tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26901138252548368282024-02-20T16:29:28.683+00:00Somerset ReflectionsFree ranging thoughts about all things political, from the topical, to the trivial, to the pretentious to the profound!Grumpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14206412404319011602noreply@blogger.comBlogger193125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2690113825254836828.post-51345440585262111682021-07-31T12:29:00.001+01:002021-07-31T12:29:14.159+01:00Lockdown to Save Our Planet<p> We are staring at the extinction of the humanoid species. Our actions have set in motion a series of positive feedback loops. The Arctic water are warming, Greenland icecap is imminently melting, the Gulf Stream is on the brink of shutting down and extreme weather events are now the new norm, be it fire, heat, rain, tornadoes or even cold. Extreme rising sea levels, no longer modest rises, will displace tens of millions from low lying areas, many coastal cities will become uninhabitable, extreme events will destroy food production for hundreds of millions dependant on their yearly crop. To make matters worse we are dumping increasing amounts of waste and pollutants that leach out threatening the health and reproductive success of the wildlife we rely on. As a consequence biodiversity is under such an onslaught that it unable to respond to such rapid climate changes. Added to which we are cutting down the heart and lungs of the planet that might absorb or at least abate some of these extreme events. We in the rich West have plundered the Planet for stuff to feed our insatiable appetite for novelty whilst two thirds of the Worlds population, living a subsistence life, have no hope of ever improving their lot to even a fraction of what we in the West take as our inalienable birthright. Our Planet just does not have the capacity to let them achieve even a modicum improvement to their subsistence living. Yet meeting the Wests insatiable demand for yet more brighter, glossier, snappier, trendier must haves, the rich west are so close to exhausting the supply of the rarer elements. Extraction continues unabated in yet ever more fragile environments. This relentless thirst for more yet more consumer consumption is exhausting out Planet. It is not just the extraction of course but the energy required to then turn these raw materials into the so desirable baubles We have to stop consuming. The wheels of the financial systems which support our civilisation are about to fall off. We have so abused this Planet that the very environment we depend on is changing in ways that may well be unsupportable to human life. If, and a big if, we havent previously killed each other in the scramble to retain some of our assumed rights or claiming the last of what might still be habitable or usable.<br /></p><p>This is not some far off speculation. At this very moment we are recording such rapid increases in positive feedback loops, within those that are known, whilst there are many other loops still to be discovered. Climate changes are occurring at an accelerated rate which greatly exceeds even the more pessimistic climate change models. We are way past the point where governments prepare policies and discussion papers, way beyond waiting for the international agreements on what climate change limiting measure they might introduce some time soon. We are even beyond the point of implementing an (already?) agreed government action plan. We, that is you and I, need to take action right now. No need to seek permission, as individuals it is up to each of us to change our life style right now. If our children are to have some hope of a survivable future. We each must go into a Lockdown to Save Our Planet today. No more flying, no more driving, no more consuming. We have to go back to living local, self-sufficiency, no more taking out or extracting from the Planet that which cannot be replaced within our lifetime. No more flying novel fruits, out of season storing, warehouse, handling, distributing and selling just to tempt a jaded palate. No more discarding last seasons to buy this years newest twist. No more extracting materials then using huge amounts of energy to convert them into something convenient. Instead we must reconstitute existing products that have already been fashioned, but now abandoned in this changed world, into something lasting and useful. Recycling but big scale, think all the empty factories, aeroplanes, cars. So much material to be creative and technically innovative about without plundering the Planet from yet more new material or requiring yet more energy to convert. Our cyber infrastructure does give me pause for concerns. Huge data stores consume vast amount of energy and the hardware used requires exotic and increasingly rare minerals to make them. Yet this crucial moment is when we need to be in a joined up world, sharing problems, seeking clever answers and checking that all are benefiting equitably, not being left behind. So an exception? Maybe. One existing resources which we have in abundance is decades of landfill. We have to get smart and learn how to extract from our past landfill those scarce, non-renewable resources rather than plunder anew. We have to get back to limiting our living to that which our Planet can afford to offer, without detriment to its essential wild spaces, without compromising the health of all our flora and fauna nor denying other populations their right to comparable standards. That is how our ancestors lived for ten of thousands of years. We have to go back to nurturing our Planet, living within that which it can offer without detriment, when it will then respond and payback in dividends. Act now and we might have a chance as a species to survive, your choice. Live or Consume? We cannot do both.<br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Grumpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14206412404319011602noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2690113825254836828.post-26509472873697938732019-09-29T13:08:00.000+01:002019-09-29T13:08:48.549+01:00Surrender to Stupidity
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;">The Surrender Bill is getting a lot of bloated attention.
Just pause for a second. The executive head of our democratic parliament, our
Prime Minister, is rubbishing his parliament that has democratically decided
that we must not leave the EU without a deal. If he feels so strongly against
it, he should present a counter Bill to nullify it. But of course he cannot, as
he does not have a majority in the House nor within his own Party. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;">Bluff and bluster may be a successful at a personal level
but you cannot run a country by bluff and bluster. In a sales pitch you might
get away with pretending you will just walk away. But not at National levels.
The bluff that UK will walk without agreeing a deal is utter nonsense. The EU
knows it, most of the country knows it, so why discredit your integrity by
pretending to hold an impossible position. The rest of the sane world knows there
is too much at stake. The breakup of the United Kingdom for one. Turning our
backs on our closest neighbours is another. Unravelling 40 years of close integration
is another, but the list goes on and on. At some point an agreement with the EU
will have to reached. Not facing that reality, holding up the pretence of another
(unspecified) option will result in a lot of pain and damage.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;">Another bluff tactic is to claim that the Country has
Decided. No it did not. Half the country definitely did not decide to leave. It
is worth recalling that the ripples of a divided nation, catholic v protestants
lingers on even to this day. Our Nation is divided over the EU. As in all inflamed
disputes, in the end the opposites just have to sit down, talk and reach an agreement.
That is what a Prime Minster worthy of the position should be doing, Not fanning
the flames of discord.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;">As our Prime Minster continues to fail to recognise and
respond to the deep division within our country, what are we to do? Twiddle our
fingers whilst grabbing unquestioningly every soothing soundbite offered, lap
up all the electoral gift baubles as if they were substantive and a real, or do
we demand better? Is the retention of a United Kingdom worth fighting for? Are we
really content to retreat to a gated community to keep all those unpleasant
neighbours at arm’s length, do we really want to surrender having any voice in
the world that is listened to? Do we want a fantasy future or face up to the
hard issues before us? For that we need a Parliament that reflects all of us
and a Prime Minster who has integrity, able to seek accord and with a vision
which does resonate with our core values. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
Grumpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14206412404319011602noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2690113825254836828.post-2912071056451830942019-05-31T17:02:00.000+01:002019-05-31T17:04:17.020+01:00Blinkered BBCThe BBC, in all of its various outputs, goes out of its way to demonstrate no political bias and senior management will vigorously defend their record, over the longer term if not by each hour. No issue there. However they have consistently fallen hook line and sinker over the last two years into the Farage trap and parrot fashion repeat his selected media slants as if that was fact and widely endorsed. No it isn't. So what is going on? The Farage emotive shorthand is that Britain has decided to leave the EU. That is the starting point, the underlying premise of all subsequent interviews and rationale for the oh so many programmes devoted to questioning and analysing the 'Brexit' debates. Britain most clearly did not decide. There was vote and there was a result, a split country, half and half with the leave side having the 'majority' by such a small margin. So small a margin that could, would, maywell have shifted several times either way in the space a couple of days depending who was sick, recovered, whop left or came back from holiday, was or wasn't in a meeting elsewhere, submitted a spoilt paper or just was confused at the time. Such a small margin does not support the claim that "Britain decided". It suits Farage's soundbite politics to wrap it up so, but the BBC should not have been drawn in and persistently using that phrase as their reference point. It is wrong and slants all sequential comments.<br />
<br />
This vote was not a vote for the first past the post two party election. This vote does not result in sequences of measure being put before Parliament to consider, reflect and endorse. This vote does not time lapse after five years for the country to reconsider and possibly make a different choice. No this vote has finality, the either country leaves the EU or stays within the EU. No wonder with a split Nation, referred to but only in the context of the 'decision to leave', the nation and its political party representatives cannot arrive an outcome that looks bothways and suits those that want to remain and those that want to leave. That is the issue the BBC should be presenting, not as a footnote but as the premise for all programming formats. Instead they capitulate to the Farage soundbite. So wrong.<br />
<br />
The referendum designed as a sticking plaster over the Conservative Parties divisions was deeply flawed in its concept. But that is now history and we are stuck with an inconclusive outcome that is defying all attempts to bridge an impossible divide across the nation. So how should the BBC have responded and demonstrated its impartiality? If you can accept, which I cannot, that there was a decision with the merest of margins then the BBC should have setout to question the 'Remain in EU' benefits and show how they could be better served by 'Leave the EU'. Equally they should have tested all the supposed benefits from leaving the EU. Those two approaches should have been the rockbed for all programming decisions. Instead the BBC defers to the Farage rhetoric, and follows his lead and agenda. Why on earth is so much BBC media time allocated to "No-Deal Brexit", that Farage construct, dismissed by anyone who has a glimmer of understanding of the world political arena.<br />
<br />
In a balanced society the high-octave emotive promises offered by 'Brexit' should have been countered by rigorous matter-of-fact explanations of the benefits that flow out of our EU membership. I can scarcely recollect any discussions where these pro-EU arguments were presented. The only counter, the bias balance to this Brexit posturing was by putting 'Remain' spokespersons on the backfoot to respond to the latest outrageous fantasy claims put out by the Brexit flavour of the moment face. Almost all Brexit stories were led by a Brexit at any cost spoke person, so all those Tories who clearly didn't want Brexit at any cost, all those Tories who wanted to remain within the EU, got scant coverage. Or if given a voice only to have them then counter the latest wild assertions. Bias? Oh yes. The BBC has signally failed to get above this story and set it into the so needed bigger picture. Without the BBC's leadership what chance does the nation have to absorb the real, not the emotive issues, and reach a consensus understanding where the Nation might be able to unite behind it. The BBC has let us all down spectacularly in our hour of most need.<br />
.<br />
<br />Grumpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14206412404319011602noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2690113825254836828.post-26839486559568473262018-11-26T11:40:00.000+00:002018-11-26T11:40:11.617+00:00Brexit - My TakeThe Conservative Party was unable to resolve the rift between the two fractions sheltering under its collective banner. There were those looking back wanting to relive the Empire glory days and those looking forward to Europe to grow a new future for Britain. The solution they came up with to re-unite the Conservative Party was a referendum. As this was more to do about patching over the divisions within the single party state than determining Britain's future there was no need for finesse. So a simple question having a yes/no answer with no minimum threshold was sufficient. As it turned out the country at large reflected the single party state, divided, more or less down the middle. Not a clear cut majority, some parts of the country more or less in favour than other parts. Technically the vote count gave victory to the Brexit, but a victory over a very divided country without a clear ground swell of opinion. The yes/no question was stripped down to its most simplistic, leave or stay. Stripped of any suggestion of complications, consequences or hard choices between conflicting aspirations. Simple, just leave or stay.<br />
<br />
Disappointingly the campaigns leading up to the referendum presented either a cake or a pie. The cake option was promoted with fulsome promises of wonderful slices to be enjoyed. The pie option challenged some of the cake slice toppings but did not promote the pie as a better, healthier and more sustainable offering. Worst of all, no one stood up and said hurrah for Europe, with Europe we can be stronger and within Europe we can make change happen to strengthen the pie we want to work with. So the cake with all its tempting deliciousness won. The tragic irony is that this win did not meld the Conservative Party. The referendum turned out to be an empty gesture. The split within the single party state has grown worse if anything, with the PM frantically trying to apply sticking plaster over the increasing rifts. Even the £1B bribe to the NI DUP party has failed to secure her a safe voting base. Britain of course is now stuck with the win/not win referendum outcome. Only now is a degree of clarity emerging about how pitiful the slices out of the cake may well turn out to be. That cake that was held up to be so luxurious and unctuous is turning out to be frugal snack and the pie that was scorned offers to be far more substantial.<br />
<br />
One of the more attractive slices of cake offered is for Britain to shake free the EU shackles and sign up free trade deals with the rest of the World. I hear it often quoted that Britain has the fifth largest economy in the world. An economy that can only sustains the illusion of prosperity by building ever more houses for investment. Note, not homes for those unable to get on the housing ladder with their 1.8 children (50% in single parent families), just 4-5 executive houses as investment sinkholes wherever the returns are at their greatest. An economy that, according to a UN report is in breach of its Human Rights requirements for many of its underprivileged classes. An economy that is unable to complete the fitout of the second, let along the third of its new largest aircraft carrier and cannot afford to purchase the planes to fly off them. From this sceptred isle we appear to think the Worlds big trading Nations are queuing up to rush and complete amicable trading agreements with us. USofA cannot wait to dump all their surplus produce on us, produce made without restrictions of all those irksome animal welfare concerns or consequential environmental damage. Or China, the unproclaimed leader of the World that has hoovered up the rights to all the rarer elements in this planet is not going to be bothered about any petty limits, or exchange terms we might waft at them. Is it only me that can get real? Or do you all share a scepticism that the World is not panting to do free trade deals with us. Our importance as a world trading nation are over together with the Empire that first sustained it. <br />
<br />
No, our strength now lies with our close neighbours across the channel. Those neighbours that we share so much history, culture and expectations with. Working together we, the combined nations, can be a world force to reckoned with, a force that can require its terms to be heeded. That can make a stand and demand progress towards worthy aspirations. Together Britain can grow strong and can make its own unique voice heard, not just heard but count for the greater good, of us and this planet we have to care for. The is the pie that is on offer. That is the pie we must seize. That is the pie that must offered to the people again so this time they can make an informed choice. A choice made whilst knowing full well of the consequences that flow out of it. Let the single state party sort out its own mess and leave us to direct Britain's future prosperity.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Grumpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14206412404319011602noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2690113825254836828.post-7069200313862042682017-02-04T16:27:00.000+00:002017-02-04T16:27:43.005+00:00Enriched by Public Services<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Only the crassest and the most shallow minded consider that everything costs and therefore everything must pay its way. A way of thinking as befits a grocers daughter or some similar philistine banal mindset. We have to lift our heads up out of the mud our feet are wading through to see higher aspirations, to have hope for a better future, to be inspired by the achievements of those around us and most of all to have a vision for how all on this planet can experience a better life. Big dreams. In the real world there is not unlimited money and there are a thousand competing priorities. Put cost as your first and overriding starting point and the dreams will never even emerge. But without dreams we can never realise a better quality of life no matter how that quality might be imagined. Cost and payback are not the determining factor in a civilised society. Never to be ignored, always with a watchful eye but not the bottom line criterion that they have become.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana";"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">I am ranging way beyond culture the obvious candidate for cost cutting. Yes culture of course to lift the spirit, to raise the hope even just to endeavour to reach beyond the immediate now, we need arts, we need crafts, we need music, we need graphics in all its forms to give shape and meaning to otherwise vague ephemeral glimpses beyond the mundane over familiar present day. Can we agree that culture, with its high costs and indeterminate payback, is a given must have, that frames us as civilised and not savages? If you think it is a no, then this site really is not for you, you must look elsewhere.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana";"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">What I want to promote is the concept of service as an aspirational tool to achieve a better quality of life, for all. 'Service' this word is heavily overworked and has an extraordinary wide range of meanings and connotations. The common usages I want to focus on is, according to the sOED, 'Service' as <em>conduct tending to the welfare or advantage of another</em> and 'Service' as <em>a branch of public employment of such body concerned with some particular work or the supply of some particular need</em>. Service in today's climate is denigrated and demeaned, seen at best as a charity cause to help out those pitiful people too poor to do better. It didn't use to be like that, service industries were once seen as the powerhouse to lift and raise our aspirations as a nation and power us to a better more modern way of life. These are not bad or irrelevant objectives even in today's world? Being able to offer service to an individuals must be the hallmark of a democratic civilised society. Helping those in their moment of need until they can strike out confidently on their own again. Sounds like the sort of place I would like to be. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana";"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Maybe a ticket office manned to help cut through the complexities of tariffs, timetable and alternate conflicting options. Maybe a visible approachable and friendly policeman able to calm, reassure or direct, that would be nice. Of course the more obvious of a nurse with time to reassure, talk and to really understand what is troubling a patient. Or a teacher able to spend time one to one to help that one child overcome their confusion about some new topic. Service providers who are not seen as cost centres, who are required to prove their worth on a daily basis, who are not required to complete offers of help to some predetermined timeslot. The worth is there in payback dividends but not in profit returns the bean counters understand. So the list can go on, Tax Collectors able to spend time to understand the exception's and find more fitting rules, or JobCentre Advisers with the skills and time to actually understand a seekers capabilities with the realistic knowledge of local opportunities. Indeed wherever we as individuals interface with the providers of our wants or needs then there is an essential service input, an input which may not show a profit but certainly oils the wheels and helps society to move smoothly. What price do you put on that?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana";"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Services also include all the utility services, water, electricity, gas, sewers, telephones, refuse collection and the mail. Once state run they were sold off, amid a great fanfare, to companies whose driving force is profit first. Yet they are essential services, services that are at the foundation of the wellbeing to our UKplc. If any of these cinderella services are not there in place with the right capacity our ability as a nation to grow and develop is hampered. Look no further than the stranglehold the provision of highspeed broadband has on any commercial enterprise that is not located in a major conurbation. UKplc is held to ransom because it is 'not profitable' to provide in these smaller communities. Utility Services sold off because in some naive tunnel vision view of some other fantasy world, competition equates to efficiency. No. Equally, state run enterprise does not mean inefficient and extravagant. So make your choice, do you run them for profit for the benefit of shareholders, or, run them well for the benefit of the society that relies on them?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana";"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana";">Finally, Public Service, another broad wide ranging category, now much maligned and held in disdain. Once the pinnacle of UKplc governance, held in esteem around the world, for its expertise, for its detachment and for its impartiality. What happened? Did we run out of good enough scholars to enter the civil services. No, of course not. A deliberate decision was taken to politicise the output of the civil service, overturning centuries of impartial advice. In this new way of thinking, unless civil services responses fully reflected the political aspirations of the government of the time, it was rejected and overturned. Such a small seemingly innocuous step but having catastrophic impact. Now there is no government edict, no report, no forecast, nothing emanating from government that can be trusted or relied on. Everything has to viewed with suspicion for political bias. There is no objectivity, there is no impartiality, everything is tainted with political expediency. Not any way to run a company let alone UKplc.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana";">One woman overturned centuries of governance evolution and wrought chaos. Benefits? Once the initial feeding frenzy for the 'free' goodies on offer had subsided, are we better off, driven by profit for shareholder benefit? Have we totally lost the concept of service to the people to enable them to grow and blossom? Bring back Service to the People, bring hope for a better future for us all.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Grumpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14206412404319011602noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2690113825254836828.post-54485034093551614332017-01-21T16:52:00.000+00:002017-01-21T16:52:24.157+00:00Normal Distorted<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">We live in a hyperPC (politically correct) world where we are all afraid of causing offence to one or other minority group by speaking out of turn. The media is fired up to seize on any example and balloon it into yet another demonstration of prejudice / victimisation / social discrimination with all the hullabaloo that follows. Quite right too, we all have the greatest sympathy for the oppressed or abused and willingly offer compassion to the underdog.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana";"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana";">My problem is that by constant headlining of the trials and travails of these minorities distorts our sense of the normal. Whether it is single mums, gay partners wanting a child, disabled access, religious rites, whatever the subject the focus on their rights and proper concerns creates the impression that this is a concern for all of our society. No it is not! It is not 'normal' to be a single mum and raise children on your own. They are a minority group. The media may choose to focus on single mums for the instant high emotive appeal and easy message they make. But that creates a distorted view. The majority normal group are couples raising a family under one roof. That should be our datum of judgement and expectation. Not the travails of the single parent. Sure, some single mums are truly victims and deserve all our support but not all. Some just choose to be single for thin reasons and all the barriers should not be thrown down to help them. Our perspective that we use to for judgements should be firmly and squarely founded on the 'normal'. If the minority position overshadows and clouds our judgement we cannot come to a proper balanced view.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana";"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana";">Gay couples, or if it comes to that post menstrual women or mid-career women coming late to conception are rich media targets to explain and justify high-tech solutions to creating new babies. But this is not the normal process. The normal way as used by the majority of adults seeking, or even just ending up with, babies, is do it the routine old-fashioned way. No scientific technology required, other than perhaps to defer the chance of success. In a world where there are just too many people having too many babies and where there are way too many babies dying for simple wants, or just as bad, babies growing up bereft of any hope of escape from intolerable conditions, why do we resort to scientific techniques to create even more? Understandably there is the scientific desire to advance our understanding and increase our skills in solving our human condition, but is that sufficient justification? Or is it driven by a selfish egoism craving for that <a href="http://angst-hasit.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/trophy-children.html" target="_blank">trophy child</a> that solidifies your status in society? By over-focussing on these minorities concerns we lose perspective and fail to consider the broader and more fundamental platform of that of the normal majority. We should be challenging the scientists right to use their ever sophisticated techniques, we should unite and focus their attention where the real creation issues are. The normal majority are getting on with it just fine.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana";"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana";">On another tack we are a Christian based society. The overwhelming number of us subscribe to the Christian codes of conduct and moral standards. No longer are most of us practising Christian, going to church with any frequency, but the Christian background as to how our society holds together is deeply rooted in each of us. Part of that Christian background is the requirement within each of us to be tolerant and supportive of other faiths. Supportive in the narrow sense of not hindering rituals and practises of another faith but not to the extent of proactively promoting another faith. That clearly is for them. However if we take these rituals and customs of minority group faiths out of context, a minority group, and elevate each travail and setback as a challenge to the majority Christian society we again are getting the perspective out of kilter again. We are hosts to a wide range of people with a wide range of minority religious beliefs, whether Greek Orthodoxy, Jews, Seven Day Evangelist's, Muslim, Buddhist, it matters not, our duty as the host society is to be tolerant and accommodating of rituals which may appear as strange and out of place. Certainly there should be no discrimination based on a different religious belief. As guests within a host society it befalls on them as guest to constrain their beliefs and rituals, to go out and discover which of their practise cause the most unease amongst their hosts and find ways to tone it down or explain it so as to minimise the chance of causing upset. It is not for the host to set aside the majority position just to let a minority group carry on doing as it wishes regardless. If your religion requires the ritual killing of an animal, if your religion requires your girls to be genitally mutilated or submit to an arranged marriage, if your religion requires compliance with Sharia Law or your religion requires a full burka, don't expect your hosts to set aside their objectives of a free open society where women and men both have opportunities to succeed. You as a minority group in a society will have to defer to the majority expectations in the full knowledge that your desires will be met with tolerance and goodwill.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana";">Just one final note of despair. In bald terms 20% of our populations are disabled in some degree or other and only 1% of out population are wheelchair disabled. A pretty small number, 1% against 99%, right. Disabled toilets are designed around the needs of wheelchair users as defined by the gold standard reference. Selwyn Goldsmiths 'Designing for the Disabled'. The author goes to considerable lengths to emphasis that each disabled person requirements are different and that there is no one suit all arrangement. Behold the Building Regulations lay down standardised disable toilet arrangements that are deemed to suit. Sense the irony? Of course disabled people should not be discriminated against and should be free to travel and move around freely without constraint. To counter discrimination there is a legal requirement that premises open to the public shall provide wheelchair suitable toilet facilities. That speaks for the 1%. The 99% other people also have a right to move around without constraint. The toilet they most frequently encounter in all the shops and public spaces, apart from the very few municipal conveniences left, will be designed for wheelchair disabled use. A toilet which will not suit many of the wheelchair users it is supposed to be designed to help. Wide open out doors. Extra space for a person to stand beside the wheelchair, space to side transfer from chair to seat. Hand holds, alarms, seat height heights, elbow action taps, basin and mirror height accessible from chair. Cosy for those wheelchair users that just happen to have the right handicap to suit that particular arrangement. As a member of the 18% or so of the elderly population I can confirm that the ability to hold on until a suitable public toilet can be located diminishes with age and begins to become critical. We have urgent needs to be met. Not to wait in a queue until the one oversized, occupying the space for at least two cubicles, unisex facility is free. There to be confronted with appliances set too low at that risk back damage from stooping, or fumbling with flimsy elbow fittings or even worse a toilet out of commission because the disabled friendly levers and handles just cannot cope with high public usage. It is ended up all-about-face. The majority, the normal person on the street has to accepted compromised facilities which are slewed to suit the needs of a very small minority of users.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana;">A wide range of high principled objectives have resulted in completely distorting the wide spread recognition of what it is to be normal within the broadband of the majority. The majority now identify themselves from the narrow perspective of the small minority groups point of view. It is all an Alice in Wonderland distortion.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana";"><br />
</span>Grumpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14206412404319011602noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2690113825254836828.post-22832288057895905372016-03-16T10:45:00.000+00:002016-03-16T10:45:42.696+00:00Right to Dissent<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">For many the acts or terrorists are so heinous, such a threat to civilised society, that any measures that might thwart their evil deeds is fully justifiable. Under this blanket of fear the Government gets a free ride to introduce its innocuous sounding IPB, Investigatory Powers Bill, better and more correctly known as the snoopers charter. A Bill which grants powers that the European Court of Justice has already stated contravene basic human rights. The Government is granting itself the right to open, read and store any electronic communication it chooses, from anyone to anyone. A blanket right to listen to phone calls, read EMails, anything sent electronically is open book to them.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Totally justifiable you might say if it stops another terrorists attack that we have been warned to expect any minute. Except of course a terrorist to one party is a freedom fighter to another party. All depends on your point of view. The Establishment, the upholder of the status quo, gets to label all dissent against it. Any group of people that gather and agree to disagree with the Establishment will be labelled but that label can range from 'protesters' to 'pickets' to 'mob' to 'uprising' to 'revolution' and so on all the way out to the extreme fringes. What we do know is that the Establishment will always seeks ways to supress dissent, any dissent. The only possible restraint will be their perception of public support and how far they expect to be able to 'manage' it. By manage we mean of course to bend, swerve, falsify, distort events and news to shift perceptions.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">With this snoopers charter the Establishment, our Government elected to serve us, has given itself powers which enable it to monitor all dissent from what ever source and for what ever motive. Anything that suggests it is contrary to Government intentions, will be flagged. Once flagged, all participants, all associates of participants, all previously contacts of participants will be scrutinised for possible intents. All their past and present actions and comments will be reviewed in the light of possible threat, signs of contrary thoughts, evidence of lack of support for the Government aspirations and will be re-examined for assumed indicators of future actions. The data mining, the algorithms, the 'Case Officer' will be working with so much information there will no scope for subtleties, for nuances or even common sense. So that jest, that floating of an idea, that game of devils advocate, that day dreaming, that idle speculation are all at risk of being taken out of context, just bundled up as proof against you. Just remember you cannot ever prove innocence. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana;">With the power to collect and interpret as they choose ideas at their very point of inception the Government gives itself the ability to step in and take avoiding actions. Actions that can range from isolating individuals, surveillance, planting of decoys, warnings all the way to arrest search or other life disruptions. They put themselves in the position to totally control any developments as the initiating ideas and membership grows. They are all seeing, all hearing and only they get to decided on the rights or wrongs.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">If it stops another terrorist its okay then? Any dissent? You may not agree with the Coal Miners actions to save their industry. You may not agree with the sit-in at Greenham Common. You may not agree with the HS2 protests. You may not agree with collect actions against the Single Past the Post system. You may not agree with the discontinuation of the Monarchy. You may not agree to bring an end to Party Politics and reinstate direct and accountable democracy. But you must agree the right to dissent from the Government is paramount. Dissent which can only be by collective action, actions that may fly close or even beyond what the Government of the day decrees legitimate. We should never ever give up our right to revolution as a final resort. Our right to collective action should be free of Establishment intimidation. Our friends and all the people we come into contact with should never be put under the microscope of suspicion just because we choose to dissent. Any more than our own innocent pasts should never be subjected to prejudiced retrospection just because we shared an EMail with the parent of our daughters friend who just happened to be radical. Dissent is what keeps us safe not the Snoopers Charter.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span>Grumpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14206412404319011602noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2690113825254836828.post-60836825108033438802016-01-25T16:50:00.002+00:002016-01-25T16:50:26.116+00:00Trophy Children<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">It strikes me that there is an all pervading expectation that adults have an ordained right to have child as and when it pleases them. No questions, this is an absolute, I want a child, I want it now so why are you not making it happen? Nature of course is very complicit in this and more often than not, sometimes to all-round consternation, pregnancies come along easily. That is for most young heterosexual couples. Just because perhaps it can be too easy to conceive we mistake that as a right to conceive. Now children are great fun, through them we can rediscover and enjoy once again our childhood, through the contacts made around children we can slide easily into new social circles with multitudes of opportunities to boast, display our child or parent skills and engage in all manner of one-upmanship contests and with a child as entry ticket we can exalt in all manner of events and occasions. Should the child's needs clash with your ongoing adult life there are plenty of opportunities to park them out with all manner of educational enrichments to boot. Or failing that option then just parking them infront of a TV or a computer console will ensure you can get on with those essential adult tasks with the minimum of distractions. So good to have children around, it feels right, familiar and is after all what every other couple expects. You are conforming to the social norms. You have child, purrr.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">When child mortality was so high in the past, the supremacy of new life, any new life, was paramount to the survival of the nation. We are in a different era, there are too many of us on this planet, beyond what it can renewably sustain but we each want to add our child into the pool, to reproduce and further increase this pressure of just too many people. We have outgrown our planet. The sanctity of life is no longer a prime issue, instead we should be thinking deeply about the quality of the children we already have and even more so about those children that might come in the future. Those that are born to carry our genes forward, what should we set as a benchmark when considering all the deprived children, the maimed children, the children born with life challenging abnormalities, the children yet to be born or at the moment of conception? We should want all our children to be self-confident, enthused and full of hope as they launch out into the world. Sure children are highly resilient and can overcome the most dreadful of beginnings but they do carry those emotional and physicals scars, from that childhood, into their adult lives to pass on reflections of their horrors endured into the next generation. So with a reduced pool of children going forward we should want to encourage that the most assured and confident children carry our genes forward and not the scarred and maimed.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">We should be aware of a range of concerns that impinge on whether or not the children we choose to have occupy this pole position of assured and confident. Same sex couples are biologically incapable of having a child sharing genes from both partners. Surrogate genes are just that, apart from many other issues, the motivation and or selection of genes thus acquired has to be questioned. I go further, the right environment for a child to grow is within that tension between the male and female roles. Only here can the child truly explore and understand this complex relationship and learn where they fit within these complimentary but almost opposing models. When career choices and or the ability to afford a home pushes back the mothers age for a first child beyond the early thirties in to the forties and even further on into the sixties, the risk of foetal errors increases as does the inability to readily conceive. If the career is the first choice then the honour of creating the genes to be passed on should move over to others fully committed to the mother role. Nowadays the stable family unit is no longer the norm instead serial partners with half-siblings are the new units. There are many strands to why this is occurring. The key issue is that a family unit that has overcome the tensions that arise between the male female bonding is a stable model and a good environment for child development. A pairing which, for whatever reasons, fails, leading to separation and new pair relationship to be formed, damages the children involved leaving them scarred, confused about their identity and their self-worth. This does not bode well for their development or their induction of future generations. Just because a woman is a natural mother with an inexhaustible appetite for yet another baby to care for, does not automatically mean that she is the right choice. Beyond some number there are just too many children in one family to be given full attention and the woman's body cannot recover from successive pregnancies, leading to runt babies. A final thought, we be protective of our gene pool and make sure, short of breeding for specific characteristics, that inherited defects, such as cystic fibrosis, are not passed. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana";">Nothing could be further from my intention that any couple wanting to have a child should be prevented. Perversely, such is life, the most unlikely child parent circumstance may well turnout an exemplary child. The State can and does choose to influence how society responds to issues. Often using taxes as a way of nudging behaviour in a direction. So I have nothing more in mind than that. A nudge, a financial incentive, where the outcome favours the emergence of a self-confident, enthusiastic and hopeful new adult. A tax regime with a nominal tax credit for any children during the first three years. After the third year the child tax credit cranks up significantly until a substantive level is reached only to taper off from sixth form until it ceases on graduation. However there are key criteria. The genetic parents must still be in a viable live together relationship, else it reverts to base nominal level. The benefit for all children in the family tapers off sharply with each succeeding child after the third. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana;">I sense howls of protest, discrimination, fault, blame, victimisation but society does have to make choices. It has to promote what is in its best interest, not the individual interests. Individual respond and make life style choices based on the freedoms they perceive society offers them. Singles parent should not be on the choice list, IVF should not be there on demand. Serial Partnerships should not be on the same footing as a longterm stable marriage. The trophy child should be confined to history. We have to make choices. We should choose carefully to ensure the children we do have emerge healthy, bright-eyed, confident and eager to take on tomorrow's world, carrying us along with their enthusiasm.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana";"><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">ps: Initially this was just going to be a post in </span><a href="https://somersetspiess.wordpress.com/"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">https://somersetspiess.wordpress.com/</span></a><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> just airing some passing thoughts. But the more I considered the more I realised this is a mainline political theme that strikes at the core of our society. So this Blog is the better location. I hope you find it.</span></span>Grumpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14206412404319011602noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2690113825254836828.post-65301552976149617552015-07-29T07:26:00.000+01:002015-07-29T07:26:26.104+01:00Small Fry, Big Pond<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">In this global world we live in there are two power houses who between them control, manipulate and set the agenda for all the other Nations. They are of course China and USofA, except China is just getting into its stride and poor USofA is running out of puff and can now only bluster, pretending it still is in its prime. There are other potentials in the wings watching the drift and looking where the most advantage can be achieved by forming alliances, Russia, Middle East and the rest of Asia. And then there is Europe. Of all the those waiting in the wings Europe has the most potential to step into the vacuum left by USofA's loss of virility, if only it could sort itself out.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Europe needs a dynamic and cohesive core that sets aside trivial national interests and effectively works together for the greater good. That is the promise, a promise yet to materialise. It really doesn't help to have UKplc whingeing on the sidelines for ever moaning about being in, or wanting out, or being in but only partially in with an opt out clause. The powerhouse core with an industrial commercial muscle behind it is clearly France, Germany and England. Not diminishing the contributions of the other allied countries but that is where the EU strength lies, these three nations. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">It totally beggars belief that any sane person can seriously contemplate UKplc trading as a sole Nation could stand up to the rest of the World and seek to amend or change trading terms. Even if, with a miracle wand, suddenly all the associated Commonwealth Nations fell into line we still would be a trading irrelevance. With out any power to influence we would be totally subservient to what the other world powers decide are the standards and terms of trade, a total capitulation. That is not my UKplc history. We have a long commercial and industrial history that should be key and influential in setting world agendas. But not if we speak alone, only if we are in step and in tune with our close European partners. A true meld of our strengths.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">To work together in harmony, willing to surrender local interests for the common good requires trust. Trust can only be fully founded within societies that have common, similar, parallel cultural and moral codes. Where the word expressed can be confidently taken to mean what it says and not to be confounded by some off the wall interpretation germinated in another different set of cultural values. Unless black is black or white is white or truth is truth only then can trust flourish. I feel that bond with Germany, we share of lot of European history, I share that bond with France we fought against each other or together many times, I feel a bond with the Netherlands. I recognise a lot of common similarities with Italy, Spain, Sweden, reaching out further I begin to get uneasy, too many cultural differences and response at variance with my expectations to feel truly comfortable. By the time we get to Estonia, Croatia, Latvia or even Cyprus I am saying, whoa, I have absolutely no idea where their priorities are, their approach to integrity or commitment, where their deep instinctive loyalties lie. I don't know them and therefore cannot understand them as societies, irrespective of whether they fall under some label called Western Europe. This then is the issue I have with the EU.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">The founding aim to re-unite Western Europe all under one umbrella is laudable. Fine as a loose trading partnership, a forum for reaching agreement on unity and support. But tied in to one united monetary and legislative system, no several steps too far. We need a two tiered EU. The core of tightly bonded nations, willing and able to surrender their individual pasts and work cohesively together. When they get their act together only then to expand, cautiously, brining in a new partner at a time. This is the EU vision I can support, a vision where UKplc has to be committed and in. A EU where the referendum is irrelevant, the only alternative to commercial suicide and where xenophobia just does not arise.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Grumpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14206412404319011602noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2690113825254836828.post-36918005676731702602015-05-06T10:16:00.000+01:002015-05-06T10:17:06.748+01:00Not that lone voice<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">I have been going on about how the Political Parties have subverted democracy to their own power cause. See: </span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2690113825254836828#editor/target=post;postID=3845584886023495355;onPublishedMenu=posts;onClosedMenu=posts;postNum=5;src=postname" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">The Political No Vote</span></a><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">, </span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2690113825254836828#editor/target=post;postID=6003810709140669522;onPublishedMenu=posts;onClosedMenu=posts;postNum=1;src=postname" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Political Wilderness</span></a><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">, </span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2690113825254836828#editor/target=post;postID=5281818305011638070;onPublishedMenu=posts;onClosedMenu=posts;postNum=3;src=link" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Living a Now Life</span></a><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">. I choose not to select a Party and if I am not able to Vote for a person to represent me, me not their party, or am not able to vote for None of the Above then I will not Vote. In parallel I object to being reduced to making the illiterates mark of an 'X' to signify my choices. In this day and age we are capable of expressing and uniting on a far wider and complex range of thoughts, opinions and agreements. An 'X' says nothing. Going on about it but apprehensive, was I unrealistic, too idealistic, too remote from the nitty gritty of every day, just an oddball with a soap box. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Turns out, thanks to, of all publications, the New Scientist - </span><a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0262407915302189" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">We the People</span></a><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (see also </span><a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22630182.800-technology-can-give-political-power-back-to-the-people.html#.VUnYY2d0yXI" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">A Vote for Change</span></a><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">) that I am not alone! Across the democratic world there are thousands of people with similar thoughts all looking to find better ways of applying democracy in practice. People with very similar ideas actually trying out and trailing alternative ways of enabling the everyman to contribute to a consensus view. Vindication! With Facebook and Google claiming to know before I do where my interest lie why oh why have they not promoted these other organisations onto my news feeds? Surely it cannot be that no advertising income is being generated by peoples democracy? So join in the discussion, you and I are not alone, there is a movement out there of like mind people. We just need to connect with them.</span>Grumpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14206412404319011602noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2690113825254836828.post-81620788985444513452015-04-28T12:18:00.000+01:002015-04-28T12:18:13.836+01:00Nothing to Live For<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">When each day drearily unfolds exactly as the last day, unremittingly, never changing, the same lack of options, the self same lack of certainty of food, lack of warmth, lack of change of clothes, life is miserable. When you cannot afford to be with friends, or worse old friends shun you, because you are not able to keep up with their exploits, then life is deeply despondent. When you mooch around waiting for those endless minutes to pass, you see and watch from outside all those other people, people just like you but better off, able to have nice things to use, able to mix and buy stuff with or for each other, able to have friends and make plans together. Without it life is worthless, there is nothing to live for. For why? You never had their chances, maybe a stable home, progress to higher education, opportunity to prove you can do better the next person, someone to confirm that you are doing okay or any combination of some or all of the above if nothing more extreme. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">The one missing ingredient above all else is, hope. With hope that makes tomorrow a possibility. Without hope life is not worth living. If life is not worth living any other options becomes attractive even addictive. To shoplift, steal, joyride or just wreck whatever. Gain some local pride or notoriety and join a gang to graffiti your presence in the world and intimidate those not of your group. Or surrender to terrorism, get swept up in a cult where you at last have recognition and cadre amongst your own kind. A chance to gain hope even though in a hopeless endgame!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Hope requires so little yet can surmount so much. A helping hand, even that is more than needed, just a chance to change some small aspect of tomorrow is a starting point. A point from when hope can at last flicker back into being and with care can be fanned into a strong desire. Yet we, all of us, that have, have to give so there can be hope. A sustainable hope that is not extinguished by the very next stumble. With hope we can save all those around us, living amongst, that have lost the will to live. We just need to get back to a fair and equitable life style where everyone of us can hope to succeed. Where success does not depend on your pocket, or your families wealth or connections but simply on your ability and willingness to try. Now that gives me hope</span>Grumpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14206412404319011602noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2690113825254836828.post-40117797964633202602015-04-06T16:40:00.000+01:002015-04-06T16:40:31.887+01:00Being Accountable<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Let me clarify. I do not believe in free enterprise. Our human desires and the consequences of achieving those desires requires to be tempered, we each have to exercise restraint. Or have restraint imposed on us. Neither do I believe in some centralised state control, equality for all. We are all too varied in our needs, access to resources and aspirations. No, what I been flogging over many of these blogs is the need to get back to belonging to a community. A caring community that is accountable and responsible to those that relate to it. A community that is meaningful and able to better the quality of life for each of us that belong to it. In this globalised world we exist within, this matrix society, we may belong to a duplicity of communities with varying degrees of weak to very strong bonds. Our membership maybe often be transitory but in key communities membership is non-cancellable, it is lifelong. Our life has to governed by the communities we bond with, with the obligations, responsibilities and expectations that their membership entails. You cannot be honourable and a freebooter. Holding your head up amongst your peers seems to be a core value requisite in each of us as members of a civilised society. Whichever way you frame it, membership has its price but also returns in kind.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Tythings I knew of as a word. I have just finished a book where, for the first time, I encountered an explanation where the full significance dawned. A tything was a medieval unit of ten households where the heads of house looked out for each other head of house and was held to account for any misdoings by anyone within that tything. Not just his own household but anyone properly tied to the group. A collective reprimand for any one individuals failings but also a caring supportive framework for each group member. An automatic support response, regardless of status, wealth or worthiness, just dependant on degree of need.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">In arriving at a new definition of community, relevant to our century, we too could do with a tything concept. A core group we are responsible and accountable too. A group of peers bound by familiar circumstances and backgrounds. Able to relate, respond and reprimand as the occasion demands without judgement or censure. Membership where the group can achieve far beyond that of any one individual and can reach out and be significant in a much wider network of like minded groups. That is beginning to sound like a community structure where we can have a voice, a voice that counts, a voice that is tempered by consensus, a voice able to give as well as receive, a voice that can rebuked if too extreme. No room here for smug pleasure seeking self-satisfaction and gratification. Time to stand up and be counted.</span><br />
<br />
Grumpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14206412404319011602noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2690113825254836828.post-76954383389353137052015-03-30T08:12:00.000+01:002015-03-30T08:12:12.177+01:00Above all else, profit rules<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">The government has decreed that pension </span><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31892518" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">annuities can be cashed in</span></a><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">. With stagnation in shares, next to nothing in interest rates where is this money released to go? Why, to buy houses to rent of course. It just so happens the developers have been given more or less carte blanche to build on any green belt, common, SSSI reserve, public open space or good agricultural field they choose. Just happens that first time buyers can no longer afford to buy the houses for sale. So the retired generation, using their pension funds are snapping up, at highly preferential government incentives, any house for sale to rent out, to these first time home couples. UKplc economic 'recovery' is founded on building more houses. More houses means more furnishing, more white goods selling more means everyone feels better and jobs are generated to build the houses in the first place then all the goods needed to fill them. So simple! All boxes ticked, no one can possibly complain and everyone is happy. UKplc is all fired up.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Except it is not that simple. Another super container ship leaves China to restock all those emptying shelves. What we do not have is a resurgence in UKplc manufacturing for a world wide market. Worse still, to raise the money to buy the houses for rent requires new 'private' loans to be taken out, increasing our national indebtedness. Interest on those loans requires even more spending on stuff to pay the interest to keep the wheels turning. This then is the economic miracle that UKplc recovery is based on. Increase loans taken out so you can spend more. Developers are only in it for profit, profits come from quick turn round on easy green sites, take objectors out of the sequence and they can are performing miracles. House are shooting up all around the wealthier parts of UKplc. Towns are expanding at unprecedented rates just not necessarily houses to suit the homes needed nor necessarily in the right places.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Once apon a time UKplc used to have a vision, a view for a future and how to reorganise and arrange itself. How best to look after all its people and how to foster communities and encourage production. All swept aside. Now the only deciding factor is profit. Where can you make most profit and more quickly? These are the new ground rules that determine the future that we will pass on to our next generations. Scant else to pass on to them as all the inherited wealth we were given custodianship off has or will be sold off. National Park for sale, Stately Home for sale, Crown Estates for sale, national collections for sale. Any takers? You can name your own terms! This is not some Orwellian nightmare. This is reality, here and now.</span>Grumpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14206412404319011602noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2690113825254836828.post-37330631179560718302015-03-21T17:20:00.000+00:002015-03-21T17:20:39.287+00:00going forward<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Just read a lengthy wordy article. </span><a href="http://billmoyers.com/2015/03/17/inequalitys-dead-end-possibility-new-long-term-direction/" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Inequality at a dead end</span></a><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">. Setting out yet again the case for the damage being done by the growing economic inequality. Then, significantly moving on to assess whether or how the existing institutions could bring about the changes necessary. The conclusion was they could not, we are doomed to stalemate, there is too much invested into the status quo. However it then when on to explore the new ways that people are coming together to tackle one aspect or another of the impact of inequality. Hurrah.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Far from claiming to have any solutions, what my blogs over these years have been grappling with is, seeking out suggestions for alternate ways that we can work together. Smack on trend. Not solutions but indications of where and how. Looking back over my blogs you will see that I have been exploring different ways to raise finance, different ways to benefit and protect our resource, finding a different relationship to big corporation but most of all how we can come together to look after ourselves, locally driven, not imposed by a central authoritarian government.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">This exploration in an age where we are all (largely) self-centred, seeking instant gratification and indifferent to the wider social needs. Yet despite this, I do believe, we do have to rediscover a new community connection, relevant to the 21C, where we can come together as a caring community and forge solutions meaningful to us. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">To find those new solutions means having the courage to join the debate, exchanging views, sharing experiences. learning from each other and slowly working out answers together. United we can own the world. Silent or as individuals, we are at the buffers, going nowhere. So your view is............</span>Grumpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14206412404319011602noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2690113825254836828.post-13681017055070981222015-03-02T08:06:00.000+00:002015-03-02T08:06:37.879+00:00Trust v Control<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Control is by far away the easiest option. Lay down your parameters, set up monitoring systems and then apply punitive measures on selected defaulters. In principle. In practice entirely a different matter. Parameters have to hit a broadband of human activity which, because it is human and we are all unique, has to cover a wide range nuances. Being human each of us will challenge the parameter as to why it does not apply to us because our own circumstance is different. As individuals we need to be differentiated from the crowd. By claiming that difference we assert our distinction from the crowd we are lumped into. Monitoring has to find that fine line between being too overt, thrusting control too upfront, challenging all comers to defy it or so covert as to be missed, encouraging mass defiance. Then punitive measures have to be applied to carefully selected defaulters, too broad a sweep and the administrative systems are overloaded, to few key representative defaulters and too many other defaulters will consider they have immunity. Being inventive and creative humans, long used to labouring under the choke of authority, we too apply our skills to evade, avoid, confuse, misrepresent or dissemble, anything other than just accept to being controlled by that parameter.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Trust is entirely another matter. Just a broad parameter is all that is needed then each person interprets it application to them within their own framework of experience. All those nuances reflecting individual difference are no longer needed. Maybe an occasional dialogue, indicating some extreme of interpretation, might have to be initiated to remove common misplace understandings. The beauty of trust is that each person does their own self-monitoring but there is the downside. Being people most will comply scrupulously, some will get away will as little restraint as they dare and a few will flout and exploit any apparent laxity. Any overt monitoring will quickly be seen as confounding the trust. If you are going to be checking up then there is no point in my restraint. Come on, lets see how far we can push this. Equally if abuse is too wide spread then dissatisfaction rapidly sets in. "Look they are all getting away with it why should I bother" become the norm of the day. So there has to be covert monitoring to pick out those most public and extreme abuses. Engage in dialogue and it can become almost self-policing. Complaints will readily identify where and almost inevitably the who of the more troubling abuses. Then it is either a matter of corrective dialogue or punitive measures to make a public example of non-compliers. Rather than over-loading the administration with large numbers of defaulters to be processed, all that is needed is a showtrial which has wide spread circulation picking out a blatant defaulter receiving just and equitable punishment.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">In the end we do have choices, we do all decide which type of society we want to live in. Either by silent submission or by the clarity of our voiced wishes. What is your choice? Monitors at each and every street corner with ever more draconian rules or a relaxed society able to live with itself and adapt to change?</span>Grumpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14206412404319011602noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2690113825254836828.post-85118446384253910822015-01-06T10:35:00.000+00:002015-01-07T07:41:27.372+00:00Halting Inequality growth<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">At last there is now widespread discussion about the growing inequality gap and the social evils that come along in its trail. These messages are beginning to heard but what is missing are practical suggestions of what we can do tomorrow that will start to reverse the trend. This is the discussion that we now urgently need. In past blogs I have indicated several different ways in which our Economy has to change to better cope with today's pressures and social needs. Such change can be seismic, takes a while to gain critical mass, turn minds around, set aside trusted answer and face the new. What we need right now are immediate steps that work within the accepted norms. Here are my offerings. Things that could be done right away, that will make a tangible difference and whose impact will be felt within months not decades.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Housing is the new South Sea bubble, sucking in all the loose change cause that is the only market that is sure to produce dividends. Not just homegrown goldminers but gold seekers from around the world, House are bought to capitalise on it and matters not if they stand empty. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Step 1. All domestic property whose address is not recorded on an Electoral Register and cannot prove a minimum six month protected tenancy is taxed at an exorbitant rate. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Our commercial core is being manipulated to provide instant profit to satisfy the demands of the investing institutions solely looking to todays deal. We have to break away and restore a longterm strategy back into our commercial core. Individuals are much more likely to take a long view and not the micro-second shifts in share values.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Step 2. Shareholder voting rights removed from Institutional hands. Votes only accepted from verified individuals, proxy voting disallowed.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Our economics have been distorted out of all recognition. Illusionary money made out of gambles on financial outturns is just lunacy, a fictional charade but unfortunately one that is self-perpetuating. It can never be a basis for building a countries future. We have to restore common-sense, investment in people and workplaces does matter.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Step 3. Sliding scale corporate tax introduced. Enterprises able to prove investment in building and equipment and people granted lowest rates with longterm write-off whilst those making money out of gambling on financial outturns paying a crippling high rate with no set-offs. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">There are a lot of social injustices that have to rectified but as a first step we have to set a limit. How extreme, how polarised can we afford our country to be, between those that have nothing, not even hope and those who have everything plus the control that wealth brings? </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Step 4. A penalising high personal tax for any individual claiming residency in this country whose combined income or control of assets exceeds say 1:50 of that of the lowest paid. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">So here is my challenge to all you Electoral Candidates out there, come up with a better scheme to stop this iniquitous inequality.</span>Grumpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14206412404319011602noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2690113825254836828.post-22061747227845402862014-10-05T17:12:00.000+01:002014-10-05T17:12:44.257+01:00Perspective<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Whatever we do, wherever we go, whatever we think we carry our past with us. All of our thoughts and actions carry tendrils that reach back into the past. Most tendrils may only go back into recent living memory, a large number may go back a few generations, a few may go back a long way to medieval times, such as the times of the plague, and one or two may stretch way back into the mist of time, the stone age or even beyond. We are inescapably tied to our past. It shapes and determines how we think for the future.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Today we are plagued by short-termism. This country in particular has no long-term investment view. What is the least input required to be able take out the grosses benefit, that is the ruling mantra. Our ancestors took pride in what they produced, mostly, they put all their skills into making something to hand on to the next generation. What they produced was their measure of worth, their public mark of where they stood in their community. Not for them the quick cheap fix, stuff it in nobody will notice or care. We have inherited those quality products and now routinely trash them with contempt. Today the labour cost is king whilst thousands are idle or employed in lowgrade drudgery work. But hey technology is changing so fast there is no point in making things to last anymore and robots do a much more consistent and faster job than any human. What do I care, nothing to do with me, I will just buy the next model upgrade and see if that works any better.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Sitting on top of this economic model that drives our culture are the Supermarkets, exploiting to the very limits, promoting and using every psychological trick to encourage us to revel in this throw away society. Buy more, buy cheaper, buy because its not going to be there tomorrow, buy, buy. To placate the institutional shareholdings who only look for the percentage gain this minute to the next minute and most certainly have no stake in a week, month or even a years strategy let alone any long term goal. The Supermarkets need to keeping increasing the amount they sell day by day. Squeezing their suppliers and manufacturers to cut corners, to cut standards, to cut quality, anything to reduce costs by that pence here or there. Cutting until just before the point of customer drift. Maintaining high standards and expectations, promoting a strive to improve quality and experience just are not their agenda. Lulled as we are into this false security of trusting our run-of-the-mill supplier, the Supermarket outlet. They are doing what is best for us. Ha. In our name they are corrupting the quality of life we depend on. They do not have a balance sheet on the numbers of people kept in production employment, the plunder of raw resources, the wanton accumulation of discard's to be tipped, they are just exploiting the economic model. The model which states labour is an key expense and throwaway is cheaper then longevity. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Just remember there is nothing intrinsic about labour being a dominate cost factor, just as there nothing intrinsic about cheap throwaway technology. We are bright enough and creative enough to devise alternative economic models, if we choose to. Models, just for example, that reward local production, that reward least use of raw materials, that have long shelf life's, that have upgradeable platforms or reusable core components. There are lots of other options to consider, if we had the will. If we chose not to treat our Earth as infinite landfill site and face the reality of diminishing natural resources. We could if only we cared. We might then rediscover a pride in what we passed on to our children.</span><br />
Grumpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14206412404319011602noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2690113825254836828.post-70793944376237695602014-10-01T16:22:00.000+01:002014-10-01T16:28:50.095+01:00Staking out who we areIn a barely scientific article I am indebted to the New Scientist "<a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329850.600-end-of-nations-is-there-an-alternative-to-countries.html" target="_blank">Imagine there's no countries</a>" for opening up a new horizon for me. Enabling me to draw together several strands of posts that related but didn't appear to gel. In essence, the article proposes that, the idea of having a Nationality is a construct only a couple of hundred years old. Self identity is all about the pool of people you directly relate to and the lower echelons in the hierarchy of authority you are required to respond to. As Society became more complex, with the growing industrialisation and the Empire, so the need for an ever expanding bureaucracy. The idea of Nationhood emerged to symbolise this overarching administration. You deferred no longer to the Squire, or the Church or the local Lord but to Government. It hardly matters whether or not you accept this premise. Suffice that it raises the subject that there are alternative ways to view allegiances. What ties those allegiance's together is not some despot figurehead but the necessary administrative functions. What keeps the wheels turning, bringing in the finance, making laws and enforcing the rules of conduct. That is at the core of what bonds us, you to me and us to all the rest we recognise as being part of us. Our acceptance of being an essential cog in this great mesh of things that keeps us all healthy, safe and secure.<br />
<br />
My fundamental starting point is that we are now a <a href="http://angst-hasit.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/matrix-society.html" target="_blank">Matrix Society</a>. Our allegiances are now multi-facetted between work, leisure, entertainment, family, friends, education, sport. Not one encompasses all our out there network of known people with all the separate obligations and expectations that arise out of all these disparate networks. Each facet will have its own distinct feel and set of rules. Where now our sense of one Nation? In my Posts I keep coming back to exploring how we can have any sense of community, how that community has to learn to work together and how being a community can be the only answer to <a href="http://angst-hasit.blogspot.co.uk/2009/12/enroute-to-totalitarism.html" target="_blank">Totalitarianism</a>. Just dip into some of my past Posts that range over exploring different aspects of Community, living with each other:<br />
<ul>
<li><a href="http://angst-hasit.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/keeping-to-rules.html" target="_blank">Keeping to Rules</a></li>
<li><a href="http://angst-hasit.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/checks-and-balances.html" target="_blank">Checks and Balances</a></li>
<li><a href="http://angst-hasit.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/held-to-account.html" target="_blank">Held to Account</a></li>
<li><a href="http://angst-hasit.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/in-whom-we-trust.html" target="_blank">In Whom we Trust</a></li>
<li><a href="http://angst-hasit.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/centre-revolution.html" target="_blank">Centre Revolution</a></li>
<li><a href="http://angst-hasit.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/power-to-people.html" target="_blank">Power to the People</a></li>
<li><a href="http://angst-hasit.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/of-community.html" target="_blank">Of the Community</a></li>
</ul>
So the revelation is that we give up this novel idea of belonging to one particular Nation, it is far too limiting and restrictive. Instead under the umbrella of a European Convention we move in and out of differing communities. For example, our work world maybe global and that governs the where and how's of doing business. Our home life maybe regional and we look to the macro Region Administration for the provision of services we rely on. Our children's welfare and education may be District based providing the necessary access and contacts whilst our leisure maybe entirely local dependant on the immediate surroundings network of contacts. Each person with their own unique blend of communities, no rigid boundaries, differing sets of obligations and requirements applying to each community that in turn rely on its own specific authorities. Gone one Nation, welcome to a meld of Regions and clusters of Local Areas. Welcome to this New World.Grumpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14206412404319011602noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2690113825254836828.post-39293350585047719162014-08-20T08:20:00.000+01:002015-04-06T16:43:21.004+01:00Redacted<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">The BBC has lost sight of why TV was created and became so popular. The visual image adds so much more depth to the story that is told. A moving image enhances and expands that depth allowing the viewer to interpolate the sequences with all their own life experiences. What more so than the news stories, pressing home all the varied extremes of human life. Nowadays, more and more often, in the news we are offered a background and pair of shoes! Even worse the frames are deliberately set out of focus so nothing can be seen, just vague impression of, of nothing really. Just the denial of visual media. What is the worst of all are scenes where selected faces are pixelated to ensure that that person cannot be identified. This is all so wrong. If a story is important enough to be told tell it straight.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">The news scenes we are shown are recorded in the public domain, out in the open. All observers at that location can readily see what we are prevented from seeing. Why? What are we so afraid of as a Society that we must hide our children away? For fear of what? What tangible dreadful act can be unleashed by showing the faces of our children? Is the location really going to be descended on by hordes of what, to do what, abuse them, vilified them, sneer at them for their social position, ridicule their fashion? No. If adults are out an about behaving in totally inappropriate manners, why should they be protected and obscured out of focus? If you are in public, no matter what the provocation or excuse, you have to conduct yourself with restraint. Incase Society will judge you. If you are empowered by the state to carry out official functions, policemen, prison guard, nurse, border controls, bailiffs, what ever role, why should you need or require to have your identity pixelated out? You are lawfully doing your work within the limits placed on you and carried out with integrity.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">In this ever increasing rush to Totalitarianism just pause. Think back to East Germany and the Stasi reign of terror over the cowered a population, ever afraid of who was overhearing or reporting back on your every action. This rush to ever more define, regulate and consequentially reprimand for non-compliance all aspect of human activity obscures the core principle of all societies. What binds us together, are not laws, not GCHQ snoopers, not law enforcers, you cannot coerce citizens into becoming better citizens. What binds society together is our need for acceptance and the fear of disapproval from our social peers within our community. Not what the top dog of the day declares, just the nod of agreement from that neighbour. So faces do matter. They, not shoes, not body movement, not locations, faces are what we scan for clues to belonging, for hanging some sort of relationship onto. Do we know these children or can we relate to them? Are those misbehaving adults part of our group, if so can we express our disapproval? If not can we draw clues as to who in our network may too be inclined to stray. Faces are key. Even more so for officials going about their lawful business. Yes we do need to see them and to be able to recognise them. Yes we do need to be able mix their off-duty life with their official activities. To pass appreciation or reprimand on how they choose to discharge their duties. We should all be in fear of anonymous officials who do not need to account for their actions, are free to officiate without any constraints. When a policeman can choose to refuse to comment or worse lie about actions clearly taken yet still have their superiors support we are in deep trouble. If the face is known, their social peers will make it perfectly clear what behaviour is unacceptable. Quick, salient, efficient and so effective far beyond what rule books, tribunals, inquests, enquiries, reports, all the paraphernalia of top down control can possibly achieve. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Redaction in modern speak is the blackout of evidence which is deemed a risk, legal or security. Just a highfalutin word used to obscure a very nasty truth. Someone with a secret wants to hide what is actually going on because they fear adverse reactions. They wish to set themselves aside from the society they are part of so their society is not able to judge them. Frightening. Openness and having to account to your immediate social peers is the only thing that keeps us on the right track. Everytime you encounter someone deliberately concealing their identity shout out aloud, for all to hear, imposter!</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Grumpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14206412404319011602noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2690113825254836828.post-43305748063213760182014-08-03T10:58:00.000+01:002014-08-03T10:58:01.126+01:00What Commonwealth?<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">It seems like it should be a major and significant alliance of Nations from around the World, a driving force for good. The Commonwealth, 56 Nations with a shared history, working together. Helping our friends to raise their game whilst being challenge by them to exceed their expectations. Brilliant, or so you would think. Not if the BBC broadcast of the Commonwealth Games is anything to go by. Came across to me as totally imperialist. Look how good we the White Man is, we won all these Gold Medals, look how clever we are, GB is top dog. The air time given to non UK competitors was minimal. Considering the 56 Nations were competing, you would scarcely have realised. UK, Australia then a few also ran's. I was so looking forward to getting an insight into the sporting achievements, the trials and tribulations to be overcome, the progress even the setbacks across all of the competing Nations. Instead all I got was England's Gold count. A primary focus on UK entrants where a good medal was anticipated. The sense of taking part being more important than the winnings completely subsumed to this unsporting and immoral gloat of the winner takes all. So unBritish.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">What shameful missed opportunity to glorify in our differences and celebrate that shared together. My head hangs in shame, the Commonwealth is dead, just a mocking shell of a long forgotten past.</span>Grumpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14206412404319011602noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2690113825254836828.post-19785922742428423852014-07-21T07:44:00.000+01:002014-07-21T07:44:19.461+01:00Radicalised Youth<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Way outside of my comfort zone but it strikes me that this current pre-occupation with extremist radicalising our youth is yet another twist on the old familiar gang culture. Teenage boys, boys with low self-esteem, boys with a disconnect from their local culture, boys without hope seem to seek out other like minded youth. It just takes some alpha male to offer identity, some, just any purpose, some bonding ritual, something that makes them special to stand out (as a group) to be taken account of. Within this special elitist (in their minds eye) group they achieve status, recognition and respect of their piers. Back turned to the society that nurtures and supports them. Their own secret group rules now are all that matter, nothing else is of any account. Whether it is a Jhad, fighting the next door gang, doing the Mod's in Clacton, it is just what Gangs do.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Once the answer was conscription, put them in the Army, let the Army act as a quasi Alpha Male Gang leader. At least there they were given identity, fellowship and some degree of security, depending on how warmongering the times were, until they grew up enough to put silly boy gangs behind them and join the real adult world and look after their family. But we don't have the Army anymore. We do have an awful lot of disaffected youth with time, no aspirations in the their hands and no hopes of a better future. How do we go about giving these youths a sense of purpose, how do we connect with them on their terms in their language using their blinked view of the world? </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">No answers to offer except that without hope, without any sense of being able to better themselves, never losing this over-arching sense of unfairness, nothing will change. So our increasingly unequal society is just going to have to change instead. Stop the rot of only boys of rich families, who go to very good schools are the only ones to succeed, to get a job and a nice home and do all those things that nice people do. All boys should have that hope and chance to succeed. Without it I am very much afraid even more gangs, even more radicalised youth. Not even if every other adult was recruited into a snooper service are you going to be able to it stop. Simple. Give boys, and girls, hope.</span>Grumpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14206412404319011602noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2690113825254836828.post-85183544274010232982014-07-19T13:08:00.000+01:002014-07-19T13:08:51.426+01:00Who is in charge?<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">You are put in charge. Someone has selected you above other contenders, seen some quality and has placed their faith in you, you are in charge. Keen to justify that faith you want to show leadership, you want to be seen to make a difference, you want those under you to now raise their game to match your own performance. You are in charge so you direct, you issue instruction, you resolve conflict, you are in control. Those under you begin to appear to have lost all initiative, they no longer make their own sound judgement calls, everything is queried or requires your confirmation. You begin to suffocate under all the calls on your decisions as you bewail the lack of initiative of those working under you. Sounds all too familiar?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">We are social animals, we perform at our best within the herd and with the herd's approval. That is who we are. We are also lazy, prone to just follow the next person rather than take the risk extra work or failure by going our own way. The worst performing societies, knee-jerk respond to the first skitter of reaction. The whole herd dashing off to follow that first change of direction. Like lemmings dashing off without forethought, panicking in response to some ill-define threat until they all leap off the cliff edge, following blindly that frightened first alarm call. The best performing societies the herd balances it responses with a measured view drawn across all the whole range of reactions, from the flighty, skittish, to the philosophical, the thinking out of the box, to the been there done that, to the plain weary to the stubborn not changing until it has to change. Choosing a course out of that gamut of reaction may at times be ponderous but with the wealth of experiences that range of reaction brings, may more often make a sensible lasting judgement call than the knee jerking at the first signs of a hiccup. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">As individuals we bring our own unique style, experience and judgements to the task at hand. Not one of us will set about skinning the cat the exact same way as another. The variation in technique matters not. What matters is that the cat is skinned. Management may want to raise targets of time or quality or cat welfare. How those in charge of the task set about achieving a better output is vital. If they issue orders and instructions, then those doing the work switch off and submissively follow the order or instruction. More expansive orders and instruction then have to follow because those doing the work have not read the mind or seen the work the same way as those issuing the orders. The alternative is to empower those in charge to do the task their way whilst encouraging and supporting them to raise their standards to those targets. Those in charge offering gentle suggestions or meaningful comparisons along the way. Those doing the work, in the absence of direction will share experiences amongst themselves, support each other and will find a collective way to achieve the required result. Those in charge being left free to attend to other matters with just the occasional light touch to adjust output. This is collective societies working at its best, working collaboratively but accepting accountability for your own input.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">In the scale of things, just tosh. Except of course that governments act and work like simplified people. Our Political Leaders exhibit that need to show they are in control and are seen to be acting divisively. Government rush in to be seen to respond to the latest emotive outburst. Control, followed by ever more detailed prescription of what is permitted and which sanctions will be applied to what defaults. We teeter, with the best of intentions, remorselessly to Totalitarianism. The citizens slowly surrender their will to think for themselves, to question, to challenge and sink into despair of just doing what is required, no matter how illogical, just for a quiet life. We lose all round. No one wins.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">We have to empower people to think and act for themselves. We have reform our society so people take responsibility for their own actions. Government has to restrain itself, guiding on the long term objections but easing up on the desire to control the now.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Surely when the person in the street is baffled by the logic of the bedroom tax, penalising of the destitute, requiring access to everyone's electronic communication, official encouragement of zero-hour contracts, commercialisation of core state functions, to name but a few, then it is past time for a sea change.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
Grumpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14206412404319011602noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2690113825254836828.post-76965681828746928602014-07-15T11:25:00.000+01:002014-07-15T11:25:11.454+01:00Soccer Madness<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">The superlatives are in full flood about the greatest ever World Cup games. I am no football lover and scarcely can bring myself to watch a game through, at the most I peep at the highlights. So no football analysis here then. However two images do stand out starkly. These two images will remain as my recollection of the World Cup Brazil 2014. One image is of a 'player' lunging forward to bite into the shoulder of an opponent, the other is of a 'player' holding an opponent by his shoulders as he bring his full weight into his knee that he then jabs into the small of the back of the held opponent.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">This later incident, to my knowledge received no reprimand nor was any penalty card issued. Yes the first instance did have some sanctions applied but far too lenient. What is the message that the controlling authorities; the media that reaps rewards by beaming out the content; the advertisers hoping for sales by association and all our young players watching eagerly shaping their hopes on the role models on display? It is perfectly okay to deliberately 'take out' an opponent, cripple him so he is not game fit, even at the very possible risk is that he will be wheelchair crippled as a result! </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Soccer is a physical sport, with body contact an essential part of it, but lets not pussy foot around, neither of these two incidents were anything like an accidental, over eager, clumsy, miscalculated tackle. They were cold blooded and deliberate. Their clear unambiguous intention was to do harm. How can any sport condone this. These two players should be immediately disqualified from ever playing soccer for the rest of their lives. It is simply unacceptable behaviour. It should not be condoned. Except of course they represent millions of pounds of investment, receive enormous cash and life style incentives to achieve the required outcomes and success set them apart. Such disproportionate rewards that being left crippled by 'the game' is insignificant against the tangible rewards readily available. So that makes it alright? </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Not in my book. What book are you reading from? So my lasting image of the 2014 World Cup games will be of a 'sport' where it is permissible reward savage brutal behaviour</span>.Grumpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14206412404319011602noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2690113825254836828.post-35201487513248682482014-06-05T17:10:00.003+01:002014-06-26T09:28:54.794+01:00Speed Kills<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Speed kills, we nod sagely to each other as we chant the mantra, speed kills. Utter tosh. If I walk at twice the speed of everyone else I do not kill. If I drive at 38mph on a 30mph restricted modern dry road designed for 40mph, in daylight with no parked cars, only occasional traffic and no pedestrians on the paths well set off to the side, I do not kill. If I am a Formula One racing driver, pushing my car to the limits, in excess of 185mph, I do not kill. If I am a Policeman on normal patrol duty, without any member of the public close to my tail, then bat along in a residential area at 40+mph I do not kill. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Walking at 3.5mph along a crowded train platform concentrating on the incoming train and getting to the usual door opening spot before it comes to a halt, brushing against a fellow passenger standing at the edge of the platform, then I could easily kill at 3.5mph. Driving at the permitted speed of 30mph on a dark night with wet roads in a congested city and thick traffic, vehicles parked either side on a narrow street with heavy pedestrian movement on the paths jostling to make headway, I might well end up killing someone at the permitted speed of 30mph. Speed does not kill, it is inattention to the road that kills.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">When driving at the permitted speed limit of 30mph I do not suddenly slam straight into a sold wall that appears out of nowhere without some prior indicator, coming to an instant stop. No, the road ahead is read, avoiding action is taken, and as an experienced driver I can anticipate a sequences of events before encountering this sudden wall looming out of nowhere. That is the driving reality. Accidents, and fatal accidents are caused by drivers failing to pay sufficient attention to the road ahead. Failing to take avoiding actions earlier enough, asserting their right of passage contrary to the indications of any aggressive on-coming vehicle. That moments glance to check the next song on the playlist, to change radio channels, to adjust the air-conditioning setting, to read that automatic engine condition warning, to take that hands-free telephone call, to pay attention to the punchline of the passengers narrative, that glance to see the junction layout to make sense of the next junction turn, that glance at the speedometer to check on speed drift, these are the moments of inattention when, in that micro-second, something occurs on the road ahead that requires an immediate response. Then we are in the danger zone, with eyes off the road and concentration on anything other than the road ahead.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Being seen to do something in response to the emotional hysteria following a 'loved ones' death on the road is an easy vote winning political option. Play the mantra card, speed kills, then turn the screws yet again. A WinWin. In cash strapped times, cranking up the hit rate on the 'Safety Camera' cash cow bolsters the coffers whilst at the same times playing to the chorus of stop all these speeding motorists causing carnage on our roads. Never mind that the 'loved 'one' was that idiot who walked out, without any check, on to the road expecting the cars to instantly part leaving their passage clear, only to be overcome. More difficult if they are the innocent victim of that driver displaying a wanton disregard for other road users. So bring on all the latest technology, because we can, catch more and more drivers exceeding the speed limit, because no one will blames us if we do, for, as we all know, speed kills. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">We have drifted from advisory speed zones to absolute speed limits. We have drifted from clarity with speed limit zones for set circumstances to a bewildering array of ever chopping and changing multitude of speed limits that no longer relate to their locations. We have left the discretionary waving down with a cautionary admonition to an automatic punishment from devices set up to trap any motorist whose speed should stray. But we do have choices. We can choose to regard all motorists as zombies and therefore encourage them to behave as mindless zombies. It will be so popular with the hysterical masses. That zombie drivers are more likely to be bored drivers, failing to react sufficiently quickly to any changes ahead, of course is not a problem because they are driving at a 'safe' speed. Or we can take a more difficult route, but with a better outcome, of treating motorist as responsible and attentive drivers., educating them on their failings, the common reoccurring judgement errors and employ discretion before penalising them. Encouragement to become a better driver is going to produce a better driver outcome than treating them all as the mindless zombie. We can all choose to be responsible attentive road users mindful of other users needs.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Next time you are out driving, who would you rather have in that car behind you or that oncoming driver, a driver concentrating on not exceeding the speed limit or a driver paying attention to the road ahead. It is a no brainer, unless you are a politician.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana;">p.s. I now drive distracted, looking suspiciously at every parked van, or conspicuous car, looking at all road poles and mast trying to spot the latest technology camera's or checking every tree just incase that policeman with his speed laser is lurking there. My attention definitely is not on the road and I am not concentrating as I used to on the changing conditions, I am a worse drive now, but that is ok for as we all know 'speed kills'.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Grumpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14206412404319011602noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2690113825254836828.post-60038107091406695222014-05-22T06:46:00.000+01:002014-05-23T20:31:12.362+01:00The Political Wilderness<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">There are two crisis issues staring at us. First the obscenely absurd wealth ratio between the poorest and the richest standing at 1 to 300 and ever rising. Secondly an economy based on ever increasing consumerism but founded on a World now showing that it has very finite resources and capacity to regenerate those resources. The two issues are of course inter-related but necessarily linked. Both issues need to be tackled, urgently. That takes courage, vision and political muscle. Courage because any solution is going to generate upset as toys are taken away. Vision to see through the mires of preconceptions, adherence to comfortable past practice, to look beyond to how a good Society might be solidly founded. Political muscle simply because there are some big heavyweight opinions or organisations who have a vested interest to maintaining the status quo and can call on inter-global support.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">We simply do not have a single political leader with the balls and charisma to sell a solution. I do not care particularly which solution, which view of outcome success. The issues are so big it may well be impossible to define one comprehensive approach. I personally doubt that a single strategy is possible, but nibbling away multi-directionally, but always consistently in the 'right' direction, is not only possible but essential if we are to ever stop this slumber walk into the abyss.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Instead all the Political Parties are pre-occupied with throwing sweeties to the voters. Hoping to come up with the 'best' colour wrapper and flavour combinations that will win voter support and give them their majority. Sweeties like 'immigration', 'EU', 'welfare', 'cost of living' in fact such an array of sweeties that are known to have mass appeal. In the absence of any vision of a just and equitable society it is no wonder the voters will hoover up the sweeties on offer, something, even a sweetie, is better than nothing.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">With the Election hype escalating around us, all the Parties on offer are digging deep into their sweeties reserves hoping against hope they can differentiate themselves enough to win out. That their nuance's of colour and flavour will standout sufficient to get that crucial vote that puts them in power. The voters will no doubt be bewildered by the sameness Me To sweeties on offer. For me, there is only one possible vote, "None of the Above". I just hope enough of us can make that one sane choice so that the small voice of reason can be heard over the clamour of sweetie distribution. We all need to hear the voice that talks to these big issues facing us. Put sweeties behind you, time for the big boys to come out.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />Grumpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14206412404319011602noreply@blogger.com0