequence of being poor.
Poverty does not cause crime. Moral collapse causes crime. Unless and until someone does something to address the issue of morality in society today then nothing they do will have a significant impact on crime and disorder - and this is as true for libertarians as it is for Labour.
Up until the 1950's, that morality was provided by Christianity but this was systematically dismantled by social revolutionaries in the years since leaving a moral vacuum which remains today. Something needed to fill that vacuum on society but never has and this has led to the explosion in crime and disorder.
The response of the government has been to do the only thing any government can do - invent new laws and put in place more measures to try and catch criminals. The result is that we are far less libertarian than we were in the 1950's and are now the most watched, monitored, tracked and scrutinised nation in western civilization.
The only way you are going to be able to change that is to instill some sort of morality back into society so that the government no longer feel compelled to watch and monitor us and to dream up new ways to catch criminals such as DNA databases or ID cards (neither of which will be effective).
The instilling of that morality has to be done from an early age and the state has the ideal way to do that through state education - but that risks accusations of "indoctrination" or, worse still for the progressives, being judgemental. Besides which, how can teachers teach things which they don't believe? Such as that sex is illegal if you are under 16 and confined to marriage.
I'm a Christian, so it is no surprise that I believe the teaching of the Christian faith is the best way of restoring our morality. I'm open to new ideas, but there are none forthcoming except from other faiths - particularly Islam. Let me make it quite clear that I am not arguing for religion in government - just for the restoration of morality in society.
My belief is that this is best achieved through Christianity, but I am certain that if we do not make a conscious effort to restore that to society then Islam will be the moralising force that will fill the vacuum left by Christianity and Britain will become an Islamic state. Then you really will see religion in government!
* A rough estimate
Well, Labour lived up to their promise and have, since coming to power, introduced 36 billion new offences* to criminal law including the offence of improperly weighing a herring. One wonders how we survived all this time with rogue herring weighing going on - thank Gord we've put a stop to this heinous crime.
Meanwhile, real crime - from petty low level stuff to violent assaults and life threatening attacks - has risen inexorably. Now I do not believe for one moment that this is what Labour wanted. I'm sure that - like most politicians - they really believed they had the ideas to tackle the crime and social disorder that blights the lives of more and more people in Britain today - but when it actually came to doing something about it they discovered it was a lot harder than they thought.
This is my problem with the position of "libertarians" who claim that they can somehow impose law and order on society by having fewer rules and laws. I've no doubt that there is plenty of scope for removing laws from our statute books, but the issue of dealing with real crime and disorder will still remain and I have never seen anyone provide an answer for dealing with that.
Labour introduced these myriad of new laws simply because they felt they had to be seen doing something. They genuinely want to reduce real crime and social disorder, but they have no plan for coping with the the thing which breeds crime and social disorder.
When Labour promised to be "tough on the causes of crime" they did so based on the belief that crime is caused by poverty but they ignored the fact that the bulk of their supporters in the first half of the last century were genuinely poor people - considerably poorer than the poor of today - who never ever felt the need to resort to criminal activity as a consequence of being poor.
Poverty does not cause crime. Moral collapse causes crime. Unless and until someone does something to address the issue of morality in society today then nothing they do will have a significant impact on crime and disorder - and this is as true for libertarians as it is for Labour.
Up until the 1950's, that morality was provided by Christianity but this was systematically dismantled by social revolutionaries in the years since leaving a moral vacuum which remains today. Something needed to fill that vacuum on society but never has and this has led to the explosion in crime and disorder.
The response of the government has been to do the only thing any government can do - invent new laws and put in place more measures to try and catch criminals. The result is that we are far less libertarian than we were in the 1950's and are now the most watched, monitored, tracked and scrutinised nation in western civilization.
The only way you are going to be able to change that is to instill some sort of morality back into society so that the government no longer feel compelled to watch and monitor us and to dream up new ways to catch criminals such as DNA databases or ID cards (neither of which will be effective).
The instilling of that morality has to be done from an early age and the state has the ideal way to do that through state education - but that risks accusations of "indoctrination" or, worse still for the progressives, being judgemental. Besides which, how can teachers teach things which they don't believe? Such as that sex is illegal if you are under 16 and confined to marriage.
I'm a Christian, so it is no surprise that I believe the teaching of the Christian faith is the best way of restoring our morality. I'm open to new ideas, but there are none forthcoming except from other faiths - particularly Islam. Let me make it quite clear that I am not arguing for religion in government - just for the restoration of morality in society.
My belief is that this is best achieved through Christianity, but I am certain that if we do not make a conscious effort to restore that to society then Islam will be the moralising force that will fill the vacuum left by Christianity and Britain will become an Islamic state. Then you really will see religion in government!
* A rough estimate
Thursday, July 16, 2009
What you think or want is irrelevant
That is the message from the government.
Welcome to the Soviet Socialist Republic of Britain, comrades.
Welcome to the Soviet Socialist Republic of Britain, comrades.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Just walk away
There seems to be a lot of sympathy going around for Peter Harvey - the teacher who hospitalised a pupil with a weight. I'm afraid none of it is coming from me.
Teachers - not all of them, but certainly a sufficiently large number of them - have colluded with the authorities for decades to hide the reality of schools in an effort to pretend that the comprehensive experiment (which most teachers support) has been a success. As the article linked to above points out, the Ofsted report claimed the school was "satisfactory" and that "behaviour and relationships in the school are good and so students show respect for their teachers and each other during lessons and around the school". Clearly that was rubbish - but teachers make an effort to give that impression when the inspectors call.
Hensher goes on to point out that ....
In short, the inspectors at that time found that [the school] were taking above-average students and making them into below-average ones.
It has to be said, unfortunately, that that happens to be par for the course in secondary education these days - but the ones most likely to deny this are the teachers themselves. Hensher uses a quote from a Facebook page to demonstrate the poor level of literacy displayed by fellow pupils of the lad who was hospitalised. It might be a stark reminder to you and I, but I'm quite sure that the teachers who teach in that school are well aware of how poorly the pupils in their care spell - they must read the stuff their pupils write, surely? - and I'm also well aware that kids habitually misspell words when writing text messages or online anyway. In the world the educationalists created, spelling is not considered important anymore.
The way some teachers go on about their profession you'd think they were working in a coal mine (with references to the "chalkface") or fighting a war (with references to "the front line"). If this is true, then they should consider that the environment they work in is one that they helped to create - but more than that, they know damn well that nobody is forcing them to do that job.
Unlike the kids who want to learn, but end up shunted into one of these "bog-standard" comprehensives where they have to pretend to be dumb and go along with the bad behaviour and disorder to avoid being singled out by their peers all teachers have a choice.
Peter Harvey could have simply walked away - from the pupil, the class and the school.
Teachers - not all of them, but certainly a sufficiently large number of them - have colluded with the authorities for decades to hide the reality of schools in an effort to pretend that the comprehensive experiment (which most teachers support) has been a success. As the article linked to above points out, the Ofsted report claimed the school was "satisfactory" and that "behaviour and relationships in the school are good and so students show respect for their teachers and each other during lessons and around the school". Clearly that was rubbish - but teachers make an effort to give that impression when the inspectors call.
Hensher goes on to point out that ....
In short, the inspectors at that time found that [the school] were taking above-average students and making them into below-average ones.
It has to be said, unfortunately, that that happens to be par for the course in secondary education these days - but the ones most likely to deny this are the teachers themselves. Hensher uses a quote from a Facebook page to demonstrate the poor level of literacy displayed by fellow pupils of the lad who was hospitalised. It might be a stark reminder to you and I, but I'm quite sure that the teachers who teach in that school are well aware of how poorly the pupils in their care spell - they must read the stuff their pupils write, surely? - and I'm also well aware that kids habitually misspell words when writing text messages or online anyway. In the world the educationalists created, spelling is not considered important anymore.
The way some teachers go on about their profession you'd think they were working in a coal mine (with references to the "chalkface") or fighting a war (with references to "the front line"). If this is true, then they should consider that the environment they work in is one that they helped to create - but more than that, they know damn well that nobody is forcing them to do that job.
Unlike the kids who want to learn, but end up shunted into one of these "bog-standard" comprehensives where they have to pretend to be dumb and go along with the bad behaviour and disorder to avoid being singled out by their peers all teachers have a choice.
Peter Harvey could have simply walked away - from the pupil, the class and the school.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
A very British obsession
Can someone tell me why it is that we are so obsessed with house prices?
Or rather, why it is that economists look to house price trends as an indicator of national economic health? You see, as a homeowner, I understand from a home owner's perspective that it is nice to know that the house you are buying is worth more than the mortgage you owe - but as far as I'm concerned, that is as far as it goes.
We live in a nation with a population of some 60,000,000 people but less than 30,000,000 homes - it is hardly surprising, given the levels of new immigrants arriving and the boom in people living alone, that house prices tend to trend upwards even in the deepest of recessions.
But as an indicator of economic health they are largely irrelevant - or if they are relevant then increasing house prices should be a worrying sign because that inevitably means more people taking on more debt and with the debt burden already at unsustainable levels I don't think that is a particularly good idea.
However, it seems that the economists - and our government too - think it is. Why?
I think it is because they believe that this is the only way to maintain the living standards we are used to - by borrowing more and more money based on the future value of our property. That is the only place our "wealth" can come from now - the land and the assets that sit on it. We don't produce enough of anything anymore to maintain a proper economy so we have to grow our economy by borrowing more and more money.
I think this is crazy and will, eventually, come back to haunt us dreadfully.
Or rather, why it is that economists look to house price trends as an indicator of national economic health? You see, as a homeowner, I understand from a home owner's perspective that it is nice to know that the house you are buying is worth more than the mortgage you owe - but as far as I'm concerned, that is as far as it goes.
We live in a nation with a population of some 60,000,000 people but less than 30,000,000 homes - it is hardly surprising, given the levels of new immigrants arriving and the boom in people living alone, that house prices tend to trend upwards even in the deepest of recessions.
But as an indicator of economic health they are largely irrelevant - or if they are relevant then increasing house prices should be a worrying sign because that inevitably means more people taking on more debt and with the debt burden already at unsustainable levels I don't think that is a particularly good idea.
However, it seems that the economists - and our government too - think it is. Why?
I think it is because they believe that this is the only way to maintain the living standards we are used to - by borrowing more and more money based on the future value of our property. That is the only place our "wealth" can come from now - the land and the assets that sit on it. We don't produce enough of anything anymore to maintain a proper economy so we have to grow our economy by borrowing more and more money.
I think this is crazy and will, eventually, come back to haunt us dreadfully.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Intelligent design?
Over on Burning Our Money, Wat Tyler addresses the issue of money laundering and the ludicrous (and ineffective) legislation which now requires us to jump through hoops to prove our money is actually ours.
It's worth noting that this legislation was imposed on us through the EU and came about as the result of the emergence of the euro currency - a system whereby a number of different banks, produce a number of different notes with the same face value and which are perfectly legal in a number of countries where they can be worth more or less than they are in other countries.
It is, I suppose, an example of the law of unintended consequences, but I wonder if it is in fact possible to devise a system better suited to money laundering than the euro currency?
It's worth noting that this legislation was imposed on us through the EU and came about as the result of the emergence of the euro currency - a system whereby a number of different banks, produce a number of different notes with the same face value and which are perfectly legal in a number of countries where they can be worth more or less than they are in other countries.
It is, I suppose, an example of the law of unintended consequences, but I wonder if it is in fact possible to devise a system better suited to money laundering than the euro currency?
Sleazy, creepy fascist on Andrew Marr show
Personally, I think it is disgusting that the BBC allow these fascist scum to appear on television shows to spout their poisonous drivel virtually unchecked and unchallenged.
Still, enough about the obnoxious Ed Miliband's appearance on the Andrew Marr show yesterday.
Still, enough about the obnoxious Ed Miliband's appearance on the Andrew Marr show yesterday.
Ill served and ill equipped
The government have (rightly) come in for a lot of criticism over the deaths of a number of British soldiers in Afghanistan over the last few days. Although I don't wish to trivialise those deaths which are, of course, tragic for every individual family I do think they need to be considered in context - particularly the fact that they occurred during what is a major military operation. It is the nature of war that when an army goes out to actively seek and engage an enemy they will take casualties at a significantly higher rate than they would while performing routine patrols.
Let us not forget either that the war in Afghanistan is the one which most of our media and politicians deemed to be the "just" and "legal" war. Personally, I believe that any war is legal - what is illegal are certain methods used in fighting a war (and most of those illegal acts are committed by our enemies) and I was happy to support action in Afghanistan and Iraq - but not the continued occupation of those countries which I believe serves no useful purpose.
Politicians on all sides tell us that they are acting in British interests by keeping British soldiers out there, but I have yet to see any justification of this. What interest is being served? Okay - I admit that I have rather flippantly suggested that we are learning a lot about our weapons and equipment (which have proven to be woefully inadequate) as well as developing new tactics and strategies for for dealing with asymmetrical warfare - flippant, but also very valid - but this is not why we are told they are there for.
Furthermore, those lessons we are learning about our weapons and equipment being inadequate are not being acted upon. The lack of close air support (CAS) is not being addressed. Why? Because our leaders can not get their heads away from highly complex and incredibly expensive helicopters. Helicopters are incredibly useful machines in the right theatre and have proven to be extraordinarily effective against armour, but - aside from their transport capabilities - this isn't the right theatre and the enemy doesn't have any armour worthy of the name.
Perhaps one of the most telling facts about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is the fact that they have each lasted as long as or longer than the Second World War, but in that time there have been no significant development of new weapons. Partly this is due to the limited thinking that takes place in the MoD who have committed the bulk of armed forces spending to long term, ill conceived projects that are completely unsuited for the sort of warfare our soldiers are being required to fight, but it's also due to the lack of expertise and manufacturing capability we have in Britain.
Meanwhile, the most effective aircraft we have in the theatre is an aeroplane first designed in the 1950's and our soldiers are still equipped with a glorified rabbit gun. It's no coincidence that the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq have seen the re-emergence of the sniper armed with long range, high caliber rifles which is just about the only thing we have that can reliably hit a man at distance and make sure he bloody well stays hit.
So, given that our leaders are not bothering to listen to any of the lessons we are learning from these wars - what is the point of us staying there? What British interests are being served by our soldiers being in Afghanistan? In what way does the death of one of our lads help to improve the security of this nation - particularly given the fact that our government are still allowing all and sundry to pour into this country at will?
Like I said, I had no problem with us attacking Afghanistan (or anybody else that thinks they can use proxy warfare against Britain - and yes, that includes Iran) but only as a short, sharp invasion with limited and clear military objectives. Go in, achieve those goals - then get out again - leaving whatever regime was to emerge there in no doubt that they would get the same treatment even at the slightest suspicion that we were being threatened by their behaviour.
Our troops are being let down by our leaders by being left out on a limb. They don't know what they are doing there, they don't have the right equipment for what they can do there and the government have persistently failed to listen to any lessons that we have learned from there.
Time to get out.
Let us not forget either that the war in Afghanistan is the one which most of our media and politicians deemed to be the "just" and "legal" war. Personally, I believe that any war is legal - what is illegal are certain methods used in fighting a war (and most of those illegal acts are committed by our enemies) and I was happy to support action in Afghanistan and Iraq - but not the continued occupation of those countries which I believe serves no useful purpose.
Politicians on all sides tell us that they are acting in British interests by keeping British soldiers out there, but I have yet to see any justification of this. What interest is being served? Okay - I admit that I have rather flippantly suggested that we are learning a lot about our weapons and equipment (which have proven to be woefully inadequate) as well as developing new tactics and strategies for for dealing with asymmetrical warfare - flippant, but also very valid - but this is not why we are told they are there for.
Furthermore, those lessons we are learning about our weapons and equipment being inadequate are not being acted upon. The lack of close air support (CAS) is not being addressed. Why? Because our leaders can not get their heads away from highly complex and incredibly expensive helicopters. Helicopters are incredibly useful machines in the right theatre and have proven to be extraordinarily effective against armour, but - aside from their transport capabilities - this isn't the right theatre and the enemy doesn't have any armour worthy of the name.
Perhaps one of the most telling facts about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is the fact that they have each lasted as long as or longer than the Second World War, but in that time there have been no significant development of new weapons. Partly this is due to the limited thinking that takes place in the MoD who have committed the bulk of armed forces spending to long term, ill conceived projects that are completely unsuited for the sort of warfare our soldiers are being required to fight, but it's also due to the lack of expertise and manufacturing capability we have in Britain.
Meanwhile, the most effective aircraft we have in the theatre is an aeroplane first designed in the 1950's and our soldiers are still equipped with a glorified rabbit gun. It's no coincidence that the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq have seen the re-emergence of the sniper armed with long range, high caliber rifles which is just about the only thing we have that can reliably hit a man at distance and make sure he bloody well stays hit.
So, given that our leaders are not bothering to listen to any of the lessons we are learning from these wars - what is the point of us staying there? What British interests are being served by our soldiers being in Afghanistan? In what way does the death of one of our lads help to improve the security of this nation - particularly given the fact that our government are still allowing all and sundry to pour into this country at will?
Like I said, I had no problem with us attacking Afghanistan (or anybody else that thinks they can use proxy warfare against Britain - and yes, that includes Iran) but only as a short, sharp invasion with limited and clear military objectives. Go in, achieve those goals - then get out again - leaving whatever regime was to emerge there in no doubt that they would get the same treatment even at the slightest suspicion that we were being threatened by their behaviour.
Our troops are being let down by our leaders by being left out on a limb. They don't know what they are doing there, they don't have the right equipment for what they can do there and the government have persistently failed to listen to any lessons that we have learned from there.
Time to get out.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
A lesson for us all
The mobile phone hacking scandal is getting a lot of coverage.
Let's just say that this should serve as a lesson to us all not to be as naive and gullible as this list of "celebrities" and politicians were.
If your average private investigator can hack into your mobile phone voicemail box, just consider how easy it would be for a professional.
On a wider note, if it is true that the police and CPS had evidence of this sort of thing going on, but saw fit to withhold the information from the Deputy PM of the time then just imagine what they are not telling you or I.
Makes you think, doesn't it?
Let's just say that this should serve as a lesson to us all not to be as naive and gullible as this list of "celebrities" and politicians were.
If your average private investigator can hack into your mobile phone voicemail box, just consider how easy it would be for a professional.
On a wider note, if it is true that the police and CPS had evidence of this sort of thing going on, but saw fit to withhold the information from the Deputy PM of the time then just imagine what they are not telling you or I.
Makes you think, doesn't it?
The right tools for the job
I don't understand why it is that just because I'm a conservative I shouldn't be in favour of nationalised industries. I think it's partly due to the fact that people still wrongly assume capitalism to be a political system - even though it clearly is not - and therefore, if you are even moderately right wing you must favour private enterprise over state owned industry.
I really don't see this as being the case. Capitalism is simply an economic system which is used, by and large, by virtually every kind of government there is regardless of whether they are left or right wing. It is used because, although far from perfect, it is by far the most effective economic system there is - but that should not distract us from its shortcomings which are many.
I think it was Churchill who said that democracy was the worst kind of government there is apart from all the others - well so it is with capitalism and economic systems. Just as you need to have effective checks and balances on democracy you also need to have effective checks and balances on capitalism too and, as I have always maintained, this can only be done effectively within a national context.
The thing is, private enterprise is not always the best way forward for certain industries. The Victorians understood this which is why the Royal Mail was a state owned industry as that was the only way a universal, nationwide service could be maintained - as a state owned monopoly. Could it be done better by a private enterprise? Almost certainly where the service is profitable - but most definitely not where it isn't.
You won't be surprised, therefore, to learn that I totally oppose the sell off of any part of the Royal Mail and believe completely that it should remain a state owned industry More than this, I believe that the services provided by the Royal Mail should once more become a monopoly as this is the only way to enable Royal Mail to regain much of the profitable areas of its business that it lost out on to private companies who get to cherry pick what they can offer and to whom.
I have similar views, as I've noted before on the railways. The only way you can ensure that you have a fully integrated and universal rail service is by making the whole damn network - track, stations, rolling stock etc. - a state owned monopoly. I know people point to the British Rail of the seventies as demonstrable proof that this won't work - but that ignores completely the realities of that time with underinvestment and all too powerful and militant unions.
I'm also in favour of the utilities being state owned - water, gas and electric - for the same reasons. Beyond that I'm more or less in favour of everything else being open to private enterprise free market capitalism
However, as I mentioned earlier, sometimes free market capitalism and private enterprise fails and when it does I believe it is the duty of a national government to step in and help out in certain cases - particularly in industries which are vital to our economic and national well being.
I think this is especially important in key manufacturing and production industries such as defence, car/truck manufacture, coal and steel, aerospace, shipbuilding and other major, "heavy" industries.
Let me make it clear that I would always prefer - if and when possible - that these industries would not be state owned and open to the vagaries of free market capitalism (but, as always, within the context of the nation - I'm just not into the whole global free market thing which, as I've made it clear elsewhere, is going to be a monumental disaster for the west in general and Britain in particular).
However, if capitalism is failing to deliver what we require from these industries then I believe it is right and proper for the national government to step in and either take over ailing companies or, if we are completely lacking in a certain field , start new companies to fill the void.
I would hope that this would be done always with the intention of privatising those companies when it is prudent to do so - but with certain provisions that they must remain wholly British owned and with measures in place to prevent aggressive takeovers of other companies in those sectors which would once more reduce competition and leave the resulting conglomerate as a private monopoly.
I don't believe this is left wing "socialist" thinking - I believe it is a sensible policy for any government to pursue. These industries are vital to a nation as they are often the lifeblood of the innovation and technological advancement that drives a national economy forward. They are also vitally important to our education system as these major industries need quality graduates and skilled workers.
It's one of the most overlooked failings of our education system that one of the reasons the quality of education has declined so significantly is simply that there isn't the same need to produce highly educated school leavers anymore. The law of supply and demand is just as important in education as it is in selling televisions.
State owned industry, conservatism and a fundamental belief in free market capitalism are not mutually exclusive. Far from it - it makes eminently good sense for any government to keep all available tools in its tool box and to be prepared to use them if and when necessary. And sometimes only one tool will do the job right.
I really don't see this as being the case. Capitalism is simply an economic system which is used, by and large, by virtually every kind of government there is regardless of whether they are left or right wing. It is used because, although far from perfect, it is by far the most effective economic system there is - but that should not distract us from its shortcomings which are many.
I think it was Churchill who said that democracy was the worst kind of government there is apart from all the others - well so it is with capitalism and economic systems. Just as you need to have effective checks and balances on democracy you also need to have effective checks and balances on capitalism too and, as I have always maintained, this can only be done effectively within a national context.
The thing is, private enterprise is not always the best way forward for certain industries. The Victorians understood this which is why the Royal Mail was a state owned industry as that was the only way a universal, nationwide service could be maintained - as a state owned monopoly. Could it be done better by a private enterprise? Almost certainly where the service is profitable - but most definitely not where it isn't.
You won't be surprised, therefore, to learn that I totally oppose the sell off of any part of the Royal Mail and believe completely that it should remain a state owned industry More than this, I believe that the services provided by the Royal Mail should once more become a monopoly as this is the only way to enable Royal Mail to regain much of the profitable areas of its business that it lost out on to private companies who get to cherry pick what they can offer and to whom.
I have similar views, as I've noted before on the railways. The only way you can ensure that you have a fully integrated and universal rail service is by making the whole damn network - track, stations, rolling stock etc. - a state owned monopoly. I know people point to the British Rail of the seventies as demonstrable proof that this won't work - but that ignores completely the realities of that time with underinvestment and all too powerful and militant unions.
I'm also in favour of the utilities being state owned - water, gas and electric - for the same reasons. Beyond that I'm more or less in favour of everything else being open to private enterprise free market capitalism
However, as I mentioned earlier, sometimes free market capitalism and private enterprise fails and when it does I believe it is the duty of a national government to step in and help out in certain cases - particularly in industries which are vital to our economic and national well being.
I think this is especially important in key manufacturing and production industries such as defence, car/truck manufacture, coal and steel, aerospace, shipbuilding and other major, "heavy" industries.
Let me make it clear that I would always prefer - if and when possible - that these industries would not be state owned and open to the vagaries of free market capitalism (but, as always, within the context of the nation - I'm just not into the whole global free market thing which, as I've made it clear elsewhere, is going to be a monumental disaster for the west in general and Britain in particular).
However, if capitalism is failing to deliver what we require from these industries then I believe it is right and proper for the national government to step in and either take over ailing companies or, if we are completely lacking in a certain field , start new companies to fill the void.
I would hope that this would be done always with the intention of privatising those companies when it is prudent to do so - but with certain provisions that they must remain wholly British owned and with measures in place to prevent aggressive takeovers of other companies in those sectors which would once more reduce competition and leave the resulting conglomerate as a private monopoly.
I don't believe this is left wing "socialist" thinking - I believe it is a sensible policy for any government to pursue. These industries are vital to a nation as they are often the lifeblood of the innovation and technological advancement that drives a national economy forward. They are also vitally important to our education system as these major industries need quality graduates and skilled workers.
It's one of the most overlooked failings of our education system that one of the reasons the quality of education has declined so significantly is simply that there isn't the same need to produce highly educated school leavers anymore. The law of supply and demand is just as important in education as it is in selling televisions.
State owned industry, conservatism and a fundamental belief in free market capitalism are not mutually exclusive. Far from it - it makes eminently good sense for any government to keep all available tools in its tool box and to be prepared to use them if and when necessary. And sometimes only one tool will do the job right.
An army of bureaucrats
Apparently, there are 100,000 "civil servants" working for the Ministry of Defence. To put that into context, it means that every trained regular soldier in the British Army could have their own personal bureaucrat assigned to them and there would still be a couple of thousand pen-pushers sitting around with nothing to do.
And I wouldn't mind betting that the bureaucrats never find themselves short of the "right equipment" - except when they leave their £3000 laptop on some commuter train. British soldiers in Afghanistan have been known to beg for bullets from US soldiers, but I doubt whether the bean counters at the MoD ever run short of batteries for their calculators
And that is just one government department out of God knows how many we have these days. There are too many departments and each department has too many bureaucrats. Why do we need so many?
Well - we don't. It's just empire building by people who do so just because they can. We often hear people - such as David Cameron - tell us that we need smaller government without ever really saying what that means. What it should mean (apart from the obvious cull of the quangos) is fewer government departments employing considerably fewer people.
We don't need a separate "Justice Department" from the Home Office. We don't need a Secretary of State for Scotland as well as a Scottish Parliament (and if we do then why isn't there a Secretary of State for England?). Why do we have to have a Minister for Africa, Asia and the UN? Why can't the Foreign Office do that?
We're always being told - by Labour supporters - that cutting back public sector spending will mean fewer teachers and nurses or less schools and hospitals, but it doesn't mean that at all. It just means less government and considerably fewer bureaucrats.
And if that means more money being available to buy books for schools, pay for more operations or ensure our soldiers get the equipment they need and deserve how can anybody object to that?
And I wouldn't mind betting that the bureaucrats never find themselves short of the "right equipment" - except when they leave their £3000 laptop on some commuter train. British soldiers in Afghanistan have been known to beg for bullets from US soldiers, but I doubt whether the bean counters at the MoD ever run short of batteries for their calculators
And that is just one government department out of God knows how many we have these days. There are too many departments and each department has too many bureaucrats. Why do we need so many?
Well - we don't. It's just empire building by people who do so just because they can. We often hear people - such as David Cameron - tell us that we need smaller government without ever really saying what that means. What it should mean (apart from the obvious cull of the quangos) is fewer government departments employing considerably fewer people.
We don't need a separate "Justice Department" from the Home Office. We don't need a Secretary of State for Scotland as well as a Scottish Parliament (and if we do then why isn't there a Secretary of State for England?). Why do we have to have a Minister for Africa, Asia and the UN? Why can't the Foreign Office do that?
We're always being told - by Labour supporters - that cutting back public sector spending will mean fewer teachers and nurses or less schools and hospitals, but it doesn't mean that at all. It just means less government and considerably fewer bureaucrats.
And if that means more money being available to buy books for schools, pay for more operations or ensure our soldiers get the equipment they need and deserve how can anybody object to that?
Legalised extortion
I'm not, by nature, inclined to banning things just because I find them offensive. For instance, even though I occasionally use the odd four letter word in both my postings and my real conversation, it is usually due to genuine exasperation and not for effect or out of habit and I almost always regret it afterwards, but I don't want to see swearing banned. I would prefer it if it was restricted by self-censorship, but I realise I'm in a minority on that sort of thing these days.
But if there is one thing I would ban, it is wheel clamping. I mean - what is the point of it? Cars are clamped when they are parked illegally somewhere - in private or public - and therefore deemed to be causing an obstruction. If they are causing an obstruction then surely the last thing you should want to do is ensure that the vehicle can not be moved?
Wheel clamping has become a charter for legalised extortion where one private individual is able to confiscate the property of another private individual and refuse to release it unless and until that person has paid the other a large sum of money. I don't think that wheel clamping sits comfortably with the traditional rights and freedoms to property of Britons and believe it would be right to ban the practice.
But if there is one thing I would ban, it is wheel clamping. I mean - what is the point of it? Cars are clamped when they are parked illegally somewhere - in private or public - and therefore deemed to be causing an obstruction. If they are causing an obstruction then surely the last thing you should want to do is ensure that the vehicle can not be moved?
Wheel clamping has become a charter for legalised extortion where one private individual is able to confiscate the property of another private individual and refuse to release it unless and until that person has paid the other a large sum of money. I don't think that wheel clamping sits comfortably with the traditional rights and freedoms to property of Britons and believe it would be right to ban the practice.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
The fragile "recovery"
Over the last few weeks there have been a number of reports suggesting that the worst of the recession is over and we are on the road to recovery. As I am sure you are aware, this is not my view and represents - in my opinion - an almost desperate clutching at straws.
Our own Prime Minister is set to confirm my views today as he addresses world leaders.
Gordon Brown will today warn international leaders that sharp and unpredictable rises in oil prices risk "choking off" the global economy and pushing the world into a second recession.
A second recession? We haven't got over the first "recession" yet! But here is the clincher ...
At the Group of Eight summit in Italy, the Prime Minister will sound a pessimistic note about the economic outlook and suggest the limited recovery now under way is weaker than had been hoped.
Weaker than hoped - things are so bad even Gordo is pessimistic about the future. I'm afraid that says it all. Despite the billions spent - trillions worldwide - the "recovery" is, at best and if it exists at all, weak. Our economy is in a dire state and unlikely to be able to cope with a second wave of recessionary pressure. The cupboard is bare, the tank is empty and the reserves all gone. There isn't anything left except more and more debt.
Depression looms large, people - and with that will come a spectacular fall in the living standards and wages we have gotten used to. This is not going to be pretty.
Our own Prime Minister is set to confirm my views today as he addresses world leaders.
Gordon Brown will today warn international leaders that sharp and unpredictable rises in oil prices risk "choking off" the global economy and pushing the world into a second recession.
A second recession? We haven't got over the first "recession" yet! But here is the clincher ...
At the Group of Eight summit in Italy, the Prime Minister will sound a pessimistic note about the economic outlook and suggest the limited recovery now under way is weaker than had been hoped.
Weaker than hoped - things are so bad even Gordo is pessimistic about the future. I'm afraid that says it all. Despite the billions spent - trillions worldwide - the "recovery" is, at best and if it exists at all, weak. Our economy is in a dire state and unlikely to be able to cope with a second wave of recessionary pressure. The cupboard is bare, the tank is empty and the reserves all gone. There isn't anything left except more and more debt.
Depression looms large, people - and with that will come a spectacular fall in the living standards and wages we have gotten used to. This is not going to be pretty.
Monday, July 06, 2009
How the left admit they've failed on education
The left never actually admit they are wrong on anything. It's one of the features of left wing thinking that any real world evidence which falsifies a wide held left wing belief is either wrong or can be reinterpreted to demonstrate that their belief is correct. Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) - very much a left wing belief system - being a prime example of that technique.
However, they frequently admit their failings by accident. Or, to be more precise, by their incoherent thought processes. For example, it is a long held belief of the left that poverty causes crime. Is this true?
Well, if it is true then it is obvious that fifty years of progressive liberalism have failed - because crime is considerably worse than it was fifty years ago when there was far more poverty than there is now. But the left counter that by adjusting the way we measure poverty so it appears that there are more poor people today than there really is - in which case, fifty years of progressive liberalism and the welfare state has failed again.
To prove their theory - that poverty causes crime - they have to demonstrate that there are plenty of poor people which is why crime is so much higher today than it was fifty years ago, but by doing that they admit the failure of another left wing plank. It's an implicit admission of the failure of the left - but one they will never own up to.
It's a similar thing with education. According to the left, comprehensive education has been a great success. It is fairer and delivering higher standards than ever before - so they say.
But then comes the admission of failure again. You see, another one of their theories on crime is that it is caused by poor education. Time and again I hear someone from the left saying that "prison doesn't work" - what is needed, they insist, is education to stop people falling into crime.
This stark admission ignores the fact that everyone has access to a state education from the age of 5 until they are 16. If it is true that poor education is more likely to result in a rise in crime then it is demonstrable evidence that comprehensive education has been an abject failure because - as we know - crime was considerably lower before comprehensive education.
So, either the theory is bunkum or the policy is failing? Which is it lefties?
Of course, both theories - that poor education and poverty cause crime - are rubbish. A century ago we had considerably more poverty and poorer education, but far less crime - but a century before that we had even poorer education and even more poverty - and crime was rife.
What causes crime? The absence of morality is what.
However, they frequently admit their failings by accident. Or, to be more precise, by their incoherent thought processes. For example, it is a long held belief of the left that poverty causes crime. Is this true?
Well, if it is true then it is obvious that fifty years of progressive liberalism have failed - because crime is considerably worse than it was fifty years ago when there was far more poverty than there is now. But the left counter that by adjusting the way we measure poverty so it appears that there are more poor people today than there really is - in which case, fifty years of progressive liberalism and the welfare state has failed again.
To prove their theory - that poverty causes crime - they have to demonstrate that there are plenty of poor people which is why crime is so much higher today than it was fifty years ago, but by doing that they admit the failure of another left wing plank. It's an implicit admission of the failure of the left - but one they will never own up to.
It's a similar thing with education. According to the left, comprehensive education has been a great success. It is fairer and delivering higher standards than ever before - so they say.
But then comes the admission of failure again. You see, another one of their theories on crime is that it is caused by poor education. Time and again I hear someone from the left saying that "prison doesn't work" - what is needed, they insist, is education to stop people falling into crime.
This stark admission ignores the fact that everyone has access to a state education from the age of 5 until they are 16. If it is true that poor education is more likely to result in a rise in crime then it is demonstrable evidence that comprehensive education has been an abject failure because - as we know - crime was considerably lower before comprehensive education.
So, either the theory is bunkum or the policy is failing? Which is it lefties?
Of course, both theories - that poor education and poverty cause crime - are rubbish. A century ago we had considerably more poverty and poorer education, but far less crime - but a century before that we had even poorer education and even more poverty - and crime was rife.
What causes crime? The absence of morality is what.
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Ranting Stan's Sunday Drive: Triumph 2000 Mk.II
With a straight six, 2 litre engine and acres of space front and rear, Triumph's big "family" car of the seventies was also one of the smoothest and most comfortable cars of the seventies.
Originally released in 1969 the Triumph 2000 MK.II combined this space and smoothness with an elegant body which still looks good today. Although mostly considered as a large family car it wasn't intended purely as such.
The original Triumph 2000 MK.I was launched at the same time as the Rover P6 and between them they revolutionised the executive car market. Instead of being massive, rather staid and somewhat sluggish the executive car was redefined as a sleek, handsome saloon offering the comfort and refinement that "executives" were used to combined with power and modern dynamics.
Triumph's redesign gave the 2000 Mk.II the front end treatment which would become familiar on the iconic Stag a year or so later with the rear taking on the Triumph "family" look, but despite this the Triumph 2000 struggled to maintain sales in an ever competitive market. By the time the Mk.II was launched virtually every manufacturer was offering similar types with increasing success and in 1977 Triumph stopped producing the Mk.II.
I never drove a Triumph 2000 but it does remain prominent in my memory thanks to one of my school friends. His mother drove a 2000 Mk.II - actually, his dad's company car - and I had a massive crush on his mum at the time (trust me, she was gorgeous) as my teenage hormones raged. She would drive us (and a couple of others) to and from rugby training in the car and it was one of the highlights of my week - especially when I got to ride in the front passenger seat.
As it turned out, his younger sister had almost as big a crush on me as I did on his mum and I ended up going out with her for a few months when I was 15 - in the innocent way we used to back then (no nookie, just a bit of snogging) - and got to ride in the big Triumph some more as her mum ferried us to various parties.
The Triumph 2000 was a great car for its time with space and elegance. Unfortunately, elegance was not particularly sought after in the late seventies and the big Triumph could not compete with ever bigger and flashier rivals - but the sight of one can still bring a big smile to my face and the memory of my first crush to the front of my mind.
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Being different and being accepted
While browsing around the Internet for something entirely unrelated, I came across this article on the Hindustan Times from 2007. I found it interesting for a couple of reasons - firstly the way it refers to the city of Bombay (not Mumbai as the BBC like to call it) and the other for this little aside.
Ponytails turned heads on Delhi roads, just like they did in Allahabad. So did white skin. I was once walking with an English friend in a posh South Delhi neighbourhood. A couple of lads arrived on motorcycles and tried to run him down. It was all in good spirit of course; the boys saw a foreigner and decided to rag him a bit, make him jump around. Just like they would have in Gorakhpur.
What a lark, eh! Running down whitey with a motorcycle just because of the colour of his skin - what a laugh they must have had. Hey, it was all in good spirits!
The thing is, though, I agree with him - it probably was a bit of a lark and, although it is undoubtedly inherently racist - so what? Personally, if that had been me - and as long as it wasn't done in a more threatening way - I'd be glad that I was accepted enough by the locals that they'd include me in a bit of "ragging".
The thing is, there is always a tendency amongst a group of people to place a focus on certain attributes of their friends and peers. At school I had a friend who we used to call "shorty" - even though he was over six feet tall at 14. There was also a "ginge", "pikey" and "vesta" (a skinny girl with very white skin and red hair who we likened to the Swan Vesta matchstick). As it happens, there weren't any black kids in my year, but there was one Asian who we used to call "Sam" as it was an abbreviation of his full name.
Actually, that reminds me of an incident when a new teacher pulled me aside to give me a ticking off for calling him "Sam" - which she took to be an abbreviation of "sambo". Sam patiently explained to this young teacher that it didn't mean that, that everyone - including the teachers - called him Sam and he actually preferred it anyway. The teacher duly apologised - to Sam, not to me. She didn't seem to think it mattered that she'd just called a white kid a "racist" in front of an Asian. I wonder who was more racist - me for playing catch with an Asian I called "Sam" or her for assuming that "sam" nust be short for "sambo"?
I watched something on TV a few months back which was some sort of homage to the TV series "On The Buses" and that had someone remarking on the racism of that programme. I couldn't for the life of me recall anything racist about "On The Buses", but the person explained that there was a black bus driver who was known as "Chalky" and this was clearly a racist slur.
Indeed there was a Chalky - and it might well have been a nickname in reference to his colour, but so what? Is that any worse than calling a redhead"ginge"? I also recall that the nickname "Chalky" was given to an awful lot of people who had the surname "White" -regardless of the colour of their skin - a common surname for black people.
I also recall a football team manager some years back who was known by the nickname "bald Eagle". I don't think it was because of his lush head of hair. I doubt that he particularly enjoyed being reminded of his gleaming pate, but he seemed to take it in good spirit.
What's my point?
My point is that we'll all get along a lot better if we stop being so bloody sensitive about our differences. To be honest, I don't think it helps that black and Asian people are encouraged by the various agencies to make a big fuss over these things - much like that young teacher who intervened between me and Sam - and I'm pretty sure a lot of them would rather not bother. All it does is drive a wedge between groups which gets bigger each time someone hammers home the point.
Most of us can tell the difference between a bit of banter, mickey-taking and ragging - it usually indicates your acceptance into a social group - and those that can't can always join the Lib Dems.
Ponytails turned heads on Delhi roads, just like they did in Allahabad. So did white skin. I was once walking with an English friend in a posh South Delhi neighbourhood. A couple of lads arrived on motorcycles and tried to run him down. It was all in good spirit of course; the boys saw a foreigner and decided to rag him a bit, make him jump around. Just like they would have in Gorakhpur.
What a lark, eh! Running down whitey with a motorcycle just because of the colour of his skin - what a laugh they must have had. Hey, it was all in good spirits!
The thing is, though, I agree with him - it probably was a bit of a lark and, although it is undoubtedly inherently racist - so what? Personally, if that had been me - and as long as it wasn't done in a more threatening way - I'd be glad that I was accepted enough by the locals that they'd include me in a bit of "ragging".
The thing is, there is always a tendency amongst a group of people to place a focus on certain attributes of their friends and peers. At school I had a friend who we used to call "shorty" - even though he was over six feet tall at 14. There was also a "ginge", "pikey" and "vesta" (a skinny girl with very white skin and red hair who we likened to the Swan Vesta matchstick). As it happens, there weren't any black kids in my year, but there was one Asian who we used to call "Sam" as it was an abbreviation of his full name.
Actually, that reminds me of an incident when a new teacher pulled me aside to give me a ticking off for calling him "Sam" - which she took to be an abbreviation of "sambo". Sam patiently explained to this young teacher that it didn't mean that, that everyone - including the teachers - called him Sam and he actually preferred it anyway. The teacher duly apologised - to Sam, not to me. She didn't seem to think it mattered that she'd just called a white kid a "racist" in front of an Asian. I wonder who was more racist - me for playing catch with an Asian I called "Sam" or her for assuming that "sam" nust be short for "sambo"?
I watched something on TV a few months back which was some sort of homage to the TV series "On The Buses" and that had someone remarking on the racism of that programme. I couldn't for the life of me recall anything racist about "On The Buses", but the person explained that there was a black bus driver who was known as "Chalky" and this was clearly a racist slur.
Indeed there was a Chalky - and it might well have been a nickname in reference to his colour, but so what? Is that any worse than calling a redhead"ginge"? I also recall that the nickname "Chalky" was given to an awful lot of people who had the surname "White" -regardless of the colour of their skin - a common surname for black people.
I also recall a football team manager some years back who was known by the nickname "bald Eagle". I don't think it was because of his lush head of hair. I doubt that he particularly enjoyed being reminded of his gleaming pate, but he seemed to take it in good spirit.
What's my point?
My point is that we'll all get along a lot better if we stop being so bloody sensitive about our differences. To be honest, I don't think it helps that black and Asian people are encouraged by the various agencies to make a big fuss over these things - much like that young teacher who intervened between me and Sam - and I'm pretty sure a lot of them would rather not bother. All it does is drive a wedge between groups which gets bigger each time someone hammers home the point.
Most of us can tell the difference between a bit of banter, mickey-taking and ragging - it usually indicates your acceptance into a social group - and those that can't can always join the Lib Dems.
At least we're still world leaders in some respects
Shame it happens to be for violent crime.
Once upon a time - not so long ago as it happens - we led the world in technology, innovation and enterprise. Our science was the most respected in the world; our police the envy of all and our parliament the model for every self-respecting democracy wannabee.
We're now a bankrupt nation of debtors with nothing to sell except what little remains of the family jewels. Our scientists work towards political ideals rather than empirical evidence; our police now look like a paramilitary force who behave like the sort of thugs we used to sneer at in banana republics and our parliament has become a global joke.
What a difference 50 years of progressive liberalism has made.
Once upon a time - not so long ago as it happens - we led the world in technology, innovation and enterprise. Our science was the most respected in the world; our police the envy of all and our parliament the model for every self-respecting democracy wannabee.
We're now a bankrupt nation of debtors with nothing to sell except what little remains of the family jewels. Our scientists work towards political ideals rather than empirical evidence; our police now look like a paramilitary force who behave like the sort of thugs we used to sneer at in banana republics and our parliament has become a global joke.
What a difference 50 years of progressive liberalism has made.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
The return of British Rail?
The government has nationalised the East Coast mainline after National Express floundered.
I know a lot of conservatives will be horrified by this, but personally I think the whole damn lot should be brought back into public ownership*. I never could see the point of privatising the railways - the taxpayer was always going to end up paying for it one way or another anyway - and I've never made it a secret that I believe certain things should be in public ownership.
I don't see this leading to a mass nationalistion of the railways, though - more's the pity.
* I know this seems at odds for someone who claims to be a conservative, but as I've remarked before, my politics are not that straightforward. They are a mixture of various different ideologies formed through various influences and a wide variety of sources over decades - not learned by rote from a book or by narrow selection of opinion.
I know a lot of conservatives will be horrified by this, but personally I think the whole damn lot should be brought back into public ownership*. I never could see the point of privatising the railways - the taxpayer was always going to end up paying for it one way or another anyway - and I've never made it a secret that I believe certain things should be in public ownership.
I don't see this leading to a mass nationalistion of the railways, though - more's the pity.
* I know this seems at odds for someone who claims to be a conservative, but as I've remarked before, my politics are not that straightforward. They are a mixture of various different ideologies formed through various influences and a wide variety of sources over decades - not learned by rote from a book or by narrow selection of opinion.
Basic instinct
So the government are abandoning plans for the ID card scheme to be compulsory?
In a significant climb down, Mr Johnson yesterday announced that the cards would only be issued to Britons on a voluntary basis.
In which case - what is the point? We already have a voluntary ID card scheme known as a "passport" so why bother with another one? Not only that, but the passport is useful if you want to get out of this country - which increasing numbers of Britons are choosing to do.
Mr Johnson is the man touted by the mainstream media as Gordon Brown's successor although, for the life of me, I can't think why. Johnson is to charisma what Brown is to cheerful - as far as I can tell, his only real quality is that he isn't Harriet Harman (which, to be fair, is a major positive for any politician).
But perhaps the biggest reason why we should hope this man never gets to be in charge of the country is this seemingly throw away comment .....
Mr Johnson insisted he was still an “instinctive” supporter of ID cards
That is the basic instinct of the people who now govern our country. The instinct of mistrust, repression and surveillance that typified regimes like the Soviet Bloc. That is what our fathers and grandfathers spent six years fighting against and another fifty defending us from in western Europe during the 20th century.
The wolves aren't just in the sheep pen - they are running the farm.
In a significant climb down, Mr Johnson yesterday announced that the cards would only be issued to Britons on a voluntary basis.
In which case - what is the point? We already have a voluntary ID card scheme known as a "passport" so why bother with another one? Not only that, but the passport is useful if you want to get out of this country - which increasing numbers of Britons are choosing to do.
Mr Johnson is the man touted by the mainstream media as Gordon Brown's successor although, for the life of me, I can't think why. Johnson is to charisma what Brown is to cheerful - as far as I can tell, his only real quality is that he isn't Harriet Harman (which, to be fair, is a major positive for any politician).
But perhaps the biggest reason why we should hope this man never gets to be in charge of the country is this seemingly throw away comment .....
Mr Johnson insisted he was still an “instinctive” supporter of ID cards
That is the basic instinct of the people who now govern our country. The instinct of mistrust, repression and surveillance that typified regimes like the Soviet Bloc. That is what our fathers and grandfathers spent six years fighting against and another fifty defending us from in western Europe during the 20th century.
The wolves aren't just in the sheep pen - they are running the farm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)