It is difficult to tell about Jacques Rogge, head of the International Olympic Committee. Maybe in an Ideal world the ideal of the founders of the Olympics might actually hold sway and the games wouldn’t be inexorably bound up with the world of politics.
On planet Earth it is - and to pretend otherwise is to be blindly idealistic and naive. Mr Rogge may be many things but it is doubtful he either of those. It is unlikely he would have been able to work his way into the position he holds if he were.
According to the BBC he has told a meeting of national committees in the Chinese capital that they “should assure their countries the Games would succeed.” I hope that is a misprint and he actually said “be assured”. But equally we know they will anyway and it could be his Freudian slip showing.
We all know that the Chinese state will ruthlessly assure the games are not ‘blighted’ by further protest, once they are under their control ‘in house’ so to speak, no matter what the cost, we have heard their representatives say they will ‘show no mercy’ to anyone who attempts to disrupt them anywhere they hold sway.
Chinese security officials have already behaved like “thugs” according to Lord Coe - and that is in the West, what they will feel free to do on their own turf is anyone’s guess.
Rogg is also reported as having said the games will “rebound from crisis" after days of protests along the torch route. The crisis will certainly be less obvious, as mentioned, anyone brave enough to protest, once the route is under Chinese control will most likely never be able to be seen by the media and will be dealt with swiftly and mercilessly if they do.
Any such protesters will require incredible courage and must be aware their efforts will be a forlorn hope and the price for making them will be high indeed.
The athletes will be happy to turn a blind eye. It is their moment in the sun - and many of them are insulated in their world of sport.
So on the surface things will look ok and that is what Mr Rogg and the Chinese Government want. That way they can pretend to the world under the cover of a threadbare fig leaf.One wonders if the then head of the International Olympic Committee Count de Baillet-Latour was equally concerned the 1936 Olympics should go off without any hitches. They went off well by all accounts.
Strangely, threadbare pretence seems to satisfy them - and the many dispicable and unpleasant leaders and governments on the world stage, such as the likes of the ‘democratic’ Robert Mugabe.
Surely they don’t imagine they are really actually fooling anyone?
Thursday, 10 April 2008
Wednesday, 9 April 2008
Under age drinking in the UK - Then and now
It seems the Police have been cracking down on under age drinkers country wide. Around 25,thousand litres of alcohol - mostly beer and cider - were seized from around 5,000 ‘youths’, during a two-week operation involving 39 forces across England and Wales costing £700 thousand.
A Home Office spokesman boasted that information gathered by police during the operation would help them target individuals and trouble spots in future.
Sadly, this very comment, if anything this is an indication of just how bad things have become.
Minimal research informs that twenty years ago the officers who patrolled an area made it their business to know all their trouble spots and the individuals who needed targeting.
They acquired the information in their day to day patrolling and in conversation with their colleagues and the public. It was their bread and butter. They passed this information to someone who collated it, verified it, developed it and re distributed it.
Twenty years ago youths obtained alcohol, usually in the form of cheap lager, beer or cider, by means of either purchasing it from dodgy off licences of indirectly by getting, one way or another, older customers to buy for them.
Once obtained in sufficient amounts the ‘youths’ would have favoured haunts where they consumed it. Officers worth their salt would just happen to drop by to or discourage sales, visit the haunts and thus render them less attractive by their presence and take anyone too objectionable home to their parents.
This would be as effective with those who were not fond of authority as they would prefer to avoid a visit by the police and equally effective with many other households because of the embarrassment and would prefer to avoid a visit by the police in such circumstances.
So nothing has changed then – apart from the fact that it seems the police can effectively no longer just cart drunken youths directly home to a ‘place of safety’.
Much too much red tape - targets, ‘rights’ (courtesy of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown) and convoluted Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE courtesy of Maggie Thatcher) rules, for that now – Oh and according to the home office, who are admittedly probably pretty out of touch with real policing, , it apparently takes £700,000 pounds just to find out something that used to come automatically.
A Home Office spokesman boasted that information gathered by police during the operation would help them target individuals and trouble spots in future.
Sadly, this very comment, if anything this is an indication of just how bad things have become.
Minimal research informs that twenty years ago the officers who patrolled an area made it their business to know all their trouble spots and the individuals who needed targeting.
They acquired the information in their day to day patrolling and in conversation with their colleagues and the public. It was their bread and butter. They passed this information to someone who collated it, verified it, developed it and re distributed it.
Twenty years ago youths obtained alcohol, usually in the form of cheap lager, beer or cider, by means of either purchasing it from dodgy off licences of indirectly by getting, one way or another, older customers to buy for them.
Once obtained in sufficient amounts the ‘youths’ would have favoured haunts where they consumed it. Officers worth their salt would just happen to drop by to or discourage sales, visit the haunts and thus render them less attractive by their presence and take anyone too objectionable home to their parents.
This would be as effective with those who were not fond of authority as they would prefer to avoid a visit by the police and equally effective with many other households because of the embarrassment and would prefer to avoid a visit by the police in such circumstances.
So nothing has changed then – apart from the fact that it seems the police can effectively no longer just cart drunken youths directly home to a ‘place of safety’.
Much too much red tape - targets, ‘rights’ (courtesy of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown) and convoluted Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE courtesy of Maggie Thatcher) rules, for that now – Oh and according to the home office, who are admittedly probably pretty out of touch with real policing, , it apparently takes £700,000 pounds just to find out something that used to come automatically.
Tuesday, 8 April 2008
Quote of the day
“ Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”Philip K. Dick
“ When you argue with reality, you lose - but only 100% of the time.”Byron Katie
Diana Inquest ‘unlawful killing’ by Driver and Paparazzi
The result is in for the inquest on Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed. The latest figure I heard for UK public money spent in relation to the deaths to date is £10 million. The chance of this being the final figure is I would suggest vanishingly small. This presubably does not include French Taxpayers money also spent.
The decision? What most rational individuals had concluded was the case within a very short time.
A driver who was under the influence in a heady atmosphere who liked to pump his own self importance by dropping hints. A ravening pack of paparazzi. An escape plan that didn’t come off and probably didn’t allow for the drivers impairment and was agreed not allowing for it. All these factors came together disastrously and randomly with a difficult section of road resulting in a crash.
The driver’s condition, behaviour and the behaviour of the paparazzi being the primary causes and being so reckless, so negligent, ("gross negligence") as to be unlawful.
The driver paid the ultimate price for his folly along with two of his passengers and is beyond the reach of the law. The paparazzi have successfully muddied the waters so it is impossible to tell with sufficient certainty who out of them were to blame enough to be prosecuted with any hope of success.
There are already indications that Mohammed Fayed is not satisfied with this result - But then he never will be satisfied with anything that fails to absolve him, if it’s the truth or not.
The fact is that driver of the vehicle who according to best evidence had drunk a fair bit and was on pills, was his man. He had apparently OK’d the plan that resulted in the crash with Fayed Senior. It seems that Dodi Fayed also checked in with him and agreed it.
Mohammed Fayed is, in a significant part, much of the reason the investigation has dragged on for so long and cost so much. The ‘if onlys’ must be eating at him and one can’t help but sympathise, for all that his behaviour in court and out, in relation to the matter, appeared so bizarre - But that doesn’t entitle him to cause the waste of any more public money.
Leave it to the tin foil hat squad now. If Mohamed Fayed chooses to become one with them then that is his mistake and his choice.
The decision? What most rational individuals had concluded was the case within a very short time.
A driver who was under the influence in a heady atmosphere who liked to pump his own self importance by dropping hints. A ravening pack of paparazzi. An escape plan that didn’t come off and probably didn’t allow for the drivers impairment and was agreed not allowing for it. All these factors came together disastrously and randomly with a difficult section of road resulting in a crash.
The driver’s condition, behaviour and the behaviour of the paparazzi being the primary causes and being so reckless, so negligent, ("gross negligence") as to be unlawful.
The driver paid the ultimate price for his folly along with two of his passengers and is beyond the reach of the law. The paparazzi have successfully muddied the waters so it is impossible to tell with sufficient certainty who out of them were to blame enough to be prosecuted with any hope of success.
There are already indications that Mohammed Fayed is not satisfied with this result - But then he never will be satisfied with anything that fails to absolve him, if it’s the truth or not.
The fact is that driver of the vehicle who according to best evidence had drunk a fair bit and was on pills, was his man. He had apparently OK’d the plan that resulted in the crash with Fayed Senior. It seems that Dodi Fayed also checked in with him and agreed it.
Mohammed Fayed is, in a significant part, much of the reason the investigation has dragged on for so long and cost so much. The ‘if onlys’ must be eating at him and one can’t help but sympathise, for all that his behaviour in court and out, in relation to the matter, appeared so bizarre - But that doesn’t entitle him to cause the waste of any more public money.
Leave it to the tin foil hat squad now. If Mohamed Fayed chooses to become one with them then that is his mistake and his choice.
Saturday, 5 April 2008
Quote of the day
“ A government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims.”Ayn Rand
Police threaten to shoot legal team seeking order to release election results in Zimbabwe
Things do not look good for Zimbabwe.
Clearly its ruler Robert Mugabe and his cronies have no intention of giving up power. They have used the police to prevent opposition legal representatives entering court to apply for an order forcing the release of presidential election results. They went so far as threatening to shoot them if they went into court.
Zimbabwe is effectively close to being a police dictatorship, masquerading as a supposed democracy, where the results can be faked, as it’s ruler wishes. He seems to be taking a leaf out of the EU's book having presumably noted how they handle referendums.
Something went wrong this time, maybe Mugabe and his government actually believed their own lies, they misjudged the strength of feeling against them, the people briefly actually got a chance to really express their will and they lost badly. They are now working out how to correct that.
Sadly all this is apparently being silently colluded in by South Africa’s President Thabo Mbeki, as the man most in a position to actually do something to actually help the poor people of Zimbabwe. Also to a greater or lesser extent by most of the other African states.
Things do not look good for the people of Zimbabwe.
Clearly its ruler Robert Mugabe and his cronies have no intention of giving up power. They have used the police to prevent opposition legal representatives entering court to apply for an order forcing the release of presidential election results. They went so far as threatening to shoot them if they went into court.
Zimbabwe is effectively close to being a police dictatorship, masquerading as a supposed democracy, where the results can be faked, as it’s ruler wishes. He seems to be taking a leaf out of the EU's book having presumably noted how they handle referendums.
Something went wrong this time, maybe Mugabe and his government actually believed their own lies, they misjudged the strength of feeling against them, the people briefly actually got a chance to really express their will and they lost badly. They are now working out how to correct that.
Sadly all this is apparently being silently colluded in by South Africa’s President Thabo Mbeki, as the man most in a position to actually do something to actually help the poor people of Zimbabwe. Also to a greater or lesser extent by most of the other African states.
Things do not look good for the people of Zimbabwe.
Friday, 4 April 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, 3 April 2008
Quote of the day
“ Don't interfere with something that ain't bothering you none”Cowboy Proverb
“ There's always been some moron - who usually went by the name of 'producer' - who would have to justify his existence, and interfere.”Frank Tashlin
Royal Mint monkey with UK coinage
The Royal mint has proudly announced a complete re design of Britain’s coins. To which the immediate response is why?
It is the first change in coinage since decimalisation was imposed on the UK in 1968 and will no doubt be accompanied by similar confusion in the elderly.
Clearly this will be more expensive than simply leaving the coinage as it is and appears to bring no benefit whatsoever. Business as usual for the British State under New-Labour then.
The Royal Mint’s chief executive Andrew Stafford, came up with the pathetically inadequate excuse (I bet he’ll get an unreasonably huge productivity bonus at the end of the year too) that:
"We had to make sure that the coin design was true to the heritage of British coins and gave fresh inspiration and modernity to something that has been in existence for 40 years."
Doh! No - You didn’t: “Fresh inspiration”? “Modernity”? I am not usually drawn to using such language in ‘print’ but... What absolute Bollocks!
As far as I know there was no universal clamour to change the existing coinage. It works perfectly well as currency, we all recognise it. How about changing all the road signs while you are at it, or switching to use a different alphabet while you are at it.
Apparently they had a competition (a pretty quiet one by the looks of it) and someone came up with re cycling the idea they used to use with card collections like the ‘Man from Uncle’ and ‘Batman’ ones of yore, part of a picture on one side that you need the complete collection to assemble.
Apparently the winning design was inspired by the thought of drunks in pubs trying to assemble the image.
So presumably Stafford feels that the heritage of the British State is fractured , maybe he is not so wrong there.
How about Britannia? That is certainly true to the heritage of British coinage, maybe with a raised hemline and a kick ass attitude a-la girl power?
Or better still - how about not wasting taxpayers money on an utterly pointless exercise? How about, just for once, not 'fixing' something that isn’t broken.
It is the first change in coinage since decimalisation was imposed on the UK in 1968 and will no doubt be accompanied by similar confusion in the elderly.
Clearly this will be more expensive than simply leaving the coinage as it is and appears to bring no benefit whatsoever. Business as usual for the British State under New-Labour then.
The Royal Mint’s chief executive Andrew Stafford, came up with the pathetically inadequate excuse (I bet he’ll get an unreasonably huge productivity bonus at the end of the year too) that:
"We had to make sure that the coin design was true to the heritage of British coins and gave fresh inspiration and modernity to something that has been in existence for 40 years."
Doh! No - You didn’t: “Fresh inspiration”? “Modernity”? I am not usually drawn to using such language in ‘print’ but... What absolute Bollocks!
As far as I know there was no universal clamour to change the existing coinage. It works perfectly well as currency, we all recognise it. How about changing all the road signs while you are at it, or switching to use a different alphabet while you are at it.
Apparently they had a competition (a pretty quiet one by the looks of it) and someone came up with re cycling the idea they used to use with card collections like the ‘Man from Uncle’ and ‘Batman’ ones of yore, part of a picture on one side that you need the complete collection to assemble.
Apparently the winning design was inspired by the thought of drunks in pubs trying to assemble the image.
So presumably Stafford feels that the heritage of the British State is fractured , maybe he is not so wrong there.
How about Britannia? That is certainly true to the heritage of British coinage, maybe with a raised hemline and a kick ass attitude a-la girl power?
Or better still - how about not wasting taxpayers money on an utterly pointless exercise? How about, just for once, not 'fixing' something that isn’t broken.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
