And this is my creed, what I believe... OK?

Correspondents in newspapers (the |Guardian for one) recently have taken the opportunity (of Christmas perhaps?)  to suggest that atheists do not "believe" anything, that atheism is not a "belief system" and that atheists do not belong to a "belief group". What a lot of self-serving tosh.
I am an atheist and have been for all of my adult life. I BELIEVE there is no God, or even god. I BELIEVE indeed that there is no room or need for such a creature or being or whatever. I share this belief with many people and we are thus a BELIEF GROUP.
More than that I also BELIEVE in science and the scientific way. It is my faith that science and the inquiring minds of humankind can provide already the answer for most things - where we are, what we are, how we are, how we started, how we came to be what we are. Science is even beginning to explain why we are (which I believe to be irrelevant - we just ARE). But I do also believe that because of what we are, how we are, human beings should live their lives in certain ways - not kill, not steal, not lust or yearn after another's privileges or, should they have them, possessions. That children should be loved and cared for. So should the weak, unfortunate and poverty stricken.
This, and much more,  is my BELIEF SYSTEM. It is thus my creed and were I given to religious dogma I am sure I could create one to suit. After all so much of it is just as naturally part of other creeds. Maybe if there were an atheist's club then these people would get off their high horses and accept that atheism is a belief system.
Of course they are unlikely to do so since it seems to me that intolerance is the hallmark of the committed religious person. Indeed even the briefest examination of the history or almost all religions will show that mutual hate and intolerance is the key feature that marks them out from those without their kind of religion. Hinduism may just be the exception to prove the rule but up against the wall they too resorted to murder and mayhem after the Raj was kicked out.
Sadly it is my I fear that it is this intolerance that underpins the apparent  willingness of some to deride atheism as not being a religion. The process massages their own doubts and provides a kind of glue or scaffolding for their own belief system.  Perhaps their target is another group, the Humanists since they do look a bit like a religion from the outside.
But off course the same name callers are right in one way from which all atheists (not Humanists)  can take joy - many of us do not have dogma, a hierarchy, a priesthood, nor even an evangelical drive to proselytise our beliefs (well excluding dear old Dawkins of course).
But that does limit our name calling opportunities - it is gangs that fight. We are definitely not a gang, I will accept that.

Press here to detonate...

What kind of media do we want? They say a nation gets the media it deserves but that cannot be right - Britain is absolutely not that bad! Yes of course we want a free press. But what does that mean?

When I started out as a journalist in 1959 we had a fairly clear idea of what a free press was. Most people knew too that what we had was not exactly as free as we would like. Aristocrats like Beaverbrook, Harmsworth and Northcliffe owned most of it - the rest was in the hands of newer money such as Cecil King or Roy Thomson.

No one kidded themselves that these moguls did not exert influence but for the most part it was in the political field and known about, if not understood. And frankly little has changedin this area. Of course I abhor Murdoch but I wasn't all that keen on Maxwell either and I find it hard to discuss what has happened to the Express. Whatever Harmsworth is today it seems to go on forever - good job since part of my pension emanates from there. 

But over the years things have changed a great deal and power and influence has had a growing and worrying impact. Yet it is not there that the recent scandals have erupted. This time it is simply the extraordinary and illegal lengths to which some media has gone to 'get a story'. It is this bad behaviour that has led to Leveson

So the mendacious and hypocritical fears being expressed by the same popular (there's a laugh!) prints after Leveson and the possibility of some statutory support for the new Press Complaints body is laughable as well as dangerous. For it was not a free press that was either at risk or even in question when these benighted and tricksy hacks and their frankly evil bosses decided to break the law and buy information and tap phones. What was wrong was that it was AGAINST the public interest for these know-nothing sharks to intrude not only into the lives but the griefs of innocent people and to interfere with the due process of the law. 

We can only hope that it is this due process that has restrained Lord Leveson from proclaiming in more detail and stronger terms on the relationship - the propinquity even - between these hacks and certain police officers and others. His honour may be redeemed by events in the next few days. If not, bigger questions about his propinquity may be raised.

Indeed, had the laws which these newspaper broke been properly exercised against them at the time even Leveson may have been as unnecessary as Cameron makes him appear.

But to the core issue. He says rightly that the Press Complaints system is broken - that is not new news; most of us were of that opinion a long time before all this started. So indeed a new one is needed. And the dreadful experiences of the victims of the media wild west of recent years show only too clearly that this body must be independent and capable of investigating complaints. That however is not enough on its own and David Cameron must surely know this in reality. He is surely only in denial or at least under the influence.

For we have been here six times before in recent decades. And every time the press has been given a last chance. So many last chances, so many lost opportunities you might think.

Now is the time for a much more powerful and capable complaints body as Leveson says. And it does not require any interference by politicians now or in the future in what the press is allowed or able to do IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. What is required is simply that this body is a legal body, with power to investigate, power to apply for warrants for searches and the power to act as it finds necessary - under the rule of law. In the extreme it might need to apply to magistrates for a warrant to force a witness to co-operate.

None of this statutory support needs to state in any way what  ever Cameron and the media may say. But it is essential to have a safe haven for victims of press excess to report.

And here is the crisis that we now face, entirely of Cameron's making. He is singing the media tune AGAIN. He has been got at or he looks and sounds very much like a man who has been got at..... 'Don't you worry Dave old chum; come the election and we'll see you right - as long as we don't get any of that nasty statutory stuff to spoil our little game'

I might sound a bit paranoid here but lets face it - he did say BEFORE Leveson he would implement the report. He is now saying he will not, despite his promise to the Dowlers. Little Cleggy doesn't seem to agree, along with many more.

Cameron, we know from all the u-turns, is incompetent and unfit to govern and he has a cabinet packed with people with their own dodgy agendas or simply, as the Widdicombe said of a less unsavoury character, something of the night about them.

The good news is that the victims are campaigning against him and that is political dynamite. I give him a few more months before either he comes to his senses or his cosy little coalition collapses round his silver spoon stuffed neck.

Oh and I wrote this elsewhere. I'll say it again: "Reading what my former colleagues have to say this morning about Leveson I feel the need to apologise to all my friends for the utter mendacity and hypocrisy of all, bar the Guardian and Independent. They make Cameron's pusillanimous and craven speech to the house take second place in the annals of infamy. Sorry for even having been a journalist (euch!)." 

Even Simon Jenkins decided to sully his reputation by arguing, nay pleading, for another chance. Shame on you Simon.

Who is really paying for corporate profits?

All the current and rightful anger over the failure of so many major corporations operating in the UK but not paying tax is not the only cause we have for concern. Too often these companies also sing proudly about their contribution in employment terms while failing to acknowledge the part taxpayers play in making this possible. Our contribution comes in the form of subsidising the earnings of staff.
One example has come up in Norfolk recently where the Norse Group has issued press releases proclaiming its significant contribution to the local economy through its employment of some 5,700 workers. These people earn about £84 million a year. In total of course. My argument is not really with Norse who are no different in this regard but they do have an unusual history.
They were formed as a result of out sourcing by Norfolk County Council. Initially this was of its property activities, which are quite considerable of course. From this beginning Norse has grown to take on more work from Norfolk, then Great Yarmouth, then Norwich City and now councils all over the UK use them generating a gross turnover last year approaching £180 million and gross profits of £40 million.
The payroll equates to about £15,000 average pay per worker. We do not know how many are part-time and this could be critical but we can guess that in common with most companies a significant number will be managerial and the ratio of salary between the least and the best paid will be substantial.
Of course if we knew what the full time equivalent number was it would be easier to calculate true value but these days this is never mentioned. It is why when retailers like Tesco arrive in a town they can trumpet 300 new jobs and the local media and others miss the fact that these are mostly low paid part-time. And the businesses that close after they arrive will mean the loss of at least as many jobs and the support of all the ancilliary business from solicitors to accountants and from plumbers to architects.
But taking the stated figures, at a reasonable guess a fair number of these workers will be in receipt of tax credits, welfare payments, rent or rate support. For at this level of pay - it is about £7.50 a hour so just about what is called a living wage by Boris Johnson - providing for a spouse and two children must be quite a challenge. It certainly does not constitute wealth generation by their employers and could even be costing taxpayers significantly.
The company concerned had a gross turnover nationally of about £180 million, gross profits of about £40 million and paid £5 million in corporation tax. I don't feel confident that this will balance the books for us taxpayers.
Most people will be aware that in London for example very few key workers like those in health, welfare and emergency services, can afford the housing costs of the capital. To be honest I expect the same is true for too many workers here in Norwich. And it is not just housing, although this is alarmingly exorbitant in the UK, but the costs of commuting too.
My issue with all this is not just that some like Starbucks and Vodaphone dodge paying ta=x for their activity in the UK but that this means they really are hurting us taxpayers. For it is the activity of a business that generates cost within the community. Sure, local rates, VAT, fuel duty and the like cover some of the costs but all those sales mean a lot more is happening in the community at large which someone has to pay for.
I would like to see a turnover tax instead of capital gains. A much lower rate would deliver the same amount of cash but corporations would find it a lot harder to dodge the cost of their activity in the country of operation. And they could then hide their profits anywhere they like.
And every company should be forced to express its workforce in Full-Time Equivalent numbers - then we can really see what is happening to the workers.

How the 'Vikings' are spending our Danegeld...

Recently our regional daily, the EDP ran an article, rightly perhaps, praising the success of a company called Norse. Now this company was set up a few years ago by Norfolk County Ciouncil effectively outsourcing first its property services arm and then hiring the company to outsource - or privatise - a range of other services.
Since then Norse has grown hugely and in our region alone provides services to several other local councils - all part of the great Blair/Cameron plan to reduce the scale of the public sector and duck responsibility for all those difficult social and welfare services.
They EDP praised the fact that the firm was paying a large sum of money to its employees living and working in Norfolk. But the story was a bit short of detail; so I did some digging and wrote the following to the paper, the MD of Norse and the reporter involved. Not appeared yet....

The success of Norse Group is very good news for more reasons than may be apparent from the EDP report (Nov 9: Norse Group pays £82m in salaries etc) since most of this money is actually Norfolk taxpayers money.
Norse was formed, as you report, by the county council and, with its subsidiaries provides a wide range of services for local authorities. The vast majority of the £82m you report has come from Norfolk County, Norwich City and Great Yarmouth Borough in payments for services provided to the community on behalf of those authorities. This is the benign face of privatisation we are told. Indeed Norse Group has seen its income, mostly from similar contracts, climb to £177 million this year, up by about 13% and its gross profit climb to £40m, up 10%.
Clearly it is very much in the interests of Norfolk taxpayers, not to mention city council house tenants and residential care home tenants, that Norse continues to prosper. And in reading their annual reports it is also very clear that they take their community role seriously, under the guidance of a range of county and no doubt other authority councillors on their board.
But the report to which you refer was it seems ordered not so much by the county as the Norse Group, as managing director Mike Britch makes clear in paragraph nine. He is also more precise on the specific benefits that Norse's growth has brought to the county, noting the creation of 56 jobs within Norfolk supported by contracts outside the county.
What is not referred to is that the county has been more than a little concerned at possible mis-understanding of the group's activities, the county's relationship with it and the precise roles and possible conflict faced by their elected members combining board membership with their civic duties. They had a significant risk report done on this in 2011. It would seem to me that this latest report is a further effort to demonstrate that the decision to privatise all this work was a good one, well taken and well managed.
But I did a little sum and found that if £82 million is being paid to all 5,700 staff in Norfolk that means an average wage of just over £14,000 each - well below both the national minimum for a full-time employee and even further behind the living wage which, among others Boris Johnson is so keen on. And the annual report goes to some trouble to make re-assuring noises about their commitment to funding the workers' pensions, which may be in stark contrast to what they might have expected when employed by the county. All companies are being urged to focus more on their role in supporting the public good - something the new Archbishop has already referred to.
But since we taxpayers 'own' this company can we have a bit more information? How many Full Time Equivalents? How many now delivering Norfolk services? How many at foundation and for each contract since? What's the average wage of employees, manager and executives - now and then? What are their pension terms? Where does the profit go? Who are the beneficial shareholders?
Answers to these will help us taxpayers decide whether this has been a good decision, well managed and of benefit to us all.

Auntie gets her knickers in a twist

The BBC crisis may be exploited by manipulative paedophiles as a smokescreen and Beeb-haters as bandwagon jumpers. But they do have a problem and it is one they share with many other media operations: Badly trained journalists who are managed by people who spend too much time watching the hicksville antics of amateur bloggers (ho ho) and others who they see as a threat to their business. 

The BBC has descended to that level and is discovering that credibility is a hugely valuable and hard-won commodity.

Backing up a bit, the error over Savile was mere timidity. They knew only too well that they would get some of the blame for his antics so were on the back foot anyway. On top of that, the absurd adulation of the man was about to be repeated for Christmas. So they dropped the prog. They must have known it would annoy the hell out of the staff and so leak. Which it did. The rest is painful history.

But the fault was effectively just an old rule that guarded journalists for years - if in doubt, leave it out! No big deal in professional terms then.

Now the error of McAlpine is on a different scale - it is a pure lack of professionalism. Frankly, Entwhistle should have suspended and then sacked the two idiots in charge on that day for a failure so elementary that even a junior would be ashamed. They did not test their evidence. What!? No, really. They did not even show the allegor a picture of his Lordship to make sure it was the right man. Let alone give the man a call.

But it gets worse because once the journalists knew that his name was on the web NOT contacting him or showing his picture to Meeshan for confirmation (he would we now know have said 'wrong man') was appalling. And they MUST have known it was out there; they are wired like the rest of us. Even Patten has admitted he knew although he could hardly intervene since that would have been seen as political (this is a Tory allegation remember - "Tory placeman stops Beeb" etc etc). But if he did then Entwhistle probably did and he could/should have intervened and hence perhaps his resignation.

As Dimbley says, the BBC are making their own crisis. And its not just a BBC issue - just rotten journalism of which I suggest there is just too much everywhere (says a sad old hack!). The ITV list of names, everything to do with phone hacking. The list goes on.

The cause? Maybe too much BA in Media Studies and not enough Proficiency in work experience? Says a tired old and ex hack!

Causing offence and where to draw the line

ITS good to be back. Now...

Regularly I read the Guardian Readers' Editor's column and I have done so since the very first – Ian Mayes I think - was appointed many years ago. Today that editor is an old but brief acquaintance from my own Cambridge (newspaper not college) days, Chris Elliott. And today he drew attention to a problem that I think is to a degree specially difficult for the Guardian: Where to draw the line or whether it should be drawn at all.

Now the editor deals first with an area where the Guardian does have rules – good ones – but which are too easily and perhaps too often broken: when to use the f and especially the c word. I shall return to this later but his further points concern a more subtle but more hazardous area which arose most especially in a q and a with Peter Tatchell. I have no desire to repeat the words used – suffice to say that in response to a question about embarrassing moments Mr Tatchell, an honest and open homosexual, made what was a funny but extremely ribald, not to say vaguely disgusting, joke at his own expense.

On another page of that weekly magazine the Guardian reported on the booming sales in vibrators and illustrated it with a series of example devices and a graphic hand drawn sketch – straight out of The Joy of Sex book I think. A reader had taken Mr Elliott to task and he had in turn sounded out, as he often does, his Guardian colleagues. Some 25 responded and half said the paper should be tougher and use less graphic material. For my part I found the Tatchell joke unacceptable as published but the vibrator article socially justified and the sketch frankly quite charming. But I am 69. And therein lies the complaining reader's real issue.

For the Guardian may be a very sophisticated and intelligent newspaper (well I think so!) but it is entering the homes of its readers and is thus generally available to all. It goes into schools too. There is no firewall, no security device, no warnings and no effective parental controls. It is NOT even the internet, you might say. It does serve a specific audience who may well be seen to be, and by survey shown, as more urbane, better educated and more liberal (small L!) but they have children. And the Guardian's interest in these 'young readers' is shown b y their education posters and the like.

The Guardian's rules on the f and c words and similar matter is simple – if it is made necessary as the the result of reporting things said, events unfolding, if evidential or otherwise critical to the public understanding of a report the words should not be obscured but used as presented. This does not however explain or excuse their gratuitous use by columnists or in other writing. But if you quote from, say D H Lawrence, then the f and c words in particular may well be used to ensure appreciation of what is written and what response it may have caused. Does anyone however need me here to use fuck and cunt to make this clearer? I think not.

I paraphrase but that's the gist of the rules. It may or may not explain why the use of such words in the Guardian should have grown so steadily over the years. If life imitates 'art', or the media in this case, the answer is obvious. More use means more imitation and higher social acceptance.

Another argument is that ordinary people say these things in their ordinary lives. But this is weak argument. These same people say a lot too that is gibberish and does not deserve of repetition. Because a word is coinage in a playground should not elevate it to the columns of the Guardian, thought it may justify its sparing use on stage or in front of the camera.

And so the Mr Tatchell's crudely scatological joke. It was a q and a so we had the simple question, “What was your most embarrassing moment?” He responded that it was “mistaking a sachet of shampoo for lube when having sex.” Didn't we laugh! But there was another line and here lies the problem: “His bum was blowing bubbles for hours”, he said. Too much detail mewonders?

Well here's the thing. The editor might say that without the second line Tatchell's sexuality is unclear. True but it is not relevant to the embarrassment factor. It would have been the same essential outcome whatever his orientation. But the readers are GUARDIAN readers. We can safely assume that in excess of 95% will KNOW Peter Tatchell is gay (and the other 5% need not be woken!). So here comes the problem – is that second line not gratuitous?

Sop, thinking I am 69 and may be a bit out of date I asked the Guardian reading mother of two girls, 14 and 12. She agreed and will from what she said be writing to the Guardian Readers Editor herself she said,.

So what test can be sued in such a context. Let us remember that the Guardian does have an intelligent and sophisticated readership that it cannot offer to condescend to. It will, inevitably deal in the social and cultural natters of our modern world and thus be exposed to this very material. Can it be tested to achieve what I shall call “the chattering classes breakfast table test”? Yes, and fairly easily.

If material is MOSRT likely to be heard only in the men's locker room, at the bar in some other largely adult and robust location it needs to be examined for its suitability for the CHILDRENH of intelligent readers. If it does fall into this category the second stage is how much detail do we need to maintain credibility and be honest to the contributor? If we apply this to the Tachell response we can easily decide that line one is OK. It does not invoke unwanted ribaldry7, just amusement at a predicament that could be 'shared'. If by that edit Mr Tatchell was offended at the removal of his avowed orientation then a slight edit by agreement would suffice. He could have said “when having sex with my male partner, boy friend” or whatever set the right tone.

You see the problem is not juts that this might be the sort of joke told to an audience at the Apollo. It is that that audience paid, chose and know what to expect – the Guardian lies about, unguarded you might say.

I say less f and c, less gratuitous use of slovenly English and a bit more concern for the children of the chattering classes. Please? Blimey I sound like Mrs Whitehouse!

Once more unto the the BBC breach dear friends....

Few will need reminding that on Saturday (7/7) evening the BBC managed to completely cock up their own flagship drama series - Shakespeare: The Hollow Crown. OK a Brit sharing in a Wimbledon triumph was/ is worth a bit of effort but they managed to tell people that the Shakespeare would not be shown while they ran Wimby on BBC2. And then change their little minds and run it an hour late without warning. Now, aware of their own stupidity they are having to do all sorts of bridge repair work. But when I wrote to complain I got a pretty dumb response that frankly missed the point. The BBC is my favourite media source even ahead of the Guardian (oh and The Eastern Daily Press) but really, they do need a big kick now and again.

The sequence here is in chronological order if anyone is interested:

I WROTE: 


Dear Sir,

Last night the BBC dumped the brilliant and hugely expensive Shakespeare drama series second part to show the Wimbledon finals. Well actually that's not what they did since they are happy to switch channels to maintain their Wimbledon coverage and could easily have switched it to BBC1. No what they did was keep Wimbledon running on BBC2 and let Casualty continue as usual on BBC1. That is an insult to their viewers and their licence fee payers who funded this drama series.
It was bad enough that they ruined the Jubilee River Pageant with a dumbed down and incompetent commentary but this is possibly worse. After all Wimbledon happens every year and often runs late. Have they no planners?
Be very afraid people - the man who sank the pageant with dumbed down and inept commentary has been given the job of controlling BBC entirely. Enjoy the Shakespeare when it finally screens - on his record it could be the last!

THEY REPLIED:

Dear Mr Woods
Thanks for contacting us.

We apologise that you were frustrated by the late changes to our TV schedules last night and for any confusion regarding the scheduling of ‘The Hollow Crown’.

We’re sending this reply to everyone who contacted us to explain what happened and to let you know how to watch ‘The Hollow Crown’ if you missed it.

As a result of rain and long matches earlier in the day, the men's and women's doubles finals played into the late evening. The men's doubles final also featured the first British male to win a Wimbledon men's doubles title in 76 years.

The BBC has a contractual commitment to show these matches on terrestrial television so the decision was taken to delay ‘The Hollow Crown’ by one hour on BBC Two and to switch the coverage to BBC One at 10pm.

As a result of the changes, a repeat of ‘The Hollow Crown’ has been scheduled for this evening on BBC4 at 9pm and the programme is also now available to watch on BBC iPlayer for the next 3 weeks.

We’d like to assure you that we've registered your complaint on our audience log. This is an internal report of audience feedback which we compile daily and is available for viewing by all our staff. This includes all programme makers and presenters, along with our senior management. It ensures that your points, along with all other comments we receive, are circulated and considered across the BBC.

Thanks again for contacting us.

Kind Regards

I BLASTED:


Dear Whomsoever,

The issue in the end was the failure to provide clear information and that was bad management. Your commentator at Wimbledon stated that The Hollow Crown would NOT NOW be shown this evening.

No one argues against the importance of the tennis match (although you have to accept the difference in audience for either item). What was appalling was that, knowing for many decades when the finals of Wimbledon would be you had not noted that, with the arrival of the roof, there was a potential collision with a  scheduled item (albeit a soap)  that could be moved but needed forethought. So someone decided that you could RISK your showpiece drama series on BBC2 on that particular Saturday night without any preparation. Are you mad? This was a car crash waiting to happen and it did. And it was an insult to actors, directors, writers and all those involved as well as us the viewing fee payers.

And then, instead of making sure your plan B was well known to all you let some muppet of a sports commentator run your channel for you. Barmy or what?

I am sorry people but this is of a one with choosing under prepared and under experienced people to commentate on and reduce the jubilee pageant. Where was a Dimbley (what a nice co-incidence that one did the coronation or did you miss that too?).

Frankly the disaster of Saturday night should tell you all you need to know about what has gone wrong with BBC management in the last decade or so. You need to ensure that the people who run the BBC understand the special position that is all you have to defend the BBC against the grab a shilling and run brigade. As a 55 years fan (exposure, not age) I have watched a decade of incompetence and mis-comprehension start a process that will wreck the BBC and deliver it into the hands of the Philistines who have even now wrecked and are wrecking our economy - the accountants, bean counters and lick spittle pooliticians. You have the chance to be better - take it.

Richard Woods

OH YES AND....

On 08/07/2012 12:10, bbc_complaints_website@bbc.co.uk wrote:

BBC Complaints
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints
NB This is sent from an outgoing account only which is not monitored. You cannot reply to this email address but if necessary please contact us via our webform quoting any case number we provided.

DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Evolution - or devolution...

Inspiration is a two edged sword. The more I have been inspired by Prof Alice Roberts, in every sense, the more I have found myself wondering if her discipline of Anatomy and her developed skill in Anthropology is not spoiling my downtime. You see she has set me off on a puzzle about evolution and the idea that it might have come to an end point. And it is not comfortable.


I am not saying this is what she believes and still less that it is my wholly considered view either. But the problem is that we are in a totally new environment today compared to any that has gone before. For the very first time in all of organic history we live in a period when the norm has been changed. Until now, or at least until quite recently in geological terms, every replicating organism mindlessley, accidentally, relentlessly experienced the environment without any ability to direct it or change it intentionally. But not now. We, the human organism, can and do change our environment deliberately or at least we think we do. Certainly, we make changes with intent.


Consider the world of the single cell organism. Evolution tells us, or at least we accept that it implies, these creatures will only survive if their requirements for life and replication suit or are suited to the environment in which they exist. Some will die, some will live and some will prosper. The relative numbers will be determined by the environment. If it changes the proportions will change. Thus it may be that very few survive after a change but those that do are unusually well adapted and prosper. If their adaptation allows inter-replication with another successful organism then a new organism, cross-bred, will occur. Evolution moves on. Meanwhile of course the implication is that one or other of the contributing organisms may perish. Indeed, both may perish that the new one survive.


Move on in time and the dinosaurs may have eaten themselves out of hearth and home. Or they may have been victims of an enormous cataclysm. Either way, however, something did survive and somehow we are the beneficiaries of that - along, we understand, with the birds, sharks and a few others. The point is however that so far as we can make out these dinosaurs did not deliberately eat themselves into oblivion nor did they go out of their way to invite a solar catastrophe to annhilate tham. Indeed, taking yet another theory they did not intentionally fart their way to extinction. It just happened.


Consider then the human condition. At first it is possible to consider that early man merely slashed and burned his way from forest to savannah in the pursuit of agriculture. He did not set out to change the world although he certainly did. More recently we did not intentionally begin to pillage the mineral and organic and fossil resources of our planet with the intention of running them down to a dangerous zero point. We just did it in the name of survivial.


But now? Well you see faced with the probability that there are simply too many of use we have to act. Aware that we have run our resources close to empty we need to do something. Given that we cannot grow enough to feed ourselves we must have a plan. Shocked at the fact that we have simply begun to run out of water, air, space, energy, food we know only too well that salvation lies in our own hands. And so we begin to rescue ourselves from, well, from oblivion.


But what we change in this process, I fear to suggest, is evolution itself. That we change the way it happens or would have happened and that we do so without even knowing we are. 


I believe that man is not an end of the process of evolution nor ever would be. Nor indeed is there any creature or organism on the planet today that is an end of the process of evolution. Indeed I happen to think that the real end of evolution should have been entropy - that there would have come a time when the very last Lonesome George crawled, or fluttered, or strode or flapped, or merely dribbled across a desolate landscape in a fruitless search for anything - anything at all - with which to replicate.


Were it not for man I believe that this event would be different from what may now be the case. That in a vacuum, evolution would have been different from evolution in a human environment. That the arrival of the human being, with our thought, imagination, deliberation, means that nothing, not even evolution, can be the same again. Ever.


PS - Yeah, I'm back.

Be back soon...

Had not really thought about my absence. Anyway, anyone who cares can now know that I shall be back so be warned.... Everyone else can remain blissfully unaware!

How to fix a problem like the mansion tax

Deborah Orr in the Guardian rightly attacks the issue of council tax on mansions - or the lack of a fair distribution of tax burden yet again. The argument is simple - whcy should someone who buys a £1m or more proprty still only pay a paltry £1500 or so like the family not far away in a perfectly ordinary semi or even terraced house they have extended to fit their family

Cannot be right can it? But of course the vested interests all love the system - even Joan Bakewell claims (in the Torygraph) it would be unfair to tax her on the current value of her home - £4m - when she only paid £12,000 for it 48 years ago. I can tell her why it is not unfair - because everything else, all costs including her earnings, have soared so it IS the current value of her property that is relevant, not its happenstance historic value. So shut up, put up or let a bit for rent to pay the bill Joannie!

But the chance of a proper revaluation is nil - far too risky for dodgy Dave. Even so it is easy to fix (as if!) - scrap current council tax and replace with a 1 per cent of last registered valuation tax using Land Registry data. Thus a 100k house pays 1k (rate rebate as now for less well off); 500k house pays 5k - up fair bit; 1m mansion pays 10k and so on until the unlucky pauper struggling to get by in a 10M palace has to pay 100k per annum. It would make Buck house a bit steep but heigh ho - HMQ could always offshore the entire family business and pay sweet FA like so many of her chums.

And even unlucky sad long term residents like poor Joan Bakewell would only pay 120 quid which would get her off our backs! It could even be used to control maximum rents - government could set this at five times the property tax. Work it out - it fits current pricing which tells us something!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/09/deborah-orr-mansion-tax-opposition#start-of-comments

How to lose £800 million by paying it to yourself....

If I have got this straight it works like this: the Royal Bank of Scotland has lost over £800million this year. But if it were not paying its staff a bonus of over £800million it would be able to break even. I think that's it. So Herr Hester demonstrates that he puts bonuses above balance sheet. He determines to reward his RBS colleagues for maintaining their unblemished record for losing money. He does not give a fig for his shareholders, especially as they are us, the taxpayers (who also pick up the bill for the bank's Grecian adventure).
If cutting their bonuses and their pay actually would send these bankers packing it would be a very good thing. I am sure there are plenty of us out here who would like a shot at running a bank instead of ruining it.
You couldn't make it up. And nobody, especially dodgy Dave and goofy George do anything about it. Would the last person to leave this sceptic isle feel their way to the light switch and turn it to off. Thank you.

Cost of everything, value of nothing - Part 2

The time to wake up to the wrecking of the NHS is now. Undo Lansley hangs by a thread and his barmy bill along with him. We all need to start kicking harder. If you want a snapshot of what is wrong you could do worse than the site below. The BBC is moderately objective on this one so just look at this - do away with less than 200 quangos and replace with 250. Bonfire of sanity is what that looks like.

And then there is this idea that the NHS hospitals can do 48% private work. Oh yeah is that with new wards, news beds, new kit, extra staff? Or just using the space made free by NOT providing services for us ordinary mortals? You couldn't make it up - unless you were one of the multi-millionaires running this country of course.

I could go on but have a read yourself.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12177084

News is cheap these days....

My its a long time since I have been here. Too busy on the old web site it seems. Anyway I just thought I would share this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/journalism/blog/2012/01/google-hangouts---a-new-tool-f.shtml

Now what with Twitter sending out from court rooms and war zo0nes. And Facebook linking us to anything anywhere. And newspapers like the Eastern Daily Press setting up i-witness zones where any old snap captured on a mobile can be launched into media land I ask this. Do we need reporters or photographers any more?

Well, we shall go one having writers of every variety - some worthwhile and some worth shooting. And we shall have paparazzi preying on the prominent. We shall even have correspondents commenting on the news which has always seemed a denial of the basic principle of news anyway.

More worryingly we may have even more snoopers and private detectives digging the dirt on the allegedly fame seeking as well as the genuinely unworthy.

Of course if the content of our newspapers is virtually free then why not the chip paper itself? Foot and gun in close proximity maybe?

Its a funny old world. We seem to know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

News flash! Dr Alice now Prof Roberts!

Just discovered that the ineffably delightful Alice Roberts is now Professor of public engagement in science combining undergraduate teaching and outreach work at Birmingham University. That's quite a signing! Luckjy Brum and lucky undergrads. I particularly like the association of outreach with Prof Alice. Snatched the picture off the Telegraph which has a nice interview; there's a video on YouTube as well. Well deserved by a brilliant communicator. Oh yes, and that too.

The end of democracy?

I have written before about the controversial plan for an energy-from-waste plant at Kings Lynn. A recent development suggests we have even more to fear from the Local Government Act of 2000 than we thought.

Opponents of the Kings Lynn project took Norfolk County Council to court because the decision to go ahead with this plan was a] taken only by the ten member cabinet and b] it even appears to have been decided by the ruling Tory group before that meeting.

But they lost. And contained within the reports this week is a reference to the high court's adjudication on the Local Government Act 2000 which seems to spell the end of true democracy and calls into question the point and cost of having elected councillors at all.

The high court ruled, against campaigners, that it was 'proper procedure' under the act for the ten members of Norfolk County Council's cabinet to decide to proceed with the Cory Wheelaborator project at Kings Lynn for an Energy From Waste plant. This was despite the fact that the issue had not been debated or voted upon by the full council. In other words, the vast majority of Norfolk residents and electors had no say of any sort in the decision even through their elected representatives.
I went to read this piece of legislation, which brought in both elected mayors like Boris Johnson and cabinet council control as in Norfolk. I started to read it but to be frank life is too short, especially at my end of the chronoscape. But I did read much of the relevant sections and I would have to say the high court is probably right (although I would love to see it tested further up the legal food chain).
So that's it really.
By this act we can have an elected group of members forming merely a small part of the whole (currently not less than 10) elected membership of the council and they can make executive decisions running into squillions of pounds. It would seem therefore that we council tax payers are footing the bill, at about £8-12,000 per councillor for up to 50 members, who are completely pointless. Not to mention the cost of their meetings and support by officers. Maybe Tony Blair's sovietisation of local councils in 2000 should have gone the whole hog and dispensed with democracy entirely.
One small point however. 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.

Criminal coppers? How can this be right?

STRUGGLED to find words suitable to start this. So here are the apparent facts: At least 944 serving officers and police community support officers (PCSOs) have a conviction, according to the figures released by 33 of the 43 forces in England and Wales in response to freedom of information requests.

I actually read this in a one paragraph item in the Eastern Daily Press. My researches have shown Norfolk has three such officers now. Over in Suffolk there are 13 according to the East Anglian Daily Times (sister of our own EDP) which carried a much larger report.

It will not surprise any who know me or those few who have read this blog that I have been shocked and disgusted by this news. It is all the worse for the fact that it come when we now know that our MPs have been stealing our money, bankers have fallen from exaltation to troughing, our major institutions and corporations continue to avoid paying tax, the taxman lets them off anyway, and the media which might defend the ordinary man has been exploiting him for a fast buck.

How can we have allowed a situation where police officers remain in post or are even hired with criminal convictions? Does that itself not tell us the nature of our problem? We have lost our moral compass.

OK our own Norfolk police chairman makes it clear that the majority of these are what were once called misdemeanours - traffic offences mostly and for which dismissal might be draconian. But many are serious crimes including perverting the course of justice! They carry custodial sentences.

Are we really saying that the young thug driving a shopping trolley through the window of a High Street store may be arrested and charged by an officer who has himself (herself?!) committed burglary or - ye heavens - perverted the course of justice? Is it any wonder that society has lost any respect for our police?

I agree that there may be offences, once classed as misdemeanours but today elevated (over-elevated?) to the status of criminal, that would not deserve of dismissal or required retirement. How many officers convicted of perverting justice or burglary or assault WHILE in service have been allowed to remain in office? I have read of one such case in a neighbouring area.

Is it not surely the case that where a criminal conviction occurs the case must be tested thus: "Does this officer remain a convincing and commendable person for the pursuit of offenders and the defence of the law?

And there are deep concerns:

• What about the morale of other officers who must work with and trust men whom, in different circumstances, they would have prosecuted?
• Are we not at risk of corruption if the probity and inviolability of convicted officers is degraded by their conviction?
• Is it in any way reasonable that such an officer can be relied on when giving evidence in court?
• Should a barrister be aware of the situation they have the ability to destroy the officer's credibility and influence the jury.
• What about CRB checks for other sensitive post workers? If a police officer is allowed to function having perverted justice how can we take more draconian action against others?

The dreadful possibility exists that this is some weird interpretation of the Human Rights Act. But there is no RIGHT to be a law officer - it is a privilege and responsibility which I maintain should be only for those of proven probity.

Muddled thinking exists all around us. The Police Federation took a rather strange defensive view which seemed to ignore the fact that this situation is an insult to lives and work of the thousands of decent, law-abiding and diligent officers who face unreasonable risks on a daily basis.

I have written to my MP, to the Norfolk Police Authority (excellent fast and sensitive response from the chairman) and to the Home Secretary, Theresa May to seek a change in practice. I think everyone who can should do so too.

There is an e-petition you can sign on the direct.gov site http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/26776

Or another at http://tinyurl.com/6t85uwa

Sources include: Guardian, Daily Mail (!), Eastern Daily Press, East Anglian Daily Times, Norfolk Police Authority and others.