Thursday, 10 December 2009

Bully boy Balls on 5 live drive

Did anybody else hear Peter Allen trying to interview Ed Balls yesterday evening on Radio 5? (Here, starting about 2:07 in).

It's the worst I've heard him. He was bullying, repugnant, rude to Allen. He accused his interviewer of failing to do the BBC's duty to "impartially" stress the blatent electioneering of what he was saying, and that it was wrong to question what he said, and what Darling said in the PBR, even to challenge him. He's an evil, wicked bastard. Listen to it if you can.

I'd like to say it's unbelievable, but it's not.

Monday, 7 December 2009

BBC bias - unbelievable!

I still find it hard to believe that the BBC are so badly biassed.

When I heard them discussing the "hacked" emails, and asking what the Russian connection might be, after so many days history of this episode, I couldn't help but shout at my poor radio.

You know they were not hacked, they were leaked.

You know the only Russian connection was that the leaker first tried to leave the data on a Russina hosted FTP server.

And, above all, you know it's not just a few emails. It's data, models and so much more.

Why lie to our people so blatently, so you entirely discredit yourself?

Sunday, 6 December 2009

A call to action - climategate

This article is so distorted and deceitful and outright lying that it needs to be refuted and placed in the gutter.

Please, sieze on it and bury it. I'm horrified at how something like this can be published somewhere like the Times. It's such a heap of lies and bile and deceit. They should be ashamed.

Come on, please sort this out!

Friday, 4 December 2009

Bankers' bonuses - a small thought.

I listened to the phone-in on fivelive this morning on this subject, and find myself torn as to what the sense of the situation really is. I can very well understand those people (like me, and most others, I think) who struggle to keep afloat and simply feel aghast at the obscene amounts given in bonuses to "bankers".

One argument, though, seems on the face of it to be entirely false. Some say that it's good for the treasury, because income tax is paid on the bonus. Surely, if the bonus wasn't paid, it would increase the bank's profits and therefore incur extra corporation tax? The profit after tax would be available to add to the bailout repayments too.

Have I got that wrong?

Monday, 30 November 2009

Climategate intensified

Oh, wonderful.

Just look at this!

Those poor people at East Anglia didn't have the capacity to store all the raw data they used to predict doomsday!

They had to delete it, poor lambs.

It's time for this nonsense to end, don't you think? There can be no defence of the crap at all now.

Friday, 27 November 2009

What will it take to kill this monster?

With full credits to Pedant-General over at Devil's Kitchen......

CRUdGate - Why this can't be swept under the carpet

Posted by The Pedant-General at 11/27/2009 08:36:00 AM

(NB, It's me, the P-G)

As others have commented, ad nauseam, the response from the proponents of AGW essentially boils down to the following main components:
  • The mail (often there is only one, not several thousand threads of multiple mails and it's usually only mail, rather mail, code, data and commentary) was hacked and that's frightfully naughty. Aren't hackers nasty? Particularly when they are Russian.

This does not merit any response beyond laughter.
  • The science is peer reviewed and it withstood that process.

Still an appeal to authority and, more importantly, dealt with damningly here.
  • This is but one part of the literature, it's only a handful of bad apples and the structure is utterly unchanged even without it.
This is the main charge that our great friend George Monbiot lays out here and that must be tackled. That is what, with your permission, I shall make a hesitant attempt to start the process to do.

Firstly, we must understand how the whole thing hangs together, because the edifice of AGW is very definitely not just pure science, boffins in white coats in labs and so forth. It spans the whole gamut from real pure science, through the applied sciences and Engineering, passing through economics and finally ending up in the dark arts of Politics and Diplomacy. That's a lot to take in, so I have created a handy diagram that explains. Never let it be said that your polymathematic Pedant-General makes you do the hard work.

Let's start at the top, and bear with me.
  • If the climate and recent changes are not unprecedented, then there's nothing to do. Let's go to the pub.

  • If it is unprecedented, then we need to know why. If we don't know if it is unprecedented or if we don't know why, we need to stop here until we can find out.
  • If it is unprecedented but it's not us, then we need to question seriously if there is anything that we can do about it and the answer to that is very very likely to be "no".

  • If it is us, we then to move into economics. Will the damage outweigh the benefit?

  • And even if the damage does outweigh the benefit, we still need to consider if the cost of stopping the climate change at source is less than the cost of adapting to the problem to minimise the damage.

  • And even if the mitigation does cost less than adaptation, we need to ask if our only option for mitigation is to subborn all our freedom to a putative benevolent world government.
Only if you can answer "yes" all the way down that chain can you get to Copenhagen. One misstep and you are looking at adaptation, either because we shouldn’t do anything, or it’s the best thing to do or the alternative is so appallingly ghastly, depending on which route you took to get there.

It is also useful to plot where you and your friends sit on this decision tree:
  • Whilst I wouldn't wish to claim to speak for our diabolical host, I suspect that he is in the box labelled, if not actually, "in the pub".

  • Steve McIntyre et al are in the "Find Out" box.

  • Interestingly, although the "Hockey Team" declare themselves to be at least on the "yes it is caused by man", they appear both to have been buggering about at the bottom in the politics and policy bits and yet the leak makes it clear that actually they are indeed right there in the "Find Out" box with the very chap they hate so much. They really don't actually know. They want to like to think they do, but they know that actually they don't.

  • Next, we get down to the economics and again, we find that there is a disconnect between stated and actual positions. The blogfather Tim Worstall—whatever his private views—maintains a carefully studied neutrality on the science, erring always on the side of "let's grant that it is correct". But he then falls off the "critical path" at the economics. If it's not clear that the downside of GW (whether "A" or not) are worse than the upside, it's similarly not at all clear that we have to do something (or that what we are already doing is not already enough). More importantly, the worse the climate situation is, the greater the cost of mitigation and the more attractive it is to go for adaptation. This is the oddity with the Stern Report. If his numbers are correct, we're either doing enough for mitigation already or we shouldn't be doing it at all. As the shrieking gets louder, the costs of mitigation inevitably rise and the argument gets stronger AGAINST mitigation.

  • Finally we get to the politics and the Bjorn Lomborg position. Even if it is all ghastly, there are many more important things to do with our resources. Millions really actually will die from preventable water-borne diseases, malnutrition and malaria and we really actually can do something about those. Buggering about with the climate, although it definitely will be expensive, is desperately uncertain both in terms of its effectiveness and the lives it will save. That's not a good trade off.


Except of course it is and it isn't. If you do really accept the heavily-lauded consensus, then the decision tree changes quite a bit. Think about it in first aid terms. If it is the case that the climate is changing in an unprecedented manner and that change is driven predominantly by manmade CO2 emissions, then we really shouldn't be muddling about with adapting to effects: we should address the cause and that inevitably means finding a way to reduce manmade CO2 emissions. The problem with this is that everything becomes a bit too clearcut and the diagram now looks like this:

Because there is a skip from the straight science, straight to politics and policy, the science becomes absolutely essential.

As a result, no dissent can be tolerated because the wheels come off very quickly as soon as you have to make your way through the rest of the decision tree.

Suggesting that it's not unprecedented is straight denial and even doubt has to be censored.

But what of George's Knights Carbonic? How can this small number of scientists with "clever mathematical techniques", or "fudge factors" according to taste, affect the whole scientific foundation layer.

Richard North suggests historical parallels, but his analysis does not pull back the curtain, "Wizard of Oz"-style, on the Knights Carbonic.

Permit me to try. Here's how the process works:

Temperatures, CO2 levels, sun spot numbers et al are gathered currently using all the sophistication that we have today. We have the real measured data but only for a short (and geologically utterly insignificant) period.

Next, we try to see if we can find other things, with a longer history, that might be useful for telling us what those key measurements might have been if we had been there at the time with all our technology to measure them. We need proxies and we need to show that those proxies are a good match with the current data.

Once we have done that, we can then use the proxy data to fill back the history. At this stage, we can also say whether or not we believe the current data to be exceptional even without reading the entrails from the GCMs etc.

Now we can add some light seasoning of the real physics and chemistry that determine how things actually work, thermodynamics, mechanics, spectral absorption of different gasses and the lot.

Finally, we bake all the ingredients together in the models to try and tie all the inputs (CO2 levels, solar activity, orbital wobbles etc) with the outputs (particularly temperature, but also climate generally, plus sea levels etc). In particular you are trying to identify how the each thing interacts with everything else, given all the control theory horrors of signal delays (introduced by thermal capacity of the oceans that delays temperature rises by the massive amount of energy required to do so) and feedback couplings (that the solvency of CO2 in water changes with temperature, so the oceans absorb and release CO2 in response to temperature).

But this is where the game is. If the temperature today is NOT unprecedented, in particular relative to the MWP, then we have a big fat data point that says the unprecedented current level of atmospheric CO2 probably isn't tremendously relevant to climate. Or rather, there is some other input signal that is just as important that we are overlooking and therefore the impact of CO2 will be being overstated.

This is not about whether we are warmer than we were 100 years ago. That is undeniable. 30 years ago, almost every Christmas in Scotland was white. Memories of sledging after Christmas lunch cannot be false consciousness. That stopped in about 1980 and has not happened since. The question is whether or not we are warmer than we were when they spoke Norse in Perth. That we are denied post-prandial sledging tells us nothing about that.

This is where CRUdGate is so important. Just look at where CRU and more generally Phil Jones and Michael Mann have - and have had - an influence on the process:

The Harry Read Me file shows just how badly knackered the HadCRUT temperature series really is. HADCRUT is one of a tiny number of recognised ("peer reviewed" even?) global temperature sources. All of them feed off each other and the people implicated in the emails are linked to some of the others. RealClimate's Gavin Schmidt, for example, is a protege of the team, is extensively mentioned in the audit trail of shame and works for NASA's GISS - one of the other of this tiny number of recognised ("peer reviewed" even?) global temperature sources.

So that's goosed the first box.

"Hide the Decline" reveals the fact that the second box doesn't work properly, especially for the tree-ring proxies. Since there is almost no-one of any stripe publishing in the field of paleodendroclimatology (sod the trillions of dollars to be squandered, I want that on a triple word score) who is not very deeply implicated in this leak, it is clear that the failings of this step have been censored.

There is then ample evidence of the attempt to wipe the MWP from the dendro data and we now know that MBH relied on just 12 trees in North America and, when that was challenged, just 1 tree—one lone tree—in Yamal, Siberia.

In any event, the whole paleo data thing is probably onto a hiding to nothing as we can't trust the two steps that got it there. So (I'm being a bit flippant here) any genuine proxy data (ice cores, lake sediments etc) is knackered because it's trying to be matched to goosed temperature data. That's not to say that there aren't pre-existing shenanigans there too though. So even if you haven't actually attempted to censor your failings (and the mails contain plenty of evidence that this has indeed been happening), your results are going to be goosed anyway.

By this stage, you don't have to touch the actual hard science because, since all your input data is garbage, your models are going to be garbage no matter how carefully you understand the basic physics.

Lastly and as a slight aside, why so little from the MSM? That one is easy. You need to have a decent analytical brain just to deal with the chain of events. You need to have a decent analytical brain, a mathematical/scientific mind and a good grasp of some very hard statistics to understand what is being done to massage the numbers and to see how significant it is to the chain of events.

Slice your average environment correspondent through the middle and you're going to find a left-leaning liberal arts graduate who is utterly out of his/her depth. Their world view is being swept from underneath them and they are being shown—in ways that they do not really and have never had to understand—that the guys they thought were the goodies are in fact "at it" and that those they have spent a decade disparaging as deniers were in fact spot on.

I would find that hard to report too.

Thursday, 26 November 2009


Monday, 23 November 2009

Thursday, 19 November 2009

Time to act?

OH sounds a bit depressed.

It really does seem that it's past time that we do something. What that is, I don't know.

However, this crap has gone far, far beyond sane.

Let's get together and consider where to go.

Stop press - Harriet Harman to be prosecuted!

So the CPS has done a good thing and decided that HH should be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention, driving while using her mobile, and failing to stop at the scene of an accident!

Should be fun :)

Help for the unemployed and jobseekers? Maybe not.

My partners' daughter is bright, optimistic and motivated. Mind you, that's potentially in the process of suffering some damage. Not the bright bit, though.

She achieved a degree in Mechanical Engineering two years ago, worked for a year, then decided a masters degree would help he career. She's just passed that, and has been looking round, bright-eyed and eager, for her next job.

Trouble is, there aren't any.

Today, she went to the jobcentre in a certain amount of desperation, to register a claim and seek assistance in finding a job.

Because she shares a flat with her boyfriend, she's not entitled, it seems, to anything..... no benefits of any kind, and not even an interview to help find a job. They just basically told her she was on her own, and to go away.

She's hit a reality check hard. Prior to this, she basically believed in the integrity of government, the state. Like so many of her generation. So many to be disillusioned.

I'd like to see Brown explain and justify his policies to people like her, one to one. Because he's doing so much for the unemployed, isn't he?

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

A grand deceit

I'm stupid.

I lost sight of this.

What proportion of the population doesn't understand the difference between "defecit" and "debt"?

I'd wager it's frighteningly close to 100%.

So, to put it simply, the defecit is the gap between income and spending.

Aaaaand...... that means that Labour have just promised to legislate that our national debt will be slowed down from growing at £200 billion a year now to £100 billion a year in four years time.

Wonderful. Thank you Gordon, you liar, you deceiver, you hate figure, you selfish, freedom hating scum. As time goes on, I realise I'm coming to hate you with a burning passion I've never experienced before. You've subverted our country by your misrepresentation and "clever" manipulation. You drone on and on with your preprepared misinformation speeches.

I want you gone. I want the average person to see what you've done and you're doing.

This socialist, statist government is finally showing its true colours. The things that New Labour tried to hide.

Just bugger off.

Sunday, 15 November 2009

A sobering and frightening read....

I commend you to read Anna Raccoon's article over at OH's place on the Court of Protection.

If anything highlights the evil immoral, and in any other circumstances, surely illegal nature of state control gone mad, this does. I find it hard to understand how it has been allowed to continue without total public outcry.

Much power to Anna in her determined campaign to shine some light on this abomination.


So, as I heard on the radio this morning, Gordon Brown is going to apologise for the UK's role in sending thousands of children to the colonies, where many were abused.

Another apology from Brown the clown for something he wasn't actually responsible for. Call me thick, if you want, but how can he possibly apologise and it mean anything? It's stupid and meaningless, illogical. Decry and condemn the actions, by all means. Say it was wrong and never should have happened. Express sympathy to the parents and children affected. But apologise?

He's free enough with these meaningless apologies, isn't he? But as John Redwood points out, there are lots of things we'd really like to hear an apology for!

Wednesday, 11 November 2009

A stranger in my own land

I posted the other day on my negative feelings about the way things are.

Seriously, I feel absolutely appalled at how the country has changed in the last decade or so, and shocked and guilty that it's really only very recently that I've noticed.

Reading stories like this, this, this, this, this, the Neather stuff (and the subsequent Home Office leak confirming it), the barefaced lies and deceit spewed by most labour politicians, and the general decline in the standard of living and quality of life, while the politicians live the life of Reilly and get away with murder, I just feel like curling up and giving in.

This honestly is not the country I grew up in. And the coming adult generation won't know how things were. They've grown up, been indoctrinated by the government on things like climate change, and most of them can't see what's wrong with all the impostions and intrusions and limitations and control on our lives.

As I see it, there is a limited window of opportunity to restore the balance, to roll back the iniquities and corruption of democracy that labour have wrought, before the sheep overwhelm those that can think and see and fight for what is right. Like it or not, the next government will almost certainly be a Tory one. Regardless of what many bloggers say about the Tories delivering just more of the same, I believe that Cameron has enough of the right instincts to want to do enough of the right things to restore some sanity to our lives. I think we need to support them, but hold them accountable - they can have my vote, but I insist on them making lots of changes - unpicking all the rubbish legislation and giving us our independance and privacy back.

Right now, I feel like an outsider in this country and this society. I hate what has been done to it, and those who did it, with a burning, incandescant rage. I despise Brown, and Blair before him, and all this government for the astronomical deceit and arrogant, self-indulgent underhand planned infiltration and undermining and corruption that they fooled the country with. I earnestly believe they should be charged with treason.

Monday, 9 November 2009

Keep things like this alive!

I quote verbatim from OH, and I do my little bit to stop important sentiment from being cleansed from the Interweb.

Monday, 9 November 2009

Mandelson censors Jeremy Clarkson

I spotted this earlier by Jeremy Clarkson in the Times. Great article

Jeremy Clarkson
Sunday Times

I’ve given the matter a great deal of thought all week, and I’m afraid I’ve decided that it’s no good putting Peter Mandelson in a prison. I’m afraid he will have to be tied to the front of a van and driven round the country until he isn’t alive any more.
He announced last week that middle-class children will simply not be allowed into the country’s top universities even if they have 4,000 A-levels, because all the places will be taken by Albanians and guillemots and whatever other stupid bandwagon the conniving idiot has leapt

I hate Peter Mandelson. I hate his fondness for extremely pale blue jeans and I hate that preposterous moustache he used to sport in the days when he didn’t bother trying to cover up his left-wing fanaticism. I hate the way he quite literally lords it over us even though he’s resigned in disgrace twice, and now holds an important decision-making job for which he was not elected. Mostly, though, I hate him because his one-man war on the bright and the witty and the successful means that half my friends now seem to be taking leave of their senses.

There’s talk of emigration in the air. It’s everywhere I go. Parties. Work. In the supermarket. My daughter is working herself half to death to get good grades at GSCE and can’t see the point because she won’t be going to university, because she doesn’t have a beak or flippers or a qualification in washing windscreens at the lights. She wonders, often, why we don’t live in America.

Then you have the chaps and chapesses who can’t stand the constant raids on their wallets and their privacy. They can’t understand why they are taxed at 50% on their income and then taxed again for driving into the nation’s capital. They can’t understand what happened to the hunt for the weapons of mass destruction. They can’t understand anything. They see the Highway Wombles in those brand new 4x4s that they paid for, and they see the M4 bus lane and they see the speed cameras and the community support officers and they see the Albanians stealing their wheelbarrows and nothing can be done because it’s racist.

And they see Alistair Darling handing over £4,350 of their money to not sort out the banking crisis that he doesn’t understand because he’s a small-town solicitor, and they see the stupid war on drugs and the war on drink and the war on smoking and the war on hunting and the war on fun and the war on scientists and the obsession with the climate and the price of train fares soaring past £1,000 and the Guardian power-brokers getting uppity about one shot baboon and not uppity at all about all the dead soldiers in Afghanistan, and how they got rid of Blair only to find the lying twerp is now going to come back even more powerful than ever, and they think, “I’ve had enough of this. I’m off.”

It’s a lovely idea, to get out of this stupid, Fairtrade, Brown-stained, Mandelson-skewed, equal-opportunities, multicultural, carbon-neutral, trendily left, regionally assembled, big-government, trilingual, mosque-drenched, all-the-pigs-are-equal, property-is-theft hellhole and set up shop somewhere else. But where?

You can’t go to France because you need to complete 17 forms in triplicate every time you want to build a greenhouse, and you can’t go to Switzerland because you will be reported to your neighbours by the police and subsequently shot in the head if you don’t sweep your lawn properly, and you can’t go to Italy because you’ll soon tire of waking up in the morning to find a horse’s head in your bed because you forgot to give a man called Don a bundle of used notes for “organising” a plumber.

You can’t go to Australia because it’s full of things that will eat you, you can’t go to New Zealand because they don’t accept anyone who is more than 40 and you can’t go to Monte Carlo because they don’t accept anyone who has less than 40 mill. And you can’t go to Spain because you’re not called Del and you weren’t involved in the Walthamstow blag. And you can’t go to Germany ... because you just can’t.

The Caribbean sounds tempting, but there is no work, which means that one day, whether you like it or not, you’ll end up like all the other expats, with a nose like a burst beetroot, wondering if it’s okay to have a small sharpener at 10 in the morning. And, as I keep explaining to my daughter, we can’t go to America because if you catch a cold over there, the health system is designed in such a way that you end up without a house. Or dead.

Canada’s full of people pretending to be French, South Africa’s too risky, Russia’s worse and everywhere else is too full of snow, too full of flies or too full of people who want to cut your head off on the internet. So you can dream all you like about upping sticks and moving to a country that doesn’t help itself to half of everything you earn and then spend the money it gets on bus lanes and advertisements about the dangers of salt. But wherever you go you’ll wind up an alcoholic or dead or bored or in a cellar, in an orange jumpsuit, gently wetting yourself on the web. All of these things are worse than being persecuted for eating a sandwich at the wheel.

I see no reason to be miserable. Yes, Britain now is worse than it’s been for decades, but the lunatics who’ve made it so ghastly are on their way out. Soon, they will be back in Hackney with their South African nuclear-free peace polenta. And instead the show will be run by a bloke whose dad has a wallpaper shop and possibly, terrifyingly, a twerp in Belgium whose fruitless game of hunt-the-WMD has netted him £15m on the lecture circuit.

So actually I do see a reason to be miserable. Which is why I think it’s a good idea to tie Peter Mandelson to a van. Such an act would be cruel and barbaric and inhuman. But it would at least cheer everyone up a bit. onto in the meantime.

Guess what? It's gone

Red Rag to a Bull, I say.

Ha! But the article is still being advertised in the Times comment banner!

Update: Well, that's a good story spoiled..... it's on the Times website again!

Saturday, 7 November 2009

Tired, confused, sad and pessimistic

Today, I feel mostly despair.

I've watched all that's gone on over the last few years with anger and disappointment.

Recently, it's got so much worse. Especially the intrusions into how we lead our lives; our liberties and our freedom to act, harmlessly, as we want.

The thing that really makes me despair is a result, as I've blogged earlier, of the fact that our children have seen no different. When I say our children, I mean those capable of coherent and logical thought, of course. With some kind of values. Not the wild animals that the underclass has graced us with.

I'm seeing more and more, people that have no sense of a value of our nationality. No sense of suspicion of the motives behind european politicians. No realisation that our freedom and our rights are being washed away. No hesitation in saying "yes, lets surrender our freedom to the EU project". They have no sense of vested interests...... see Kinnock, and what he earned and earns through the EU, and so many besides. The naivety terrifies me.

Look at the comments on any news item. How dissenting voices are shouted down.

What can we do? Please.

Friday, 6 November 2009


After listening to Brown drone on this morning, a few things occur to me.

I'm fully behind our troops, and I think it's unhelpful, to say the least, when people try to connect any criticism or questioning of policy or tasking of the forces with lack of support for them.

It increasingly seems to me that we're chasing an impossible outcome, and losing lives in the process, if we follow the route of trying to achieve a corruption free, western style democracy in Afghanistan. "Corruption" is seen as the norm there, and accepted by the Afghans. They are a tribal society. It's been that way for centuries.

All we really need to see happen, is for a stable society/government to settle down there. If it's tribal, regionalised, and doesn't conform to our notion of morality, we should let them have that, as long as there's a framework in place to ensure it works. Why should we impose our notion of how a society should look on them?

Did anyone notice, too, how Brown played his old trick of dumping responsibility onto others? It's up to Karzai and the Afghan government to make all this work. And - he said, if I recall properly, that if they fail, they will not be deserving of outside help. Can you believe that? What happens then, Brown? You said we're there to protect ourselves - to stop terrorist attacks on our streets. Are you really going to say after the next bombing "it's not my fault, it's Karzai's!".

The final thought, that sent a shudder through me, was that Brown can say whatever he wants. He knows he doesn't have to deliver, only has to hang on for six months. Then it's someone else's problem.

Thursday, 5 November 2009

Oh, god - just look at this!

This QE business looks like it's just making things worse. The article at CH shows that the billions injected into the economy is essentially just IOUs for the government debt. It's not going to help the economy at all.

Please, let's get this government out and have a fresh start!

Wednesday, 4 November 2009

Lord Sugar of TackyAmstradville - what a prat!


Very constructive. Can we disenoble people? Why was he made a Lord, other than by a Tourettes jerk by Brown?


A conflict of interests?

Actually, it rather demonstrates a purpose to the madness.

Al Gore is set to become the first carbon billionaire. I'm beginning to be more persuaded by the huge commercial and political interests involved than by the science that AGW is a major hoax and manipulation of society. It truly is a religion now.

What do you think?

Sunday, 1 November 2009

Please pass this on!

This is the first good article in the mainstream press I've seen since the original item, revealing how Labour maliciously and willfully encouraged mass immigration. I really, really want everyone in this country to know about this and understand how outrageous and criminally thay have behaved.

Getting angrier and angrier.....

Megrahi - an update at last!

I've been wondering about the health of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the convicted Lockerbie bomber, who was released on "compassionate" grounds, due to experts having assessed that he had three months to live.

The Telegraph carries a story today. It seems that his health has not significantly deteriorated.

Surprise, surprise.

What kicked me in the face, though, was who the "experts" who gave the diagnosis were. Now, bear in mind that the figure of three months is critical, as that is what is required to meet the guidelines for compassionate release.

Expert #1

Within three weeks of the medical examination by Professor Karol Sikora, one of Britain's leading cancer specialists, Megrahi was put on a plane and sent home to Tripoli to die.

Well, that sounds good..... but read on....

Prof Sikora, who is the medical director of CancerPartnersUK in London, was one of three doctors who visited Megrahi in jail on July 28.

He was paid a one-day consultancy fee by the Libyan government to draw up a report delivered two days later. In an interview in September not long after Megrahi's release, Prof Sikora said he was initially "pessimistic" that the experts could say he would survive any less than a year.

But Prof Sikora admitted that the Libyans had encouraged him to conclude that Megrahi had just three months to live following his examination.

"The figure of three months was suggested as being helpful [by the Libyans]," he said. "To start with I said it was impossible to do that but, when I looked at it, it looked as though it could be done – you could actually say that."

Smelly? Who were the other two experts?

While one of the doctors in the team was apparently 'more vague' about putting a limit on Megrahi's life expectancy, a third doctor, Professor Ibrahim Sharif, a Libyan oncologist from the Tripoli Medical Centre, agreed Megrahi had 'about three months'.
I don't recall these sort of details being aired at the time, do you? An interesting quote from another, "real world doctor"....

Prof Nick James, professor of clinical oncology at the University of Birmingham, said: "I would not be surprised if Megrahi was still here well into next year. For sure it could be right his condition has not deteriorated."
What a stitch up. Given all the other things we've learned recently, I withdraw the benefit of the doubt to anything the government says. Even more than I did before.

Friday, 30 October 2009


There really does seem to be a growing groundswell of anger, real anger at what New Labour have done to this country.

Take a look at this item over at CH - and especially the comments. I don't remember such a huge response before, and I can't spot a dissenting voice there. It really is time that action was taken to repair our society.

Wednesday, 28 October 2009

Spiralling down the plughole

..this government, at least.

It occurred to me this morning that the confluence of news stories often reveal so much more than the individual items.

Yesterday, one of the main news pieces told of the fact that in the years since 2001, the number of middle-aged first offenders in the criminal justice system has increased by almost 50%. Bad enough, and hardly surprising, given the petty and vindictive nature of many new laws and regulations this shower have introduced.

Then there was the other story, first aired a month ago, but which is now in force, about changes to the legal system such that motorists and many others who win their case in court will still have to pay the majority of court and legal costs. Again, looked at in isolation, it's bad enough, and seems grossly unfair.

Today, I heard on the radio news (I can't find an online link for this yet) that large numbers of serious offenders are being let off with a "slap on the wrist" or a caution, due to resource issues.

Often, these stories can seem to be contradictory.

Look at them all together..... and it seems to me that this government cannot afford to continue with the policies they've burdened us with. They've run out of money.

A minor example, perhaps, but it seemed interesting to me.

Sunday, 25 October 2009

More analysis worth reading....

Pub Philosopher has written what to me is a thought-provoking piece with another angle on the abuse of immigration and corruption of our constitutional and legislative systems.

The scary thing for me, and I'm surprised it hasn't really occurred to me earlier, is that so many of our young people, possibly including those in their early twenties, will have no real memory of things being different.

Saturday, 24 October 2009

Tee hee!

Look here - especially at the vote results.

Stop Press......New Labour succeed in their plan to destroy Britain

I'm normally scathing of conspiracy theorists. However, observation of the mess we're in, and two recent posts - one at both OH and DK, discussing how immigration policy has been blatently and recklessly directed at achieving a leftie political agenda, and delibreately to "rub the right's nose in diversity", and the other, again at DK, discussing how they planned to change the consitutional working of the country irreversibly.

It just all adds up too neatly and plausibly. I feel shocked at the irresponsibility of the "New Labour Project" playing deadly games with our country an our culture for the sake of their twisted student political games. If this is true, it surely adds up to a series of criminal acts - treason, even.

Though I'm sure the legislative system or other mechanisms have been carefully sabotaged to protect them.

Depressing, eh?

Addendum: An original article is worth reading. It's scary, and tells me that "something must be done". But what?

Friday, 23 October 2009

Thursday, 22 October 2009

Immigration matters

It does.

On the day that Nick Griffin will be on QT, there is a lot of disturbing information that lends credibility to his odious party.

Like.... I was gobsmacked to learn that the number of immigrants in the UK has almost doubled in the last 12 years. I mean.... we had kind of nice immigration since the 50's 60's, when people came from the Caribbean and then the Ugandan asians, and then more...

I know that they often were treated badly, and some parts of our society were disgustingly bad in their attitudes and actions. But it worked, in its way.

But you do have to say, it seems to be in danger of getting out of hand. The projections of the growth in our population in the near future, likely to be fuelled purely by immigration causes me concern.

While the main parties don't pick this up and deal with it, people like the BNP will be given undeserved legimacy. I was surprised to see a joint press article by Frank Field and Nicholas Soames on this subject today.

It's an issue, it really is.

Here, look here...... vote no!

Rab says stand up for common sense!

Wednesday, 21 October 2009

Where's DK gone?

The blog of Devil's Kitchen has gone! Have they caught up with him?

Addendum: seems it was tecchie messiness, not assassination!

Tuesday, 20 October 2009

Targets, SLAs and Tractor Stats

There was an interesting phone-in on fivelive this morning, about the target "culture". It was prompted by news items on how prison inspections were innefective because the prisons prepare for them by transferring problem prisoners, and other tactics (two senior prison managers have been suspended for this trick).

It quickly spread to school and hospital inspections and targets in general. There were many callers able to give examples of how being measured solely by targets is entirely counterproductive. A number of NHS trusts, for example, employ managers in A&E to ensure targets are met, where the money could have been used for more medical staff to actually make a difference. People are admitted to hospital, using a bed, rather than break the 4 hour limit, where the reason for the delay can be entirely reasonable, and for clinical reasons.

A teacher described how he left the profession because he was so burdened by meeting all the requirements pushed down from the government that he couldn't plan his lessons in the way he knew was really beneficial to the students.

They just don't work for the benfit of the consumer.

And then, like a flash bulb going off, I saw the analogy - or well, an example where I know they don't work.

I worked in and around IT services - from both sides - providing services and receiving them from a service provider.

SLAs - Service Level Agreements. Targets. Key performance indicators. Don't work. Well, at least very rarely.

You see, when two parties contract, one to purchase, and one to provide a service, and the quality of that service is quantified by numbers, and the meeting of those figures determines payment, or compliance with the contract (and compliance or non-compliance has a critical effect on managers and staff within the service provider), the focus is on the figures. It's incredibly hard to get numbers to really determine the quality of a service accurately and fully.

The service provider's first priority is to meet the targets, by hook, or very often, by crook. It means things that can really make a difference, but provide little benefit to the provider, suffer, get put on the back burner.

Targets allow those responsible for providing a service, and those responsible for procuring a service, to look squeaky clean and great at their jobs. While reality can be very very different.

Performance measurement has a very important place in this arena, but theyshould be used intelligently, and as a guide to where improvements can be made. They should be used flexibly and co-operatively, to ensure a finite resource is used to best effect.

It's stating the bleeding obvious, but this government is not interested in taking responsibility. Targets aren't to make services better, but for them to be able to raise their hands and claim it isn't their fault.

Monday, 19 October 2009

This government and legislation

One of the things to really get me steamed up lately is the way this useless government uses legislation as another way of avoiding responsibility.

Have you noticed how they never take responsibility themselves for anything? If there is inadequate performance in the NHS, it's failing trusts that are responsible, and have been told to "improve, or else". Schools must improve, or else. It's never the government's fault. Never.

It's the reason for most of the legislation. They think they can demonstrate that they have addressed issues simply by forcing a new piece of law through parliament. All this nonsense that is the ISA - all of it poorly drafted, and hurriedly pushed through.

A few years ago, when I worked in industry, I was part of an "expert group" helping to advise the DTI (as was) team who were responsible for the detail of a new bill, which had technology implications quite fundamental to the way industry works, and which would put new, very serious requirements on industry which if breached, could (and have) result in multi-million pound fines, and even jail sentences. The DTI "team", which numbered three at most, had no experience in the field in which the act would operate, and failed to address the real issues adequately. In the end, the act was passed with serious vagueness about exactly what was required in order to comply. There was a danger that people could get in serious trouble through different interpretations of the provisions. In the end, as far as I can see, essentially lip service is being paid to compliance, and the real intent of parts of the act has never really been dealt with.

How many other pieces of legislation are like that, I wonder? At the very least, a great waste of time and money, and a cluttering up of the legislative system

And then, today, I heard Peter Hain on radio, telling us that Nick Griffin shouldn't be allowed on Question Time this week because the BNP is "an illegal organisation" - by which he meant that they were not legally constituted, as ruled recently. Jack Straw said the same thing on QT last week. Idiots. It's a sad day when people run out of real cases to argue and result to that kind of attitude. I've no time for the BNP, but censorship, and that's all it would be, is entirely the wrong way to deal with them. Where would it end?

And then - such irony - you hear MPs (unfortunately on all sides) claiming that the Legg letters are against the law. Idiots, idiots, idiots! Are they really that far out of touch that they don't realise that whether it's against the law or not is not the point (though as so many others have pointed out, it can't be against the law, since the expenses rules said any claims had to be for costs incurred solely for the purpose of fulfilling their MP duties).

Bottom line, for me, is that the law sets a framework, and is mainly a safety net, a last resort. People should do their jobs, behave decently, give and earn respect. Individual responsibility and accountability.


Saturday, 17 October 2009

Government brainwashing of children

I've mentioned before, I think, how I think it's dangerous, malicious and devious to manipulate the belief system of children through the national curriculum.

A few days ago, Prodicus made me aware of even worse offences like this by them. He's passed on a request for people to sign this petition in protest.

If anyone's reading this, please take a minute or two to sign the petition.

Case proved


Dangerous idiots.

Where will the jobs come from?

Since I've had more time recently to read and think, and especially since "discovering" the blogosphere, I've surprised myself by becoming better informed about the current political and economic situation (mess). Also, more appalled at what is going on around us, and especially how the public are being deceived and manipulated, from the national curriculum to the utterings of politicians.

One thing has been really bugging me lately. That is, where are the jobs going to come from to satisfy the demand of the growing ranks of the unemployed?

The recovery from the last recession was supported to no small extent by the explosion of the financial sector. It's hard to see many jobs being created in that area in the foreseeable future - indeed jobs are still being lost there (example: announcement yesterday by LTSB of 460 jobs as discussed by John Redwood here) and it seems likely many more are still to go. Apart from very specialised niches, it's hard to see how much in the way of manufacturing industry is feasible, until and unless costs in the far east and India rise sufficiently to erode the competitiveness gap. We all know that the official unemployment figures understate the number who want to work, and the number who can and should work. While the government proudly discuss the hundreds of jobs they are "creating" through things like apprenticeships (and I wonder how many of those will turn into long term, permanent and full time jobs), it's merely scratching the surface, and to be honest, hardly worth doing.

I know Cameron plans to improve the climate for private enterprises to be created and succeed more easily, by reducing business taxes and red tape (which is very important and long overdue) but I find it hard to see how a real surge in the creation of jobs is going to happen. I'd love to hear someone address this properly - it seems to be possibly the biggest issue facing us, especially as we ought to add to the unemployed numbers the number of people that will have to move from the public sector to the private sector. Personally, I'll be looking for ways to stand on my own two feet, rather than expect to be employed by others for the rest of my working life (however long that happens to be).

Apologies for my rambling writing style - hopefully it will improve if I can keep my blog going.

Any ideas or reassurance?

Friday, 16 October 2009

My first ever blog post!

I don't want to sound like a boring old fart (and I promise, you, I'm not), but to start my blog, I want to set down some, possibly unstructured and rambling, thoughts, which may go someway to explain the way I feel about things. Bear with me, please.

I've seen astonishing changes through my life.

I went to school in the 60's and 70's. Through higher education from '75 to '79 - an abortive first year at university, then a second, successful degree course at a "technical college", resulting in a 2:1 honours degree in electronics engineering, and a choice of several job offers.

Computer technology burst into real life during my degree course. I'd done some BASIC programming in the last year or so at school - which meant trips to a local computer centre, and sitting at a Creed teleprinter, typing my program onto punched tape and leaving it to be run for me, and collecting the printed results on the next visit. We never saw the computer itself. I learned machine code programming on a DEC PDP-8 at college, entering the program via toggle switches on the front of the machine. The first microprocessors (such as the Intel 4040 and 8080 and Motorola 6800) came out during my degree, and I learnt more with them - all very basic facilities and technically limited. The first IBM PC came out after I'd been at work a few years. Look where we are now!

I mention this, because in those years, when I was becoming a young adult, the popular view (think back to "Tomorrow's World" on TV) was that we were entering a bold and exciting new age, where automation and computers would increase productivity so much, that in the future, everybody would not have to work long hours, and that leisure time would be abundant for all. I kid you not, if you don't remember those days.

Obviously, the opposite has happened. In those years, even not that long ago, whether a couple both worked was usually a matter of choice - it was possible for a family to get by on one income. Now, life is often a struggle, especially for younger people and new families. I embarked on my career with no debts, and a wide choices of jobs. Now, our children leave university (and HE educational establishments are all Universities now, aren't they?) with typically £10 - £15K of debt, and often little or no choice of an appropriate job. They find it hard if not impossible to get on the housing ladder, and if they do, it's with dangerous mortgages (I remember my first mortgage - I had to be a saver with the Building Society for a year, then join a waiting list for available funds, pay a deposit, and be able to borrow 3X salary max) and now in a volatile housing market. So many people in negative equity - and to me, the current climate appears much worse than the early '90's when the last recession hit.

It seems to me that although there have been countless changes, innovations etc that do enhance life, the quality of life, and general happiness "with our lot" is not better. I find myself repeatedly exasperated at the rubbish that is spewed into our lives in the way of nannying, outright bullying, stupid rules and legislation, just all the intrusion into our lives by government, especially this deceitful, corrupt excuse for a government that New Labour is.

There seems to be no room for common sense or individual responsibility and accountability any more.

Is it just me, or is it all rubbish?