Back to the Future?

East Belfast movie maker George Clarke was going through a Charlie Chaplin box DVD set about a year ago when he noticed, right at the beginning of a clip he was watching, a woman walking by looking for all the world as if she were chatting on her cell phone/mobile/handy.

It seems replaying it and zooming in did nothing to alter that impression either.

So - could it be a sneak preview of a futre Dr Who companion?

One with the DR's special tweaks that lets cell phones work accross time?

Or maybe a member of security staff from the USS Enterprise quietly chatting with the ship on her communicator whilst it was on an adventure in the past. Who knows could the man in the hat be a shot of a heavily disguised Spock with a hat covering his ears and eyebrows...

It is not likely it could actually be a current cell phone running on the current systems. They require an extensive infrastructure to make them work, with a network of arials to allow them to connect through to the provider's exchange and route the call on to the recipient.

Still there are other possible explanations - maybe time traveler with a walkie-talkie..

Of course there is the alternative that it is just coincidence, or someone who is hard of hearing, or even a hoax, by whoever put the original DVD together, we all saw Forest Gump at famous historical events, computing has moved on since that movie was made.


Even so, it fires the imagination dosn't it?

Another day, another New Labour Governemnt Database

The Nanny state, apparently deeply concerned that it is leaving us any privacy at all, is now turning it’s attention to the creation of a newsuper database to record when we make phone calls, or send emails and who to, oh and all the web sites we visit.

Of course this is purely ‘for our own good’, to protect us all from terrorism. That catchall ‘bogeyman’ excuse of the Authoritarian state, ‘protecting the citizen from the terrorist and criminal’. The same citizen that the State will not permit to defend themselves against criminals with the frequently used threat of prosecution hanging over them if they do.

A Home Office spokesman disingenuously attempted to claim that: "Changes to the way we communicate, due particularly to the internet revolution, will increasingly undermine our current capabilities to obtain communications data - essential for counter-terrorism and the investigation of crime - and use it to protect the public.

Now as far as I know it is still possible for the authorities to tap phone conversations and intercept post, within the law. They do not currently have a database of all letters sent and to whom as far as I am aware. Nor have they ever had one.

So when the spokes person claimed:"Losing the ability to use this data would have very serious consequences for law enforcement and intelligence gathering in the UK." it did not follow logically at all.

The simple fact is that the state already has access to this and more, such as emails and web useage if they suspect someone. It is going too far to monitor us all.
And we all know the State can be trusted to look after this information and not loose it on a bus, or sell it, or something.

And we all know just how much the promise of the State is worth when they say they will only use legislation only for the purpose it was framed.

...Or maybe we could ask Islandic banks about how anti terrorism legislation was recently limbered up ready to be used to freeze Islandic funds in the UK. Or how other legislation was used to silence and eject hecklers from a Labour party conference.

Alarmist predictions of 5 foot rise in sea level

According to a report from a UK/Finnish group sea levels could rise by up to almost 5 ft (4 ft 11 ½ inches) by the end of the century.

But ‘up to’ clearly includes any figure below that, including no discernable difference at all.

Apparently the team has built a computer model that can reflect the relationship between temperatures and sea level over the past 2000 years.

For the model’s predictions outside normal parameters to work it has to be accurate outside the parameters. It is simply not possible to test it against reality without data and many a model that accurately reflects relatively chaotic behaviour within certain bounds fails singularly when taken outside them.

It is an fact that global temperatures were significantly higher than current levels, between the 9th and 14th centuries. A period of some 500 years when temperatures were warmer than those today, what does the model say about sea level and ice cover during that period?

There is also the fact that the data on temperature predictions fed into such a model has to be accurate for it to be accurate. GIGO as they say.

The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 was statistically the same as 2006 and 2005 and every year since 2001. Unless the IPCC does a Robert Mugabe on the figures ‘global warming’ appears to have, for the moment at least, halted .

What happens next is anybody's guess - and that’s really what it is, a guess.

It could warm up to something more like it was back in the middle ages, it could remain stable, conceivably it could drop. Whatever happens it will sooner or later change, one way or the other.

That’s what climate does - and has done since long before humans learned to harness fire.

Maybe politicians on the AGW bandwagon should think twice about bio fuels and punitive taxes before they cause a crisis of their own, a food crisis.

Mind that’s no reason not to cut pollution, or build nuclear power stations, or develop compressed air or hydrogen powered transport. That makes sense anyway.

Flushing duals for Africa

I was listening to the radio the other day. Radio 2, Steve Wright. There was a discussion about duel flush WCs. Between Steve and a female who seemed to hold stronger opinions. I missed who she was.

Both seemed pretty positive about the idea of the dual flush WC on the grounds that it saves water - and indeed what’s not to like?

They then got onto the subject of the possibility of using ‘grey’ water, or rainwater for this purpose.

It certainly would save on drinking water, if the technology were there at a reasonable price – and I am not talking about a rustic bucket by the WC sort of thing here.

Where it all went wrong for me was when the female remarked that it was (and I am paraphrasing here) almost morally wrong to waste good drinking water flushing toilets in the UK when there were children in other parts of the world dying desperate for clean drinking water.

Why do people say stuff like that?

The implication clearly being that we, as wasteful westerners, were somehow hogging the drinking water for ourselves. Now I apologise to her if I misinterpreted her comment, but that’s what it sounded like to me. A logical fallacy a Non-Sequitur.

I thought Doh! “Eat it all up there are starving children in - Wherever…”

I immediately had a vision of how we might measure all the drinking water saved with dual flush WCs, and put it into tankers to freight it to somewhere like Africa. I suppose we would have to build giant ships along the lines of the old sailing (low carbon footprint) tea clippers largely constructed out of wood (for sustainability) to do it. With modern technology you wouldn’t need a huge crew or to climb masts, electric winches and computer technology, powered by solar panels and wind turbines (sustainable energy) could handle it.

No, Sorry – Yes it makes good sense to only use what water we actually need to. To be efficient with it’s use - But our water usage does not deprive anyone elsewhere. Drinking water availability is down to things like climate, geology, technology, political stability and good government.

Report claims home birthers at greater risk if transferred to hospital

Sometimes one wonders at what otherwise presumably professional people do with statistics.

Researchers writing in the journal British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (BJOG) examined all home births over a decade.

They apparently feel the study indicates there could be ‘serious risks’ for the baby when mothers who chose a home birth are transferred to hospital.

The implication being that home birth is the problem aspect.

The problem is the data is self selecting. They are examining births that have to be transferred to hospital because they have got into trouble serious enough to require it. Also they are not really comparing like for like.

As it stands the particular conclusion mentioned above can really amount to little more than a pointer to a possible direction for further research. Something as easily arrived at by educated logic. It is largely useless - and it needn’t have been, if those conducting it had planned more carefully and harvested the right data. One fears to some extent it is time and money not used to the best advantage it could have been.

Only around 15% of home birthers actually have problems that require they transfer to hospital, for second time mothers the risk is lower.

A valid comparison would have been to look at how women who elected to give birth in hospital, with no contra indications prior to giving birth, fared against women who elected to give birth at home with, no prior contra indications, fared.

One might expect to see that the possible wait and journey to hospital might disadvantage home birthers who got into trouble, compared to Hospital birthers who similarly got into trouble - but it is possible this could be offset by other factors, such as the risk posed by antibiotic resistant infections and other infections present in hospitals, or possible closer individual attention during the initial stages.

Whilst the actual report is more balanced, the BBC headline is dubious in that it baldly states “Home birth to ward increases risk”. It is actually misleading as this is by no means proven, or evident, even from the report. An accurate headline might have prefaced it with “Report claims”.

Vicount claims ‘action’ is needed over ‘unregulated’ sat nav information

It seems that Crossbencher Viscount Tenby is concerned that "unregulated information" on satellite navigation systems was "causing" juggernauts to get stuck in narrow lanes unsuitable for them - and he wants come of that good old Statist Government action to solve the problem - and save the pathetic proles from themselves.

These things do happen from time to time and are reported with relish. Still I was under the impression that users of such systems were not actually compelled to obey them when they can see with their own eyes - and common sense informs them, that a gap is too narrow, or a bridge too low for their vehicle. Such errors of judgement, in extremis, are covered by the offence of driving without due care and attention. Is it possible Viscount Tenby believes otherwise?

Maybe he should address the terrible problem of "unregulated information" on ordinary maps, that, based on his logic, we must suppose ‘caused’ such incidents prior to the advent of Sat Nav systems. I recall reading tales of the odd bus taking their top deck off on a low bridge long before the advent of Sat Nav.

His use of the word ‘unregulated’ is worrying and perhaps telling, it implies he believes the information we are allowed to have access to should be ‘regulated’ - state regulated.

If there is a demand for such a facility it will probably be supplied quickly enough by the manufacturers as a 'bells and whistles' selling point. It does not need State intervention, very little actually does.

Fayed’s much heralded Inquest ‘evidence’, all bluster, no substance

Well many of us may have been waiting for some sort startling evidence backed revelations from Mohammed Fayed yesterday, especially those with a penchant for tinfoil lined hats.

If so we were all doomed to disappointment. He had not a shred of it. Zip. Nil, Nought.

One begins to suspect the only conspiracy was on the part of Mr Fayed. That it may all have been some sort of elaborate wind up on Fayed’s part, at the taxpayers expense, designed to allow him to bad mouth as many people as possible under the immunity provided by the court. It strikes one more as a sort of elaborate fingering the nose at the British State, perhaps in revenge for imagined, or even real, slights – But done with your and my money.

His claims are so convoluted and complicated, involving so many people and such random impossible chances and coincidences, that it is difficult to imagine that even he gives them any real credence.

It would simply not be possible for such a vast conspiracy to have hung together for ten weeks, let alone all these years, without concrete evidence, in large amounts leaking big time. If it were there to be had it would have been by now. Also some of the supposed bedfellows are beyond belief – The French and British security services for instance ;-) who would believe that?

Mr Fayed’s research/evidence seems to have led him to believe Prince Philip was German. His views on the subject as expressed in court are not what might necessarily be interpreted as politically correct racially speaking. Whilst prince Philip probably has some German blood from Prince Albert, his grandfather was King George I of Greece and he was born Prince of Greece, so presumably he is more Greek than German and should not be condemned for being either. Prince Philip saw active service for this country throughout WWII.

Mr Fayed has had his expensive joke. His performance and claims have been so risible one wonders, as a lay person, if he may even have laid himself open to contempt.

The proceedings should now be brought to as speedy conclusion as possible, with as little further waste of hard earned taxpayers money as possible.

Is it really a myth that migrant workers do jobs UK workers wont?

According to the Telegraph a new report by Migrationwatch is claiming it is a myth that foreign workers are just doing work which UK workers don’t want, or filling newly-created jobs.

There is a suggestion that a generation of low-skilled British workers risks being ‘trapped’ in unemployment by record immigration.

They express concern that a combination of generous benefits and immigrant labour willing to work for low wages will create "an underclass of discouraged British workers."

A single person under 25, on the minimum wage of £193 pw is just £10 a day better off than if they were on the dole. A married person with two children is £30 pw better off than on the dole.

So what’s all this myth exploding nonsense then? The British worker would appear to be virtually as well off on the dole as doing these jobs. It is not surprising they don’t want to do the jobs. But it is still definitely a matter of them not being willing to do the jobs for the money.

It seems that Frank Field, the former Labour welfare reform minister interprets this as immigrant workers ‘trapping’ British-born people in unemployment, because the higher the level of immigration in an area, the ‘harder’ it is for the unemployed to come off Jobseeker's Allowance.

This is backwards logic at best. The state can hardly blame migrant workers for the fact that it pays such generous dole benefits that, by the time transport costs and the bother of getting up in the morning are taken into account, the recipients are unwilling to do jobs that would probably actually leave them worse off, while the more motivated migrant workers are willing to underbid them for work.

Surely the UK workers would be unwilling to work for these wages, doing these jobs in any case?

Is that not the reason why those jobs are available for the migrant workers to do in the first place - otherwise all these jobs would surely already be filled by British workers?

This situation primarily results from the level the Government sets it’s dole benefits at, combined with our membership of the EC.

The Government is not your friend

Re Polly’s: “The state is not public enemy number one”.

Maybe not Polly - But remember, the State is not your friend either!

Are 80% of UK jobs really going to ‘foreigners’?

Far be it for me to defend the current UK Government in any way. The low opinion in which I hold them - and the many reasons for it should be readily apparent within the posts of CFD.

However there seems to be much interest in the MSM recently over the Statistics Commission study that indicates 1.4 million of the 1.7 million jobs created since 1997, over 80%, had gone to people born overseas.

This conjures up images of hoards of foreigners stealing jobs from the willing, but down trodden British worker. Gordon Brown’s dubious 'British jobs for British workers' sound bite.

Now let’s see if we can spot any weasel words here – ah yes! Not too far to look: ‘born overseas’.

So that will include British citizens born abroad - Not necessarily actually ‘foreigners’ at all then. It would for instance include three of my nieces and nephews, were they not students. That inflates the headline figure by 300,000.

Now those jobs. Exactly what sort of jobs are we talking about here. I don’t have the figures but I would hazard a guess that they are not all well paid highly sought after posts.

Might some include poorly paid work with unsociable hours; janitorial posts, security work, waiting at tables, maybe even fruit picking?

The numbers are high enough to cause some concern, but not legitimately as high as the study claims - and the figures do not tell the whole story.

Are memory researchers making monkeys of themselves?

It seems Japanese memory researchers have tested young chimpanzees against University students and found that the chimps perform better in certain memory tests than the students.

Now I am not normally a betting man, but in this case I would be prepared to bet that they didn’t even think about testing the chimps against non, or pre-literate people.

I recall reading a study, or article, some years back - but I can’t remember ;-) where now - that showed non and pre-literate people performed significantly better in certain similar memory tests. It was concluded that this was because literate people, being able to and used to writing down what they wanted to ‘remember’ didn’t need to practice and develop their memory in that way. Conversely in certain other sorts of memory test literate people performed better.

I do seem to recall studies on the detrimental impact of cannabis on memory as well...

Dr Tetsuro Matsuzawa innocently said: ”No one can imagine that chimpanzees - young chimpanzees at the age of five - have a better performance in a memory task than humans.” Well, based on the above, one might well do so.

It could be the good Dr would have done better selecting his test subjects from amongst illiterate hunter gatherers.

God knows what the availability of the internet will do to us…

McCanns named as suspects in Madeleine’s disappearance by Portuguese Police.

I am sure few can have escaped hearing about the unfortunate McCann family and the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine.

Now, it seems, the Portuguese police are looking to pin the disappearance on her parents Kate and Jerry. They are apparently suggesting that Kate McCann drugged her daughter to make her sleep, giving her an overdose that killed her.

Then she, possibly in concert with her husband, concealed the body for weeks and then hired a car and disposed of the body using a hire car.

Let's look at some of what is known about the matter.

Madeleine’s parents were checking on the children regularly and returning to a meal with friends Presumably they were acting normally, eating, chatting and giving no indication to people who knew them well that there was anything amiss.

When Madeleine was found to be missing they reacted immediately and attempted to raise the alarm immediately. The Portuguese police were informed, but initially did not take the matter seriously.

This is to some extent understandable, as they must have many children who do wander off briefly. Though In the UK given the proximity to the sea and rocks the police might well have reacted with a view to the welfare of the child and the possibility of their coming to harm accidentally. That the Portuguese police do not seem to have concerned themselves over.

The search for Madeleine was driven to a greater level than might otherwise have been, largely it seems, due to the McCann’s pushing the Portuguese authorities by means of publicity. There were certainly some rumblings of disquiet from them over the publicity. Also someone possibly connected with the police had apparently been briefing against the McCanns for some time.

Up to 1974 the country was still a dictatorship. Policing in a dictatorship does not always require the same skill-sets and priorities as democracies. They will not be the same as we may be familiar with. They are working under quite different rules, conventions, laws and possibly priorities as we are used to.

Whilst the Portuguese authorities may have preferred a less high profile search, Madeleine’s parents apparently decided her best chance was for her face to be known as widely as possible and to be kept at the forefront of people’s minds as much as possible.

Unfortunately this strategy whilst probably the best for Madeleine’s chances was not so good for next year’s Portuguese tourist season.

So on the face of it. If the scenario being implied by the Portuguese Authorities has any likelihood at all it would have initially required great acting abilities and the split second timing of a criminal mastermind to have fooled their friends, or possibly some sort of compact to conceal the crime between them all.

If it was just Kate McCann then the feat would have been impossible without ice nerves like steel, the acting abilities of an Olivier, combined with the strength speed and stamina of a pentathlon athlete, etc., etc.

As to the crime it’s self? If ever did administer any sort of sedative the surely being medically trained they would have known what they were doing and rather unlikely to have done so by mistake.

Moving on: So having concealed the body somewhere sufficiently cunning that it could not be discovered - and would not go off in the heat, all without their friends becoming aware. Whilst at the same time organising a fake hunt for their missing daughter – and having had an out suggested by the police who thought she might have gone wandering. The parents failed to take advantage of the chance to drop her in the sea in the dark.

Continuing on further: Rather than make enough fuss to be convincing and let the matter die down without the police suspecting them at all, at this point, if you follow tthis line of 'reasoning', they chose to push the matter - and keep pushing it, to ensure it came to the attention of the world. Clearly causing some irritation on the part of the Authorities and ensuring that they couldn’t wipe their noses without it being splashed across the pages and screens of the world’s media.

'Cunningly' they do this until they can't move without a camera pointed at them and then, at this point, they hire a vehicle and use it to take the body away for disposal and then successfully dispose of it, all without being filmed doing it, by a small international media army, following their every move.

Oh and there is the matter of Kate McCann’s religious faith. If she did have a hand in the child’s demise, she successfully managed to front out the spiritual head on earth of her faith, with no more sign of distress than a mother desperately hunting for her child might display.

Now that would be true and chilling cunning for you.

Personally I’ll need a teensy bit more convincing…

The McCann’s behaviour appears to have been consistent in every way with parents doing literally everything they can possibly think of to maximise the chances of recovering their daughter, having subordinated their lives for months to that end. A daughter they believe to be alive somewhere.

It does not appear consistent with someone, who had killed his, or her, child and was trying to conceal it.

The fact that Madeline disappeared in Praia da Luz should not put people off visiting there, such things regrettably happen in other places. The police response on the other hand and how the McCanns have fared there lately - That ought to make anyone thinking of visiting Portugal next year think twice.

Maybe someone gets just a little too irritating…

Researchers claim Sheffield's citizens are the luckiest in UK

Now I have nothing against Sheffield, but it seems a team of psychologists from Peterborough recon it’s occupants are the luckiest in the UK.

How do they come up with this amazing statistic?

Apparently the researches asked people how often they experienced ‘good luck’, like finding a £10 note and how often they experienced bad luck, like having a bird bomb them with droppings.

By the same criteria they judged those living in Plymouth to be the unluckiest in the UK.

Now is it just me? Or does it occur to anyone else that Plymouth must have a plentiful supply of seagulls, known for their tendency towards loose stools, whereas Sheffield is probably less well endowed in that respect.

Also maybe the inhabitants of Plymouth are less careless with their tenners, than the inhabitants of Sheffield must be, based on the survey evidence - there must presumably also be a looser for every tenner found in Sheffield.

So these researchers – They got paid to do this? That's more than lucky...