A prisoner was recently awarded damages for losing a filling whilst in jail. In 2006, the amount of compensation paid to prisoners reached £9m. In the last ten years or more there have many incidences of outrageous settlements in the public sector, fuelled by the rise of 'compensation culture' and the advent of the 'no win, no fee,' school of lawyers.
If the Coalition Government is serious in cutting costs they can start by repealing the law that allows citizens to sue local authorities and Government; that is, themselves. An ombudsman should be appointed if one already isn't in place, to look after complaints in the public sector.
We need to see an end to the ridiculous amounts paid out by the Ministry of Defence and Police authorities to people with complaints such as 'hurt feelings' when soldiers are paid lesser amounts of compensation for losing limbs. This will have a useful side effect in taking away a lucrative trade and in some cases higher tax-payer charges for solicitors or lawyers. The recent 'Bloody Sunday' enquiry cost two hundred million pounds of tax-payer money, creating seven lawyer millionaires. It is worth remembering that these people, like bankers, do not create wealth (except for themselves); they manufacture nothing, they create nothing and do not exploit natural resources. They provide an unnatural service mediating between men (and women) according to man-made laws and institutions. They are, in our civilization, a necessary evil which should be contained to an absolute minimum.
Because the purpose of Government is to regulate the laws under which our constitution is run, does it not represent a conflict of interests to allow solicitors and lawyers to stand for Parliament.
Tuesday, 29 June 2010
Capello
Fabio Capello has been told by the FA that his future as England Football team Manager will be decided in the next two weeks.
The team's abject performance in the South African World Cup tournament surely means that his tenure is over despite having two years left on his recently altered contract.
I believe Capello already knows this and has been given two weeks to tender his resignation and therefore save face. This may be more important to him as despite the compensation, being sacked from the post will not look so good on his CV and blemish his reputation. He has been given two weeks in which to make alternative arrangements; some large European clubs are said to be interested in him.
Despite what he has said in post match interviews I doubt if he is serious in wanting to stay after the John Terry press conference in which players were said to be unhappy with the Italian.
I hope that in the light of recent experience the FA now appoint an Englishman to the post. It surely makes sense to have a man who understands the English football game, the trials and tribulations of the English season and League. I for one think that no one is better suited than Harry Rednapp.
The team's abject performance in the South African World Cup tournament surely means that his tenure is over despite having two years left on his recently altered contract.
I believe Capello already knows this and has been given two weeks to tender his resignation and therefore save face. This may be more important to him as despite the compensation, being sacked from the post will not look so good on his CV and blemish his reputation. He has been given two weeks in which to make alternative arrangements; some large European clubs are said to be interested in him.
Despite what he has said in post match interviews I doubt if he is serious in wanting to stay after the John Terry press conference in which players were said to be unhappy with the Italian.
I hope that in the light of recent experience the FA now appoint an Englishman to the post. It surely makes sense to have a man who understands the English football game, the trials and tribulations of the English season and League. I for one think that no one is better suited than Harry Rednapp.
Monday, 28 June 2010
England World Cup woe
There can be no excuses for poor ball control and lamentable passing. If the strategy of Capello is open to debate the England players are professionals who should have done better. The sight of David James, the goalkeeper, exhorting his players to move, give him a target, said it all. There was again no pass and move technique, a feature of earlier games. They were statues as the Germans ran around them with gay abandon. The defence was deplorable, only comfortable when they were passing amongst themeselves at the back. Players didn't run into spaces, choosing to make ridiculous passes, leading to nowhere. Where were the players with self belief? It was as if they were too scared of doing anything wrong to do anything positive. There were some good moments and there is no need to dwell on the 'goal' that wasn't given. It wouldn't have made any diffeence, Germany were the better side on the day.
The manager's tactics reminded me a little of those adapted by Mancini at Manchester City. Slow build up, presumably to draw the defence and then sharp attack up the middle, using Rooney's strength to forge an opening. Time and time again, the wings were no-go areas.For City it worked against Chelsea, where they had width on the wings, but failed miserably when it really mattered at home versus Spurs.
As a pointer to Capello's mind set, when England ceded a fourth goal due to defensive frailty, he changed one of the strikers, swapping Defoe for Heskey. Heskey, was Capello's worse selection proving to be totally ineffective
Before the game commentators had pointed out the German weakness at left and right back. It was a game that cried out for fast wingers and tall strikers. Where was Crouch? Rooney and Defoe are too short. Lennon and Wright-Phillips were ignored in a strategy that was flawed from the start.
After the game, Terry dismissed the idea that the players were too tired after a long season. Where were the so called Golden Generation of players? It wasn't so much that they lost to Germany although that hurts. They have underachieved in the whole competition. The three previous matches yielded only two goals in over four and a half miserable hours of football. Something is wrong and I believe that now is the time for the manager to take responsibility. For one player to have a bad tournament is not surprising, but for the whole team to be so poor suggests another reason. Could it be that they were all collectively frightened of the manager, a known strong character and bully.
One more thing. Rooney's unwillingness to sing the National Anthem and Gerrard's half-hearted attempt is besides being unpatriotic, totally disrespectful of the millions of fans who do want to connect with their home country. If for no other reason, Rooney should be dropped from the National side until he understands that his selfish and treasonable posturing is a disgrace.
The manager's tactics reminded me a little of those adapted by Mancini at Manchester City. Slow build up, presumably to draw the defence and then sharp attack up the middle, using Rooney's strength to forge an opening. Time and time again, the wings were no-go areas.For City it worked against Chelsea, where they had width on the wings, but failed miserably when it really mattered at home versus Spurs.
As a pointer to Capello's mind set, when England ceded a fourth goal due to defensive frailty, he changed one of the strikers, swapping Defoe for Heskey. Heskey, was Capello's worse selection proving to be totally ineffective
Before the game commentators had pointed out the German weakness at left and right back. It was a game that cried out for fast wingers and tall strikers. Where was Crouch? Rooney and Defoe are too short. Lennon and Wright-Phillips were ignored in a strategy that was flawed from the start.
After the game, Terry dismissed the idea that the players were too tired after a long season. Where were the so called Golden Generation of players? It wasn't so much that they lost to Germany although that hurts. They have underachieved in the whole competition. The three previous matches yielded only two goals in over four and a half miserable hours of football. Something is wrong and I believe that now is the time for the manager to take responsibility. For one player to have a bad tournament is not surprising, but for the whole team to be so poor suggests another reason. Could it be that they were all collectively frightened of the manager, a known strong character and bully.
One more thing. Rooney's unwillingness to sing the National Anthem and Gerrard's half-hearted attempt is besides being unpatriotic, totally disrespectful of the millions of fans who do want to connect with their home country. If for no other reason, Rooney should be dropped from the National side until he understands that his selfish and treasonable posturing is a disgrace.
Wednesday, 23 June 2010
Large Hadron Collider: scientists create sound of ‘God particle’
Sounds set to be made by the subatomic ‘God’ particle at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) have been simulated by scientists aiming to make the £6bn experiment more accessible.
LHC Sound, a collaboration of particle physicists, musicians and artists in London, has converted data expected from collisions into sounds in a process called sonification.
Dr Lily Asquith, one of the team, explained in a recent blog entry:
“Sound seems the perfect tool with which to represent the complexity of the data; our ears are superb at locating the source and location of sounds relative to one another, we can hear a vast range of frequencies and distinguish timbres (different instruments) before they have even played a full cycle.
This sounds to me as if someone is at last looking at different ways of sensing what is essentially hidden from human beings operating in a four dimensional space-time. Readers of my blogs will know that I believe our observable universe is but half of the whole; the other half being described in 'negative' dimensions. We also know that mathematicians have shown how manifolds described in negative dimensions can still vibrate at measurable frequencies.
Will Lily Asquith be the first person to prove the existence of man's real spiritual side. Will she prove that the Higgs Boson exists but can never be contained in our universe. I wish her luck.
Read the article at:-
http://go.telegraph.co.uk/?id=296X467&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.addthis.com%2Fbookmark.php
LHC Sound, a collaboration of particle physicists, musicians and artists in London, has converted data expected from collisions into sounds in a process called sonification.
Dr Lily Asquith, one of the team, explained in a recent blog entry:
“Sound seems the perfect tool with which to represent the complexity of the data; our ears are superb at locating the source and location of sounds relative to one another, we can hear a vast range of frequencies and distinguish timbres (different instruments) before they have even played a full cycle.
This sounds to me as if someone is at last looking at different ways of sensing what is essentially hidden from human beings operating in a four dimensional space-time. Readers of my blogs will know that I believe our observable universe is but half of the whole; the other half being described in 'negative' dimensions. We also know that mathematicians have shown how manifolds described in negative dimensions can still vibrate at measurable frequencies.
Will Lily Asquith be the first person to prove the existence of man's real spiritual side. Will she prove that the Higgs Boson exists but can never be contained in our universe. I wish her luck.
Read the article at:-
http://go.telegraph.co.uk/?id=296X467&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.addthis.com%2Fbookmark.php
Tuesday, 22 June 2010
Loss of Species
It is estimated that half of the millions of different species or life forms on earth will be lost within the next hundred years if we, as humans, don't do something about it. Most will be plants and animals that are too small to notice or which exist in such remote habitats that in some cases they haven't yet been discovered. However, some such as giant pandas or some species of whales may also disappear. The question is does it really matter? Throughout time, species have naturally evolved and become extinct as the planet adjusts to changes in climate and the movement of land masses. I believe that we have to accept that life isn't naturally sacrosanct and it is basically unnatural for humans to attempt to try and alter matters. Having said that; that humans try and effect change is already factored into the deterministic philosophy of teleology. In other words, what will be, will be, regardless.
With regard to reducing the deaths of human beings for any reason, we have to ask ourselves, why? If humans lived for ever and the population of the planet rose from six and a half billion to twenty billion and then one hundred billion, growing at an exponential rate what would happen? It is unsustainable- for a start we couldn't feed that number of people. No. Nature provides its own balances and checks and whereas it is quite correct to try and save people medically; even prolong lives where possible, we have to accept that despite all man's efforts there will come a day when the population is adjusted by natural culling on a huge scale. This will come about through natural catastrophe such as asteroid impact or global epidemic from a viral mutation.
I will just mention here another scenario. If the population does expand to a point where it is not possible to remain on earth, man's technological progress will enable the species, homo sapiens to colonise other planets. It doesn't mean that catastrophes won't visit earth, only that necessity the mother of invention, will lead to solutions that do not alter the deterministic conclusion.
Monday, 21 June 2010
Is there any evidence of God?
On Sunday's BBC programme, one of the Big Questions posed was 'Is there any evidence of God?'
The audience, like most BBC audiences came over as being overwhelmingly religious and socialist. When I consider that the most socialist societies, such as the Communists were essentially atheistic, it must be a special type of hybrid person indeed that attends these shows in person. They appear on Question time, as well.
The opening statement by a Muslim man said that the Universe was created by the Big Bang. Because of the complexity of the universe and the characteristics, particularly of certain dimensionless numbers, the Universe had to have been designed and tharefore must have had a Creator.
WHY? Why would anyone, anything want to create the Universe we live in. Of course, the Muslim man cannot attempt to answer this because, being only a man of the Islamic faith, he cannot question God's motives.
I was disappointed with Professor Atkin's response. He wasn't strong enough in his defence of science or indeed scientists. When a man said that scientists only ever dealt with possibilities it was untrue but was left unchallenged. Of course, there are many areas of science, particularly those involving the mind, that are open to interpretation but in our Universe, two plus two always equals four. That's as certain as anything can be this side of the Big Crunch. He could have added that the Big Bang was only one of several theories as to how our universe came into being and rather than be explained by an impossibly ridiculous extra-universal creator could more simply be ascribed to being the outcome of random unimaginatively large number crunching.
One commentator asked if 'Love' was not a manifestation of a God. It is certainly a special case which scientists are trying to unravel and may have a role to play in evolutionary survival of the fittest. The problem I have with this is the same as for the argument that there are so many wonderful natural effects, such as beautiful surises, for it not to be connected to a God. As it is that Love has an antithesis in hate and evil, so beautiful natural effects have tsunamis, earthquakes and hurricanes.
I accept that man has a spiritual side, his appreciation of the arts is testament to that but animals have it in small measure, too. Why does it have to be allied to the hyperthetical concept of God or Gods; and why do people feel the need to prostrate themselves before this idol?
I have heard people say that finding religion, God or Jesus has transformed their lives. I am delighted to hear it and I rejoice that they have found peace and happiness in their discovery. I wonder if they would reach this state of nirvana if they were not exposed to a myriad influences from priests and others who have a vested interest in promoting their ideology. People who have a need or an emptiness are vulnerable to those who feed them the promise of milk and honey. Why not! It's human nature.
Scientists and other rational people should not need to prove that God doesn't exist. Surely it is encumbent on the believers to demonstrate this proof. They haven't been able to for three thousand years insisting that the basis of their religion was Faith not proof and they didn't do so last Sunday.
The audience, like most BBC audiences came over as being overwhelmingly religious and socialist. When I consider that the most socialist societies, such as the Communists were essentially atheistic, it must be a special type of hybrid person indeed that attends these shows in person. They appear on Question time, as well.
The opening statement by a Muslim man said that the Universe was created by the Big Bang. Because of the complexity of the universe and the characteristics, particularly of certain dimensionless numbers, the Universe had to have been designed and tharefore must have had a Creator.
WHY? Why would anyone, anything want to create the Universe we live in. Of course, the Muslim man cannot attempt to answer this because, being only a man of the Islamic faith, he cannot question God's motives.
I was disappointed with Professor Atkin's response. He wasn't strong enough in his defence of science or indeed scientists. When a man said that scientists only ever dealt with possibilities it was untrue but was left unchallenged. Of course, there are many areas of science, particularly those involving the mind, that are open to interpretation but in our Universe, two plus two always equals four. That's as certain as anything can be this side of the Big Crunch. He could have added that the Big Bang was only one of several theories as to how our universe came into being and rather than be explained by an impossibly ridiculous extra-universal creator could more simply be ascribed to being the outcome of random unimaginatively large number crunching.
One commentator asked if 'Love' was not a manifestation of a God. It is certainly a special case which scientists are trying to unravel and may have a role to play in evolutionary survival of the fittest. The problem I have with this is the same as for the argument that there are so many wonderful natural effects, such as beautiful surises, for it not to be connected to a God. As it is that Love has an antithesis in hate and evil, so beautiful natural effects have tsunamis, earthquakes and hurricanes.
I accept that man has a spiritual side, his appreciation of the arts is testament to that but animals have it in small measure, too. Why does it have to be allied to the hyperthetical concept of God or Gods; and why do people feel the need to prostrate themselves before this idol?
I have heard people say that finding religion, God or Jesus has transformed their lives. I am delighted to hear it and I rejoice that they have found peace and happiness in their discovery. I wonder if they would reach this state of nirvana if they were not exposed to a myriad influences from priests and others who have a vested interest in promoting their ideology. People who have a need or an emptiness are vulnerable to those who feed them the promise of milk and honey. Why not! It's human nature.
Scientists and other rational people should not need to prove that God doesn't exist. Surely it is encumbent on the believers to demonstrate this proof. They haven't been able to for three thousand years insisting that the basis of their religion was Faith not proof and they didn't do so last Sunday.
Wednesday, 16 June 2010
Limitations of human brain mean we may never understand the secrets of universe
Limitations of human brain mean we may never understand the secrets of universe, says Britain's top scientist
The limitations of the human brain mean some of the biggest mysteries of the universe may never be solved, a top scientist has claimed.
According to President of the Royal Society Lord Rees, questions about the big bang and the existence of parallel universes may be never be resolved because of the built-in limitations of mankind.
Lord Rees told The Sunday Times: ‘A “true” fundamental theory of the universe may exist but could be just too hard for human brains to grasp.
'Just as a fish may be barely aware of the medium in which it lives and swims, so the microstructure of empty space could be far too complex for unaided human brains.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1286257/Limitations-human-brain-mean-understand-secrets-universe.html#ixzz0r0hLD6QZ
Again this will not surprise readers of my blog. Until humankind can understand and sense dimensions measured in terms of 'i', the square root of minus one, the complete understanding of the way the world works will be beyond us. This is unlikely to occur with a human brain at the meoment. I can't say whether or not the brain, as it is, is capable of this sense, needing only to be activated or whether an evolutionary change is required.
That is not to say, however, that we need be without hope. I believe that extra sensory perception, in dogs, say, or in mediums, suggest that there is some added capability to come from existing brains.
What will trigger this additional capability? I'm tempted at this point to believe Prof. Hoyle's theory that virus from space, panspermia, are responsible. A single transformation is unlikely because a person growing up with a marked ability to see in more than three spatial dimensions, will be so different as to pose a threat and be marginalised or killed. A more likely scenario is that as the earth passes through a comet tail, viruses will migrate through the atmosphere, reaching the planet surface at the same time (more or less). The uptake of the virus by pregnant women might effect the foetus or in men, sperm DNA may be compromised. Whatever, many offspring will be born at the same time, ensuring that large numbers of homo super-sapiens will survive to reproduce.
The limitations of the human brain mean some of the biggest mysteries of the universe may never be solved, a top scientist has claimed.
According to President of the Royal Society Lord Rees, questions about the big bang and the existence of parallel universes may be never be resolved because of the built-in limitations of mankind.
Lord Rees told The Sunday Times: ‘A “true” fundamental theory of the universe may exist but could be just too hard for human brains to grasp.
'Just as a fish may be barely aware of the medium in which it lives and swims, so the microstructure of empty space could be far too complex for unaided human brains.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1286257/Limitations-human-brain-mean-understand-secrets-universe.html#ixzz0r0hLD6QZ
Again this will not surprise readers of my blog. Until humankind can understand and sense dimensions measured in terms of 'i', the square root of minus one, the complete understanding of the way the world works will be beyond us. This is unlikely to occur with a human brain at the meoment. I can't say whether or not the brain, as it is, is capable of this sense, needing only to be activated or whether an evolutionary change is required.
That is not to say, however, that we need be without hope. I believe that extra sensory perception, in dogs, say, or in mediums, suggest that there is some added capability to come from existing brains.
What will trigger this additional capability? I'm tempted at this point to believe Prof. Hoyle's theory that virus from space, panspermia, are responsible. A single transformation is unlikely because a person growing up with a marked ability to see in more than three spatial dimensions, will be so different as to pose a threat and be marginalised or killed. A more likely scenario is that as the earth passes through a comet tail, viruses will migrate through the atmosphere, reaching the planet surface at the same time (more or less). The uptake of the virus by pregnant women might effect the foetus or in men, sperm DNA may be compromised. Whatever, many offspring will be born at the same time, ensuring that large numbers of homo super-sapiens will survive to reproduce.
Tuesday, 15 June 2010
Scientists claim dark matter that makes up most of universe 'may not exist'
In an article by a Daily Mail reporter, the paper claims:-
Bang goes the theory: Scientists claim dark matter that makes up most of universe 'may not exist'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1286668/Bang-goes-theory-Scientists-claim-dark-matter-makes-universe-exist.html#ixzz0qv7Hy5fl
Scientists have claimed dark matter and energy – the mysterious substances thought to make up 96 per cent of the universe – may not exist, a report yesterday claimed.
The two mysterious materials are believed to power the expansion of the cosmos.
However, if the evidence proves correct, it means the theory used to calculate the structure of the universe may be wrong.
Planets, stars, asteroids and gas account for just four per cent of the cosmos, according to the Standard Model of Cosmology, which analyses the big bang theory.
However, the study carried out by Durham University physicists raises the possibility that this is flawed, and there may be no ‘dark side’ of the universe, which could mean the cosmos is not expanding as rapidly as believed.
Dr Robert Massey, of the Royal Astronomical Society, which published the findings, said: ‘This would challenge greatly our assumptions about the long-term future of the universe, because the assumption at the moment is that the universe is expanding and if it isn’t that would be a huge shock.’
Readers of my blogs will know that I have postulated that dark energy and matter can never be 'seen', because mankind cannot sense that part of the universe described by negative dimensions that are measured in terms of the square root of minus one.
Dark matter and energy are being created alongside the universe we know in an energy balanced reaction at the leading edge of that universe. What we call cosmic background radiation is not evidence of the 'Big Bang' but the energy emitted when empty space is transformed into the two constituent parts of our universe.
Another thing. I believe that surplus energy in the observable universe passes to the 'negative' universe via so called black holes
Bang goes the theory: Scientists claim dark matter that makes up most of universe 'may not exist'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1286668/Bang-goes-theory-Scientists-claim-dark-matter-makes-universe-exist.html#ixzz0qv7Hy5fl
Scientists have claimed dark matter and energy – the mysterious substances thought to make up 96 per cent of the universe – may not exist, a report yesterday claimed.
The two mysterious materials are believed to power the expansion of the cosmos.
However, if the evidence proves correct, it means the theory used to calculate the structure of the universe may be wrong.
Planets, stars, asteroids and gas account for just four per cent of the cosmos, according to the Standard Model of Cosmology, which analyses the big bang theory.
However, the study carried out by Durham University physicists raises the possibility that this is flawed, and there may be no ‘dark side’ of the universe, which could mean the cosmos is not expanding as rapidly as believed.
Dr Robert Massey, of the Royal Astronomical Society, which published the findings, said: ‘This would challenge greatly our assumptions about the long-term future of the universe, because the assumption at the moment is that the universe is expanding and if it isn’t that would be a huge shock.’
Readers of my blogs will know that I have postulated that dark energy and matter can never be 'seen', because mankind cannot sense that part of the universe described by negative dimensions that are measured in terms of the square root of minus one.
Dark matter and energy are being created alongside the universe we know in an energy balanced reaction at the leading edge of that universe. What we call cosmic background radiation is not evidence of the 'Big Bang' but the energy emitted when empty space is transformed into the two constituent parts of our universe.
Another thing. I believe that surplus energy in the observable universe passes to the 'negative' universe via so called black holes
Saturday, 12 June 2010
England 1 - 1 USA
I know a lot of people are saying that it's not the end of the world, but that is ridiculous. Why should we put up with such an abject display?
A lot of people have travelled a long way and paid a lot of money to see England play. Why should they be satisfied with such a poor result?
I don't blame the players but I do blame the Italian manager for both his team selection and the tactics. Like another Italian manager, Mancini, at Manchester City he is trying to build a team like an Italian team with emphasis on defence and quick break-outs. England, particularly in the first half had only 40% of the ball, surrendering the midfield to a much inferior team. It reminded me of City's home match against Tottenham when the home side lost the match and the chance of 4th place by similarly being so defensive minded instead of taking the game by the scruff of the neck.
England should have slaughtered them but after a sharply taken goal by Gerrard after 4 minutes, nothing. We really wouldn't mind the draw if England had played well and they couldn't use the excuse that the USA played well- they didn't- having only two shots on goal in the ninety minutes.
Why would Man. City want to pay 30 million for Milner when Wright-Phillips was so much more effective. Why play Heskey, a striker who hasn't scored a goal since February and averages a goal every eight hours in England's colours. It begger's belief that Capello could pick him. If further evidence of his incompetence was needed he missed a sitter with only the keeper to beat. Crouch is a proven goal scorer and has the ability with both his head and feet to create openings for others.
It's too late now to change. The manager must use those he's selected, but can he please pick players that are in form. It's too late to swap Heskey for Adam Johnson say, but he could do worse than make a statement of intent and pick the Premier Leagues outstanding keeper, Joe Hart.
A lot of people have travelled a long way and paid a lot of money to see England play. Why should they be satisfied with such a poor result?
I don't blame the players but I do blame the Italian manager for both his team selection and the tactics. Like another Italian manager, Mancini, at Manchester City he is trying to build a team like an Italian team with emphasis on defence and quick break-outs. England, particularly in the first half had only 40% of the ball, surrendering the midfield to a much inferior team. It reminded me of City's home match against Tottenham when the home side lost the match and the chance of 4th place by similarly being so defensive minded instead of taking the game by the scruff of the neck.
England should have slaughtered them but after a sharply taken goal by Gerrard after 4 minutes, nothing. We really wouldn't mind the draw if England had played well and they couldn't use the excuse that the USA played well- they didn't- having only two shots on goal in the ninety minutes.
Why would Man. City want to pay 30 million for Milner when Wright-Phillips was so much more effective. Why play Heskey, a striker who hasn't scored a goal since February and averages a goal every eight hours in England's colours. It begger's belief that Capello could pick him. If further evidence of his incompetence was needed he missed a sitter with only the keeper to beat. Crouch is a proven goal scorer and has the ability with both his head and feet to create openings for others.
It's too late now to change. The manager must use those he's selected, but can he please pick players that are in form. It's too late to swap Heskey for Adam Johnson say, but he could do worse than make a statement of intent and pick the Premier Leagues outstanding keeper, Joe Hart.
Thursday, 10 June 2010
Labour Leadership 2
I have just watched Diane Abbot on Newsnight, talking about her chances of becoming the new Labour Party leader. In just five minutes it was clear that she would be an absolute disaster if she ever became Prime Minister.
Earlier in the day, at Prime Minister's questions, we had an idea of the scale of the problem faced by the Lemming Party. Whatever the opposition say, Cameron only has to say that if they felt so strongly about something, why didn't they do something about it during their thirteen years in Government. Not only that, he can point to the scale of the UK budget deficit and the unprecedented mismanagement of the nations economy on a scale that borders on the treasonable. They have bought the Country to its knees and every member of the last Labour Goveernment will be tainted by association with the treacherous Administration. It is almost impossible for any plausible future leader to escape this stigma. I almost felt sorry for that apalling woman, Harriet Harman, trying to score points against Cameron when she hadn't got a leg to stand on."The Right Hon. gentleman is missing the point," she protested once, but even to her own side it was apparent that she had nothing of any relevance to say.
Cameron, in contrast, was statesmanlike. Up to now I've not been impressed with him. His background, without ever working in a 'proper' job, has not, to my mind, been ideal but today he had a poise and bearing that suggested that the man had been born for the job.
I hope that he takes every opportunity to point out the malfeasance of the Labour Party in Government and by association all those people who voted them into power. You don't have to look far to see who they are. They're the people who want something for nothing and resent those who have wealth, however it was obtained.
I am reminded of a story I was once told that demonstrated the difference between the working class in the UK and those in the United States.
In the US, if a working class person sees a man in a Rolls Royce, he is more likely to say: "Gee. One day I'm going to have a car like that."
In the UK the more usal response to the same observation is to run a coin along the bodywork.
We need to change peoples perception of wealth and encourage them to aspire to do better themselves rather than condemn those who've strived to improve their lives and those of their family. This applies to inherited wealth as well. Inherited wealth was one day earned by someone who had made a decision to pass it on to his descendents. It is still honest money on which all the taxes have been paid and therefore legitimate.
One of the consequences of educating people about wealth creation is that the scourge of Socialism and their third rate representatives, such as we find in the Labour Party today will find no forum.
There is a caveat. Wealth must come from proper sources. From manufacturing, creation, as in works of art, and providing a legitimate service. It must not, like banks come from exploitation, deceit and theft.
Earlier in the day, at Prime Minister's questions, we had an idea of the scale of the problem faced by the Lemming Party. Whatever the opposition say, Cameron only has to say that if they felt so strongly about something, why didn't they do something about it during their thirteen years in Government. Not only that, he can point to the scale of the UK budget deficit and the unprecedented mismanagement of the nations economy on a scale that borders on the treasonable. They have bought the Country to its knees and every member of the last Labour Goveernment will be tainted by association with the treacherous Administration. It is almost impossible for any plausible future leader to escape this stigma. I almost felt sorry for that apalling woman, Harriet Harman, trying to score points against Cameron when she hadn't got a leg to stand on."The Right Hon. gentleman is missing the point," she protested once, but even to her own side it was apparent that she had nothing of any relevance to say.
Cameron, in contrast, was statesmanlike. Up to now I've not been impressed with him. His background, without ever working in a 'proper' job, has not, to my mind, been ideal but today he had a poise and bearing that suggested that the man had been born for the job.
I hope that he takes every opportunity to point out the malfeasance of the Labour Party in Government and by association all those people who voted them into power. You don't have to look far to see who they are. They're the people who want something for nothing and resent those who have wealth, however it was obtained.
I am reminded of a story I was once told that demonstrated the difference between the working class in the UK and those in the United States.
In the US, if a working class person sees a man in a Rolls Royce, he is more likely to say: "Gee. One day I'm going to have a car like that."
In the UK the more usal response to the same observation is to run a coin along the bodywork.
We need to change peoples perception of wealth and encourage them to aspire to do better themselves rather than condemn those who've strived to improve their lives and those of their family. This applies to inherited wealth as well. Inherited wealth was one day earned by someone who had made a decision to pass it on to his descendents. It is still honest money on which all the taxes have been paid and therefore legitimate.
One of the consequences of educating people about wealth creation is that the scourge of Socialism and their third rate representatives, such as we find in the Labour Party today will find no forum.
There is a caveat. Wealth must come from proper sources. From manufacturing, creation, as in works of art, and providing a legitimate service. It must not, like banks come from exploitation, deceit and theft.
Tuesday, 8 June 2010
Labour lies
It has emerged that the UK's finances are worse than was stated by the outgoing Labour administration.
It is easy to see that they wouldn't have wanted the facts to be broadcast when they were seeking re-election, but now that the truth is out, the people need to be told that the Labour party and the last Prime Minister was being as they say, economical with the truth.
It is no surprise that Gordon Brown has completely dropped out of sight. His administartion was an unmitigated disaster and some of the blame must go to those who voted him and his cronies to office.
To see Ed Balls and the Milibands talk on the television about the new Governments attempts to correct the situation is breathtaking arrogance and hypocrisy. Cameron and Clegg should be shouting from the rooftops that Labour were systematically running the country into the ground and that the Lemmings should never vote for the Lemming Party ever again.
The new Government has also indicated that it will re-open the Dr. Kelly case. I hope they do. While they are at they could widen the investigation to review the disgraceful Hutton report and look into why the Dunblane Massacre papers have been given a 100 year security from being made public.
It is easy to see that they wouldn't have wanted the facts to be broadcast when they were seeking re-election, but now that the truth is out, the people need to be told that the Labour party and the last Prime Minister was being as they say, economical with the truth.
It is no surprise that Gordon Brown has completely dropped out of sight. His administartion was an unmitigated disaster and some of the blame must go to those who voted him and his cronies to office.
To see Ed Balls and the Milibands talk on the television about the new Governments attempts to correct the situation is breathtaking arrogance and hypocrisy. Cameron and Clegg should be shouting from the rooftops that Labour were systematically running the country into the ground and that the Lemmings should never vote for the Lemming Party ever again.
The new Government has also indicated that it will re-open the Dr. Kelly case. I hope they do. While they are at they could widen the investigation to review the disgraceful Hutton report and look into why the Dunblane Massacre papers have been given a 100 year security from being made public.
Alcohol & domestic abuse
With the World Cup starting soon, there is concern that alcohol related domestic violence will increase.
People are right to be concerned, particularly those spouses and partners who have previous experience of abuse from people they share a home with. The problem is normally confined to men and need not involve physical violence. During the football, emotions can run high particularly if supported teams are not playing well or are losing.
I have spent twenty-five years as a tenant in pubs where football matches and indeed England rugby matches have been shown live and can testify to the effect of alcohol on the mood of customers. Not all people become violent, indeed some become quieter, but in the main inhibition is lost and drinkers become more voluble and lose a sense of civility. Bad language increases and disappointment can easily lead to outrage. In the bar, excess anger and frustration is taken out on tables and chairs with heavy thumping, but in the home it is easy to see that it can lead to domestic violence, particularly if the partner is unsympathetic to the supported team or indeed to football generally.
People must understand that alcohol is one of the most pernicious drugs readily available to the public. Its tolerance in society, compared with other drugs, is due to a historic and cultural affinity with drinking a natural and pleasant stimulus. The problem through the ages is drinking to excess. As I have said in a previous blog, bad behaviour through drink must be made socially unacceptable. People who over indulge must be routinely treated as pariahs and ostracized. Drunk and disorderly people should be named and shamed. Wife beaters must be treated for what they are- criminals. To my mind, they should receive the same treatment as they hand out; they should be whipped until they cry for mercy from their watching spouse.
If this is outlawed because they have 'Human Rights' then the law should be changed.
People are right to be concerned, particularly those spouses and partners who have previous experience of abuse from people they share a home with. The problem is normally confined to men and need not involve physical violence. During the football, emotions can run high particularly if supported teams are not playing well or are losing.
I have spent twenty-five years as a tenant in pubs where football matches and indeed England rugby matches have been shown live and can testify to the effect of alcohol on the mood of customers. Not all people become violent, indeed some become quieter, but in the main inhibition is lost and drinkers become more voluble and lose a sense of civility. Bad language increases and disappointment can easily lead to outrage. In the bar, excess anger and frustration is taken out on tables and chairs with heavy thumping, but in the home it is easy to see that it can lead to domestic violence, particularly if the partner is unsympathetic to the supported team or indeed to football generally.
People must understand that alcohol is one of the most pernicious drugs readily available to the public. Its tolerance in society, compared with other drugs, is due to a historic and cultural affinity with drinking a natural and pleasant stimulus. The problem through the ages is drinking to excess. As I have said in a previous blog, bad behaviour through drink must be made socially unacceptable. People who over indulge must be routinely treated as pariahs and ostracized. Drunk and disorderly people should be named and shamed. Wife beaters must be treated for what they are- criminals. To my mind, they should receive the same treatment as they hand out; they should be whipped until they cry for mercy from their watching spouse.
If this is outlawed because they have 'Human Rights' then the law should be changed.
Monday, 7 June 2010
Living in Spain
Some of you will have recently watched Anne Robinson on the BBC Watchdog programme talking about the problems of buying Spanish property.
As an Englishman living in my own property in Almeria province, Spain, the programme was not without interest to me. Let me say at the outset, that the ultimate dream of living in the sun with a more relaxed lifestyle is still realistic, but there are precautions that must be taken. Twenty years ago, the upsurge in northern Europeans wanting to live in a warmer clime encouraged builders to meet this demand. Often this was on land contrary to the then laws. Remember that at that time, Spain was poor, almost a third world country trying to recover from a dreadful Civil War. Farmers were only too happy to sell their land for sums they could have only dreamt about. The bureaucracy was sorted with breathtaking corruption. Today, the situation is not so bad, but even as recently as five years ago, developers were building 'urbanisations' on land designated as 'rustic' or farmland.
Buying property in an isolated country estate is without doubt risky, because, as happened near to us recently, even with a solicitor preparing your documentation you can still fall foul of decisions from a higher authority. Until the Spanish government clarifies the entire building and construction industries across the whole of the country, it is safer to buy houses already built with full documentation and licences, as verified by a solicitor.
Look at developments where people, especially Spanish people are already living and have the benefit of both water and electricity.
The Spanish eambassador, speaking on the programme, was not particularly reassuring, but property in Spain does represent good value. However with talk of a collapse in the Euro in the future, it may be better to wait and see before taking the plunge.
As an Englishman living in my own property in Almeria province, Spain, the programme was not without interest to me. Let me say at the outset, that the ultimate dream of living in the sun with a more relaxed lifestyle is still realistic, but there are precautions that must be taken. Twenty years ago, the upsurge in northern Europeans wanting to live in a warmer clime encouraged builders to meet this demand. Often this was on land contrary to the then laws. Remember that at that time, Spain was poor, almost a third world country trying to recover from a dreadful Civil War. Farmers were only too happy to sell their land for sums they could have only dreamt about. The bureaucracy was sorted with breathtaking corruption. Today, the situation is not so bad, but even as recently as five years ago, developers were building 'urbanisations' on land designated as 'rustic' or farmland.
Buying property in an isolated country estate is without doubt risky, because, as happened near to us recently, even with a solicitor preparing your documentation you can still fall foul of decisions from a higher authority. Until the Spanish government clarifies the entire building and construction industries across the whole of the country, it is safer to buy houses already built with full documentation and licences, as verified by a solicitor.
Look at developments where people, especially Spanish people are already living and have the benefit of both water and electricity.
The Spanish eambassador, speaking on the programme, was not particularly reassuring, but property in Spain does represent good value. However with talk of a collapse in the Euro in the future, it may be better to wait and see before taking the plunge.
Sunday, 6 June 2010
The Cost of Alcohol
Nick Collins wrote in the Telegraph (31/5/2010) that the National Institute for ClinicaL Excellence, NICE were recommending that the Government tackle alcohol related problems by increasing the cost of alcohol.
He wrote:
NICE, which is the government's principal adviser on health policy, will this week tell ministers the controversial proposal is the best method of cutting Britain's alcohol consumption and reducing underage drinking and binge drinking.
Similar plans were turned down by Gordon Brown's Labour government and by the Conservatives in opposition, and drinks companies are vehemently opposed to it, saying it will be ineffective.
But medical bodies including the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Physicians have endorsed minimum pricing proposals, and the recommendation from Nice will bring the question back to the table.
It will come as part of a number of proposals by Nice aimed at cracking down on crime, anti-social behaviour and illness caused by drink.
Experts for the institute have spent almost two years researching the most effective ways of tackling social problems caused by alcohol, which cost up to £27 billion a year in health care, crime, disorder and lost productivity.
Nice estimates that twenty five per cent of people in Britain consume levels of alcohol that are potentially harmful to their physical and mental wellbeing.
I have worked in the hospitality industry for twenty-five years as both a tenant in pubs and owner of a hotel and I have observed drinkers and drinking at very close quarters. I believe that NICE are deluding themselves if they believe that increasing the cost of alcohol will change peoples habits and lifestyles. Here are several reasons why:-
They refer to research they have carried out; no doubt at great cost to the tax payer. Some of this research will be based on verbal testimony of drinkers. I can assure you that almost all heavy drinkers are liars when questioned on the matter of their consumption, both on the amount they drink and the regularity of their drinking. Any research that uses drinker's testimony is suspect.
Drinkers will pay whatever it takes to secure their drink. They would rather that their kids went without shoes than give up their habit. This determination comes from the need to support an addiction, alcoholism, peer pressure to maintain a lifestyle and pressure from advertising that links to identification with celebrity culture.This latter is particularly important to younger people and especially girls.
If the problem cannot be solved by raising costs, what can be done?
Firstly I would ban advertising on television, other than where it is done in conjunction with a sporting event and then without any reference that the product enhances performance.
Begin immediately a counter advertising campaign designed to stigmatise excessive drinking. Show graphic images and footage of people behaving badly on the street and in hospitals and condemn them roundly. Let people know it is unacceptable behaviour. If it were possible I'd lock offenders in the stocks so that their neighbours and colleagues could see them.
Shame and name people found incapable in the public areas. Fining people is only money. Shame them in front of their family and friends. If it happens often enough they'll get the message. The first time they get street cred but not thereafter.
Police already have laws to prosecute landlords that serve drink to intoxicated people. Beef this up; prosecute more often. Punish guilty landlords that are reckless with their customers wellbeing and tell the breweries that unrealistic sales targets given to managers must be outlawed. Corner shops that have a license must be strict about observing the law. There is a minimum age under which one cannot serve drink, in the same way that you cannot buy alcohol under eighteen. The law is there. Use it! It is always easy for a small shop owner to serve the drunk and get rid of them, rather than risk a confrontation. This only stokes up trouble for later. Small retailers should understand the need to get this right as alcohol sales are an important element of their sales.
If any of these solutions offend somebodies rights under the Human Right Act, change the law.
He wrote:
NICE, which is the government's principal adviser on health policy, will this week tell ministers the controversial proposal is the best method of cutting Britain's alcohol consumption and reducing underage drinking and binge drinking.
Similar plans were turned down by Gordon Brown's Labour government and by the Conservatives in opposition, and drinks companies are vehemently opposed to it, saying it will be ineffective.
But medical bodies including the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Physicians have endorsed minimum pricing proposals, and the recommendation from Nice will bring the question back to the table.
It will come as part of a number of proposals by Nice aimed at cracking down on crime, anti-social behaviour and illness caused by drink.
Experts for the institute have spent almost two years researching the most effective ways of tackling social problems caused by alcohol, which cost up to £27 billion a year in health care, crime, disorder and lost productivity.
Nice estimates that twenty five per cent of people in Britain consume levels of alcohol that are potentially harmful to their physical and mental wellbeing.
I have worked in the hospitality industry for twenty-five years as both a tenant in pubs and owner of a hotel and I have observed drinkers and drinking at very close quarters. I believe that NICE are deluding themselves if they believe that increasing the cost of alcohol will change peoples habits and lifestyles. Here are several reasons why:-
They refer to research they have carried out; no doubt at great cost to the tax payer. Some of this research will be based on verbal testimony of drinkers. I can assure you that almost all heavy drinkers are liars when questioned on the matter of their consumption, both on the amount they drink and the regularity of their drinking. Any research that uses drinker's testimony is suspect.
Drinkers will pay whatever it takes to secure their drink. They would rather that their kids went without shoes than give up their habit. This determination comes from the need to support an addiction, alcoholism, peer pressure to maintain a lifestyle and pressure from advertising that links to identification with celebrity culture.This latter is particularly important to younger people and especially girls.
If the problem cannot be solved by raising costs, what can be done?
Firstly I would ban advertising on television, other than where it is done in conjunction with a sporting event and then without any reference that the product enhances performance.
Begin immediately a counter advertising campaign designed to stigmatise excessive drinking. Show graphic images and footage of people behaving badly on the street and in hospitals and condemn them roundly. Let people know it is unacceptable behaviour. If it were possible I'd lock offenders in the stocks so that their neighbours and colleagues could see them.
Shame and name people found incapable in the public areas. Fining people is only money. Shame them in front of their family and friends. If it happens often enough they'll get the message. The first time they get street cred but not thereafter.
Police already have laws to prosecute landlords that serve drink to intoxicated people. Beef this up; prosecute more often. Punish guilty landlords that are reckless with their customers wellbeing and tell the breweries that unrealistic sales targets given to managers must be outlawed. Corner shops that have a license must be strict about observing the law. There is a minimum age under which one cannot serve drink, in the same way that you cannot buy alcohol under eighteen. The law is there. Use it! It is always easy for a small shop owner to serve the drunk and get rid of them, rather than risk a confrontation. This only stokes up trouble for later. Small retailers should understand the need to get this right as alcohol sales are an important element of their sales.
If any of these solutions offend somebodies rights under the Human Right Act, change the law.
Saturday, 5 June 2010
In Praise of Bidets
Although a visit to our home country is enjoyable, it is always nice to get home after a trip to England. For my
wife and home one of the nicest things is to return to is our 'en suite' bidet.
Why is it that people in the UK are so resistant to using a bidet and builders do not as a rule include them in
modern bathroom furnishings in new builds. A friend of mine still insists on using it for his feet only.
Let's not mince words here. One cannot clean one of the most delicate parts of the body without water; paper simply will not do. If you wash, it is done in a bath or shower using water and soap. Why then do the Brits insist that cleaning the dirtiest part of the body with paper. Residue must persist. You wouldn't walk round with shit on your elbow. Why go around with shit on your sphincter and surrounding area? PAPER DOES NOT CLEAN! Water does. In countries thought of as third world, water through a hose is used. Paper isn't used at all. So much better for the water treatment plants.
If, like us, you are used to cleaning around the anus after defecation, achieving satisfactory cleanliness whilst
out and about can be a nightmare. Normally I have to strip of to the waste and stand under a shower, impossible to do in a public loo. Here one is reduced to soaking tissues in a sink beforehand. How much easier to use a hose as they do in Thailand, say.
Wake up Britain. Wash properly and reduce paper consumption. Don't leave shit on your body. Install a bidet.
wife and home one of the nicest things is to return to is our 'en suite' bidet.
Why is it that people in the UK are so resistant to using a bidet and builders do not as a rule include them in
modern bathroom furnishings in new builds. A friend of mine still insists on using it for his feet only.
Let's not mince words here. One cannot clean one of the most delicate parts of the body without water; paper simply will not do. If you wash, it is done in a bath or shower using water and soap. Why then do the Brits insist that cleaning the dirtiest part of the body with paper. Residue must persist. You wouldn't walk round with shit on your elbow. Why go around with shit on your sphincter and surrounding area? PAPER DOES NOT CLEAN! Water does. In countries thought of as third world, water through a hose is used. Paper isn't used at all. So much better for the water treatment plants.
If, like us, you are used to cleaning around the anus after defecation, achieving satisfactory cleanliness whilst
out and about can be a nightmare. Normally I have to strip of to the waste and stand under a shower, impossible to do in a public loo. Here one is reduced to soaking tissues in a sink beforehand. How much easier to use a hose as they do in Thailand, say.
Wake up Britain. Wash properly and reduce paper consumption. Don't leave shit on your body. Install a bidet.
Tattoos
Why do people do it? What is the attraction? I was in England recently, during a mini heatwave and couldn't help but notice how many people, mostly youngsters were divesting themselves to display their ugly tattoos. Young men stripped to the waist displaying entire backs covered in black/blue ink. Women, with tops cut to reveal their own personal body artwork, including tops with short backs showing pictures on the small of their backs.
I did think, in a moment of weakness, that this might be to give some lover, something to look at whilst making love from the rear, but perhaps not.
I saw a young mother cradling a baby in her heavily tattooed arm. What would a new and fertile mind make of this grotesque disfigurement of its mother's body or would it asume that all mother's have the same marking?
Anthropologists might explain why human beings do it. It may be the same reason that people pierce themselves. It's a trait that has existed in the human psyche from earliest times and can still be seen in peoples we consider to be primitive by Western standards. Captain Cook made mention of it in his logs and Alan Melville described a heavily tattooed south sea islander, Queequeg, in his acount of Moby Dick.
Forgetting the religious viewpoint that they are defacing a body made in God's image and therefore being disrespectful, I would like to know how it benefits humankind. Did it denote rank? Coming of age? Why do it now or is it some fashion statement that persists forever, regardless of how tastes change.
The point I am making is that it's a matter of personal choice what people do to their bodies, but why do they assume that the rest of us want to see it. Please to all those with tattoos, KEEP THEM COVERED. The rest of us are simply not interested.
I did think, in a moment of weakness, that this might be to give some lover, something to look at whilst making love from the rear, but perhaps not.
I saw a young mother cradling a baby in her heavily tattooed arm. What would a new and fertile mind make of this grotesque disfigurement of its mother's body or would it asume that all mother's have the same marking?
Anthropologists might explain why human beings do it. It may be the same reason that people pierce themselves. It's a trait that has existed in the human psyche from earliest times and can still be seen in peoples we consider to be primitive by Western standards. Captain Cook made mention of it in his logs and Alan Melville described a heavily tattooed south sea islander, Queequeg, in his acount of Moby Dick.
Forgetting the religious viewpoint that they are defacing a body made in God's image and therefore being disrespectful, I would like to know how it benefits humankind. Did it denote rank? Coming of age? Why do it now or is it some fashion statement that persists forever, regardless of how tastes change.
The point I am making is that it's a matter of personal choice what people do to their bodies, but why do they assume that the rest of us want to see it. Please to all those with tattoos, KEEP THEM COVERED. The rest of us are simply not interested.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
