Category Archives: current affairs

current affairs, science

Are Scientists Now Able to do Their Jobs?

So yesterday six internationally respected scientists, plus a government official, were convicted by an Italian court of manslaughter for not issuing a warning of the magnitude 6.3 L’Aquila earthquake of 2009 which killed 309 people. They were each sentenced to 6 years in prison.


For what? Yes, that’s right: doing their job to the best of their ability.

On the basis of the best evidence available to them, these experts didn’t issue a warning about the imminence of the earthquake because that evidence didn’t indicate there would be one; because predicting earthquakes is (still) effectively impossible. It’s a decision which most of their colleagues around the world apparently support.

They made an honourable scientific decision based on the evidence. So how can they be culpable?

Now I’m no expert on earthquakes, but my friend Ziggy Lubkowski is a world leader in earthquake engineering. And he is even more quietly and coldly furious than am I. You can see what he says on his work weblog. I commend it; he says it much better than I can!

It would seem to me that the direct consequence of this is that no scientist should now express any opinion as to any the future happening. Or perhaps the only comments should be either “No comment” or “We don’t know”. Surely to do anything else leaves one exposed. That means scientists — which includes the guys who forecast our weather! — will no longer be able to fulfil their roles in society. It will stifle science, progress and more immediately public safety. Would I blame anyone for taking such such an approach? How can I?!

Surely any legal system which can allow such a prosecution to even get to court is deeply flawed. For everyone’s sake let’s just hope that this travesty of justice gets overturned on appeal.

current affairs

They've never had it so bad?

The headlines are saying

Thousands of people took part in a demonstration in London on Saturday to protest against the Government’s austerity measures

And it’s true they did march in their thousands. In London. I saw some of them in Piccadilly.

But I have news for them.

If they think this is austerity they’re in for a very big shock; so are we all. GOK what they’re going to think when the real austerity hits. Which, unless I’m very mistaken, it surely will.

As a country we’re still living way beyond the means of our crippled economy. And printing more money ain’t going to fix it.

Just go and ask the Greeks. Or the Third Reich.

current affairs, sexuality

Brazilians

No, not waxing, not even lyrical waxing! Nor another of Brizil’s other exports: parrots. Although “poly” certainly come into it …

Apparently a Public Notary in Brazil has agreed a civil union between a man and two women, which could (my guess) be the first officially endorsed polyamory relationship in the world.

The BBC News site, amongst others, ran the story yesterday.

Apparently the Public Notary, who goes by the wonderful name of Claudia do Nascimento Domingues, says that there is nothing in law to prevent this union and that the threesome should be entitled to family rights.

Needless to say the (mostly American) Christian press are having a field day.

More power to Senhora Domingues for breaking the mould, say I. We need more lateral thinking like this.

amusements, current affairs

Silly Fools Day

Yeah, I know it’s the silly season. Everyone is on holiday and the media is being run by caretaker journos who don’t know one end of a biro from the other. But really, you’d think it was All Fool’s Day!

In the last couple of days we’ve had not one but two, yes, two, patently stupid stories blown up out of all proportion.

Today there appeared this superb notice at Farringdon Station on the London Underground.


Yes, it got seriously reported this morning. Until it became apparent to even the least intelligent that it was a most excellent hoax. So how do we know it’s a hoax? Do all ladies wear trousers and socks? Does no-one wear shorts? A real H&S concern would have covered these, wouldn’t it; and probably closed the station? Whoever perpetrated it should be really pleased for they did an excellent job of conning the unwary.

I just hope that if the perpetrator was a London Underground employee his (or her) bosses see the funny side of the prank: they certainly should do.

But that was just an amusing diversion compared with my second case: a lion on the loose in Essex.

Now look, good burghers of Essex, we know you have the reputation for not being the sharpest knives around, but … A lion? In St Osyth? Really!?!?!?

I’m quite prepared to believe that there’s the odd puma, even leopard, jaguar or lynx, prowling around the English countryside. But lions and tigers — oh my, no! They are just too large, and too hungry, to hide for long.

Yeah precisely, it didn’t hide. There were newspaper photos. Yes they were all of a male lion. And what was reported? A lioness. Yes, those photos are known to be fakes, made up by the press, for the press because they had nothing else to go on.

Mind you, we can’t really blame you Essex girlies for taking it all seriously, when the local plod’s reaction is totally OTT. As usual Heresy Corner does the demolition job. The Essex Constabulary were found wanting in the intelligence stakes.

Still I suppose it’s more fun than the pranks of assorted government ministers, City bankers and press barons. Oh, hang on. Isn’t that where we came in?

So if anyone can genuinely find, with 30 days, killer mice within 5 miles of St Osyth or an unclaimed lioness on the loose at Farringdon Station, I’ll eat my hat — as long as it’s a chocolate hat, that is!

current affairs, nudism, ramblings

Nudity Stupidity

So we have two, rather different, men in the news this week for appearing nude. Prince Harry for playing strip pool at a party and Stephen Gough, the Naked Rambler, incarcerated again in Scotland for walking nude down the street. Neither has done anything overtly illegal (Gough is convicted of breach of the peace, although frankly from what I’ve read I don’t see how) but both are being punished. Both might reasonably stand accused of stupidity, given what they know; but stupidity alone isn’t illegal.


Uneasy bedfellows?!
Heresy Corner has a scathing summation of the issues. On Prince Harry:

And if a 28 year old man takes his clothes off in the company of other consenting adults, who cares?

It’s only a naked body. We’ve all got one of those. If you’re a distinguished actor you may well have displayed it to all the world in the name of art. This is the 21st century.

And, more tellingly, on Stephen Gough:

Gough has spent most of the past six years in prison since making the mistake of bringing his naked frame north of the border, where a Presbyterian horror of the body lingers despite repeated SNP claims that Scotland is a mature, progressive democracy ready for full independence.
[…]
Gough’s case is simple: “there is nothing about me as a human being that is indecent or alarming or offensive.” He poses no danger to society. He has never physically attacked anyone or interfered with property, nor has he used insulting language: his “crime” is to upset the sensibilities of prudes, of whom there are obviously a large number in Scotland.
[…]
Is nudity “indecent”? Only if you assume, as Anglo-Saxon prudes tend to do, that nudity implies sex. There are other reasons for being naked that have little to do with sex — taking part in a game of strip-billiards, for example.
[…]
It’s hard to escape the view that Gough’s real crime is not so much outraging public decency as refusing to conform. Keeping him upholds the majesty of the law which Gough’s defiance challenges, at a cost to the taxpayer of hundreds of thousands of pounds.

[I would also take issue with the assertion that sex is indecent. Like nudity, sex and sexuality have to be normalised not criminalised and/or marginalised. But let’s leave that aside for now.]

At least there appears to be a tiny amount of common sense appearing in all this. Prince Harry is apparently likely to be punished only by being given a dressing down (pun intended) by his commanding officer (though GOK what it has to do with his CO) and made to donate some of his salary to charity. Meanwhile the Kirkcaldy Sheriff has ordered Gough to undergo psychiatric tests, which might give him a way out of the corner he and Scottish “justice” have painted him into.

Nevertheless, frankly, both cases are ridiculous. We need to come to terms with the fact that nudity is a normal part of the human condition. Get over it! Our princling has done nothing most of us wouldn’t have done; his only crime is his parentage. Gouch is agreed by all to be harmless but eccentric. The former should just be ignored. The latter allowed to go on his way and also ignored.

What is perhaps more important is to ask why people appear so outraged by these cases. I suspect it goes back to what I was writing about yesterday: most people need some outside influence to give them their moral code because they are unable (or unwilling) to think it through for themselves. Once that happens these people are prey to ridiculous, even dangerous, influences: anything from the abhorrence of nudity, through male dominance, to terrorism.

But it isn’t just the traditional religions that are now occupying this morality defining territory. The tabloid media (papers, TV, radio) have become the new religion — the definers of morals — and thus the definers of what people think. Too many people still adhere to the “if it’s in the paper, it must be true” and pause to think no further.

Well it’s time to grow up and start thinking. Time to rise up against the Mrs Grundys of this world.

If it harm none, do as you will.

current affairs, thoughts

Reforming the NHS

1 Comment

Now that’s better! These are the sort of initiatives that the NHS needs to become efficient and save money.

I maintain that the NHS already has shed-loads of money to do everything it needs to, and which we, the patients, need it to. But it also has shed-loads of waste — and in that I include a superfluity of managers and bean-counters — plus far too much political interference.

Initiatives like those in the linked article are sorely needed, and are in my opinion (one part of) the way forward. But they should not have to be coming from above or from the National Audit Office. They should be coming from the “workers” (for want of a better word to cover clinicians, nurses, admin staff, cleaners, etc.) at the grass-roots level, who need to be empowered to do things; to make decisions; and make changes like this without fear.

However empowerment like this needs some radical paradigm shifts, and it is a two way process. The managers have to allow the workers to be empowered; inded the managers have to encourage it by trusting people! Equally the workers need to embrace that empowerment and make it work while also trusting the management. And the barriers around all the vested interests and private hegemonies (in which I include the trade unions) have to be broken down.

There also has to be a paradigm shift in attitudes. I see too many NHS staff (mostly on the admin side) who appear not to give a toss about either their jobs or the people they serve: they are inefficient, unhelpful, rude and lackadaisical; too many appear, frankly, not to be up to the job but there because the Job Centre has told them to be. Others are interested in doing the bare minimum to survive the week and draw their pay, and bugger anyone else.

Certainly not all NHS staff are like this — it would be hugely unfair of me to suggest they are. Very many are excellent, dedicated and caring, but so often hamstrung by the rest.

These poor attitudes have to change or they will sink the organisation even further. And the waste is something we now cannot afford, if we ever could. This change can be done; I’ve seen it done in a multi-national company where the company’s very survival was on the line; we changed or we got out. It wasn’t easy, or comfortable, and it will take a bit of time. But a determined CEO with a vision and some balls can do it.

It has to start at the top with a vision clearly explained and ruthlessly chased down. But it has to be embraced by everyone from the top to the bottom. And those who don’t want (or can’t) change have to be moved aside and if necessary replaced by people who can and will change: either by retraining those whose jobs are no longer needed or by some very selective hiring. (This is not an exercise in job/people cutting unless absolutely necessary.)

It will also need some very long, hard and critical looks at expenditure, waste and job requirements. Everyone has to take responsibility for reducing waste and being flexible; “we’ve always done it that way” is no good any more. Management have to set clear, workable, cross-organisation policies and enforce them.

There will have to be properly specified and managed IT efficiency projects. They will be big projects, needing a range of top class IT industry professionals who have to be listened to and trusted. They have to be properly funded, and the money will have to be released by the efficiency savings they generate along the way.

Do all this and it can be made to work. It will take time: probably at least 5 years and maybe 10. But you will end up with an efficient and effective organisation which fulfils all it needs to, at a reduced cost.

Yes, it will be uncomfortable and difficult for many, if not most. I know; I’ve been through it; I didn’t think I could change, but I did. So yes, it does work and people will change. If you want proof, ask anyone who worked for IBM throughout the 1990s. Ask Lou Gerstner, the CEO who made it happen and saved the IBM Corporation from self-immolation.

Yes, that means the NHS needs a top flight CEO. One with a vision and a lot of balls. One who will not be bullied or cowed by the politicians, the unions or the vested interests within. One who will run the organisation as a company; a company where every employee is a shareholder whose job and whose end-of-year dividend is on the line. And a company where every patient is treated as a valued customer who can (and will) take their business elsewhere.

Can it happen? Yes, it can, but it will need something else too: politicians with the vision to allow it to happen and who can invest in some long-term thinking, rather than short-term expediency. But isn’t that what we pay our politicians for?

beliefs, current affairs, nudism

Stephen Gough

Interesting press release from British Naturism (BN) on the charade of the Stephen Gough case: Life imprisonment for dressing naturally. They’re right on the money. This is a farce, even if Mr Gough is being wilfully confrontational.

So “life imprisonment” is an over-reaction? No, because apparently a Scottish judge has made it clear that he will continue to be imprisoned until he gives in. Given that everyone agrees he is harmless, that is crazy and obscene treatment. Indeed I could suggest that under the international convention on human rights it amounts to (in the legal phraseology) “cruel and unusual punishment”.

Apart from the fact that Mr Gough clearly has little money, why has this case never been referred to the European Court of Human Rights?

Whether you like nudity or not, the whole affair is a disgrace of the first order.

current affairs

Milking the Farmers

Does anyone else find this charade about the price dairies pay farmers for milk somewhat curious?

According to today’s Telegraph the four largest dairies — Robert Wiseman, Arla, First Milk and Dairy Crest — have all now cancelled a 2p/litre cut in what they pay farmers for milk.

Isn’t it curious that they all planned essentially the same cut, at the same time? And have now all rescinded it?

(OK, the latter is supposedly in response to the farmers’ protests.)

They’re still paying the farmers below production cost. So GOK how the farmers make ends meet. Presumably they have to find a way to cross-subsidise their milk production. But it beats me why anyone would want to produce a product on which they can’t make a profit. By rights the UK farmers should not be producing milk at all. But then I’m not a farmer.

Does this whole thing have the smell of a cartel amongst the dairies, because it certainly looks that way? And that makes one wonder what role the farmers (despite all their quite justified protest) and the supermarkets have in this.

Hmmm … Dirty tricks in agri-business again? It certainly wouldn’t be the first time.

current affairs

Railways

So the government is allegedly** going to spend £9.4bn to upgrade chunks of the railways infrastructure.

Now that’s more like it! That is the infrastructure investment the country needs. Forget HS2 and airport expansion. Let’s get the rail infrastructure we have modernised and working efficiently first. Then we can see if we really do need expensive, environmentally damaging, new lines. Much better to realign and widen existing rail routes and streamline operation than built completely new — at least in my book.

Sadly there is a lot more to be done to get the railways in shape. For instance there’s a major need for new freight routes around London; a whole swathe of infrastructure upgrades and modernisations; and the need for all the train companies and Network Rail to actually work together and cut out duplication of effort thereby finding some significant efficiency savings. And frankly that would be best done by running the railways as a single entity not a myriad of companies with their own vested interests. What’s more I feel it should be possible without further major fare increases.

But this is a start. We need a lot more of it, please!

** I say “allegedly” because (a) it hasn’t yet happened and (b) there is some doubt as to how much of this is actually new money.

current affairs, environment

Heathrow Runways Reprise

Oh dear god! They just don’t get it do they.

After all the farrago a year or two back about London’s Heathrow Airport needing a third runway the idea was canned because (a) it was too expensive, (b) there was huge opposition and (c) frankly the business case was fragile.

But the idea has now reared it’s head again, in spades! A group of MPs is promoting the idea that Heathrow needs not just a third but also a fourth runway. Moreover they are suggesting that the third runway should be built to the south and west of the airport over the villages of Bedfont and Stanwell thus destroying even more housing than the previously suggested site to the north. (GOK how this would be done as where there isn’t housing in the way there are a couple of humongous great reservoirs!)

When are these people going to wake up and realise that there is no necessity, and I suggest no good business case, for expanding London’s airports? Just as it has now emerged that there is no persuasive business case for the proposed HS2 rail link.

Yes Heathrow runs close to capacity in terms of flights. But I know from experience many of those flights are far from full. And Heathrow’s passenger numbers have been stable at around 66.5M a year (plus/minus 5%) for the last 12 years. (The Olympic blip in volumes excepted; but that is a one-off, hopefully never to be repeated.)

London does not need airport expansion — and that doesn’t just mean Heathrow, it means all of them. Indeed I suggest that few places really need airport expansion. There are a number of factors mitigating against the expansion of air travel:

1. Business doesn’t need air travel as much as it used to. In the last 10 years I worked I travelled very little despite running teams of geographically spread project managers and technicians on million dollar projects. Unless you need to physically have your hands on something, just about everything can be accomplished by telephone- or video-conferencing, instant messaging and email. Yes it may need some companies to invest in a small bubble of technology, but their savings in travel expense (and remember it isn’t just air fares, it’s hotels, taxis, car hire, meals, non-productive time …) will likely pay for that in the first year. By constraining travel my former employer saved many multi-millions of pounds a year just in the UK. This is money industry cannot afford to spend in a recession when there are acceptable alternatives available.

2. Air travel is an environmental cost the planet cannot afford. It is a major polluter which can, and to my mind should, be reduced. And that’s aside from the environmental damage which would be caused by any expansion of the huge areas of tarmac.

3. How many people in these constrained times really have the money for significant amounts of (especially long-haul) air travel? Few airlines are managing to make useful profits from air fares. And it is going to get worse as the recession bites harder.

Airport expansion is not the answer. Sound business and financial judgement and management is. Isn’t sound and honest judgement what we pay our leaders for?