Ayn Rand was right...

In her masterpiece "Atlas Shrugged" ten years in the writing and published over 50 years ago, Ayn Rand paints a picture of a future where the state controls everything and the individual is unable to create wealth or to use his natural talent to progress.
My life experience tells me that her premise is right. Despite what the equality legislators would have us believe, we are not all equal. Some people are better than others in business, while others are better athletes, some can sing or are virtuoso musicians. Passing a law cannot change that.
Our education system has held back the gifted whilst discouraging the ordinary in a vain quest for homogenation, for making everyone the same.
We're not. We can never be the same. We are all different.

I was listening to the radio the other day and every singer sounded different. They each had a unique sound to their voice. It has to be that way. What people remember about Sinatra, or Ella, John Lennon, Bob Dylan, Mick Jagger, Bryan Ferry, Annie Lennox, Amy Winehouse was that they were instantly recognisable by the sound and quality of their singing. When all the fuss about their private lives has subsided, what will remain is the quality and distinctiveness of their voice. We are not all alike. We can never be. We should never aspire to be the same as everyone else.

So why is it that when I turn on some TV shows or open up my paper I'm confronted with an image of someone who's apparently constructed from an identikit?
The same hair, the same fake tan, the same makeup, the same teeth...and as for the women.......

Since I was a teenager I've smiled at the absurdity of young people eschewing school uniform is a vain attempt at individuality, only to dress in t-shirt and jeans, and thereby looking exactly the same as everyone else. I almost laugh out loud at the fat useless lumps of lard walking around town in sportswear, trying to look cool when it's pretty apparent that they couldn't even run for the bus, let alone do anything remotely sporting.

OK, I've made it clear that I don't want to be one of the herd. I don't want to look like them, dress like them, act like them and most of all, think like them.

This makes me potentially dangerous to the state. Because government policies are worked out by sociologists who have studied the behaviour of large crowds, they can cope with a few like me adding static to their graphs and charts. But what if there were more like me? What then? What if the masses refused to conform? What if the masses refused to consume what they were fed, whether it be in the supermarkets or through the media?

In my life as a musician, I've tried to avoid following the crowds or the latest fashion, except when it suited me. The music that excited me was never played on Radio 1 or shown on Top of the Pops. I discovered it for myself, through underground and specialist press and word of mouth (usually John Peel's).

In my working life I've tried many jobs. I'm pretty adaptable and can turn my hand to most things but the fact still remains that when up against a naturally talented businesman he beats me hands down. When up against a skilled painter and decorator my rudimentary DIY skills leave me at the start line. My friend (a painter and decorator by trade) could finish painting my living room ceiling before I had the lid off the paint tin. People are different, have different skills and therefore have different earning potential.

I had quite a lot to do with young people in recent years. As my son grew up I got to know his friends and for a time I was involved with a church youth group. In my working life I met and worked with a lot of young people. About twenty years ago I noticed that the youth seemed in my eyes to be more compliant, less rebellious, less questioning than my generation back in the 60s. That may seem a surprising thing to say, but remember, my generation changed the world. I think the education they received stunted their enquiring minds.
More recently I've been working in a solicitor's office and I regularly receive CVs from students seeking job experience or a training contract. I sometimes laugh out loud at what they write. The grammar is either non-existent or cut and paste googlespeak. I'm not certain if these young people writing and sending out these flowery pieces of fiction actually comprehend exactly what is written. Yet I also sense an air of expectation, of entitlement, that somehow they deserve a job, just because, well, just because of who they are.

Which brings me rather circuitously back to Ayn Rand. One theme that recurs in her book is the sense that various characters deserve a break, deserve a job, deserve a good wage, deserve the same as the hard working hero who earned his wealth through his own enterprise, hard work and imagination only to have the state steal it from him in the name of equality and fairness.

Life isn't fair. Let's get that straight. I may play a musical instrument and sing a bit, but that does not entitle me to the same riches as Paul McCartney or Elton John. I may not have had the same success as those two, but I cannot expect to have, because I didn't travel the same hard road as them, I didn't get the lucky breaks as them (mainly because I didn't put myself in the right situation or meet the right people). Most of all, I didn't have anything like the same talent as them.

The thinking that Rand rails against is the idea that somehow legislation should be passed that forces the better and more successful musicians to give up their wealth or squander their talent in order that the little guy like me might have a chance.
What nonsense. Yet governments still try to do this.

So what can little insignificant me do about this?

More soon

Time to end the bias at the Met Office

It's been very cold in the UK in the last few weeks. Indeed it could be argued that as Winter didn't officially begin until Dec 21st, we have witnessed the coldest Autumn since records began.
And it's not just the Northern hemishere. Australia has just had snowfall during their summer!
OK, it's weather. And they keep telling me that weather is not climate.
Europeans have climate. The British have weather.

We're an island off the coast of mainland Europe that is washed by the Gulf Stream, which means our climate is generally warmer and wetter than mainland Europe. It also means that our weather is more variable than the mainland.
Being variable, it gives us British something to talk about.

So why does a few inches at most of snow cause the UK to grind to a halt, (although the BBC insists on using centimetres despite the UK official measurements being in miles, feet and inches)?
Why is it that we are as unprepared today for bad weather as we were three years ago?
Why is it that local authorities have bought less salt and grit than they did last year?
Why is it that Heathrow Airport closed because they didn't have enough snow-clearing and de-icing machinery?

Where do they get the information to base their buying requirements?

The Met Office.

Compare and contrast with London's Transport system. They've had little disruption, apart from re-routing some buses away from hillier routes.
They didn't use the Met Office predictions.

Can you see a picture emerging?

Here's a link to an interesting article
http://www.thegwpf.org/uk-news/2086-gwpf-calls-for-independent-inquiry-into-met-offices-winter-advice-.html

Here's some of the text
"The Global Warming Policy Foundation has called on the Government to set up an independent inquiry into the winter advice it received by the Met Office and the renewed failure to prepare the UK for the third severe winter in a row.
"The current winter fiasco is no longer a joke as the economic damage to the British economy as a result of the country's ill-preparedness is running at £1bn a day and could reach more than £15 billion," said Dr Benny Peiser, the GWPF's Director.
"It would appear that the Met Office provided government with rather poor if not misleading advice and we need to find out what went wrong. Lessons have to be learned well in advance of the start of next year's winter so that we are much better prepared if it is severe again," Dr Peiser said.

And here's a few of the questions the GWPF would like answered

1. Why did the Met Office publish estimates in late October showing a 60 per cent to 80 per cent chance of warmer-than-average temperatures this winter? What was the scientific basis of this probabilistic estimate?

2. Has the October prediction by the Met Office that this winter would be mild affected planning for this winter? If so, what is the best estimate of how much this has cost the country?

3. Last year, the Met Office predicted a 65% chance that winter will be milder than normal. Has the Met Office subsequently explained what went wrong with its computer modelling?

8. Although the Met Office stopped sending its 3-month forecasts to the media, it would appear that this service is still available to paying customers, the Government and Local Authorities for winter planning. What was their advice, in September/October, for the start of winter 2010?

10. Is it appropriate that the chairman of the Met Office is a member, or a former member of climate pressure groups or carbon trading groups?


And finally-

13. What plans has the government to privatise the Met Office?

Dead Horse Strategy

This has been around the internet for a while, but I think it's good, as worth passing on.

The tribal wisdom of the Dakota Indians, passed on from one generation to the next, says that when you discover you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount.

However, in modern business, because of the heavy investment factors to be taken into consideration, often other strategies have to be tried with dead horses, including the following:

1. Buying a stronger whip.
2. Changing riders.
3. Threatening the horse with termination.
4. Appointing a committee to study the horse.
5. Arranging to visit other sites to see how they ride dead horses.
6. Lowering the standards so that dead horses can be included.
7. Reclassifying the dead horse as living-impaired.
8. Change the form so that it reads: “This horse is not dead”.
9. Hire outside contractors to ride the dead horse.
10. Harness several dead horses together for increased speed.
11. Donate the dead horse to a recognized charity, thereby deducting its full original cost.
12. Providing additional funding to increase the horse’s performance.
13. Do a time management study to see if the lighter riders would improve productivity.
14. Declare that a dead horse has lower overhead and therefore performs better.
15. Promote the dead horse to a supervisory position

How to reduce government spending at a stroke

I saw this over at Burningourmoney and read it through. I encourage you to click on this link and read it yourself
http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2004&month=04

Then tell me that government spending can't be reined in. I've been in despair for such a long time about how this country is being systematically strangled whilst being simultaeneously raped and looted.
How can we kill the beast that sucks the very life out of the country?
The petty regulations that prevent jobs being created, that stifle creativity and enterprise, that make it easier to stay and home rather than earn self respect as well as money?

I didn't know the answer. But now I have read something that shows us the way.
It's so simple that it just needed spelling out.
The very principles that enabled business to adapt and change over the last thirty years just need to be applied.
Why does the government do the things it does?
Has anyone ever asked that question?
If the answer is "because we've always done it", then it's time to take a long hard look.
I recall a story about an ordinary business. An ordinary worker used to file certain documents. She'd done it for years. She'd been told to do it on her first day at work. No-one asked her what happened to the documents once they'd been filed.
Had anyone ever asked for them? No.
Had anyone ever looked at them? No.
Had anyone ever gone through the files and thrown them away? No.

She did the same meaningless task day in, day out, because no-one ever told her not to. It filled up her day, but it was meaningless, futile, unproductive and expensive. So why do it?

Apply that to government. Can you now see where to start cutting?
It all starts with a simple one word question- "Why?"

Here's an excerpt to whet your appetite-

"What about regulations? The regulatory power is customarily delegated to non-elected officials who then constrain the people’s liberties with little or no accountability. These regulations are extremely difficult to eliminate once they are in place. But we found a way: We simply rewrote the statutes on which they were based. For instance, we rewrote the environmental laws, transforming them into the Resource Management Act—reducing a law that was 25 inches thick to 348 pages. We rewrote the tax code, all of the farm acts, and the occupational safety and health acts. To do this, we brought our brightest brains together and told them to pretend that there was no pre-existing law and that they should create for us the best possible environment for industry to thrive. We then marketed it in terms of what it would save in taxes. These new laws, in effect, repealed the old, which meant that all existing regulations died—the whole lot, every single one.

You see? There is hope.

Weather isn't climate, and computer models aren't reality

Earlier this week I posted about the Met Office's shiny new computer that takes as much power to run as a small town, and which predicted the non-existent volcanic ash clouds that grounded Europe's planes and caused untold delay and misery earlier this year.

The problem is that computers are only as good as the information that's fed into them. The first law of computers is GIGO:
Garbage In = Garbage Out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_In,_Garbage_Out

I learned this when working for the bank over 40 years ago.
Nothing has changed. That law is eternal.

These days little direct observational science is carried out. Data is merely fed into computers and sophisticated programming is used to predict outcomes.

In Formula One computers are used to predict the efficiency of bodywork components before they are manufactured. They are able to do this successfully because they have data going back over many years. This data was obtained by observing actual components in wind tunnels over a long period of time (relatively speaking). Human hands, eyes and brains were there from the beginning to observe and record and work out the scientific principles involved.
That is good science.
Likewise, ship builders use computer programmes to design ship hulls. They obtained the data to build the computer programme from direct observation and measurement of the behaviour of actual model hulls in a water filled tank. This is also good science.
So far so good. In both the cases the principle of GIGO was taken into account. The data was obtained by direct observation, measured by trusted and trained individuals,and a computer programme was written that simulated the effects of those observations. At all times accuracy was uppermost. The data had to be 100% trustworthy.

Now we come to environmental science, notably weather forecasting and climate predicting.
In the case of the non-existent ash clouds, NO DIRECT OBSERVATIONS WERE MADE.
The aircraft that could have flown into and around the clouds to measure the extent of the problem was grounded, under repair.
The only data they had was guesswork.
Remember the first law of computers?
That's right- Garbage In = Garbage Out.

When will these people learn that computers are only as good as the data that's fed into them?

Now I come to my second and more important gripe- Global Warming or Climate Change.

Firstly- I do not dispute that Climate Change is occurring. It's always occuring. It always has and it always will.
Historians and archaeologists show us that Britain was much warmer a couple of thousand years ago. Sea levels were much higher then. Go back a few thousand years and Britain was joined to Europe. The North Sea was a large land mass that archaeologists have dubbed Doggerland. Fisherman often dredge up stone age artifacts from the sea bed. Climate changes and sea levels change.

The worrying new development is a whole new brand of "science" has emerged that claims to be able to predict the future based on the past and using only computer models. This is an alarming trend that cannot be allowed to happen unquestioned.

We all know what happens when computers are allowed to predict the future without accurate data. They get it wrong. 100% of the time.
Remember GIGO?

Over at Wattsupwiththat, Anthony reports on the latest climate model that NCAR has rolled out. You can read about it here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/19/ncars-new-2010-climate-model-for-the-next-ipcc-report/

The Press Release says this:
"The CESM is one of about a dozen climate models worldwide that can be used to simulate the many components of Earth’s climate system, including the oceans, atmosphere, sea ice, and land cover. The CESM and its predecessors are unique among these models in that they were developed by a broad community of scientists. The model is freely available to researchers worldwide."

First and foremost it must be stressed that this is a computer model. And the results are but a simulation of what may happen. Using the first principles of computing, namely GIGO, we have to be convinced that the data being used is 100% accurate, uncorrupted, unmanipulated and trustworthy.
Following the "Climategate" scandal of 2009, when scientists at the University of East Anglia admitted to "adjusting" the data, we cannot be sure that any outcome predicted by the computer can be in any way trusted.

Unfortunatley, to air that legitimate view is to be called a "denier". But consider this, is it not the same to argue that anyone who accepts conclusions derived from dodgy data also a denier?
Remember the first law of computing
GARBAGE IN= GARBAGE OUT.

When giving is wrong

I very rarely give to beggars. I do buy the Big Issue when I'm in town. And I don't approve of our government giving aid to African countries.
Call me callous. I don't care.
If I give money to a drunk he will spend it on drink. If I buy a copy of the Big Issue I'm helping someone help themselves.

When the Iron Curtain came down and western agencies visited Romania they were appalled at the numbers of children abandoned in squalor in state run asylums and homes. Their understandable reaction was to try and rescue these poor unfortunate children and make their lives more comfortable. We all contributed to aid convoys in our local churches and off they went. On a personal note I began my recording career by making an album to be sold to help a missionary couple in the far east of Poland. We gathered goods and money and sent our friends off, full of hope that our efforts would make a difference. One year later and our friends were back,hurt and dissillusioned. None of the goods that we'd donated made it through to the people they were intended to help. None.The local church leader claimed them for himself and sold them and kept the money. That's the way it is.
When the Romanians saw the aid effort to help the orphans, were they shamed into doing more? Did they see that this was something they should have been doing?
No.
They left the British and Irish charity workers to it. The orphans were now our problem.
Giving aid never achieves the intended aim.
I read this article in the Wall Street Journal recently
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123758895999200083.html

The author, Dambisa Moyo makes a strong case that giving aid to Africa actually ends up hurting rather than helping them.
He writes-
"Giving alms to Africa remains one of the biggest ideas of our time -- millions march for it, governments are judged by it, celebrities proselytize the need for it. Calls for more aid to Africa are growing louder, with advocates pushing for doubling the roughly $50 billion of international assistance that already goes to Africa each year.

Yet evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that aid to Africa has made the poor poorer, and the growth slower. The insidious aid culture has left African countries more debt-laden, more inflation-prone, more vulnerable to the vagaries of the currency markets and more unattractive to higher-quality investment. It's increased the risk of civil conflict and unrest (the fact that over 60% of sub-Saharan Africa's population is under the age of 24 with few economic prospects is a cause for worry). Aid is an unmitigated political, economic and humanitarian disaster."

There is such a thing as the Law of Unintended Consequences. The fact that our new government has "ring fenced" our overseas aid budget is worrying. One could be forgiven for thinking that they want the desperate plight of ordinary Africans to continue.

Microchipped man gets virus

I saw this on Sky News yesterday.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Technology/Dr-Mark-Gasson-Scientist-Infects-Himself-With-Computer-Virus-And-Microchip/Article/201005415638978?lpos=Technology_Third_UK_News_Article_Teaser_Region__2&lid=ARTICLE_15638978_Dr_Mark_Gasson%3A_Scientist_Infects_Himself_With_Computer_Virus_And_Microchip

Apparently he was fitted with a microchip and used it instead of a swipecard to get in and out of work. He could open the doors by passing his hand over the reader. He also used it with his mobile phone. Apparently his phone would only work if he held it in his left hand (the one with the chip fitted).
The chip now has a virus and he says that the virus can spread to all the other swipe cards that are used in his building.
I find this both funny and disturbing.
One- why would anyone willingly electronically tag themselves? Some Christian friends of mine say that this is the mark of the beast that is referred to in the Book Of Revelations. Maybe, all I know is that liberty is to be cherished, not given away. Having a chip fitted would mean that someone could track your every move, wherever you are in the world, 24/7. Would you want that?
Then there's the use of these chips in lieu of a credit or cashpoint card. The information on the chip would enable you to pay for your purchases, withdraw money, travel without having to buy a ticket (the cost is debited from your account automatically).
OK, all well and good. But what if someone somewhere decided that you were persona non grata? It might be a mistake, but in the meantime your assets are frozen, you can't buy anything, travel anywhere, and your every movement is tracked via the chip in your wrist.
Not so good.
The article says that Dr Gasson infected himself. Why? Is this another of those mad scientist tales where a doctor injects himself with a deadly disease in the search for the cure?
The risk here is not confined to one person. It's possible that a virus like this could be introduced into the world at large. One terrorist with a virus loaded microchip could infect the security systems of airports and banks around the world.

There are health risks as well. many pacemakers are fitted with these microchips and if they are infected with a virus then lives are at risk.

Whoever thought that fitting people with micro-chips hadn't thought it through. I'm a basically honest person with no wish to do harm to anyone, and if I can see the evil possibilities in this, then those who wish us evil will have as well.

One commenter on the Sky article wrote this, and I agree with him-
"Biometric passports have chips inside of them, so, technically, an aggressor, someone with a grudge or some nerdy guy out to prove how clever he is, could possibly infect the UK's, or indeed any other country with a similar system, passport control system with a malignant virus and cause absolute havoc!"

They still don't get it

The election is barely over and the new MPs are already at it. It seems that they still think they're entitled to spend our money as if it was a birthright.
Today's Mail has this story
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1281428/MPs-win-reprieve-expenses-watchdog-agrees-hand-cash-payments-worth-4-000.html
"Parliament's new expenses watchdog last night caved in to pressure from MPs and agreed to hand them immediate cash payments worth £4,000 each.
In a bid to head off a growing backlash over the tough new regime, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority reversed its previous insistence that expenses would only be reimbursed after they have been paid out.
Instead, from today it will offer them cash advances of up to £4,000 each, at a total cost to the taxpayer of up to £2.6million."
And so it goes on.
When I worked in retail it was a condition of the job that I could get myself to work at my own expense. If I had to work in a different location my firm would reimburse the petrol costs only. After all, I had to have the car anyway.
This was hard but fair. The firm kept a tight rein on its finances and as a result was able to expand when others were contracting. It opened 100s of stores during the late 70s and early 80s,when times were bad.
They made money by keeping a rein on expenses. They never advertised, they never employed consultants or fancy head office staff. No frills. It worked.
We worked hard but we were paid well. We did everything. Our shop floor staff worked hard but we paid them well.
I always made sure that their wages were correct. You can get your staff to do the impossible as long as you don't mess up their pay.
We face tough times. Tough decisions must be made. We are all going to be poorer. The only way that the population will put up with the hardship is if they see their MPs are also playing their part.

Not so green

Install solar panels, and save the planet! Well, not so fast. Solar cells are high-tech electronic products that contain hazardous materials.
Read more here
http://pgosselin.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/green-solar-cells-new-love-canal/

Going to Mother Jones site we read more-
"How toxic are your solar panels? The Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC), a group that has done more than any other to clean up the electronics industry, attempted to answer that question today with the release of its Solar Scorecard. It didn't get very far. Of the 25 solar manufacturers that SVTC contacted, only 14, which together represent just 24 percent of the solar market, even responded. And their answers weren't always heartening. Among SVTC's findings:

* Six companies report that their products contain lead, a potent neurotoxin.
* Three companies report that their products contain cadmium, a known carcinogen.
* One company uses nitrogen triflouride, a potent greenhouse gas
* Only seven companies provide recycling free of charge
* Only eight companies said their would support "extended producer responsibility" laws that would require them to take back or recycle their products"

So they're pretty pollutant. So why install them?
Could it be that they attract a government subsidy?
read here-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/property/article-1263712/Green-living-hot-new-investment-Tariffs-solar-panels-pay-cent-year--taxpayers-expense.html
"Until last week, there was very little reason to stick expensive electricity-producing solar panels on your roof unless you passionately believed in joining the crusade against global warming.
Now, however, there is a strong financial case to do so.
The Government has introduced new 'feed-in tariffs' for clean electricity, which means that a £12,500 investment in solar energy producing panels will pay a tax-free return of six to eight per cent per annum. That is more than double the best High Street savings accounts."

So, not only are they polluting, the poor taxpayer pays a dividend to anyone installing them. Another green fiasco that ranks with mercury filled energy saving lightbulbs that don't give off enough light to read by, and which can be dangerous to anyone who suffers from fits.

And all to make someone feel better?

What must we do to be rid of Mad Gordon?

Rasputin was repudedly stabbed in the abdomen. He recovered from that. He was then poisoned with cyanide in cakes, then shot in the back. This didn't kill him so they shot him three more times and beat him up,castrated him wrapped his body in a carpet and dumped him in the river. The stabbing, poisoning, gun shots and castration didn't kill him. He drowned in the frozen river.

Why do I think of Rasputin whenever Gordon Brown's name is mentioned?

Hung

I

It's Sunday night and the horse trading goes on. This will end in tears for all of us. The electorate voted on Thursday and they have spoken. The politicians are sticking their fingers in their ears and going "Lalala can't hear you".

Just over 60% of the electorate voted and just over a quarter of them chose Labour. Whichever way you read it, that's hardly a vote of confidence.
In Brown's own constituency the turnout was among the lowest. True, he increased his majority, but that was because the majority of his constituents either voted against him or stayed at home. How clear a message does he need to be sent?

The Tories got some of the "Anyone but Brown" vote, as did the LibDems. Unfortunately neither party offers a real alternative to Labour.
It's the same old policies, the same old politicians, only they've got different coloured rosettes on.

The political system is in a mess. The three main parties all appeal to the centre ground. It's like daytime TV or commercial radio. They've studied the demographic and have tailored their programme to a mythical typical viewer/listener/voter.
Anyone who has the misfortune to watch daytime TV will soon notice that every channel offers the same programme mix at the same time.
A few years ago I used to record a one-minute "thought for the day" for our local radio station. I chatted to the staff about who they thought was listening and they said there were two "typical listeners".
One was a twenty something female who listened to the radio while getting ready for work. She typically listened for fifteen to twenty minutes. The other was also female, middle aged, at home during the day, etc etc. Every element of their programming was aimed at these mythical creatures.**
Daytime TV also seems to aim at a particular demographic. After the Breakfast news programmes, which basically repeat every fifteen minutes because that's how long their typical viewer is alleged to watch; you get makeover programmes, antiques programmes, house buying programmes. Or car crash TV like Jeremy Kyle.
If you switch TV channels to find something different you soon find that each channel is aimed at the same mythical demographic.
Choice? There's no choice. The people who make the programmes have chosen according to what they believe the viewing public wants.

So it is with the current political landscape. Somewhere deep in the bunkers the strategists have identified the person they are appealing to. The floating voter. They have tried to second guess what he believes and what he wants.
Every five years the electorate get a chance to choose between the different varieties of political window dressing that they have selected for us.
It's like the TV Soap of the Year poll. The organisers select six programmes and you choose which one you like. If you don't like what's been chosen for you but would rather choose your own, tough. That's not how it works.
The electorate is given three very similar choices which are then advertised to death and various spin and polish added to make each one look more attractive than it is.
That's how it is supposed to work. Those who rule us have decreed it.
Only this time the electorate have in essence rejected all three.
Gordon Brown is so unpopular even his own MPs hate him.
Cameron is all style and no substance and is in thrall to his advisors. He is too scared to be a Conservative in case he alienates the mythical floating voter.
Clegg is good on TV. Full stop.

By failing to elect any party by a clear majority the electorate said that they are disattisfied. They're being ignored by virtue of living in a safe constituency, are ignored because their concerns about immigration, debt, corruption and the economy are not being adressed, and are fed up by being pandered to by tailor's dummies fronting huge spin operations. The electorate wanted honesty and transparency, leadership and openness.

So, three days on and what have they got?
The same old horse trading behind closed doors. The prospect of the parties that came second and third forming a government. The reality that their view have once again been dismissed.It will end in tears.

**(There were only a handful of staff at the radio station, mostly sellers of advertising space, with a couple of "presenters" recording links on to a computer. They could record a two hour show in about 20 minutes and the computer would play the tracks and the adverts and the links in the correct order. It sounded real, but was all an illusion. Btw, our local radio station is now broadcast from Peterborough. The studios are shut down. The signal is sent down the telephone line to a transmitter. That's the only local element)

Is it me or...?

I can't help noticing similarities between these two. One is a self deluded individual with an over-inflated belief in his own popularity and importance.
The other is just dangerous.
But which is which?

So which is which?

It's a lottery

About fifteen years ago I was involved in a local Community Transport scheme. Some well meaning individual from the local Volunteer Bureau had written to a TV charity and was given a Transit minibus, which came with strings attached. It had to have a management committee and a business plan, and I somehow found myself co-opted on to the committee as chairman.
We found someone who was willing to work on the day to day organisation and we soon came up against the problem of funding. Everyone thinks that having a community minibus is a great idea, but won't pay the true cost when hiring it.
We looked around for funding and our co-ordinator contacted the National Lottery. We received a pack the size of a telephone directory.


One thing soon became clear.
Grants are not given out according to need, but are granted according to one's ability to fill in the paperwork correctly. This I believe to be a universal truth.


I've been off work since last Autumn. I'm having treatment for CLL, a form of Leukaemia. I'm still employed but my firm have now stopped paying SSP, so I had to look for some benefits somewhere.
I'm not going to bore you about the phone calls, answering a questionnaire over the phone, getting a copy in the post and sending it to the local Benefit Office (Which is in Wellingborough, but the post goes to Birmingham and no, I don't understand why either).
After I'd sent my certificate and paperwork to Birmingham I received another letter asking for more paperwork. Another week went by when I received yet another letter containing a questionnaire.
I hate questionnaires. Which is why I spoke to someone in Natalie in Paisley when I first heard I wasn't getting SSP any more.
This time the questionnaire is about whether I need to go and have an assessment. Based on this box ticking, I may or may not receive benefits. I finally managed to fill it in without getting too stressed.
The post arrived as I finished filling in this booklet. I have a letter telling me that they will be paying me £65 a week.
But I may still have to go for an assessment.


Why is everything so complicated? Why the duplication of effort? Why is everything dependent on one's ability to fill in forms?



Benefits are not given out according to need, but are granted according to one's ability to fill in the paperwork correctly. This I believe to be a universal truth.
It really is a lottery

Computer says no.

Two recent newspapare articles caught my eye today.
The first is in the Daily Mail. Apparently they are paying an IT consultant upwards of 500k a year.
You can read it here-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1270165/Meet-mid-ranking-civil-servant-working-IT-projects-rakes-500-000-year--times-PM.html
"Mr Grinnell joined the UK Border Agency in September 2007 as an IT consultant and was given responsibility in leading projects including Labour's notorious plans for national identity cards.

His job at the agency involves all major IT projects  -  including overseeing plans to issue ID cards for everyone.
The scheme was supposed to be rolled out across the UK in 2008, but has been pushed back to 2014 at a Government-estimated cost of £5 billion.
A London School of Economics study in 2005 put the cost of the ID card scheme, which both the Tories and Lib Dems have pledged to scrap, at up to £19billion.
Lib Dem spokesman for home affairs Chris Huhne said: 'This is another example of extravagant waste in outrageous consultants' fees that should shame the UKBA and the Home Office.'
Conservative MP Patrick Mercer, chairman of the Parliamentary Counter Terrorism subcommittee, said: 'This is yet more money that is being poured into the best-forgotten ID card scheme.
'The amount of police officers or MI5 operatives we could have bought on his annual salary is astounding. The money would have been far better spent fighting terrorism rather than administering ourselves to death.'
Matthew Sinclair of TaxPayers' Alliance, said: 'It's clear that the amount being paid to these consultants is getting way out of hand.
'Consultants are the key area the public sector can cut back to help ordinary families struggling in the recession.'

So, all the classic signs of government mismanagement and rampant overspending.

ID cards that nobody wants. Consultants charging the earth and employing their own people at grossly overinflated prices. And the taxpayer pays. That's you and me.

But there is another more sinister spin off. Read it here-

http://www.thisiskent.co.uk/people/30-jobs-border-control/article-2082325-detail/article.html

"Dover could be "swamped" by illegal immigrants because of ferocious job cuts by the UK Border Agency.

It has been revealed that all Dover's 24 immigration officer posts will be slashed – despite the team being responsible for almost 40 per cent of all removals in Kent last year.
In a bitter second blow, proposals are also being made to shut down the 60-bed detention centre based at the port. The facility is used to detain offenders before deportation and to hold immigrants awaiting interview. 
Sue Kendal, branch secretary of the Public and Commercial Services Union, slammed the decision. "Dover is losing its entire immigration officer team and we are in danger of reverting to the bad old days of mass influxes. We risk leaving the door open for a free-for-all, including people who want to harm the UK.
A spokesman for UKBA said: "We are currently consulting with both unions and staff over the planned restructure of our Kent immigration team.
"As a result of the restructure, it is anticipated there will be fewer full-time equivalent positions in Kent, with some of these positions transferring to Sussex.
"It is not proposed the restructure will result in compulsory job losses."
All remaining staff will have to reapply for their jobs.

"The Government talks tough but in reality it is cutting front-line officers."

This is crazy. Lunacy.

Haven't we learned enough painful lessons about relying on computers instead of people on the ground?

The Police watch CCTV cameras instead of patrolling the streets.

The IPCC rely on computer programmes forecasting arctic ice melt instead of direct observation.

The UK airspace was shut down on the basis of a computer prediction rather than direct observation, ie, flying planes in and around the cloud.

And now the government are pouring their money into ill conceived and unwanted ID cards, paying over vast sums of money to consultants along the way, and paying for it by getting rid of front line staff.

They replaced Police Officers with PCSOs (who have no powers of arrest) and hoped that we didn't notice.

The closed all the local HMRC offices and got rid of the skilled tax staff and replaced them with call centres staffed by minimum wage idiots.

And now they are getting rid of Immigration staff who have powers of arrest and replacing them with part timers.

Lunacy.

Ash & dust

Heres the map showing extent of the ash/dust cloud from the Icelandic volcano as of yesterday. The area marked in red is the no-fly zone.

Spot the difference? Last week they shut down the European airspace based upon a computer model, without any testing or sampling of the atmosphere.

So the actual risk area is revealed to be tiny, and once again weve been dumped on by numpties who spend all day looking at computers instead of measuring the real world.When they actually sent planes up there to measure how much dust and ash there is, the risk was downgraded and the world was allowed to get back to normal.

Im puzzled by all this. One, planes fly through dust and sand every day without harm. So why was this dust cloud considered so dangerous?
Two, it seems that those who rule us take great delight in keeping us guilty and scared. They manipulate data to try and scare us into believing that the world is going to end in a fireball, or that polar bears are going to swim down my street because the ice caps have melted. Next they scare us into panic over a flu virus that ended up killing fewer people that the ordinary kind.

There is a motive behind it. The only weapons they have to control us are guilt and fear. Its always been this way. For centuries we were ruled by kings who had armies and the church to administer the fear and guilt.
Now we are ruled by......
Whoever they are, their weapons are still the same.

Fuss about nothing?

The airlines have revolted and are flying planes into UK airspace, forcing the airports to open.
Millions have had their travel plans disrupted and the MotoGP race due to take place this weekend has been cancelled.
So what is actually going on?

The Register is reporting this-

"So the UK Met Office closed European civilian airspace on the basis of one computer model, which it didn't check against reality. We already knew that the great volcano shut-down was based on a model, but we didn't know how little atmospheric sampling was performed to test the simulation against the atmosphere. It turns out only four test flights have been made to sample the composition of the cloud.
Matthias Ruete, the European Commission's transport chief, accused the Mystic Met of preferring virtual reality to evidence. "We have a model that runs on mathematical projections. It is probability rather than things happening," he said.
As a result the Met Office continued to issue projections of where it thought the ash cloud should be, but was unable to report its density and composition with confidence. These are critical vital factors an airline needs to know. European airlines sounded the alarm on Sunday, when they noticed that the satellite pictures didn't tally with the centre's output."

You can read the rest of the article here-
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/20/mystic_met_volcano_model/

So what is going on? I assume that the insurers hold the key. Everybody fears being sued and nobody is willing to put their jobs on the line.

Im a big fan of Ayn Rands "Atlas Shrugged". In her book the action revolves around a transcontinental railway as airlines hadn't taken hold in the US when she wrote it.
However, the parallels are uncanny.

Then there is the governments response. What response I hear  you say? Exactly.

A TV presenter named Dan Snow took three inflatable boats to Calais to collect some friends. The French authorities wouldnt let him take them for hours. In the end he was able to bring some Brits home, but not his friends.
The media picked up on this and the government was stung into action.

I can imagine the conversation-
PM- We must do something!
Flunky- That bloke off the TV has taken some boats to Calais in a rerun of Dunkirk. He s getting all the media attention.
PM- Media attention? We must do something about that. Theres an election going on.
Flunky- Why not a rerun of Dunkirk? You know, send a warship or two over to collect our people?
PM- We must do something. Were losing in the polls!
Flunky- This is something.
PM- Let's do it! Erm, do we have any ships left?

Its a fiasco of the worst kind. Knee jerk politics. Media hype and scaremongering.

Ayn Rand was right all along.

Car scrappage scheme ends

The government car scrappage scheme has now ended. It cost £400,000 and the government claims that it helped save 4000 jobs.
Full story here
http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/research/2010/03/expensive-scrappage.html


Do the maths. It works out that the government spent £100,000 of taxpayers money to safeguard a job that probably pays £25,000 pa. Someone on £25k probably pays 8k in taxes and NI, so they spend £100k and get 8k back.


Sound economics eh?


http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/research/2010/03/expensive-scrappage.html

UPDATE. All the cars are stored on the runway at Thurleigh. Sensible eh? The government paid to empty acres of new cars stored on runways, and left thousands of older cars in their place.

The first soviet style show trial

We all know about baby P. We know how disfunctional the Social Services were. We all know that it cost Sharon Shoesmith her job. We all know that.


The Daily Mail's article here
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1262812/Baby-P-report-Sharon-Shoesmith-beefed-justify-sacking.html
reports that Ed Balls ordered that the report into the scandal be "beefed up" in order to intensify pressure on Ms Shoesmith, and in time she was dismissed, with the full approval of mad Hatty Harperson's "court of public opinion".


I'm not disputing that Ms Shoesmith should have been sacked. She should never have been appointed in the first place. Overpromoted individuals are commonplace in most organisations, but the current obsession with quotas and political correctness has enables incompetents to get into positions of influence based solely on their ability to spout jargon and knowing the right people. Ms Shoesmith is one such person.


However, Ed Balls insistence that they rewrite the report in order to get Shoesmith sacked, if proven, has set a dangerous precedent. We have now returned to Stalinist style purges and show trials.


So who will be next?

April 1st

It's April 1st, April Fools Day, traditionally the day when the media publish spoof stories. I bought a copy of the Daily Mail and scanned the pages to see if I could find the spoof stories among the genuine ones.


One of these stories is a spoof. But which one?
Is it this one?


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1262584/First-wives-swept-aside-whim-rich-powerful-Top-barristers-wife-wins-215-000-payout-husband-divorced-25-years-ago.html

Apparently a barrister's ex-wife has successfully won another £215k payout 25 years after they divorced. My first marriage ended almost 30 years ago. Does this verdict open the door to my ex-wife sueing me for money to keep her in the style to which she was accustomed half a lifetime ago? You couldn't make that up, could you?


What about this one?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1262533/The-Hubble-Bubble-tower-welcome-visitors-London-2012-Olympics.html


A huge twisted pile of rusty looking steel will be the lasting monument to the London Olympics. Ironic eh? They allowed the Stratford area of East London to become run down so that it resembled a bomb site, with ruined factories and warehouses everywhere, then clear away all the wreckage and leave in its place a huge pile of twisted steel, designed and funded by foreigners. They are having a laugh at our expense aren't they? This is the April fool story, isn't it?




Ok, is it this one?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1262708/Goldfish-seller-Joan-Higgins-gets-used-life-tagged-criminal.html


Pet shop owner gets caught in a sting mounted by trading standards for selling a goldfish to a 14 year old (a crime that didn't exist 4 years ago) and is fined £1000, is placed under curfew and has to wear a tag. That has to be a spoof doesn't it?


This one?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1262697/Auctioneer-Jim-Railton-fined-1-000-selling-oak-cabinet-bird-eggs-inside.html

An auctioneer with 20 years experience has been fined £1000 for attempting to sell a 100 year old wooden cabinet complete with 100 year old eggs, most of which were broken. He was arrested, fingerprinted, a DNA swab taken before being bailed.
He turned up in court expecting a wrist slapping, but no he was fined £1000 and had to pay costs.

"A spokesman for the RSPB said: 'We are very happy with the result. The fine imposed by the magistrates shows the importance of these cases.'

Dear RSPB, you will never receive a penny from me again.
Oh, and all the stories are genuine. It's too depressing for words.

Off to buy some whitewash

The report into the leaked emails has been published and the verdict is as expected- a total whitewash.
I despair.
Read Antony Watts post here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/30/results-of-the-climategate-paliamentary-inquiry-in-the-uk/#more-17952
Here's the press release

"Phil Willis MP, Committee Chair, said:
“Climate science is a matter of global importance. On the basis of the science, governments across the world will be spending trillions of pounds on climate change mitigation. The quality of the science therefore has to be irreproachable. What this inquiry revealed was that climate scientists need to take steps to make available all the data that support their work and full methodological workings, including their computer codes. Had both been available, many of the problems at CRU could have been avoided.”
The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, the Committee considers that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community but that those practices need to change.
On the much cited phrases in the leaked e-mails-”trick” and “hiding the decline”-the Committee considers that they were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead.
Insofar as the Committee was able to consider accusations of dishonesty against CRU, the Committee considers that there is no case to answer.
The Committee found no reason in this inquiry to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, that “global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity”. But this was not an inquiry into the science produced by CRU and it will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel, announced by the University on 22 March, to determine whether the work of CRU has been soundly built.
On the mishandling of Freedom of Information (FoI) requests, the Committee considers that much of the responsibility should lie with the University, not CRU. The leaked e-mails appear to show a culture of non-disclosure at CRU and instances where information may have been deleted to avoid disclosure, particularly to climate change sceptics. The failure of the University to grasp fully the potential damage this could do and did was regrettable. The University needs to re-assess how it can support academics whose expertise in FoI requests is limited."


Nothing to see here. Move along please.


But wait a minute. This is our money they're spending. And they're going to tax us into the stone ages if they get their way.


You can't build the truth using a lie for foundations.
And there ain't no right way to do a wrong thing.
Who gains from all this? Follow the money.

I will continue to ignore everything the government and global warming scientists publish because unless they can convince me that their motives are good, the science is clear and unambiguous and has been subject to rigorous scrutiny by both sides of the argument, and when the sponsors of this new religion practise what they preach, as far as I'm concerned it's just hot air and spin.