The Government procrastinates again

A mix of good and bad news from Gordon the Gopher's left hand man. The story below should be good news. On the surface of it, Mr Burnham has stated that Hospital Car Parking charges should end. This is a cause to celebrate. The flip side of this is that behind the headline grabbing story, nothing has changed now. The consultation that he's proposing will not be over until after, or at, the time of the next election, so any legislation that would follow, is actually doubtful given a potential change in government. The cynic in me says that this is a last throw of the dice to garner some pre-election support.

The reality is, that if the true desire was there, certain charges could be abolished very quickly, and further measures could be taken later, if deemed necessary. Oncology patients, in-patients, paediatric patients, seem easy groups to decide on to waive any charges. But as any patient or carer will tell you, there are other costs that need to be considered too. But I guess this would be a start. So far the Government is all talk, and no action. A little similar to my last entry on 084 telephone numbers where much is promised, but not yet delivered.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8433395.stm

The Power of the Internet!

Proof that Internet campaigning can work. Hot on the heels of Rage Against The Machine's success in preventing the Cowell combine harvester from reaping yet another Christmas number one, I bring you a more practical application of Internet power.

Those who know me will know that I've got a bee in my bonnet about non-geographic telephone numbers, and have been banging on about it for yonks. So I bring you, fresh from my in-box, a communication from Gordon the Gopher himself detailing the government's plans to outlaw these.

I draw your attention to: http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page21836

So when you next go to your GP Surgery, ask the Practice Manager about their telephone number and point out this link, then stand back and enjoy the look on this face. Happy New Year!

The Copenhagen Environment Summit

What a missed opportunity. Not because there was no legally binding agreement but because the focus is on the wrong issues. However, I will start this entry with a cheap, but none-the-less valid point. Whilst we are all being told to reduce our carbon output, what on earth was the carbon footprint of flying hundreds of politicians and their entourages to Denmark? Has no-one heard of video-conferencing? I think our elder statemen need to lead by example.

A study of the Earth's geological history tells us that temperature fluctuations are nothing new. Even the pace of temperature change does have parallels too. History also shows us that methane, not carbon, is the really dangerous greenhouse gas. Extinction Level Events that have been triggered by meteor impacts or volcanic erruptions have released methane into the atmosphere, raising the temperature quickly.

More recent studies also show that the effects of pollution on the atmosphere are reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface. So conversely this is mitigating the effects of global warming. Not that I am suggesting we continue to pollute of course.

There are massive amounts of methane in the sea. A small shift in temperature would see some of this methane released into the atmosphere, with disasterous consequences.

We need to focus on controlling both methane and carbon dioxide. The biggest source of land based methane is cattle. So here we need to think about developing cattle feed that reduces methane. We need to think about reducing our meat consumption. A practical way to do this is to think about population control. It's controversial but necessary. There are only a finite amount of resources to go round. Population growth is out of control.

We have a natural way of dealing with carbon dioxide, trees. We must stop the deforrestation of the planet, and locally, our urban sprawl.

This is where I believe the politicians should have been concentrating. But this is too big an issue for national governments, we need a global supra-national organisation to manage and monitor our planet, before it's too late. Climate change is inevitable, how we deal with it, is not.

Debunking the myths of Carbon Footprints, Carbon Offsetting and Green Energy Tariffs

Carbon Footprints, Carbon Offsetting and Green Energy Tariffs are all terms that have been hijacked by commercial organisations to lure us into buying their products as they are ‘greener’ that anyone else’s. Here’s why we should all question the rash claims made.

Carbon Footprints: We know that this is a metaphorical representation of how much carbon we use. But the truth of the matter is that there is no way of truly measuring how much carbon we use, as all have unique lives that will use all manner of carbon-based energy that we have no control the original source of the energy. Without this control, we have no way of knowing how the energy was extracted, whether it was extracted efficiently, and therefore its carbon content. Most homes have gas and electricity, and run at least one car. Every time you fill up at a different fuel station you are changing the ‘source’. Every time you shop at a different shop, eat at a different restaurant, or drink in a different pub, you will be directly or indirectly consuming differing sources of energy. So let’s assume that you can track all the different providers that you come into contact with. How would you calculate the carbon content of the fuel expended? You may say that this doesn’t matter because Carbon Footprint is only designed to give you an indication of the relative use of energy. Fair point, except that where we’re being encouraged to offset Carbon, how can you truly do this if you don’t truly know how much Carbon you’re using?

Carbon Offsetting: Let’s assume that we can measure the amount of Carbon used. Should you offset? Well, yes of course it helps, but there are two issues. Offsetting doesn’t not discourage waste, or encourage efficiency; it simply salves your conscience. Also if everyone were to offset there wouldn’t be anywhere to put all the trees, and as it doesn’t encourage energy preservation, the planet will still run out of oil millions of years before any trees planted will yield some fresh supplies. Many companies make claims to be Carbon Neutral to impress us into thinking they are green, and good to do business with. I would say that this would be very, very, difficult to prove, so it’s a hollow claim.

Green Energy Tariffs
Many power companies are offering ‘green energy’. Usually at a premium. This may give you the impression that your energy is coming from renewable sources but the reality is that your power will be coming from the same old carbon powered station that it always has, you’ll just be paying more for it! You could argue that this doesn’t matter because the extra money that we are paying is being invested in renewables. But the reality is that it means that we are paying for the research and development budgets of already rich companies that should be funding and securing their own futures from the billions of pounds of profit that they already make.

The only way to reduce our carbon footprints is to use less energy and be more energy efficient. Period. Don't believe the hype.

Team Green: The green test

Politicians will make claims as to their green credentials. Sadly there claims don't hold up to much scrutiny. Here's some food for thought. Cooking oil, after use can be filtered and cleaned up then used in diesel vehicles. We have a large number of restaurants and food outlets that throw away their oil, which is also problematic to cleanly dispose of. For a commercial organisation to arrange to collect, process and then sell this onto us is unviable because Mr Darling insists on the same level of fuel duty that applies to petroleum based diesel. By reducing the tax burden we can recycle an otherwise spent product, preserve oil, and help motorists. But think of the bigger picture; if the government were to organise collection and distribution it could create jobs and if the fuel were used to power public service vehicles the savings could lower our council tax bills. Not much effort but plenty of benefits. So why doesn't it happen? Politicians live in the pockets of the oil barons, and depend too much on the tax revenues oil brings. So if a politician claims to be green, the only I suppose they are... well Greenbacks anyhow.

July 10th, Team Green Britain Day

I couldn't let this pass now could I? July the 10th is National Green Day, so why not spend it thinking about making your time on this planet a little more green? Being green is not just about saving the planet, but about saving money too, so unless you have too much money read on... I'll spare you all the usual stuff like turn down your heating, re-use your shopping bags and buy energy saving light bulbs (but never-the-less you should do this!). Think about your car. Think about the weight. Now think about the petrol or diesel. Fuel is heavy. Not only should you strip any unnecessary items out of your boot, think about only ever half filling your tank. The weight saving will make your car much more economical. Save water from baths to water the garden or flush the toilet. Make sure your fridge and freezer aren't cooler than they need to be, and (5°C/-18°C), and that they are well defrosted. Make sure they're situated in the coolest place they can be. I'll finish by being a bit more radical. Why not try a carbon-free evening. Turn, off the lights, and the TV and so on. Spend the evening by candle-light, reading, playing cards, or heaven forbid, having a conversation. Do this once a week for a 14% energy reduction, and who knows, you might even discover the lost art of talking. What have you got to lose!

http://www.teamgreenbritain.org/special-reports

Public Transport - National(ised) Express

So National Express' beacon franchise is to revert to ownership by you and me. Interesting. To anyone that can't remember why the railways were nationalised in the first place after the 2nd world war, I'd like to remind you of the prime motivation. The railways were not making money, and the firms that ran them were going bust hand quicker than an express train on the High Speed Rail Link. The government of the day stepped in because Public Transport was seen as a key service. Like buses and trams, it was seen that these services should be subsidised with public money to ensure that everyone had access to cheap travel. In the 1990's post Thatcherism economics convinced the government of the day that there was money to be made in them there railways. Mmmm. However, in order to get the Dragons of the day to be 'in' the government had to offer subsidies to these commercial companies, who in return would improve the service. There are two flaws here. Firstly it means that you and I are subsidising the profits, and therefore the dividends paid to the shareholders of those commercial companies. Secondly, it means that as the franchises to run the lines, go to the highest bidder, the railway companies have to recover all this from the fare paying public. So what makes great sense for the government, means higher fares for you and I. Mmmm. But here's the double whammy. Those higher fares mean that it's cheaper to drive. How can that be right. Back in the day, public transport was reckoned to be cheap and accessible. Recently I travelled from Wellingborough to St. Albans, which is about 50 miles. It cost nearly £25, off peak. This journey would have cost about £5 in fuel for me to make. This of course takes no account of the cost of the bus to get to the train station, or the ludicrous cost of parking at the station had I driven. To run salt further into the public transport wound, it would have been a lot quicker by car too, as well as more comfortable. Travelling by car is a no brainer. Jimmy Saville once said "Let the train take the strain", nowadays, can your wallet take the strain. How can this be good for the environment when it's cheaper and more convenient to take the car? If this, or any future government is to grasp the green nettle then it must address this.

Our reliance on the net

Tonight I arrive home to find that l have no Broadband. lt made me realise how much we all rely the internet. l can't do my online banking, find telephone numbers, look for holidays, play games, chat to friends, get the news, catch up with tv the list goes on. How did l ever live without it? Still at least l can still blog! Thank god for my new phone!

The ludicrous situation of censorship

There's nothing quite so irritating as censorship. Censorship has no place in a truly free society. Whilst we berate the Iraqis, North Koreans, Chinese and so on, we're just as bad in the West. How irritating is it to see car number plates pixelated out in the news? But even more irritating is the censorship of bad language in music. Why is it that I can hear the 'F' word on my TV after 9 in the evening, but I can't hear it on the radio at any time? Even on 'adult' radio stations such as Absolute mild expletives are replaced, silenced or even bleeped out. However, what is even more irritating in inconsistent application of the rules. Whilst watching the BBC's coverage of Glastonbury, I noticed that in Lily Allen's "Not Fair" ditty, that the lines "I lie here in the wet patch in the middle of the bed" and "I've spent ages giving head" were obliterated as usual. I'm not sure which of those words count as swear words, but that's a discussion for another day. Now, Ms Allen, being one of those creative types, went on to perform a different version of the this song from the one recorded on her "It's not me" album. This meant that she returned to the aforementioned lyrics, twice, and both times the lines were heard in full! I mean, come on, either you censor it, or you don't! Once again, I can see good use of the licence fee! NOT.

MP's and BBC expenses

If there's anything that made my blood boil recently it's the scandal of MP's, and now the BBC's expenses. As an employee of a public sector organisation I find my own expenses (usually for travel) are rigorously scrutinised, and studied before any hint of passing them for payment is made. So how does this high degree of control elude those at the very top of our public sector organisations? It is the ultimate act of hypocrisy that these people expect me to spend the tax payers money though it was my own, and I agree this is appropriate, but why is it one rule for us and one for them? The latest BBC revelations have however given me some cause for hope. As one departing employee had a gift that was claimed for through the expenses system, I thought that perhaps the endless stream of collections that circulate around the office could now be met with an expenses claim! Brilliant! Thank you Mr BBC, at last, something positive comes from the outrageous tax that is the Licence Fee!

Conspiracy Junkies

It seems to be that there must be something in built in the human psyche that loves conspiracies. From fake moon landings, Elvis, to Diana and so on, Michael Jackson's untimely demise has brought them out in their droves. Without going into too much detail, if you actually look to the facts of the matter, it's clear that this is simply a tragic event; he's not still alive, he wasn't murdered, he didn't commit suicide. His personal physician is not a murder suspect. He has not absonded. He was in this country a few days ago making preparation for what those who saw it said was going to be an amazing show. Yes, Jackson was in debt, but one of the purposes of the "This is it" tour was to sort out his finances once and for all. He was, without doubt, frail for a man of his years. He was working out with Lou (Hulk) Ferrigno who said he was in incredible shape. The series of gigs at the O2 were well spaced out, and he was going to live over here for the duration. The insurers were happy that Jackson was fit enough, and the schedule was not gruelling. The sad fact of the matter was that his addiction to analgesics following on the Pepsi ad had taken a toll on a body ravaged by other health issues. Ironically, the very painkillers he was taking probably masked him from realising the poor state of his health. He was weak, and the level of fitness he was working to was probably just too much for his ailing heart. Time of course will tell if this was the case, but whatever the official verdict, it won't stop those who choose to believe their own version of events, continuing to beleive otherwise. Mr Jackson is dead, let all this nonsense rest along with him.

Michael Jackson

I'll try to give a different perspective, a personal perspective. As a child growing up in the 1970's my original memories are of Michael Jackson the child star. This was in an era when child stars were de rigeur, Jimmy Osmond, David Cassidy, Lena Zavaroni to name but a few, so it all seemed so normal. He clearly stood out from his brothers in the Jackson 5, and it was no surprise when "Off the Wall" was released that it was such a good album. In 1979, this album was very far being off the wall, it was very very at the centre of the disco and pop that was around then. To be frank, it seemed that would be the pinnacle of his musical output, but it wasn't to be. A few years later he released Thriller, which contained such variety and quality that it is no surprise that it remains, over 25 years later, the biggest selling album of all time. Anyone of my era will recall staying up late to watch the first screening of the Thriller video, a great coo for fledgling Channel 4. We were all amazed and talked about it for weeks. I recently had to remind my 12 year old son, when watching the video, that there were no CGI effects in play, and that blew him away! How many times have you heard the "I'm not like other guys" line being trotted out in parody or homage? Bad followed, which for me was the end of the road for his high quality output. However, some years later, when I'd long since written him off, he released Earth Song, which still sends shivers down my spine, and it was accompanied by a stunning video. Yes he was dogged by controversy, and allegations, but given his well documented childhood, and the fact the he would have been surrounded by sycophantic advisers (as was Elvis) it's no surprise that he was desperate to maintain a Peter Pan like existence. Whatever the truth of these matters, he remains a prolific performer the like of whom will never be seen again.
Darkness falls across the land... indeed it does, RIP, Michael Jackson

British Tennis

Every year at this time we get the same old tired discussions of why don't the Brits do very well at Wimbledon, and I hear the LTA saying the same thing, which is usually that they have a plan and more talent will come through. I think we have to accept a few basic premises. To make it to the top of any sport you need a combination of, raw talent, single minded determination to succeed, a supportive infrastructure around you, and often luck as you need to be spotted by someone who can recognise your talent. Let me take each element. Raw Talent: It doesn't matter how much money the LTA or government throw at a tennis, if the raw talent doesn't exist you're not going to create it. Determination. These days there are many distractions for kids, so only the very focused are going to want to play tennis at the level required. But in addition, if you compare tennis to say, football, football has a much more glamorous profile so kids are far more likely to want to be footballers than tennis players. There's also the numbers game. There are far more opportunities to make a living from being a professional footballer that there are a professional tennis player so this may discourage some. Tennis is also less accessible as kids grow up. You can play football anywhere, you just need a ball. To play tennis you need facilities, and these are few and far between, so the opportunity for a casual game of tennis are fewer. Infrastructure. If we want to make tennis one of our top sport sports, it has to be played in schools in the same way other sports are. Many schools don't offer tennis, and those that do don't play enough competitive tennis for the talent scouts to come and see what is out there. Assuming you are lucky enough to go to a tennis playing school, and you are then lucky enough to be spotted, are there enough local programs of training and sponsorship to nurture that young precocious talent? So I think when you layer all this together with a sprinkling of fair fortune of fowl, it seems like however much money you throw at tennis you are not going to start producing Wimbledon champions. So, it's easy to be critical, but how to you change this situation? Well, if you look at sports that are successful, they have a number of things in common. They have a high public profile, they are played at schools, they have large commercial funding, and are ingrained into the British culture. If tennis is to be a sport that churns out British winners consistently it needs to look to the examples of other sports. It needs to be played more at schools, it needs to have a higher profile that just the 2 weeks of Wimbledon, and here's the controversial bit. It needs commercial organisations to be involved. Much as I hate the over commercialisation of football, you can't knock the success it has bought to the Premier League. There's also a bit of a oxymoron here too, tennis is a successful and popular sport in the UK, but the UK rarely produces top players. Could we drive up the commercial nature of tennis by diverting the players away from the level 3 tournaments to partaking in some form of team event, with franchised regional teams? Mmmm, ponder that thought over your strawberries and cream!

My first random thoughts

Hello world.

This is my first blog. Over the coming months I shall publish my random thoughts on whatever catches my eye on the day. From popular culture to politics, sport to current events, or whatever makes my blood boil, or even laugh!

So keep watching for more of my random thoughts.

Fire Horse