Monday, 22 December 2014

An advent-ure in fairyland....

Last Sunday we went to church. 
OK, I'll pause to give you time to recover. I know it is hard to understand exactly why a couple of hard-nosed scientific atheists might venture into a church but there - we are nothing if not adventurous.
For those in the know the day was the fourth Sunday in Advent and a good day for the Festival of Nine Lesson and Carols (often held on Christmas even in fact). It holds some especial fascination which I shall return to but our true reason for attending was pure curiosity. We know quite a lot of people in Lyng now and some wear their Christianity close to their sleeves; others wear it more lightly and less visibly.
The numbers were good - 60 and they had nine different readers of the lessons. Average age however was closer to use than the handful of children present. Our new Priest in Charge, Lyn Page was resplendent in a white cassock and settling in well. Sadly there is no choir and the carols were pitched a bit high, leaving the less skilled mumbling badly.
The congregation included many we knew and expected to see there. And others were newer faces although being Christmas maybe they are more like us and rare visitors.
But enough of that. Given a near 50 years gap between attendances what did we think of it? As the other Christmas comedian would have said, "Not a lot".
This is an odd service in some ways of course. The Christmas story is, bizarrely given its is for Christians, an Old Testament tale really Its all about Jews in dusty and faraway places like Nazareth and Bethlehem. The God of these stories is the Judaic God of vengeance and rage at the weakness of his alleged creations. We get the hints of some new world to come which, if we believe it,will be different. But different to what? Given our English unfamiliarity of the world of the Nazarene two millenia ago different is a bit of a mystery itself.
Of course the filters between us and whatever really happened are immense - not just the spin doctors, Peter and Paul writing feverishly to assuage and even evangelise the Romans, but hundreds of years of interpretation and revision. Most recently the richness of the language of the King James version (which made up for in magnificence what the story lacks in plausibility) has been watered down (dumbed?) to milk sop inanity that can sound even worse on the lips of well-meaning but untutored readers.
The songs we sing (not me actually, utterly tone incapable) however are of a very different age and reason. Inappropriate and even wholly misleading Westernisations of the Nazarene's world and brim-full of tub-thumping enthusiasm for a faith that, at the time celebrated, was totally alien and unknown to Mary, Joseph, assorted shepherds and mystified but beneficent mystics.
Even 50 years ago I found it all hopelessly fanciful. Today it just feels a bit silly.
But yet... the spirit of Christmas is worth much and does, still just about rise above the desperate commercialisation it has been doomed to by our Victorian forebears and massaged by our American cousins. It should be about giving, caring, sharing. About hope and commitment. And a lot of it still is.
But then... a bunch of kids in a Norfolk school are asked what Christmas is all about and answer "Father Christmas!" Bad-ish but it gets worse for the somewhat affronted priest utters in shock "Father Christmas isn't real!".
And the media sharks circle for the kill, sticking another nail in the already bitten foot. And then they fail to get to the point, struggling to convince anyone that the chubby chap from Lapland and his Disney-esque reindeer are what 'believing' in Father Christmas is about.
Oh please - let the kids grow into their own decisions. Father Christmas is Santa Claus. And he is a representation of someone who did indeed live: as King Nicholas, latterly Bishop of Myra in third century Turkey and a thoroughly good chap who used his fortune to feed and clothe the book. A walking Food Bank who was beatified for his work. Fully within the spirit of Christmas.
Go on kids, believe in him, learn the lesson and when you get to the point where your light dawns... make sure your kids at least start out believing in something better (and not Sky!).
Such thoughts remained as the last carols died away and the finals blessing was offered. We shook hands with our new priest in white brocades and stepped out into the real world. It was still there...

Thursday, 29 May 2014

A walk on the wild side - of a 30mph road

Just walked the dog and feel lucky to be alive. In the space of 100 metres of a small country road without a footpath but with a 30 mph speed limit I was the victim of three clear cases of bad and over-fast driving bordering on the dangerous.

Heading west on the right hand side of the road between Pockthorpe and Lyng, just past the 40 mph limit for eastbound traffic (30 for westbound) I am approached by a vehicle accelerating off the unsighted Wensum river bridge. I use it regularly and there is dangerously limited vision eastwards. The car is accelerating out of the 30 into the 40 but has already reached 40-plus. I flag it to slow but it passed me at I estimate 45-50.

Its passage makes me turn which is fortunate as I had not heard the 40-mph gearbox tractor and its vast trailer entering the village. While the restrictions on its roadworthy gearbox should restrict it to 40 it has come downhill and is still at well above that speed as it passes the 30 mph boards. I again flag it down and am rewarded with brake lights and it passes at a more sedate rate. A minor victory.

Transitory indeed as I now find a vehicle again leaving the bridge ahead of me and accelerating hard. I found out why when it swerves past me only to turn in tight behind me. The driver has decided my life is not worth the slight delay of waiting while the held up four vehicles behind the tractor to pass me. I am the obstruction and I am on his side of the road. A prosecution for driving dangerously would be a shoo-in. The Highway Code is absolute - you must give way if the obstruction is on your side of the road.

But like all good stories I have saved the best (worst) to last. I am by now only 20 or so metres from the river bridge and aware that I am in the unsighted area for oncoming drivers. I walk virtually on the grass verge. And suddenly a silver Toyota appears at speed hugging his inside kerb as he accelerates through the slight bend. Aware that he has clearly not seen me I step up onto the impossibly harrow and steep verge dragging my dog with me. Metres from he wakes up, swerves away at about 45-50 by this time and continues his merrily incompetent way.

So who is to blame for all this? Clearly the drivers bear a huge responsibility. The Highway Code, which I doubt many or any have read, makes it mandatory that at all times a driver is required to drive at speeds and in a manner to suit the road, traffic and weather conditions. It is against that test that the offences of driving without due care or of driving without reasonable consideration are judged.

Beyond sheer speed and manner of driving the same code makes it mandatory that drivers should give precedence to pedestrians on roads without footpaths. This further requires them to give way to oncoming traffic when the obstruction (pedestrian) is on their side of the road.

We may also question whether the speed limits are suitable or located correctly. The 40 coming in to Lyng is quite late and the 30 restrictions is very close indeed to the river bridge and after the hamlet of Pockthorpe.

And there is no doubt at all that the absence of any footpath on either side of this road is what places any pedestrians at risk.

But the bottom line is that as a nation we have stopped any attempt to encourage or require good, safe and competent driving. The years of bleating ninnies who decry what they chillingly call "the nanny state" have won out. Lessez faire, first enunciated in the 80s, now rules.

We need to return to the acceptance that left to their own devices enough ordinary people will behave very badly indeed to ensure that the rest of us are at risk. There is no alternative to strict rules and strong implementation if our ordinary roads are to become safe again.

And that will also mean more money for the business of telling drivers to behave properly. Signs exhorting "ITS 30 FOR A REASON" and "SLOW DOWN - THAT COULD YOUR CHILD". And, like so much of Europe, speed humps or chicanes on the entry to every village - not just a favoured few. And timed flashing lights and variable speed limits close to schools and playgrounds And much, much more.

Oh and by the way all this happened the day after a serious accident not 100 metres further into the village which required police attendance.

(This sent to county councillor Bill Borrett and our MP George Freeman)

LYNG









Wednesday, 2 April 2014

Let the ransom setters pay the ransom bill....

Just written this to our local paper:

Good to hear the idea of surcharging the councillors who voted for the ill-fated incinerator project being raised again. To us electors the fact is that a Tory majority on Norfolk County Council voted for this contract despite it containing what amounted to a blackmail clause: "If you don't give us (Cory Wheelaborator) planning permission you will have to pay £20m compensation".

Now it is reasonable with such a huge project that a risk premium is included but it is surely usual to limit this to a maximum amount and to pay it only against invoices for costs incurred plus an amount for what a contractor would call 'lost opportunity'. This equates to losing the opportunity to use their expertise and skills to bid for other work because of the indicated project.


Back at the time I wrote and the EDP published criticism of this contract, which I took the trouble to read (its on the NCC web site). In January 2011: "NCC is the prime mover and customer for this project. It has already acquired the site. But it is also the planning authority. And get this: if planning permission is not given NCC will be committed to paying Cory over £20 million for their trouble so far
In effect Cory has a risk free business model. They get a guaranteed customer and major contracted usage (175k tonnes) but if it does not go ahead all the designs, planning environmental investigation costs are covered by the penalty. I do admire them."


And a year later:  "If, as many of us fear, this project turns out to be ill-judged because recycling progress reduces the amount of 'waste to burn' below the contracted level and the commercial sector decides The Willows price is too high and Norfolk County Council has to start paying penalty money to Cory Wheelaborator maybe it will also only be the ten wise members who end up getting the blame. Hate to be them if they end up being surcharged."
Nothing new then. In fact as long ago as September 2007 Norfolk County quoted the 10% risk premium and the 10% construction cost contribuition at £16.8m. One was index lined, the other not.


The Tories knew what they were doing since their officers drew up the contract. And still they did it. So make them pay, say I.

Wednesday, 26 March 2014

Run a school if you want to make a profit....

What kind of world have we created when schools are now reporting their profits in the company results? I don't mean public schools. These are state established schools which have new names.
Only today (Wednesday, 26/4)  the company results in the Eastern Daily Press included figures for Notre Dame and Taverham High Schools.
NDHS turned in a profit of £601,000 on a turnover of £7.7m.
Taverham chipped in a profit of £839,000, an amazing result given a turnover of £3.3million!
I am sure this has pleased the "shareholders" who, for ND hold £1.8million worth of equity while at Taverham they have a mere £874,000. But no idea who they are.  And we read that ND has "assets" of £2.7million and Taverham "assets" valued at £1.4m.
But can anyone explain where all this has come from and where it will go?
After all, the assets are the buildings and land paid for by taxpayers, through Norfolk County.
And the turnover is taxpayers money which means the profit is as well. Where will it go? Who now owns the "assets"?