Better safe than sorry?

Safety is an odd thing, at work the management of the place where I work have tried by fencing off the conveyors that move pallets around to make things safer for the staff who drive the forklifts by denying them access to the areas. It works after a fashion, at least until the guy who has to come along and fix a problem with the conveyors (that would be me) finds that the area is fenced off and he cannot gain reasonable access to work due to space limitations making the job in some areas quite dangerous for the engineers. Turns out all they needed was a "Do not approach/enter sign" but decided to play safe and put up barriers thus activating the law of unforeseen consequences. It's only a minor instance, but they aren't alone in their zeal to remove risk entirely from peoples lives.
HSE.

Health and safety legislation exists to protect people from real risks at, or connected with, work. But it can be hard to see this from some of the stories that are reported. Below are 10 of the most bizarre health bans or restrictions spotted in media coverage by HSE over the last year.

1. Wimbledon officials citing health and safety as a reason to close Murray Mount when it was wet
   Example media story: Daily Mail: 'Elf 'n' safety shuts Murray Mount: Fans might slip on the grass, warn officials', 21 June 2011


2. Stopping dodgem cars from bumping into each other at Butlins in Skegness
   Example media story: BBC News: 'Bosses at Butlins ban bumper cars over health and safety fears', 27 April 2011


3. Banning Royal wedding street parties
   Example media story: Daily Mail: 'Royal wedding street party? You'll need £5m insurance, love...', 13 April 2011


4. Removing an unwanted, bulky TV from a pensioner's home for recycling
   Example media story: Daily Mail, 'Pensioner, 85, paid council to remove old TV...and was ordered to drag it outside herself so workmen didn't injure themselves', 7 June 2011


5. Carnivals with fancy dress parades
   Example media story: http://www.thesouthernreporter.co.uk


6. Kite flying on a popular tourist beach in east Yorkshire
   Example media story: Hull Daily Mail: 'Outrage at kite-flying ban on East Riding beaches', 10 June 2011


7. Stopping pupils from using playground monkey bars unsupervised in Oxfordshire
   Example media story: Daily Mail: 'Children banned from their own playground as health and safety officials decide monkey bars are too dangerous', 8 May 2011


8. Using pins to secure commemorative poppies
   Example media story: http://www.obantimes.co.uk


9. Schoolyard football games banned - unless the ball is made of sponge
   Example media story: BBC News: 'Huyton school leather football ban safety row', 24 February 2011


10. Children no longer allowed to take part in a sack race at Sports Day
    Example media story: Metro: 'Three-legged race is given the sack'

Even the Health and Safety Executive recognises that Councils and companies are using health and safety rules as an excuse to make "unpopular decisions" banning low-risk activities often enough to make their lives easier, rather than properly evaluate the risk and train/warn the people involved. After all it's cheaper to ban than it is to buy the equipment or train the staff. Employment minister Chris Grayling said members of the public should "challenge health and safety myths" and over-zealous practices. However that's easier said than done as most people don't exactly know what the regulations are, plus have a tendency to "believe" the officials making their lives a misery. The law as it stands simply requires people to approach risks in a balanced and proportionate manner. Banning something is far often disproportionate yet it seems to be the tool of choice for those in charge, whether this is due to the current compo culture is debatable, but it certainly doesn't help. Most people actually enjoy a bit of risk or adventure in their lives it's why fairground rides are so popular and why some of us climb mountains, often enough without ropes. Perhaps we should return to the old days of "enter at your own risk" and simply seek to reduce a risk, not eliminate it altogether.

More about → Better safe than sorry?

Do you see what I see

Technology can be wonderful and it also can be a burden when it comes to intrusions in our lives, but trying to stop technology being introduced is a bit like swimming against the tide. Still you’d think that when introducing a new bit of technology the requirement would be to opt in, rather than opt out.
Mail.

Facebook is at the centre of another privacy row after bringing in facial recognition technology to automatically identify users in pictures.
The world’s leading social network has begun rolling out new technology that automatically identifies and ‘tags’ people in photos uploaded to the website.
The feature has been expanded from a limited test run in the U.S. to be widened across all of the States and ‘most countries’, Facebook said on its official blog yesterday – and, by default, it’s turned on.
Facebook’s ‘Tag Suggestions’ feature is designed to speed up the process of labeling friends in photos posted on Facebook.
If a friend ‘tags’ you in one photo, the technology will automatically scan your face and then try and find matches among all their pictures.
Daniel Hamilton, director of privacy campaign group Big Brother Watch, said: ‘Facebook users will rightly be alarmed to hear that their private information will be used in this way. This is yet another nail in the coffin for online privacy.
‘Websites like Facebook owe it to their users to respect their privacy, not to scan their photo albums with facial recognition software.’

As I don’t use Facebook I have no particular axe to grind here and the program itself does limit itself to only your friends and family online. The worry is of course that it will simply run in the background and build up a pictorial database of the people using Facebook and that somehow or other the information gathered will be hacked or used by “villains” including the “State” to track down people they want to find or monitor. Though I suspect a lot of the more savvy villains don’t have their pictures up on facebook, just the odd idiots who advertise their villainy
Still it is an example of the intrusions of privacy into our lives by information technology and a warning to those who actually take notice of such things that whether you’re aware of it or not a hell of a lot of information is held about you from your online wanderings, be it from spyware, to malware to legitimate businesses like Amazon or even social networks and if you think the state can’t get at the information if it decides to take an interest in you then you are deluding yourself.
What people need to be aware of is just how vulnerable they are, though I suspect a lot don’t give a damn, after all the message nothing to hide nothing to fear seems to be almost a mantra of various people out there when others raise alarms. The problems might start though when or if the state becomes so intrusive that people do feel they want to remain more anonymous and find they can’t.
Saying told you so is going to be cold comfort…
There are various ways to protect yourself, here is a decent start don’t use internet expolorer, use firefox with various security addons such as adblock plus and no script. But be aware, if your info is out there, it’s probably out there for good.
Be careful out there, you never know who is looking.

More about → Do you see what I see

Stalking by blog

I wouldn't have thought it possible, but apparently it is...

Mail.

A hospital administrator has made British legal history by becoming the first man to be jailed for stalking a woman by blog.

Stephen Andreassen, 38, compiled up to 35 website blogs in which he repeatedly insulted an ex-girlfriend after she ended their month-long relationship, Manchester Magistrates' Court heard.

Over 18 months Andreassen regularly updated his sites telling men to stay away from mature university student Rebecca Pattinson, 36, while bombarding her with Facebook messages, texts, phone calls and e-mails begging for her to take him back.

Ok, the guys obviously obsessed, but stalking by blog? I don't see how it can be done, it's not like the lady in question or other people were forced to read this guys blog and he's certainly no Guido with hundreds of thousands of readers. There are also a good few swearblogs around who do pick targets and go around being very insulting too, but you don't hear of them being closed down by the police either. I suspect this is probably just additional material to justify (rightly) imprisoning the guy for his campaign against Miss Pattinson.
Normally I'd just ignore Daily Mail sensationalism, but it does seem as if the judge and the police used his attempts at blogging as part of the evidence against him, though my own thoughts on the matter having blogged for about 2 years in this incarnation are that he would have struggled to get any hits on any of his 35 blogs. New blogs in particular don't normally tend to be high profile unless the blogger is high profile and blogging from a high profile site as witness Norman Tebbit. The way it's normally done for us lesser mortals is to go around commenting on others sites and gradually attract notice that way, assuming you want to be noticed of course, but it is satisfying in a way to get the odd comment, even if they don't agree with what you have to say. I blog because it helps release the occasional anger and frustration I feel at the direction this country is going in and it alleviates my frustration at not really being in a position to do anything about it (for which you should probably be thankful) Mostly like today I pass comment on something I read, sometimes about something I do and I don't really attract a lot of notice, even after 2 years, yes it's grown steadily, but I'd be deluding myself if its because of my talent, more I suspect my persistence in outlasting a good few better (in my opinion) bloggers than myself..
So, Andreassen was convicted of stalking, though mostly it was harassment by facebook and text which seem to be the usual medium of the stalker today, but he did use blogs as well to advertise his mental state, I suspect though he'll be unique, not as a stalker, but as someone who used blogs to stalk.
Unless you know different?

More about → Stalking by blog

Waste of money

The original census (1801) had very few questions, mostly name, sex, occupation and was simply half of one page. Like most things to do with bureaucracy and statistic gathering it grew and grew until the new one due stands at 11 pages and wants to know the ins and outs of a ducks backside so far as I can tell. Still it is only every 10 years and I guess I could tolerate it even if I planned for that day to move all the beds into one room and lie about my religion and various other items of my life that I think are none of the government business.
This however got my goat (yes the dog will be registered as a goat that day if they happen to ask)

Telegraph.

The cost of next month’s national census is expected to reach almost £500 million as 30,000 officials are hired to ensure immigrants who do not speak English take part in the compulsory population count.

Guidance on how to complete the 32-page form has been translated into 56 languages while advertisements are being broadcast on ethnic minority TV channels and leaflets distributed to shops, mosques, churches and temples.

It is a legal requirement for everyone to complete the census, which takes place once every 10 years, with the next national survey due to be conducted on 27 March. The results are used to help plan public services, including school places, hospitals, and transport.

Persistent refusal to complete the form can lead to prosecution and a fine of up to £1,000.

But the Office for National Statistics, which organises the survey, admitted that while three million people failed to complete the 2001 census, only 38 were convicted.

Glen Watson, ONS census director, said the cost of the exercise was projected to reach £480 million this year, twice the total for the previous census in 2001.

 Why are we wasting taxpayers money on translations? There should only be language translations for the recognised languages of these Islands. English, Welsh, Scots Gael and possibly Manx assuming it's a separate tongue, oh and Braille too and perhaps a large print edition. You can't read any of those? Tough, you pay for a translator out of your own pocket, not mine or else learn the language yourself!
I'm sick and tired of the continual waste of money the state throws down the drain translating other languages for those too bloody lazy to learn the language of the country they live in! You don't see it happening in France, they make bloody sure you only get everything in French, if you can't cope, it's your problem, not theirs. £500 million in wasted cash that could have been spent on something important like school repairs or even repairing the winter potholes from the global warming spasm we had in December. But no we have to pander to those invited in by New Labour to vote for them and keep the cost of labour down. (3.2 million not counting illegals) But no, we have to keep the immigrants happy so Labour shelled out our cash to translate the census into 56 other languages and then apparently gave some USA military firm (Lockheed Martin)  the contract to to the data capture.


Ye Gods am I getting angry about this!

More about → Waste of money

Traitor

Graham Watson MEP is a traitor to the British people, though quite obviously he wont see it that way, yet this man is behind the misery of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) in which British men and women can be dragged off abroad and held in foreign prisons on the most frivolous of charges.

Telegraph.

"The European Arrest Warrant should not be feared," says Graham Watson, the Liberal Democrat MEP who piloted the legislation through the European Parliament (as so often with things that really annoy Euro-sceptics, their authors turn out to be British.) "It is a crucial tool in ensuring criminals cannot hide behind national borders. It has brought justice to the perpetrators of murder, rape and terrorism."

I wonder what Edmond Arapi thinks of this claim?

Edmond Arapi, a Staffordshire waiter, was seized under an EAW issued by Italy after being sentenced to 16 years in absentia for a murder in Genoa in 2004. Yet he never left Britain in 2004. He spent time in Wandsworth prison before the Italians finally admitted it was a case of mistaken identity.

Or Deborah Dark.

Deborah Dark, who was cleared of drugs charges in France in 1989, found herself detained whenever she tried to travel. Unknown to her, French authorities had won an appeal against her acquittal in 1990. Fifteen years later, they issued an EAW, which was only dropped in May.

Colin Gabriel.

Colin Gabriel was demanded by Spain after a passport with his name on it was found in a boat that had been carrying drugs. He denied it was his and British judges said the evidence against him was "thin", but could not halt his extradition.

There are others.

Michael Turner, from Dorset, and Jason McGoldrick, from Plymouth, were extradited on an EAW and held without charge in Hungary, accused of owing business creditors £18,000. They spent nearly three months in tough jail conditions before police even interviewed them. They were freed after five months and have never been charged.

Even foreigners staying here have problems.

Dimitrinka Atanasova, a Bulgarian legal secretary, fled to Britain after threatening to expose her boss – the country's chief prosecutor – for misconduct. That same chief prosecutor then personally requested her extradition from Britain on what a British judge agreed were "bad-faith", or trumped-up, charges of murder. Crucially, her case predated Bulgaria's EU membership and adoption of the EAW. She was freed, after several months in Holloway Prison, but could be rearrested under a warrant at any time.

And there is a regular flight back to Poland from Biggin Hill in Kent of handcuffed Poles arrested and deported at the request of the Polish legal system often for such things as smoking cannabis, stealing a bicycle, or receiving a stolen mobile phone. The defendants will have been seized from their homes by a special police unit. They will often have been held in British custody, and will continue to be held, sometimes for months, until their appeals against extradition are dismissed, as they almost always are.
Yet the worst case is that of Andrew Symeou
hauled off to Greece on flimsy evidence obtained by assaulting witnesses none of whom appear to have correctly identified him as actually being where an assault took place, nor describing what he was actually wearing. So far he's was extradited last July.

Andrew, who, cannot speak Greek, spent almost a year in some of Europe's least civilised prisons. At Patras, he was unable to wash, and was taunted by the guards as an "English ------." They made him pack his kit with handcuffs on, laughing at his inability to manage it, then squeezed toothpaste into his bag, so he got to his next prison with toothpaste all over his clothes.
At Korydallos, he witnessed three riots. He would lie in bed, said his father, "and cockroaches would be dropping from above. He'd wake up in the morning with them crawling on him''.

So yes, Graham Watson MEP who guided this odious and dangerous bit of legislation through the EU, you are a traitor, you're ultimately responsible for the arrest and detention of scores of your fellow countrymen (then again he's a Scot so might not care all that much about the English) who are often held without trial for years in foreign prisons and you tell us that the European Arrest Warrant should not be feared. You've forced our legal system to hand over our people on the most flimsiest of evidence and prevented them from fact checking the evidence, nor of preventing flagrant abuses of the warrants themselves. It costs us money to hold the people that have been arrested under the EAW and if or when we hand them over, there are few safeguards as to how quickly they will be dealt with.
EUrophiles like you make me sick Graham Watson, even now I doubt you can see the harm you've done and the people now living in fear over your folly.
Sooner we leave the monstrosity of the EU the better, though it looks as if we'll have to bring down the government to do it, perhaps hanging a few like Graham Watson pour encourager les autres will remind the next generation of politicians to be more protective of the British people.

More about → Traitor

Sorry, but you're wrong

Speed cameras, two words that polarise opinions to a certain extent from those that see them simply as revenue raisers to those who think they reduce speed and save lives.

Express.

A bereaved mother will lead a protest against a county council's decision to axe speed cameras.

Claire Brixey's son Ashley, 20, was killed in a crash in Limpley Stoke, Wiltshire, in 2004 when the car in which he was a passenger landed upside down in a swimming pool after the driver lost control.

Ms Brixey, who lives in Standerwick on the Wiltshire/Somerset border, has been a road safety campaigner since the crash.

In the protest on Friday in Trowbridge, she will urge Wiltshire County Council to reverse a decision to end its road safety partnership scheme.

Yet government statistics reveal that speed cameras are totally ineffective at preventing the vast majority of accidents. Exceeding the speed limit was attributed to only 3% of cars involved in accidents. 97% of car crashes have nothing to do with breaking the speed limit.

Ms Brixey said: "I cannot just stand by while the council puts an axe to vital road safety services that save so many young lives here each year. They need to know how appalled local communities are about this. Most people fully support cameras and feel safer with them turned on.

"When I heard in the news the Government saying they were ending a 'war on motorists', I thought that all they were doing was enabling people to break the law and endanger lives by speeding.

You would think that Ms Brixey, as the loss of your son is colouring you view, however as for public support for speed cameras, well, there are two parts to this lie (and yes it is a lie, though Ms Brixey clearly believes it)...

In the first place the government and various supporters and vested interests have put huge resources into trying to convince the public that speed cameras are a good idea. It's not at all surprising that the non-driving population accepts the claims at face value - why would a non driver question the claims at all? Obviously they have convinced some drivers as well. What a shame they didn't put those resources into a real method for improving road safety. It is highly illogical to suggest that road safety can be improved by lying to the public about specific road dangers.

Part two of the lie involves the survey methods (and particularly the survey questions) which have been designated by the Department for Transport. The questions are quite obviously loaded to elicit the desired response.

With loaded questions and a misled public it should come as no surprise that they are able to claim that public opinion supports speed cameras.

SafeSpeed: analysis of official surveys of speed camera approval (click here)
Admiral Insurance: (independent survey)

Ellen Booth, campaigns officer for road safety charity Brake, said: "Increasingly, decisions being made on speed cameras are more about politics and less about facts.

"The fact is that speed cameras reduce speeding and save lives."

BRAKE is a fake charity with its own entry at fakecharities.org ... unfortunately, the fake charity site is down at the moment, however it is known BRAKE spend 50% of its income on salaries and the majority of its money comes from public funding, to no doubt tell the government what it wants to hear. However speed cameras actually appear to cause more accidents than they prevent, as speed cameras have triggered at least 28,000 crashes since 2001, according to new research.Anyone who drives will have noticed that people on seeing a speed camera will automatically brake, even if they are going below the speed limit, putting the vehicle behind in occasional danger. Accidents were reducing before speed cameras came along, cars were being made safer for drivers and pedestrians if hit, so speed cameras were not really a major cause in road safety, though most drivers had them twigged as revenue raisers early on in their lifespan.
So, sorry for your loss Ms Brixey, but you're wrong, speed cameras may save some lives, however as a cost effective solution to road safety, they make no sense at all, they don't reduce speed save in the narrow area they cover, they don't reduce accidents (and seem to cause a good few) and now that government funding is being removed from them, it seems councils don't think they are that effective either. Speed is not the problem, unsafe driving is and always will be the problem and artificial limits on speed are not the solution, some drivers can be perfectly safe driving at 100 mph on a motorway, yet others can frighten the life out of you at 30 mph on a built up area, it's down to ability and concentration, usually not speed.

More about → Sorry, but you're wrong

No it wont work, it never has worked

NICE the acronym for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (EVIL would have been better) are doing their usual Quango bit to justify their position in killing off cancer patients and otherwise being a busybody in everyone's lives, if ever a Quango needed killing off it's these guys along with all the other health related fake charities too. It wouldn't be so bad if they just offered advice, however they don't, they interfere in peoples lives and make life just that bit more unliveable and unbearable when they do.

Times.

A minimum price for alcohol, advertising bans and more rigorous screening for problem drinkers must be introduced to curb the nation’s binge culture, the NHS treatment watchdog recommends today.
Guidance issued by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) says that a minimum price per unit is the most effective way of tackling excessive drinking and its impact on the NHS and society.
NICE also advises a complete ban on alcohol advertising and calls for better screening for drink problems among the general population. Patients should be asked about their drinking habits when they register with a GP, and professionals such as police and community workers should raise the issue if it is contributing to behavioural or other problems.
Scenarios include people who have a condition that may be linked to drinking, or could be made worse by it, those who have suffered a minor injury and patients who are advised about medication or sexual health.
The recommendations, compiled by a panel of public health experts, will add to pressure on politicians, who have previously shied away from a national minimum price despite calls from the Chief Medical Officer and Parliament’s health committee. While the guidance does not recommend a specific minimum price, its authors assessed the impact of a 50p per unit, which they said would tackle excessive drinking across socioeconomic groups and be of greatest benefit to the most vulnerable.
Professor Mike Kelly, NICE’s public health director, said studies suggested that it would cut consumption among moderate drinkers by 3.8 per cent and by 10.3 per cent for those drinking at hazardous levels.
A bottle of wine would cost at least £4.50, a pint of 4 per cent alcohol beer £1.14 and a 10-pack about £10. A two-litre bottle of cider would cost a minimum of about £7.50.

Ok, for one thing, these "experts" probably wouldn't notice a price hike, they'll be well paid and if they are smart (like me) buy in bulk from abroad. I don't mind buying stuff from pubs, but I do object to filling the UK governments coffers via alcohol duty. They also probably don't realise that its interference in peoples lives like this that drives them to drink or smoke or take drugs. Make someone's life a misery by constant  petty interference, regulations, high levels of taxation on fuel, food, booze and ciggy's. Make their mortgages high along with their council taxes, even their private rents. Make it almost impossible to get a job straight from school by dumbing down education. Force them to universities to take degrees in stuff employers don't want and make them take out loans to be paid back.
So yes we have a problem, but it's almost entirely of the states making and they tend to make it worse. Prohibition doesn't work and if you make the price so high that people can't afford it they'll use something else which usually means illegal drugs with no quality control and loss of life too.
My advice is leave us alone, give us an escape and we'll probably not riot and tear down the "Righteous State" carry on as you are and your days are numbered, even the Soviets realised that by keeping food and booze cheap people would put up with a great deal of shit from the state.
So, instead of trying to solve a problem by making it too expensive to do, try enforcing the law on drunk and disorderly behaviour. Have segregated drunk tanks in big towns and cities for people to dry up.

In fact (and here's a thought) try tackling those that have the problem rather than hitting those of us who don't in the pocket. Best option though is for the experts of NICE to just shut up and leave us alone.

More about → No it wont work, it never has worked

Don't mind me, I'm from the council

There are currently 1,043 laws that allow unrestricted access to your home, without your consent. Many are to do with public health and safety and seem common sense however a growing number aren't.
For instance....

• To see if pot plants have plant pests or do not have a `plant passport' (Plant Health Order 2005). 
• To  check  the  energy  ratings  on  refrigerators  (Energy  Information  Household  Refrigerators  and Freezers Regulations 2004).
• Surveying the home and garden to see if hedges are too high (Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003).
• Inspecting a property to ensure illegal or unregulated hypnotism is not taking place (Hypnotism Act 1952)

Spying on the public seems to be an obsession with public officials these days, what with the RIPA act where councils have used provisions to spy on recycling bin filling or on school catchment area applications. ID cards, cctv even the height of your hedges. Registered snoopers are constantly pushing the boundaries of what is legal and occasionally what isn't.
It's reckoned that every council has about 47 people who can simply stroll into your house without your permission. 2 years ago Gordon Brown pledged to review the power of councils to enter people’s homes without warrant. Never happened of course, it rarely does with this sort of legislation. The Tories have also made vague promises too, but nothing has been written down yet.

Alex Deane, Director of Big Brother Watch, said:

“Once, a man’s home was his castle. Today the Big Brother state wants to inspect, regulate and standardise the inside of our homes.
"Councils are dishing out powers of entry to officers within their council for their own ease, without giving due thought to the public’s right to privacy and the potential for abuse.
"There needs to be a much closer eye kept on the number of officers granted the right to barge into private premises without a warrant.” 

He's right, we aren't the ones who need watching, it's those who think they have a right to watch us who need pruning back and kept an eye on.

More about → Don't mind me, I'm from the council