Category Archives: current affairs

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.

Reforming the NHS

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

Banning Circumcision

So a German court has found a legality upon which to effectively ban the circumcision of baby boys — but only because it leaves doctors open to prosecution on a fairly general charge of “mistreatment”. That at least is the way I read the BBC News report.

My immediate reaction is that this is about time. In my view, as regular readers will know (see here and here), circumcision of boys is as much an abuse as circumcision of girls. It is forcible removal/mutilation when the “victim” is not able (not of an age) to give consent. And at least some parts of the German media agree.

The judgement is right — all protests to the contrary. The circumcision of young boys just for religious reasons is a personal injury. Muslims and Jews should decide themselves — but not before the age of 14.
[Matthias Ruch, FT Deutschland]

The circumcision of Muslim boys is just as heinous as the archaic custom of the genital mutilation of little girls. It is an instrument of oppression and should be outlawed.
[Die Welt]

Unfortunately because of the niceties of the case the judgement is not open to being tested in a higher court. That’s shame because such a legal precedent should be tested. So German medics are left in limbo: unable to perform the operation (unless, one assumes, as a medical necessity, which is rare) for fear of prosecution but unable to test the validity of the precedent. Highly unsatisfactory.

Needless to say both the Jewish and Muslim communities are up in arms. At least the German Muslim leader who is quoted in the BBC report is being sensible: I do not want my people to (have to) go abroad and/or to backstreet surgeons to have this done; I would prefer it done under proper medical supervision. The Rabbis quoted seem to be able to say nothing except wail “we’ve always done it this way” and “it’s our right”. Hmmph.

German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, appears to be of the opinion that circumcision is a part of freedom to practice religion. I disagree, and not because I am areligious. In my book no religion (no person) should be able to mutilate someone who is unable to freely give informed consent. If any religion chopped off the left hand, fingers or nose of every baby boy (or girl) this would soon be outlawed, as it would if the children were permanently tattooed at a few days old with a cross in the middle of their forehead. After all the Baptists were established (as antipaedobaptists) precisely because they were opposed to infant baptism when the child was unable to give consent.

But where does one draw the line? Should parents be prohibited from cutting a child’s fingernails or hair on the grounds that this is abuse? Probably not as these regrow; foreskins don’t, just as female genitals don’t regrow nor scarification scars heal fully. That seems, at least on the face of it, to be a sensible test and place to draw the line.

Medical necessity excepted, of course, which is legally testable if necessary.

While I don’t like the way this has been done, I think the German decision is the right one.

Greecing History

Well, well, well. This blog gets more and more like the 38 bus. Nothing for ages and then three come along at once. But to the point …

There was a super article in the comment columns of the Daily Telegraph written by Mayor of London, Boris Johnson: Dithering Europe is heading for the democratic dark ages.

Whether you like the guy, or whether you think he’s a dangerous buffoon, the article is extremely well written. He makes his case that “A Greek economy run by Brussels will ignore the lessons of history, leading to more misery“.

But it also contains some lovely touches. Just his opening sentences are a masterpiece:

It is one of the tragic delusions of the human race that we believe in the inevitability of progress. We look around us, and we seem to see a glorious affirmation that our ruthless species of homo is getting ever more sapiens. We see ice cream Snickers bars and in vitro babies and beautiful electronic pads on which you can paint with your fingertip and – by heaven – suitcases with wheels! Think of it: we managed to put a man on the moon about 35 years before we came up with wheelie-suitcases; and yet here they are.

He goes on:

Aren’t they grand? […] Isn’t that what history teaches us, that humanity is engaged in a remorseless ascent?

On the contrary: history teaches us that the tide can suddenly and inexplicably go out, and that things can lurch backwards into darkness and squalor and appalling violence. The Romans gave us roads and aqueducts and glass and sanitation and all the other benefits famously listed by Monty Python; indeed, they were probably on the verge of discovering the wheely-suitcase when they went into decline and fall in the fifth century AD.

History teaches us many things and we fail to learn most of its lessons.

Boris concludes:

If things go on as they are, we will see more misery, more resentment, and an ever greater chance that the whole damn kebab van will go up in flames. Greece will one day be free again […] for this simple reason: that market confidence in Greek membership is like a burst paper bag of rice — hard to restore.

Without a resolution, without clarity, I am afraid the suffering will go on. The best way forward would be an orderly bisection into an old eurozone and a New Eurozone for the periphery. With every month of dither, we delay the prospect of a global recovery; while the approved solution — fiscal and political union — will consign the continent to a democratic dark ages.

As it happens I agree with him. But that’s not the point. I was struck, first and foremost, by Boris’s excellent and amusing prose. Silver spoon or not, he’s well educated, intelligent, amusing and can look at the world from a fresh perspective. The world needs more like him, and in positions of power and influence, just without the party political agenda.

We don't need no Edukashun

My friend Katy had a couple of rants yesterday (here and here) about the current education system and the damage that politicians are doing. This is by way of a comment to those posts, so maybe you want to read them first?

Essentially I’m with Katy. Teaching kids has been f***ed up since Harold Wilson abolished Grammar Schools. (It’s odd how so many things in this country which are buggered up go back to Harold Wilson as the root cause!)

I remain of the view that kids have to learn the basics to be able to go on and understand the next level. And with times tables the best way to do that is by rote — it has to be got into heads first. Yes, it’s boring (but so is much of life; deal with it) and it doesn’t mean you can’t engage the kids along the way. Once the basic tables are being established the kids can start to understand the patterns in numbers etc. as well as have the ability to do mental arithmetic. The problem is that no-one ever explained why mental arithmetic was useful — like have you got the right change?

Phonics as a reading system sounds like an absolute load of horse shit to me. Just as phonetic alphabets and so on were before it. Why teach the kids one stupid language only to get them to learn something else when they want to read a book? Just do it properly the first time! They need the rudiments of punctuation and sentence structure as they get older, but early on (under 10?) they need to be able to express themselves with the right words — so vocabulary and spelling are important. Yes, to achieve that you have to engage them. Then as they are older they can start to understand the need for punctuation etc. But WTF does it matter about subjunctives and whether chairs have gender? It doesn’t unless you’re going to be a “professional linguist”. This is where school lost me with French and Latin — I just did not see the point of all these arcane complications, nor the point of learning “something foreign”.

I just wish that politicians would stop meddling in things they don’t understand and listening to half-baked theories. If they spent half the time they spend on useless “initiatives” on sorting out the economy etc. etc. we wouldn’t be in half the mess we are. Government keeps changing what is taught and the way it is taught. But industry tells us the kids coming out the other end aren’t fit for purpose. Maybe there’s a connection?! Because it’s all “Emperor’s new clothes”. This is why I didn’t go into teaching (I saw what my friends were doing and knew I’d fail because I’d tear it limb from limb) and it’s why I won’t be a school governor again.

The education I received in the 50s and 60s wasn’t perfect by a long way. But even for the less able it was a damn sight better than most kids seem to get now. Schools then were far too good at finding our what you couldn’t do and playing on it. They mostly still are. Try engaging with the kids, find out what they can do — and I don’t care if it is maths or music or sport — and help them build on it. But at the same time you do have to give them the basic “3 Rs”, otherwise (a) how do you find out if they’re any good at them, (b) they have to be able to function, at least minimally, out in the world, and (c) it’s no use having good ideas if you can’t communicate them accurately to other people.

Let teachers teach. They know what they have to teach and they know how to adapt their methods to different types of child. They know what the kids should be achieving at various ages. It isn’t an easy balancing act and the fewer wobbles (aka. politicians) the less likely you are to fall off the tightrope.

Fukushima Follow-ups

Just a quick note of a couple of follow-up pieces on the Fukushima accident which appeared this week.

First off there is a WHO report looking at the likely long-term health effects of the accident. I’ve clearly not read the whole report but there is a good summary of the main findings on Nature News here and here. The main thrust is that, as has always been said, the radiation effects on the affected citizens are likely to be negligible and far outweighed by the psychological trauma.

Secondly Robert Cringely in his blog I, Cringely writes about what he sees as the inevitability of a further major accident at Fukushima — and one which may be far worse. Basically his contention is that a further large earthquake is inevitable before the Japanese manage to clean up the exposed fuel rods from Reactor 4. No only is this a huge project in its own right but Cringely maintains it will be made worse by the totally dysfunctional way in which Japanese business works (or rather doesn’t work). It makes chilling reading; let’s just hope he’s wrong.