On the Wrong Planet

Planning Law Changes Set to Ruin Countryside

Last year we visited Ireland and toured the Ring of Kerry, the Dingle peninsular, and then up to Galway and Connemara. In so many beautiful places one thing that stuck me was that so often the skyline was littered with houses. The Irish love to paint their houses, indeed it seems almost obligatory. But this does mean that when ill positioned they so easily spoil beautiful countryside. And so many are ill positioned.

Ireland’s planning regulations are much less stringent that those in the UK and this ruin of beautiful areas of countryside is the consequence. Once housing has been established, it will never be removed.

The government’s proposed new framework on planning regulations streamlines more than 1,000 pages of policy into just 52. One important change is to put decisions into the hands of new local groups. But a YouGov poll, commissioned by the National Trust, found that few people were aware of the government’s proposals to dilute the planning laws radically, and even fewer had the inclination to address planning issues in their local area.  Developers will, for sure, find it easier to pressure these new local groups to approve their plans. The well practiced planning departments in local government already know how developers will pester until they get what they want.

Please support the National Trust campaign to get the current government to re-think the changes they are making to UK planning regulations by signing up to their petition.

Monsters – the War on Terror Re-analysed

Technically, Gareth Edwards movie “Monsters” breaks new ground in production methods and animation. It was shot on a shoestring budget in Guatemala and Mexico, with a professional actor cast of just two (Whitney Able and Scoot McNairy) using improvised dialog and extras hired in at each location. With Adobe Creative Suite to edit the film shot on a Sony EX3, Edward’s visual effects engineer background allowed him personally to deliver all the “Monster” animation with five months of work; with 250 effects shots that is a phenomenal rate of 2 per day. The monsters were created with a software package called “3ds Max”: “It was the hardest challenge of the whole film because I had never done proper creature animation before,” says Edwards.
Edwards also wrote the script and this is what sets him apart from so much of the SF genre. Much of the film is an emotional journey between the principle characters, Kaulder, a news photographer and Able, who he is ordered to escort safely back home to the USA by her father who is also his boss. Various convincing mishaps result in their needing to cross the “infected zone,” a route used only by the desperate. On another level, this is a movie about how real people might actually cope with an alien invasion. In northern Mexico, the locals have accepted life coexisting with the aliens: they are only dangerous when the US air force is delivering their chemical warfare over the infected zone. From the US perspective, the approach is containment and then destruction: a massive wall to defend the US border and then chemical attack.

Parallels with the war on terror and indeed the general approach of the Western world to any perceived threat, are disturbingly evident. When we encounter the aliens close up, however, we witness behaviour you might reasonably expect from humans. Yes they will destroy you if you shoot at them, but we also see inquisitiveness (tentacles touching a TV screen to try to understand it) and an encounter between two of the aliens that is evidence of a bond between them, maybe even love. Perhaps these aliens would be no threat to us if we only tried to understand them and treated them reasonably!

Ultimate Irony

The foreign secretary, William Hague, has been sharing hotel rooms with 25 year old Christopher Myers, as reported in the Times. Myers, in a £30,000 a year researcher post for the last 18 months, has now resigned after internet allegations over his relationship with Hague. Hague has told all about the struggle of he and his wife to start a family, in an attempt to divert opinion. It could all be innocent, even if naive on Hague’s part.

UK politicians are now in the trail of grief over the expenses scandal. Most will be nervous of making genuine expenses claims. Some, no doubt, will be trying to minimise their claims so that, now that these are more public, they can regain political kudos with their electors.

Could Hague and Myers sharing a hotel room be an attempt to save tax payer’s money on expenses?

I’m afraid I did

This is that moment: when David Cameron admits to Nick Clegg that he did say “Nick Clegg” in reply to the question “What is your favourite joke?” Need I say more?

Gillian Duffy

It’s very easy to criticise Gordon Brown’s gaff captured by Sky News when he drove off with one of their microphones, but more respectable reporting would not spy on someone’s private conversation in this way. I’m quite sure that any politician will have said equally damning things in private. In fact we all have. The real question for me is what did Gillian Duffy actually say. Here is a transcript:

“But there’s too many people now who aren’t vulnerable but they can claim and people who are vulnerable can’t claim, can’t get it…..You can’t say anything about the immigrants because you’re saying that you are … But all these Eastern Europeans what are’ve comin in, where are they flocking from… And what are you going to do about students that are coming in now….”

Is this bigoted? Or to put it another way, do you think she would be a suitable recruit into our immigration department?

Secrecy for Success

War has always been as much about propaganda as it has about fighting. In the end, success is only achieved when you have won the hearts and minds of the vast majority on both sides. We are continuing to engage in a war in Afghanistan, a country that has been in continuous civil war since the late 1970s. This war started with Operation Enduring Freedom, a campaign to destroy the Al-Qaeda terrorist training camps inside Afghanistan, following the September 11^th US attacks in 2001. The Taliban government refused George W Bush’s demand to turn over all resident Al-Qaeda members to the US and close all the terrorist training camps. Let us remember that the Taliban were overthrown in 2001 and a democratic government led by Hamid Karzi put in place. The freely elected National Assembly of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan includes women as voters, candidates and elected members. We have come a long way.

Afghanistan is a poor country, plagued with landmines, a massive illegal poppy cultivation and opium trade and new to the concept of democracy. The Western troops are now faced with an increasing Taliban presence, fighting back at the changes we have brought about. They continue to see a threat from the few remaining elements of Al-Qaeda. Recently, attacks on our troops have seen many casualties from road side bombs. This is very regrettable, but there is still a job to be done. If Western support was withdrawn at this stage, it would have only one consequence. All the bloodshed and sacrifice needed to achieve the toehold of democracy established in Afghanistan would be in vain.

Frank Skinner writes (in the Times): “It’s not just about helicopters and the right kind of armoured car, is it? The problem is that we, as a nation, can’t really do war any more.” Our democratically elected government acting on our behalf embarked on this war. The least we can do is support them in the propaganda war that surrounds the whole affair. What I find almost unbelievable is why senior military personnel express publically any view on the adequacy of our helicopters and armoured cars. To question our capability is to question our ability to continue in Afghanistan, when popular opinion has withdrawal on the agenda. Whatever happened to secrecy and any awareness of the propaganda war involved here. Sitting in my Al-Qaeda bunker at the edge of my Taliban supported terrorist training camp, I am greatly encouraged to browse the internet via my satellite link and learn that Sir Jock Stirrup and Sir Richard Dannatt both find our helicopter fleet inadequate. Why do we even see reports on the success of the roadside bombs – surely that information itself should be kept secret.

Contrast this with another age: The Enigma code-breakers of Bletchley Park are finally to be honoured with commemorative badges. Crucial to our success in World War II and the continued establishment of democracy in Europe, this was an operation which depended on absolute secrecy. Indeed the identities of those involved have been kept secret for all this time. There is a lesson to learn there, it seems to me.

Information is an Energy Threat

Jonathan Koomey of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Stanford University has estimated that 1.6% of the US electricity consumption is now being used to power servers in data centres. This includes the necessary cooling systems and associated data-networking equipment. The figure has doubled in the past five years giving an annual growth of about 14%. This represents the output of five 1000 MW power plants. For the whole world, the figure is 14 such plants, and the total cost of this electricity $7.2B per year.

If growth continues at this rate, information could become the dominant use of energy. The calculations above do not account for the domestic use of energy for information purposes. Consumption by TVs is a comparable level (1.5%) and the consumption from domestic and office computers similarly is significant.

So even if we stop burning up fuel to fly around the world, eventually, energy needed to sustain our data bases and provide the video conference in place of flying will be our next energy problem.

The solution: maybe a shortage of energy will itself bring about a population reduction. The human race is subject to the laws of nature just as much as any other species on the planet, but the implications of this may be harsher than we would wish (see Paul Chefurka, 2007)

EDF – Rewards You for Using Less!

EDF now have an advertising campaign in which the strap line is “rewarding you for using less.” This is a very interesting concept in view of the way they treated me. I used less electricity (because I left my house vacant) and they rewarded me by charging me for a complete trip round the meter, which incidentally costs about £13,000!

I moved to a rented house in another part of the country and left my house in Bolton empty because of a change of job. As it happens, just before I moved I changed gas and electricity provider. This is something we should all do periodically in our free market economy of energy supply. I this case, it was a coincidence that I made the change just before moving out of the property. But the consequences were very interesting:

On 2nd January 2007 EDF Energy claimed £13,367 from my bank account. This was done under a Direct Debit arrangement. In the event, my bank honoured the payment, but informed me by letter: “We’ve made all the payments that you arranged to come out of your account this morning. Unfortunately, because there was not enough money in your account to cover them, this means your account is now over your overdraft limit.” A slight understatement!

EDF Energy customer services were phoned immediately on receiving the letter. They told me that obviously an error had been made, but that it would take weeks to refund the money as it would need to be approved by a series of managers. When I asked why a similar procedure was not in place when claiming large amounts from domestic customers, they declined to comment (the line went silent).

After discussion with my bank, I requested that the money be claimed back under the indemnity insurance for direct debits. Interestingly my bank did not tell me that this was possible when I phoned them initially. Until that could be arranged I had to transfer some of my savings into my current account, so that I could continue to operate my bank account. The bank charged me £30 for dealing with exceeding my overdraft limit plus some interest charges.

Having looked into this further, I find that this has occurred as a result of a series of mistakes or poor practice made by EDF Energy, Atlantic Electric and Gas (my previous supplier) and possibly a meter reader contracted by EDF Energy. These three organisations each played a part. Further investigation reveals further alarming practices by both EDF Energy and Atlantic Electric and Gas.

My findings are as follows:
1. EDF Energy failed to put in place any system to check a claim for payment against a domestic customer that was clearly ridiculous.
2. EDF Energy also failed to present me with an invoice for this claim for payment. Interestingly, this was a final payment arising from us moving out of the property with tenants moving in on 1st December 2006. Final meter readings were phoned through for both electricity and gas at the same time. We received a final invoice for the gas, which we settled by cheque, but no invoice for the electricity has arrived. The first we knew about it was when my bank contacted me.
3. A meter reading made on 25 November 2006 by a contractor was incorrect for both the daytime and night-time meters. Either this or EDF Energy deliberately changed the readings.
4. Atlantic Electric and Gas, who were my supplier until 12th March 2006 provided EDF Energy with estimated meter readings that were artificially high and presented these as actual readings. This enabled them to claim more money than they were due, at a time when they knew that they were loosing the account to EDF Energy. To me, this looks to me like sharp practice.
5. EDF Energy increased their prices just one day after I transferred to them as a supplier. Clearly I changed supplier in order to achieve the best possible price. This again looks suspicious to me. Did all their customers have increased pricing on 13th March 2006?
6. Atlantic Electric and Gas produced a series of inaccurate meter readings for my night meter. This simply suggests incompetence to me.

Poor Rowan – He is Doing his Best

The commentary and controversy about Rowan Williams’ recent foundation lecture at the Royal Courts of Justice entitled “Civil and Religious Law in England: a Religious Perspective” seems to be generated by people who neither heard the lecture nor took the trouble to read the transcript. Here is my attempt to translate – from Dr William’s regrettably difficult turn of phrase – the last three paragraphs (my apologies, Dr Williams, if I have mistranslated):

The concept of human rights now dominates the thinking behind the laws of many countries, including Britain. However, we must remember that our laws stem from our historical context of religion and culture. With respect to certain “aspects of marital law, the regulation of financial transactions and authorised structures of mediation and conflict resolution” there is room to reconcile Islamic law (Sharia) with UK law. This may be achieved by parallel systems, as is currently the case with the Beth Din, a Jewish court which mediates on a range of disputes within the orthodox community. If we wish to reconcile the particular religious beliefs of minority groups within our society with our current laws, both sides must be prepared to work at this (“transformative accommodation”). The legal systems stemming from particular religions must be careful not to alienate their followers by being “inflexible or over-restrictive” and the secular legal system may need to find creative ways to prevent “ghettoising and effectively disenfranchising a minority.” In running parallel systems, one religious and one secular, however, it is “unavoidable” that people will have to make choices between the two.

What is so wrong with what Rowan Williams has said? I suggest that the reaction that has ensued betrays a deep prejudice and bigotry. Dr William’s legacy may turn out to be as precipitator of a turning point in cultural reconciliation. Sorry, to translate: we may one day be thankful for what Rowan has said, because when we have worked out what he meant, it will help the world become a better place.

Public and Private – Do Not Mix

In the public sector, by due process of democracy, politicians are elected, majority parties form governments, ministers are appointed by a party elected party leaders (prime ministers) and ministers run departments to spend tax payers money. The government, and hence the ministers and the departments are accountable to the electorate via the ballot box. Opposition parties are able to challenge on a weekly basis (question time) the decisions made by the prime minister and his or her ministers. Guided by party policy, declared in a manifesto, ministers and or officials in a department can be held accountable and ultimately may loose their jobs if the wrong decisions are made or behaviour deemed unacceptable. The whole system is designed to achieve the best interests of the taxpayer, in terms of how our money should be spent. Government also proposes new legislation and deals on an hour by hour basis with both internal and external (foreign) issues that may arise, such as natural disasters, war, terrorism, and defending our borders against a foe. Success or failure is judged by how successfully the government meets the will of the people, collectively by a democratic system.
The private sector is regulated by legislation developed by various elected governments over a period of decades such as the companies act. It is, however, a completely different system. In this system everyone is accountable to the shareholders. The driving force is profit. Please let us not confuse this. The success or failure of a company is ultimately judged purely by profit. The ultimate threat to those running either publicly quoted or private companies is that the company may fail financially. If no profit is made, or insufficient investment is made by the share holders backing a new venture whilst it is being developed to profitability, financial liability will exceed assets and this will become evident in the accounts a company is required prepare under the companies act. If a company fails, the shareholders loose their money, the company is sold or closed, creditors may never get paid and jobs may be lost, in that order. In particular, the shareholders are motivated to ensure that the executives they employ to run their company do a good job in creating the profit, and it is the shareholders who decide whom they employ.
So when fines are imposed on an organisation, the effects are quite different under the two systems. Fining a company for misbehaviour or poor performance will affect the share holders first and foremost. The company in question may have to be closed, if the fines are large enough or frequent enough. Fining a part of government funded organisation however has no such effect. It merely reduces the funds available that may be needed to tackle the problem. No shareholders are penalised. No threat of closure exists.
So, Mr Cameron, when you propose that NHS trusts are to be fined for allowing MRSA infections in patients to occur, what exactly do you expect to happen? Who are the shareholders who will suffer personally as a result of the mismanagement? When did an NHS trust close and all the business go to competitors because of financial pressure as a result of such fines? The whole concept of private/public partnerships is totally misconceived. This is a good example of why. Please get your thinking straight.
Also when asked, you were unable to say how, realistically, you could tell if such an infection were brought into the hospital by the patient, or acquired by the patient whilst in hospital. Your off-the-cuff reaction was that “surely modern technology could be used to check each patient when they arrive by screening them”. Just think about that for a moment. What are the costs? What is the bureaucratic burden? What a complete and utter waste of time and money!
I’m only glad that the democratic system kicks in here, so that the holders of such poorly thought out thinking will not find themselves in power in our government! At least I hope that is the case. All systems are fallible.