Zeroes and Heroes

Two aircraft landed in Southern Britain the other day at two different Airports :

The first carried a group of over paid, under achievers who complained they were tired and missed their families after two weeks in five star accommodation.

The other carried the coffins of 7 fallen soldiers who had spent months away from loved ones living in tents in a war zone, giving their lives for their country. Who are the Hero's ??, I know where my priorities lie. R.I.P lads.

Remember these soldiers earn 15k to 30k a year not a day. If you believe that the England team should donate their wages to Help the Hero's then please cut and paste and forward it on

Just in case they need help in donating here is a link to:

British Troops In Afghanistan winning Hearts & Minds

I received the following as a Chain Email with the subject line Keep this going; only takes 30 seconds which if it had not been from a trusted address would have been deleted. Instead I am republishing it here in the hope it will find a wider audience:

It is always good to see pictures like these. It proves they are BIG softies really:

Proof of 'abuse' by our Troops:

Armed Troops Force Afghans to Seesaw Until They Talk


Afghan Child Bites Soldier In Self Defence After Obvious Torture!


Soldier overheard to say 'Talk or I'll tickle you till you pee!' - More Evidence Of Failed Intelligence Policy.


Soldier Attempts to Eat Afghan Child!


Clear Evidence of Forced Labour by Troops!


Soldier Caught At 'Tickle-Torture' To Extract Intelligence!


Soldier forces child to hang by fingertips!


No Comment Required!

May the good Lord bless every one of our troops wherever they are!
PLEASE KEEP THIS GOING - EVEN IF YOU HAVE PASSED IT ON BEFORE!! Prayer wheel for our Armed Forces,
Please don't break it

Railways, Roads and Runways - Politics overriding National Interest

Over the Weekend I spent some time reading the Institution of Civil Engineers Report: Rethinking Aviation. This once again reminded me how pathetic British Transport Planning has been for the last 45 Years due to Party Political Interests being considered overwhelming important and the National Interest usually not only being an incredibly poor second, but often a even poorer third if a Cabinet Minister's constituency, or an important marginal is under threat. Couple this with Treasury and most other elements of the Senior Civil Service's distaste for spending money on infra-structure (bearing in mind where most of the Senior Civil Servants live, it is amazing any Infra-structure Projects, Major, or minor are ever progressed in the NIMBY dwelling Home Counties) and perhaps the current situation was inevitable.

My views on this subject have (at least in part) been covered in earlier posts notably: Politics of (Rail) Transport (October 2008) and High Speed Trains and Heathrows Third Runway (February 2010) and even in my Aviation History PDF Article on The Airlinks between Gatwick and Heathrow (Published back in August 2006 in the section: Current Situation and the Future - page 9).

My Post of October 2008 ended with the following:

Transport is too important nationally to be a political football. We have wasted at least 40 years, please, don't waste the next 40!

Well we are now over halfway through 2010 and I see no evidence that anything has changed for the better, just another change of Government pandering to populist politics! In my post of February 2010 I used the above Quote as my Highlight opening and then continued with:

In France where there appears a separation between National Interest and Party Politics so lacking in Britain, there has been a consistent integrated National Transport Policy, especially in regard to High Speed Rail for 40 Years. So the recent British political consensus on the need for High Speed Rail links and this cross-political support for some major projects has been a welcome 'chink of light'.

Unfortunately that Chink of Light was just the Head Lamp of onrushing Party Politics. So one of the first acts of the Coalition Government was to stop the third runway at Heathrow, Oh Good the National Interest loses again to doing what is popular rather than right! But then they are only continuing a tradition that stretches back to the mid-1950s and has continued regardless of the Party in Power.

In simple terms France (and Germany) make Strategic Plans that are then rolled out over decades, being updated as technology and national requirements change, but the basic plan survives all the changes in Government and proceeds on the basis of National, than Political Interests. In Britain, all plans however well structured and designed to meet long term national needs are not implemented as a structured package of complementary projects, at best they are cherry picked for short term political advantage and then argued over for years. Even if a small part of one plan finally makes it to being implemented, it sits in splendid isolation, locally of benefit but usually totally irrelevant to the overall National Requirement.

Railways, Roads and Runways are vital elements of National Infra-structure and the National Economy (to which you can add Ports, Shipping and thinking 'Green' the Inland Waterways) and should cover all regions of the UK in a unified long term plan. Almost every European Country thinks in these terms and those like France and Germany who have kept to their strategic plans have benefited whilst in Britain even the phrase 'Transport Policy' is an oxymoron as it is just one element in the Political Playground which has more in common with a primary school playground than mature considered policy making for the United Kingdom.

My Sympathy is reserved for the Victims of Raoul Moat.

I have to admit to being in total agreement with Prime Minister David Cameron's Comments in Parliament:
'It is absolutely clear that Raoul Moat was a callous murderer, full stop, end of story. I cannot understand any wave, however small, of public sympathy for this man. There should be sympathy for his victims and the havoc he wreaked in that community. There should be no sympathy for him.'

My sympathies are reserved for:

1. The little girl he assaulted (who didn't get much Justice).
2. For the family of the Man he Killed,
3. His ex Girlfriend
4. Policeman he shot and Blinded
5. For the Children he fathered, because they will have grow up with stigma of his actions.

But for Raoul Moat, I will only say it is probably for the best he took his own life.

As for Facebook and the tributes to this evil Man, I think the following lifted from the BBC Comments and posted by the Elizabethan neatly sums it up:

The sympathy of those misguided few,
Who hero-worship troubled souls anew,
That quite forgot his former sentence served,
That he attacked a child is quite absurd!

Yet what be more important to this crowd,
The price of freedom that it be allowed,
That he did shoot a policeman in the head,
Be of more worth than innocent men dead.

The question I have are these sad and probably sick people who had adopted Raoul Moat as a Hero also going to express sympathy to those whose lives he destroyed? I doubt it...

Crime & Punishment UK - Getting Emotive

That 'jolly nice chap' Andrew Bridges, the Chief Inspector of Probation has issued what his probably his last report (CIoP Report 2009-2010) before he steps down next year and in the process has raised a storm of controversy.
In the foreword, entitled What Price Public Protection? - No Trite Solutions he has taken the opportunity to raise some serious, but in his own words 'emotive issues'. The media has rightly picked up on these 'emotive' issues and I suggest both The Telegraph and Mail Online articles are worth reading if only to compare the coverage.

So what are these 'emotive issues'?

• Is the public prepared to accept the 'cost' of having more prisoners managed in the community, in terms of a proportionately small amount of reoffending, in order to achieve the 'benefit' of substantial financial savings, and knowing that people are not being expensively locked up for longer than they need to be?
• Describing prison as a "rather drastic form of crime prevention", he said it was time to consider dealing with more offenders in the community. He raised the "emotionally charged topic" despite accepting that risks to the public cannot be eliminated and that prison does reduce crime.
• He even said any "individual incidents" that result should not be viewed as a failing system.

The responses from various organisations were hostile:

• David Green, director of Civitas, a think tank, said it was "not his job" for Mr Bridges, who earns £96,000 a year, to comment on policy."I would have thought the probation service is sufficiently dysfunctional for him to find enough to do without adding to its problems by calling for the release of 2,500 dangerous criminals," he said. "In the end it does not come down to costs, it comes down to justice and public protection. He has taken a narrow view of this, a shallow view."
• Lyn Costello, of the charity Mothers Against Murder and Aggression, said she was "disgusted" by the comments. "You can never bring finance in to dealing with justice," she said. "If we are going to become a country that puts money before human life or a safe and peaceful life then I do not want to live here."
• Simon Reed, vice chairman of the Police Federation, said: "What price can we put on justice? I thought part of the criminal justice system was to punish and rehabilitate. It appears to be doing neither."
• Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "It is insulting to victims of crime and law abiding taxpayers who pay for the prison system to suggest that the public should accept an increase in crime if they want savings to be made."

Taking all of this 'on board I decided to look back at my major post on the subject of
Crime, Punishment and Politics - UK (November 2006) Whilst some of the points like Border Controls and seizure of Assets have been improved, much remains relevant.

However I have decided in this post I am going to raise some 'emotive suggestions' on the cost of Prisons and Reoffending:

• Always Deport Foreign Prisoners at the end of their sentence and inform the country of origin of their arrival - whatever danger they are in being returned to their homeland, is more than balanced by the lessening of danger to citizens in this country. This to be enforced even if their home country has and routinely uses the death penalty.
• While on the subject of the Death Penalty, hold a referendum to reintroduce it into the UK for second offences such as Murder and offered as an alternative sentence to those convicted to life without parole even if their first offense
• Those granted Asylum, regardless of their offense should be stripped of their British Citizenship and departed to their country of origin as per 1) above.
• Every privilege granted to a Prisoner must be earned by Good Behaviour and all TV, Radio should be delivered via Cable with what is made available determined by the Prison Authorities
• If a prisoner causes disruption, or is found to have contraband material, then all privileges are removed and have to be re-earned
• Bring the Scottish Prison System into the English/Welsh System and distribute certain types of prisoner across the System.
• Provide mandatory Education Classes for British Prisoners with Literacy Problems and mandatory treatment for Drug and Alcohol addition
• Provide large scale and almost open prison standard half way houses in all major cities for parolees who would otherwise be homeless. Paid work to be provided for those unable to find, or be placed in a job. Further Education being offered as part of the paid work providing attendance and effort can be proven.
• Prisoners who perform Paid Work, should receive the current Minimum Wage from which is deducted 50% to defray Prison Costs,
• Reverse the Care in the Community approach to those with Mental Health Problems and as this will take a long time beginning by building (or converting existing buildings) to secure institutions and moving these people out of prison and then over a decade moving down the scale of danger to sheltered accommodation for the non-dangerous. Yes this will cost money, but these people should not be in prison, but at the same time cannot function in normal society, leading them into crime.
• No one wants a prison on their doorstep so my suggestion of the Commissioning the design of offshore prisons for non-terrorist convicts should be considered. These to be built in British Yards to a Standard Design, which provides reasonable single occupancy cell accommodation for each convict (e.g. toilet, washing facilities, piped radio and small picture TV centrally controlled - no personal radio or, TV allowed), Intensive CCTV Coverage of all communal areas used by convicts, monitored from a secure control room and able to link pictures and information to a central incident room at the Home Office. Again this will cost a lot of Money but as a long term plan should be seriously considered, especially as eventually this could release land currently used for on-shore prisons.
• Overhaul the Parole Service, so that it provides proactive monitoring and has a zero-tolerance approach to non-attendance. Also overhaul the remit of Parole Boards, on the basis that the Danger to the public is the primary and overriding consideration.

Hopefully the above will result in a storm of controversy and I look forward to comments!

ASA Continues to investigate Cardell Media Ltd

Back at end of the first Quarter of 2010 a Mail shot began appearing in the letter boxes of smaller Businesses across Britain, in this case from Cardell Media. Small Business receive Mailshots all the time, so nothing unusual in that.
But this one not only resulted in a complaint to the ASA (Advertising Standards Agency) but also a number of Business Owners decided to air their views via their Blogs.

The reaction to the Blog posts was rapid, with Cease and Desist notices arriving by Courier with at least some originating from the San Diego, California firm of lawyers: Preovolos & Associates. Interesting as the Mail shot originated in the UK, was posted in the UK - 2nd Class Stamp it appears being used and Cardell Media is UK based and whilst some of the Blogs may have been Hosted on US based Servers, most would have been either UK, or European Server Sites, so exactly what, if any legal, weight these Notices have, is a question I would appreciate being answered.

These Notices frightened off many bloggers who removed their posts, others either held out (whilst blogging the receipt of the Cease and Desist Notice), or removed the post and then blogged why they had removed the Post!

The ASA also moved rapidly and they concluded that the marketing techniques were in multiple breaches of CAP (Committee of Advertising Practises) and have advised Cardell Media to stop all marketing of this nature, as of April 2010. Complaints were upheld in respect to the advertisements both making unsubstantiated claims and not making clear it was marketing material.

The full ASA Ruling can be found here: ASA Adjudication on Cardell Media Ltd

But fast forward to July 2010 and The Register reports that a remarkably similar Mail shot to the one which the ASA has already Adjudicated on, is once more appearing in the Letter Boxes of Small Businesses across the UK.

Extract from 'The Register' News Item:
A spokesman for the ASA told us that it was well aware that Cardell Media was ignoring its earlier ruling. He said:
'We've not had complaints but our investigators do follow up to check companies are following our rulings.  We're working with various partners to try and get this stopped. We can also look at other sanctions - like getting their mass mailing discounts removed and work with other regulators and trade bodies.'

We've (The Register Staff) emailed and left messages at Cardell Media with no success.
END Extract from 'The Register'

I shall be most interested in following what further action the ASA takes, if any, against Cardell Media Ltd.

How Dare the EU Block Abu Hamza US extradition

The European Court of Human Rights has ordered a halt to the extradition to the US on terror charges of radical cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri and three other men.

Excuse Me...Whilst I loathe the 2003 Extradition Treaty between the USA and UK because of its imbalance, this Treaty was entered into by the Elected Government of the Sovereign United Kingdom. I don't remember voting, for, or against this law being subordinate to bunch of European Judges.

Abu Hamza, jailed in the UK for soliciting to murder and racial hatred, and three other British men complained about the length of sentence they may face if convicted in the US. Their cases will be delayed for further submissions to the Strasbourg court. Meanwhile the men will remain in Custody in the UK.

Once again the 2003 Extradition Treaty is actually being used for the purpose the British thought it was supposed to serve.

The US is seeking to extradite Abu Hamza, the former head of Finsbury Park mosque in north London, since 2004, saying that he had attempted to set up a terrorism training camp in Oregon. The three other men facing extradition are Babar Ahmad, Syed Ahsan and Haroon Rashid Aswat. Mr Ahmad and Mr Ahsan were allegedly involved in raising funds for extremists. Mr Aswat is accused in relation to the alleged terror camp.

In all these cases the request is reasonable as these men will have their 'Day in a US Court'. But despite the fact they have not even faced trial in the USA, the EU Judges feel that these men have a reasonable argument in that:
They face a very long sentence in a "supermax" prison in Colorado and these very long sentences and the conditions of the prison, ADX Florence, would breach their human rights.

So everthing is being delayed whilst these Legal Eagles see more detailed arguments on
the prison conditions and the effect of the length of sentences. The UK government must submit further arguments to the court by 2 September about why it should be allowed to extradite the four. Sorry No - Two British courts have already approved the extraditions and that is that - The EU Court should keep out of this.

Now I might have a smidgen of sympathy if they were going to serve their sentence in Ikeja Jail, Nigeria, or were going to enjoy the pleasure of serving time in an Algerian Prison (but then again probably not).

But my real ire is that the British Government is being told what to do by a group of Judges who obviously live in a world completely Separate from the real one and more concerned with the rights of those, who given the chance would impose laws that would trample over everyone's Human Rights!

Our 'beloved' Home Secretary Theresa May said: ""We note that the European Court of Human Rights has decided that all the applications are partly admissible. We await the court's
judgement on the case. In the meantime these individuals will remain in custody."
Gosh Theresa you are a real wimp aren't you. Tell them we will extradite and that is that!

Treaties can be torn up, and it is time the EU Human Rights Treaty was!
However the 2003 Extradition Treaty also needs to be urgently renegotiated, but that has been covered several times in the blog!

Abid Naseer - Extradite Him - Part 1

Back in May Abid Naseer won his appeal against deportation from the UK back to Pakistan despite the Judge noting that he: "posed and still poses a serious threat to the national security of the United Kingdom". But despite this, he was NOT deported because of Human Rights Issues (See: Judge Determines Man is a Security Threat, but will NOT deport Him!).

However it appears that this Terrorist is not just a threat to the United Kingdom, but has also been involved in Plots against the United States and therefore the US Justice Department issued a Warrant for his arrest in relation to the failed plot to bomb the New York subway and requested his extradition under the 2003 Treaty US-UK Treaty (Nice to see it being used properly).

So Abid Naseer was arrested and taken to London for a late night court appearance on the 7th July and remanded in Custody until 14 July to allow Mr Naseer to consult lawyers over a possible bail application. The actual Extradition hearing will not take place until 8 September, when a judge will decide if Mr Naseer, 24, can be extradited. After this Home Secretary Theresa May will have the final say.

My views are naively simple:

1. He should have been deported back in May, his Human Rights are much less  important than the Human Rights of United Kingdom Citizens
2. Whilst I loathe the 2003 US-UK Treaty on Extradition for is imbalance, on this occasion it is being used for the correct purpose and he should be extradited by this Weekend, not dragging the process out to September.

I have a feeling this might 'run and run' hence Part 1 in the title:

External Links:
BBC: Terror suspect Abid Naseer held on US warrant
Independent: Terror suspect Abid Naseer arrested over US warrant
Telegraph: Terror Suspect Who Couldnt be Deported is Arrested.

Internal Links:
Judge Determines Man is a Security Threat, but will NOT deport Him!
May 2010

UK-US Extradition Treaty & Certain American Politicians Support for Terrorists
August 2006

Summary of England's Performance against Germany

I have been looking for some way of summarising my view of England's Performance against Germany in the World Cup. But every time I attempted to do so it descended into an unprintable rant.

Fortunately Grahame LJones of the LA Times in his article:
There's no disputing that England deserved its loss to Germany
has come to my rescue with the following:
The sad truth of the matter is that England's players, with few exceptions, are an arrogant, ignorant and unpleasant lot. They are paid far too much by their Premier League clubs, where their true allegiance lies, and their ability individually and collectively in an England shirt does not match their swagger.
Excellent Grahame Thank You Sir!

His comments on British Tabloids are also worth reading,

A final note, as those you can be bothered to read my ramblings know, I consider myself British not English and believe in all sports the National Team should be made up of Players from all parts of the UK and not individual teams from the 'Home Countries'.

The David Law Resignation

David Law's resignation was a surprise as I having read up on him, I
began to suspect he might be a useful Minister of the Crown.

But ripping off the taxpayers to the tune of £40,000 to pay your
secret partner in a gay relationship rent, once again means I my
hopes are sadly dashed.

Despite doing the honourable thing and resigning (and thence leaving
public life to do good work outside the media spotlight - Sorry being naive again), the
indications are the Coalition will follow Labour's lead and he will
become a 'Revolving Door Minister'.

Whilst from my research into Mr Law, he certainly has the intellectual
ability to be a Minister of the Crown, and I don't care if he is Gay,
but keeping that fact a Secret and in the process paying a lot of money
to his male Partner, shows a lack of both Courage and Integrity, both of which
are necessary in Ministerial Posts.

Judge Determines Man is a Security Threat, but will NOT deport Him!

At a Special Immigration court Mr Justice Mitting's judgement on  the first of two Pakistani Citizens: Abid Naseer appealing against Deportation concluded:
"We are satisfied that Naseer was an al-Qaeda operative who posed and still poses a serious threat to the national security of the United Kingdom," and added "Subject to the issue of safety on return, it is conducive to the public good that he should be deported."

Abid Naseer

So there we are this man is deemed a Danger to the Citizens of the United Kingdom and therefore should be deported immediately. But NO, the Judge then determined that it was impossible to return the men ( the second man being: Ahmad Faraz Khan)  to Pakistan - Actually it's very easy, police officers escort them to the Airport and travel with them on a Plane and then hand them over to the Authorities. But of course the safety of Abid Nasser and Ahmad Faraz Khan is much more important than the safety of United Kingdom Citizens as the Judge decided that "There is a long and well-documented history of disappearances, illegal detention and of the torture and ill-treatment of those detained, usually to produce information, a confession or compliance" - by the Pakistani Authorities. Which is interesting as three other Pakistani Citizens Arrested with Abid Naseer and Ahmad Faraz Khan have returned to Pakistan of their own free will!

Ahmad Faraz Khan

Of course the new Home Secretary will be appealing against this decision? NO she is NOT; instead she said she was 'disappointed'.
Well Theresa May I am disappointed in you as already you have failed in your duty to protect Public Safety by not even trying to get this ruling  reversed, NOT a good start!

For more details see:
BBC: - 'Al-Qaeda ringleader' wins appeal against deportation
Guardian:  - Pakistani students arrested in anti-terror raids can stay in UK
Telegraph: - Pakistani students arrested in terror raids win deportation battle

Biometric Passports & ID Cards are Necessary

The new UK Coalition Government is determined to scrap both the New Generation of Biometric Passports and ID Cards and therefore the National Identity Register.

Whilst this is not news, I had hoped once the new Government was in power there would be a realisation that whilst the Labour Government's handling of the planning and initial implementation was 'poor' to say the least, these projects were beginning to progress towards being not only a much needed addition to our Border and Internal Security, but also would have the potential to be useful across all Government Departments and even, in the case of ID Cards have the potential to be useful to citizens in everyday life both as a way of proving identity and when , as is inevitable dealing with Government both Local and National.

But of course getting rid of them is going to be simple as both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats were against them and therefore getting them cancelled will be easily passed by Parliament.

Of course wasting all the public money already spent on a £5.4 Billion project is not going to even cause them a smidgen of concern.

But hey, let's not let National Security, or the other benefits of this project get in
the way of populist politics.

MPs - They Work for Who? Well it appears many don't work for You

There is an excellent Website called TheyWorkForYou that tracks the Parliamentary Activities of UK Politicians in the Assemblies, Commons and Lords. Unfortunately it does not track their other activities, their second, third, or even fourth jobs, their trips paid for by overseas Governments (which in some cases it appears has meant certain MPs have become 'agents of influence' ) and playing the expenses game so far outside the relaxed rules that some face criminal proceedings.

It makes you wonder how they find the time to represent the people who elected them. Well of course if you have multiple jobs and are busy on junkets paid for by foreign governments, whilst fiddling your expenses, you have to fit the representing of your constituents and helping to decide on what is best for the Nation into whatever time is left over (not much)!

I have for a long time now viewed British Politics as a trade, rather than a profession and certainly not an elite. I also have long realised that as in some other trades the number of 'dodgy operators' is significant, but even as a hardened cynic, I am stunned at how bad it has become.

I was brought up on the principle that even if you cannot respect the Man (or Woman), respect the Position they hold.
The inability of Parliament to self regulate it affairs, to stamp out corruption and to remove the corrupt, means I cannot respect the institution, the position of the members nor the members themselves. I used to believe that most MPs were reasonably honest, and attempting to do the job well (even if not actually that good at it) and from this group a few would make good Ministers of the Crown. Belief has now been replaced by hope and prayer, not helped by David Cameron replacing Tony Blair in the Murdoch Bed.

How long before Nigerians begin to view their Politicians as being more honourable than their British Counterparts?
The ways things are going not long,

BBC Review - BBC Trust and DG Running Scared!

The remit of the BBC is to Inform, Educate and Entertain. In pursuit of these objectives the BBC has become the most trusted Broadcaster in the World. It is also an innovator, or at the very least an early adopter of new forms of media from Television through to today's Digital World, but at the same time continuing to develop its base in Radio and Print Publishing (the Radio Times started back n the 1920's), in the process it has become not just a National Icon, but one of the few British Institutions that are respected, trusted and admired worldwide.

The BBC like the Royal Family has to be seen to be apolitical (above politics, unbiased) and also or ensure niche audiences are catered for. In the modern era the need to be seen as 'apolitical' has meant that Politicians of almost every shade of opinion consider the BBC is biased against them (good it means the BBC is doing its job). Increasingly Commercial Broadcasting, Internet and Publishing Companies led by Rupert Murdoch's News International have launched ever more virulent attacks against the BBC. This has led to the BBC being attacked on two fronts.

Why because the BBC is good at what it does and they cannot compete? Well yes of course, but the Commercial Media spin their inability to compete because the BBC's is publicly funded through the Licence Fee, whilst they, who are more interested in Profit for their shareholders are not. Well, if you cannot compete with a Broadcaster that has to provide programming you would NEVER consider because it would never make a profit, provide coverage which you again aren't interested in and because of its remit do many things that you would not do, because it would harm your advertising revenue and therefore damage profits, then maybe the problem is that you are just not good enough to compete in the areas where you and the BBC meet head on!

Britain's Politicians have always had an uneasy relationship with the BBC, but as being a Politician has increasingly meant you also have to be a Media Personality the relationship has worsened. Normally I would see this as a case of if you want to be a Political Leader then facing for instance, Jeremy Paxman in Rottweiler mode is part of being in the trade.
But it is obvious that the Conservatives in particular are gunning for the BBC and now they have climbed into bed with Rupert Murdoch, the BBC leadership and in particular its oversight organisation the BBC Trust appear to be running scared.

The BBC's Independence from Government and Politics is paramount if it is to meet its remit, running scared is not the answer but fighting back does present a conundrum. As an apolitical organisation the BBC has it hands tied and cannot galvanise the public in its defence, because to do so would obviously be a political bias. So it is left to those outside the BBC to defend it
But this also is not as easy as it should be, because of lax management the BBC has been shooting itself in the foot ranging from Blue Peter Competitions through to employing the 'over aged juveniles' Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand and even allowing a discredited reporter back on air occasionally. Also being in the news itself over what it pays executives and talent (Jonathan Ross is deemed talent?).

Mark Thompson may be reaping what others had sown, but is he the right man to be Director General in this time of crisis? Probably not, but he is the man on seat and it is his forthcoming Strategic Review that will, assuming it passes through purview by the BBC Trust determine the future shape of the BBC and this fact concerns me greatly.

Although less high profile, the Conservatives, if they win the next election also plan to scrap Ofcom the independent regulator for Communications and bring it back under Government Control. Whilst not a fan of quanos in general, in the case of independent regulators I am willing to make an exception. I would prefer a more aggressive, proactive Ofcom, but would rather have the current less satisfactory version than let Politicians control the regulator, especially Politicians in bed with a media mogul!

Whilst the BBC must always try to achieve balance, companies like News International set their own agenda. When Murdoch switched his political support in the UK from Labour to the Conservatives his UK media empire followed the Bosses New Party Line (it is an old Press Baron's trick, which has evolved to the Multi-media Age). Elsewhere in the world I always found Fox News in the US a source of amusement because of its reporting bias, but amusement would turn to a great deal of concern if that type of News Channel gained any prominence in the UK.

Personal Note to the Right Honourable David Cameron MP:
Dear Dave.
Your Candidate for the Constituency which includes my West London Hilltop appears to have the qualities I want in my parliamentary representative. It is therefore sad that based on current evidence of your policies she will not be getting my vote. Your party has some good policies (but then so do the others) and some I disagree with (as do the others), but on the list of reasons why I shouldn't vote Conservative in the next election following Tony Blair into the Murdoch Bed earned your party a lot of bad marks and the orchestrated sniping at the BBC from both the front bench and even backbench, but front bench wannabees like Doug Carswell have earned you even more. The desire to drastically reduce quangos is good, but Ofcom and indeed other independent regulators should not be brought back under political control, but instead given sharper teeth and told their role is to protect the consumer and business against the Privatised excesses of the often foreign owned Utilities and in the case of Ofcom the Telecoms and Media. Profit is good, excessive profit, when the consumers are effectively captive to the service provided, with limited or no choice is unacceptable.

I look forward to your party Manifesto which I shall read several times along with those of the other parties. But at the moment mine is one vote I wouldn't count on and in this constituency that 1 vote could be important.
End Personal Note

Moving on to what the leaked elements of the Strategic Review would affect:

1. Reduced Spending on imported Programmes: Not against that in principle, but as Torin Douglas wrote in a BBC article 'But would anyone else show Mad Men, which has attracted critical acclaim but few viewers'. Hmm good one Torin as it is an excellent series and maybe the viewing figures are due scheduling rather than anything else.
   
   
2. The Teenage Market. I am not a teen, so cannot comment on how good the BBC is at satisfying that market. But it is part of the remit of the BBC to fill niche audience needs and teens are an important group!
   
   
3. Radio - Dropping 6 Music and the Asian Network. Well for me the music died with John Peel, so I cannot comment on 6 Music. As for the Asian Network, well I am not Asian and as audience figures are in decline, it is obviously not doing its job. It's another Niche Audience and again under the remit should receive some coverage, although whether as a
   separate Radio Network, I think not!
   
   
4. Cease UK Magazine Publishing. In this case, as with so much the BBC has become a victim of its own success. BBC Worldwide who are responsible for the Publishing arm were told by the Government (not the BBC Trust) go forth and make more money and they did, very successfully, with UK titles like Top Gear and the Radio Times.
   
   Guess what Commercial Publishers are now screaming foul. Ahh bless! the publishing arm is an effective commercially run organisation, so if you cannot compete then get out the market. But according to the leaked Strategic Review instead of defending this money maker the BBC is planning to outsource, or sell off titles. Yes their running scared!
   
   
5. This brings me to a Jewel in the BBC Crown, The BBC Website, or rather sites. The BBC Sites form a massive National Resource of History, Programmes Past and Present, Articles and quirky side sites like h2g2 the online encyclopaedia, similar in idea to Wikipedia, used by those who know about it but mostly ignored.
   
   Yes the BBC Sites both UK and Worldwide have grown like Topsy. Yes there could be some restructuring, but not cost cutting, instead, revamp and grow the site, News and Sports areas are basically fine, but in areas of Science, Technology and indeed any specialist subject provide links to sites that cover a given subject of an Article in-depth (some of this is does already happen, but arrange with publishers that if an article is accessed by BBC site referrer then the full article is available without a separate log-in, although any intro Advertising remains). Expand the Programme archive, restructure the Historical Sections.
   
   Commercial Online News Services in specific areas such as Computing already provide back links to the BBC and often quote BBC Website Entries in their articles (sometimes
   ironically, but mostly factually). Leverage these types of relationship.
   
   Downsizing, or in any negative way messing with the BBC Websites is
   worth going to the Barricades to stop. Improve and restructure, but
   don't anyone dare even consider slowing the growth of what is probably
   the most useful Website in the World!
   

United Airlines Did Him Wrong so a wrote a trilogy of Songs

When United Airlines Loading Staff broke singer/songwriter Dave Carroll's $3,500 Taylor Guitar by throwing it about (along with the bands other instruments) and then wouldn't pay compensation. Well in his final email to them, he advised he was going to write and produce three songs which then form the Music to three Videos which would then be posted online. The third song was released on the 2nd March:

United Breaks Guitars Song 3 - "United We Stand" on the Right Side of Right

To see all three videos in one place go to: United Airlines did him wrong, so he wrote a song (or three)!, Originally posted in July 2009 with the first Video, updated with the second video and now the final one in the trilogy!

Politics of (Rail) Transport

Back in October 2008 I posted an Article on: High Speed Trains and Heathrows Third Runway which ended with:
Transport is too important nationally to be a political football. We have wasted at least 40 years, please, don't waste the next 40!

In France where there appears a separation between National Interest and Party Politics so lacking in Britain, there has been a consistent integrated National Transport Policy, especially in regard to High Speed Rail for 40 Years. So the recent British political consensus on the need for High Speed Rail links and this cross-political support for some major projects has been a welcome 'chink of light'. One project that seemed to be a beneficiary of this welcome change is the planned High Speed Link between London and the Midlands (part of a longer term plan: New high-speed rail plan unveiled BBC August 2009), which has been around for at least 5 years.

The Conservatives have broken the Political consensus on this project by commissioning their own panel of experts to look over the proposals, which were drawn up by High Speed Two, a public company. Now this panel has not yet issued its final report to its Conservative paymasters (gosh I thought all the parties were short of cash), but as part of the cross-party consensus the Labour Government offered the Conservative Opposition a preview of the forthcoming White Paper on the project and they refused.

The question is why chose this project?

Well Lord Adonis, the Transport Secretary has decided to take the risk of alarming potential Labour voters by publishing a detailed London-to-Birmingham proposal in the white paper that locates the tracks to within five metres in urban areas and 25 metres in the countryside. Note: How refreshing a Government Whitepaper that actually details what is really planned.

But endorsing such a tightly planned route could spell even more trouble for the Tories as well because it is widely expected to slice through the Conservative heartland of Buckinghamshire, including a swath of the Chiltern Hills - one of 40 areas of outstanding natural beauty in England and Wales.

So the Guardian found a 'talkative Tory party source' who:
Acknowledged concerns that the route could go through key constituencies between the home counties and the West Midlands, triggering complaints about property blight from house owners. "We don't want to lose 10 seats backing a route blindly," said the source - Hmm also honest, but depressingly so. It's all about Party Politics and s*d the National Interest!

So there we have it National Interest No, Party Politics Yes and what I saw as a 'chink of light' that possibly would burn brighter by encompassing other National Projects has just been shut off.

For the Conservative Party this 'strategy' appears to have backfired (as it deserved to) as the both the Government and the Lib-Dems have been able to take the moral high ground:
First Norman Baker for the Lib-Dems talking to the BBC:
"This peculiar decision of the Tories coupled with Osborne's spending cuts strongly suggest that the Tories are trying to kick high-speed rail into the long grass." "The Tories can't be trusted with our railways."
Nasty little political kicker at the end there Norman and you were doing so well!

Now Lord Adonis:
"Full public consultation will of course take place on any route proposed by the government. The consensus I seek is on the principle of high-speed rail, so that it can be taken forward on a cross-party basis in the next parliament."

Amusingly since the Conservative announcement yesterday, the Shadow Transport Secretary Theresa Villiers has had to spend most of her time defending the Conservative line by denying they were "playing politics".
Sorry but you were!

As the General Election begins to looms, who to vote for:
Labour, Conservative, or Lib Dems - In each party there are a few (too few) with talent, a few (even fewer) I respect (and not always the same people), but actually the thought of any of these parties forming the next Government is for me depressing and the stuff of nightmares..

Links:
Department of Transport Britain's Transport Infrastructure: High Speed Two
January 2009 - Warning 5Mb PDF - Very Interesting

From the Newspapers
18th February:
Guardian:-Tory fears of vote backlash put high-speed rail route in doubt
19th February:
Telegraph:- High-speed rail route 'under threat' as Tories refuse to support Labour's proposals

Times:-Tories put high-speed rail line in doubt

A Bit of History Courtesy of the BBC:
Why put the brakes on high-speed rail?

The Politicians:
Lord Andrew Adonis:
Department of Transport Profile ,the Telegraph Profile and Wikipedia Entry

Theresa Villiers:
Official Website - Conservative Party Site and Wikipedia Entry

Norman Baker:
Official Website - Profile On Norman Clegg's Site and Wikipedia Entry

Guido Fawkes an Article: Mad Mullah Gets More Than Frontline Soldier

Whilst the Guido Fawkes Blog is largely read by Politicians, Lawyers and City Movers & Shakers, (not always with enjoyment - Hazel Blears in a speech described it as the vicious nihilism of Guido Fawkes), some of his articles should receive a wider audience. The following is an entire post made on the 6th January 2010:

Start Guido Fawkes Post:

Mad Mullah Gets More Than Frontline Soldier

Here is another evidence-based chart you won’t see elsewhere; it shows how much taxpayers are forced to give to Anjem Choudary – the extremist cleric who wants to lead a protest march through Wootton Bassett.  He claims £25,740 in benefits to subsidise his hate preaching.  Guido questions how he can be seeking work when he spends all his time rabble rousing in broadcast studios and on demonstrations.  In contrast a frontline soldier, fighting Choudary’s taliban allies in Afghanistan, takes home £17,004 for risking his life.  If that private is killed in combat, his widow and children would have to live on a pension less than Choudary gets.

Why are British taxpayers paying their enemies more than their soldiers?  Is Choudary really actively seeking work?  The evidence suggests he has other priorities – so stop his benefits…

END of Guido Fawkes Post

Devaluing the Award of British Medals.

Britain has a tradition of awarding medals for displays of exceptional Courage, in the Armed Services (In the Army, one regiment will submit a request for an award, but another for exactly the same act will not, considering it within expected behaviour of members of that Regiment), the Police and Civilian Population. Getting an award in the Security Services, SIS (aka MI 6), or MI 5, is shall we say 'difficult', for serving officers 'extremely difficult'.

In the Armed Services there are also Campaign Medals for those who served in War Zones, although HMG has on some occasions tried to avoid awarding these for political reasons (e.g. the long campaign to recognise Suez Veterans), or diplomatic reasons (we were never there, honest). Even worse HMG (on the advice of the MoD) is refusing to give a medal to those wounded in action in Afghanistan, or elsewhere.

In my long professional career I have visited Countries and Cities in Countries which HM Foreign Office at the time considered unsafe. In some cases so unsafe that I and my Colleagues received protection. I viewed these visits as the risky part of my job at the time, not something to be given some award for although I did usually get paid something extra for being there and then only if staying for more than a couple of days!

Now as part of their job, Politicians and now Civil Servants are required to visit War Zones, or Countries/Cities Deemed High Risk. It comes with the territory, don't want to do it refuse, or change careers!
I have no problem with a plus payment for doing it, starting say, for stays longer than a week, but regardless of how many flying visits, no!

Yet Politicians who have neither served with the Armed Services, Police, Security Services and whose only likelihood of exceptional bravery in their professional life would to be to face Jeremy Paxman at the top of his form are being awarded Medals. Oh yes and what have they done to be so recognised?

Well they have to be members of a Club, sorry I mean Scheme, called the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme (AFPS), and this scheme allows politicians to spend around 22 days a year with the Forces. So visits to Aldershot, an RN Ship, or RAF Base in Scotland all count. - Of course some do visit a War Zone where they were constantly surrounded by real British Soldiers and have had their Pictures taken, been interviewed and have then gone home. Fortunately the Queen does not have to present these Badges, because they are technically unofficial. So should they be called Medals, no, they are just a Badge showing long term (10 Years) club, sorry scheme membership.

So why are these called Medals, when they are only a Badge, because they are awarded to Politicians (vomiting at this point is permitted). At least if you are British Citizen you can indicate your anger at this by signing an E-Petition to the Prime Minister: Stop degrading our soldiers by handing out medals to MPs.

Well I have received Certificates for belonging to something for a long while, but quite honestly these go in the scrap book and even the Badges I have been given for membership of an Organisation, would only be worn (if I remembered), on occasions when it is likely to encounter other members.

Having dealt with Politicians, let us look at the Civil Service. In particular the MoD where Civil Servants are traditionally niggardly when recommending Medals for real Heroes and Service in Campaigns. Well guess what now they are actually expected to spend time in a War Zone they are getting a Campaign Medal, no, not a Badge, a real Campaign Medal as worn by Real Soldiers, Royal Marines and the RAF Personnel (providing they spend as certain amount of time there and this varies between 21 and 30 Days not the six month tours of real Soldiers and other Service Personnel). So are these people on the front line? No don't be silly, they work mainly inside Camp Bastion surrounded by Real Servicemen and Women and when they venture out they are very well protected. Also they get Bonus payments and salaries which make the real Heroes amongst the most underpaid in our society.

So they are, Civilians in a War Zone where it is just possible they might get Killed (None has), or Wounded (no medal for being wounded remember - MoD didn't go for it), well the Naafi Manager does that as do the other Civilians, are they going to be awarded a Campaign Medal? Again don't be silly and they don't expect it, yet in other wars Naafi Staff have taken the fight to enemy (Falklands) and from memory they didn't get a medal, neither do Chinese Civilian Laundrymen who serve on Royal Navy Ships and have died alongside the British Crew in wars large and small. So what is special about Civil Servants that means they deserve a medal! NOTHING!

The awards to MPs and Civil Servants devalues the British Medal Award System which is moving the way of the former USSR, where you got a medal for just staying Alive for a very long time in the Soviet Paradise, contributing to the Population Explosion, or being a Sycophant to the right people, among many other possibilities.

Links:
E-Petiion to the Prime Minister: Stop degrading our soldiers by handing out medals to MPs.

MPs criticised for accepting 'Mickey Mouse' medals

Anger as penpushers at MoD get same Afghan medal as troops risking their lives on front line

To finish a picture of Real Soldiers, just to remind us of those who deserve much more than we give them and who are entitled to Wear their Medals with Pride:

Online petition against HM Government use of Flawed browser

After reading the following please sign the E-Petition
The German and French governments have started to encourage people to upgrade away from the browser Internet Explorer 6 (IE6).

IE6 has some security flaws that leave users vulnerable. These two governments have let their populations know that an upgrade will keep them safer online. We should follow them.

When the UK government does this, most of Europe will follow. That will create some pressure on the US to do so too.

Most creative and software development companies are forced by government department clients to build websites for IE6 when most of the industry has moved on.

Companies insist that they need IE6 support because government departments use it and won't be able to see their sites or services without it.

Upgrading would be a massive task for government, but if the public is encouraged to lead the way and the government follows, that would create the momentum needed.

IE6 'end of life' was extended to 2014 by governments and business not ready (or willing) to upgrade. This cycle should be broken and innovation and security given their proper place.

To sign click: E-Petition

RAF Battle of Britain Memorial Flight endangered

Support the BBMF with your vote

Photograph and Copyright Caz Caswell - Used with Permission

It has been suggested that the RAF's Battle of Britain Memorial Flight (BBMF) which celebrates the sacrifice of those who flew during the 2nd World War, will be part of the next round of defence cuts. This will be a travesty if it goes ahead.

The BBMF costs a mere £3m a year, less than 0.1% of the defence budget. It is a great delight for all who see their displays, and the memory of 'The Few' will be lost.
If a British Citizen (either UK Resident, Expatriate, or Crown Dependency), please vote in the E-Petition to the Prime Minister to ensure that the BBMF is not closed.

I am sorry to say that the many supporters of the BBMF who are not British Citizens cannot add their votes, but it doesn't stop you emailing HMG!