23-Dec-2006
Labour Hypocrisy over TV Licence Fee increase
Perhaps we should applaud Tessa Jowell and Gordon Brown over their hard negotiations with the BBC to peg increases in the licence fee to be below inflation over the next 5 years.
If reports are correct, then the Government failed to be convinced of the need to have above inflation increases and instead wanted some demonstration of Gordon's 'prudence'.
It is a shame that there is no better control exercised over local authorities spending patterns. As we arrive towards the new year, council tax bills will start dropping on household doormats for the 2007/8 Fiscal Year and if every other year is replicated, we will see an above inflation rise without any appreciable increase in services.
Maybe instead of electing councillors, we should have companies tendering to run local authorities overseen by councillors; If private companies tendered to provide the local authority services, they should take on the commercial risks of overspend to to meet the local authority plan tendered for.
At the moment local authority services are not subject to competition and they should be. Councillors should be held to account for the delivery of the agreed plan, but its actual execution should be via business professionals.
If reports are correct, then the Government failed to be convinced of the need to have above inflation increases and instead wanted some demonstration of Gordon's 'prudence'.
It is a shame that there is no better control exercised over local authorities spending patterns. As we arrive towards the new year, council tax bills will start dropping on household doormats for the 2007/8 Fiscal Year and if every other year is replicated, we will see an above inflation rise without any appreciable increase in services.
Maybe instead of electing councillors, we should have companies tendering to run local authorities overseen by councillors; If private companies tendered to provide the local authority services, they should take on the commercial risks of overspend to to meet the local authority plan tendered for.
At the moment local authority services are not subject to competition and they should be. Councillors should be held to account for the delivery of the agreed plan, but its actual execution should be via business professionals.
On this day in History : 1964: Beeching to leave British Railways
Oh Doctor Beeching.........
Beeching presided as Chairman of the British Railways Board from 1961 and oversaw the closure of thousands of miles of rail infrastructure.
Following the publication of his report "The Reshaping of British Railways" in 1963, more than 8,000 miles (12,875 km) of track and 2,000 stations were closed at a cost of nearly 70,000 jobs.
The cuts were controversial at the time, as was his exit; it has never been clear whether he resigned or was in fact sacked.
Public transport in the UK is a disgrace.
A few years ago, I lived in the South East suburbs of London....if I wanted to travel to the West by rail, the only way to accomplish that was to travel all the way into London and then back out again like the spokes of a bicycle.
If ever people are to get out of their cars, it is vital that serious investment is made towards public transport to make it convenient and affordable. Government must create the commercial environment to enable a holistic UK transport strategy inmcluding appropriate subsidies or capital investment....even if it does mean holding it as a Nationlised industry. The major investments required today make it impractical to have a via
Punishing a motorist by taxation is not the way to generate revenue to compensate for years of under-investment apparently kicked off by Beeching's reforms.
Link
Beeching presided as Chairman of the British Railways Board from 1961 and oversaw the closure of thousands of miles of rail infrastructure.
Following the publication of his report "The Reshaping of British Railways" in 1963, more than 8,000 miles (12,875 km) of track and 2,000 stations were closed at a cost of nearly 70,000 jobs.
The cuts were controversial at the time, as was his exit; it has never been clear whether he resigned or was in fact sacked.
Public transport in the UK is a disgrace.
A few years ago, I lived in the South East suburbs of London....if I wanted to travel to the West by rail, the only way to accomplish that was to travel all the way into London and then back out again like the spokes of a bicycle.
If ever people are to get out of their cars, it is vital that serious investment is made towards public transport to make it convenient and affordable. Government must create the commercial environment to enable a holistic UK transport strategy inmcluding appropriate subsidies or capital investment....even if it does mean holding it as a Nationlised industry. The major investments required today make it impractical to have a via
Punishing a motorist by taxation is not the way to generate revenue to compensate for years of under-investment apparently kicked off by Beeching's reforms.
Labels: environment, Public Transport, taxes, This Day in History
Link
18-Dec-2006
Let's starve the jobless into submission whilst punishing those who invest
This has to be one of the craziest ideas that I have ever heard.
Whilst I appreciate that it is not a pleasant statistic to report that 10% of the currently unemployed have relied upon benefits for at least 6 of the last 7 years, cutting their benefits is not actually going to help them into work.
Let's be realistic here - getting a job is a two way street - granted, the jobseeker has to do all that he can to market himself to get a job, but on the other side of the job market is the employer. I can't see employers rushing to employ someone who has been out of work for 6 of the last 7 years, can you?
Don't misunderstand me....I don't say that all is well with the benefits system. There have been too many reports of people with families so large that it does not make economic sense for them to go back to work, especially if they can get the council to knock two houses together to keep the family in one home.
I agree that reform has to take place, especially to subsidise risks that employers may take and to create an environment where it does make financial sense to go out to work, but let's remember the historic failures of YTS (Youth Training Scheme) that took youngsters into low paid jobs and allowed employers to operate their businesses on a subsidy with poor employment and training opportunities.
But, if the Government is on a roll looking at reforming the welfare state.....perhaps it should also look to readdress some injustices where people invest in their future, only to be penalised.
Three things come to my mind as an inequality when I choose to buy my home rather than rent.
1. If I fall unemployed when buying my own home, all I get paid is the interest on my mortgage, whereas if renting, I can claim housing benefit that may pay close to the full monthly rental. If I want to protect my mortgage payments, I am forced to take out an expensive insurance policy. Why such inequality?
2. If I have invested in buying a property and I require respite care in later life, my house can be taken away from me to contribute to the costs of it. Yet if I spend all my cash whilst healthy, the Welfare Stete will pick up the tab.
3. When I die, if I have invested in any way and especially in my home, my estate will be subject to inheritance tax even if my estate is fairly modest. Tax is at 40%, yet if I blow it during my lifetime, the tax would only be payable at 17.5% VAT - again, where is the equality.
These three points alone are enough to make someone say "why bother buying my house". Yet there is still something very special about saying that the money is being invested for yourself rather than the landlord. But it is still immoral for the government (and prior governments) to regard homeowners as wealthier and more able to take the extra taxes just because they have been thriftier and more sensible than those who chose to rent.
Yes......the benefits and taxation system in this country is in urgent need of reform, but let's not do it in a random way, picking off little bits and pieces for soundbites. Let's make it fair and transparent throughout the whole system.
The first party to cut through all this and come up with radical and equitable proposals will be the one that will truly appeal to the middle-upper classes (and me!!).
Link
Whilst I appreciate that it is not a pleasant statistic to report that 10% of the currently unemployed have relied upon benefits for at least 6 of the last 7 years, cutting their benefits is not actually going to help them into work.
Let's be realistic here - getting a job is a two way street - granted, the jobseeker has to do all that he can to market himself to get a job, but on the other side of the job market is the employer. I can't see employers rushing to employ someone who has been out of work for 6 of the last 7 years, can you?
Don't misunderstand me....I don't say that all is well with the benefits system. There have been too many reports of people with families so large that it does not make economic sense for them to go back to work, especially if they can get the council to knock two houses together to keep the family in one home.
I agree that reform has to take place, especially to subsidise risks that employers may take and to create an environment where it does make financial sense to go out to work, but let's remember the historic failures of YTS (Youth Training Scheme) that took youngsters into low paid jobs and allowed employers to operate their businesses on a subsidy with poor employment and training opportunities.
But, if the Government is on a roll looking at reforming the welfare state.....perhaps it should also look to readdress some injustices where people invest in their future, only to be penalised.
Three things come to my mind as an inequality when I choose to buy my home rather than rent.
1. If I fall unemployed when buying my own home, all I get paid is the interest on my mortgage, whereas if renting, I can claim housing benefit that may pay close to the full monthly rental. If I want to protect my mortgage payments, I am forced to take out an expensive insurance policy. Why such inequality?
2. If I have invested in buying a property and I require respite care in later life, my house can be taken away from me to contribute to the costs of it. Yet if I spend all my cash whilst healthy, the Welfare Stete will pick up the tab.
3. When I die, if I have invested in any way and especially in my home, my estate will be subject to inheritance tax even if my estate is fairly modest. Tax is at 40%, yet if I blow it during my lifetime, the tax would only be payable at 17.5% VAT - again, where is the equality.
These three points alone are enough to make someone say "why bother buying my house". Yet there is still something very special about saying that the money is being invested for yourself rather than the landlord. But it is still immoral for the government (and prior governments) to regard homeowners as wealthier and more able to take the extra taxes just because they have been thriftier and more sensible than those who chose to rent.
Yes......the benefits and taxation system in this country is in urgent need of reform, but let's not do it in a random way, picking off little bits and pieces for soundbites. Let's make it fair and transparent throughout the whole system.
The first party to cut through all this and come up with radical and equitable proposals will be the one that will truly appeal to the middle-upper classes (and me!!).
Labels: Inheritance Tax, taxes, welfare
Link
On this Day in History: 1997: Dawn of Scottish parliament
18 Dec 1997
For the story in greater detail refer to the BBC News site.
A bill giving Scotland its own parliament for the first time in three centuries was unveiled in Glasgow on this day.
Scottish Secretary Donald Dewar revealed his blueprint for the future of Scottish politics and called on the House of Lords not to delay or disrupt its passage into law.
The Scotland Act 1998 was introduced in 1997 and elections to the Scottish Assemblies were held in May 1999.
Donald Dewar became Scotland's First Minister and later the same month the Scottish parliament met for the first time.
Devolution Day on 1 July 1999 saw the Scottish parliament assume its full powers in the presence of the Queen - to cheers and applause.
But the parliament was plunged into mourning when Mr Dewar, a much loved politician described as the "father of the Scottish nation", died in October 2000 aged 63.
As a Scot living in England. and having grown up with the culture of the "Auld Enemy" governing or imposing it's will on Scotland stirred up by the SNP, I have some controversial viewpoints.
Whilst I welcome Scotland (and indeed all the home nations) having a say in the way their country is run and prioritising for any unique needs, I do not believe that separatism is in Scotlands best interests.
For a great number of years, the only industries that generated any money were Whisky and Oil and we know how precarious the worlds natural resources are. As has happened in the rest of the UK, the traditional heavy industries have died out and Scotland must compete for investment in innovative businesses.
Scotland does very well proportionately from UK PLC when funding is handed out, perhaps necessarilly so because of the lower population density, but to my mind has no cause for complaint.
I just wish that Scots would lose the chip on their shoulder - I certainly have.
Labels: This Day in History
17-Dec-2006
On this Day: 2003 & 1968: Dual Child murderes found guilty
17th December 1968 & 17th December 2003
In a remarkable, but tragic coincidence, 17th December is the anniversary of two child killers being convicted of dual killings of children of the opposite sex to the killer.
In 1968, Mary Bell was convicted for the unlawful killings (by strangling) of Martin Brown (aged 4) and Brian Howe (3). Mary Bell was herself a child aged 11 and was sentenced to life in detention.
Mary Bell was released on licence in 1980. She was given a new identity and has since had a daughter. When her daughter reached 18 in May 2002 their right to anonymity could have been lifted.
Her case raised controversy again when her biography was published in 1998 and it emerged she had been paid for contributing to the book.
However, the High Court granted them both lifelong anonymity under the Human Rights Act, in May 2003, on the grounds they were entitled to a private and family life.
In 2003, Former school caretaker Ian Huntley (29) was found guilty of the murder of Soham schoolgirls Holly Wells (10) and Jessica Chapman (also 10) and given two life sentences. There was further controversy when his then girlfriend Maxine Carr was sentenced only on grounds of perverting the course of justice.
What was not revealed to the Jury was that Huntley had history of being accused of having sex with underage girls and of rape several times in the past, leading to strong criticism of the police and Social Services, particularly with regard to vetting Huntly's suitability to be employed as School Caretaker.
This ultimately lead to the early retirement of the Chief Constable of Humberside Police, David Westwood following legal representation by then Home Secretary David Blunkett to the High Court to confirm his authority to remove the officer.
Maxine Carr was subsequently released from prison in May 2004 amidst huge public potests, with her identity protected by a court injunction.
It is very easy to suggest that we live in ever more dangerous times with the perception that violent crime is on the increase. I don't believe that there is any evidence of that.
However, with 35 years separating these cases and a huge age gap between the perpretators and the levels of trust placed in these killers, it is clear that parents have a difficult, and maybe impossible task to protect their children 100% of the time. I fear for my childrens safety at all times, even if they ride their bike just out of sight, but it is also a part of our job as parents to recognise when children can start to take their first steps away from our protective cloak and learn for themselves the boundaries of safety.
We cannot treat everyone as a potential killer and thankfully such cases are rare.
For a sobering thought, read: David Cameron's Diary: Hands-free more dangerous than Drink Driving
Don't settle for high Energy prices, read: David Cameron's Diary: When will UK fuel bills drop? Take some positive action.
16-Dec-2006
Countdown presenter
I have been following Countdiown occasionally recently, having been a fan in the past when Channel 4 first started.
It has been an institution from the start of Channel 4 broadcasting, opening with Countdown hosted by the legendary Richard Whitely on November 2nd 1982 until his untimely death.
Des O'Connor has been announced as the permanent replacement in the show following Des Lynam's stewardship for the last year or so.
BetFair is running a book on the next presenter of Countdown, and I think that people are caught up on who would be the next permanent presenter of Countdown. I interpret it differently in that it is the next presenter of any Countdown show broadcast for the first time.
Am I correct in thinking that if Paul Merton (or anyone else) hosted a Christmas special, then the bet would be settled on that? It seems to me like there could be a Countdown Christmas special under wraps ready to come out ahead of Des taking the reins and if we get that host right, their could be a big win for the taking.
Of course, someone else may have the inside knowledge.
It has been an institution from the start of Channel 4 broadcasting, opening with Countdown hosted by the legendary Richard Whitely on November 2nd 1982 until his untimely death.
Des O'Connor has been announced as the permanent replacement in the show following Des Lynam's stewardship for the last year or so.
BetFair is running a book on the next presenter of Countdown, and I think that people are caught up on who would be the next permanent presenter of Countdown. I interpret it differently in that it is the next presenter of any Countdown show broadcast for the first time.
Am I correct in thinking that if Paul Merton (or anyone else) hosted a Christmas special, then the bet would be settled on that? It seems to me like there could be a Countdown Christmas special under wraps ready to come out ahead of Des taking the reins and if we get that host right, their could be a big win for the taking.
Of course, someone else may have the inside knowledge.
X Factor Final 2006
Not a song that I am familiar with but.....
A shaky start for Ray in "a moment like this"...... did not inspire confidence at all....seems to me that he started out of tune with the backing track.
Doesn't seem like a great track to me overall...it is in no way memorable, but then it is the same track that both artistes need to sing.
Leona starts with quite a different feeling to her version.... a Whitney style at first impressions.....
Definitely more emotion and style with this performance compared to a rather bland Ray performance.
I you took my advice to bet Ray into second place via BetFair but to go no further via my earlier tips, then I think that you are now a winner.
This was a difficult track to sing and needed some character and interpretation to make it memorable. For me, Leona made it her own in a way that Ray just could not accomplish....probably just some immaturity and inexperience.
I think we will hear of both artistes in the future, but for now Leona walks it for me.
The late betting suggests that Leona has it (at Decimal 1.13 collapsed in from decimal 1.30), but after I'am a Celibrity, I wouldn't count on anything... I hope that you spread your bets per my advice here.
22:14 Does someone know something? Leona's odds are drifting...out to 1.18. Maybe the votes coming in are not completely going Leona's way, but I think that she has done enough.
Although I have advocated that Ray commands the grannie vote, I don't think that is quite enough in the final.
22:22 Well done Leona!! annoyed that I am that I could not risk all on her.
Congratulations to all those followers here that followed me getting the result perfectly on song with Leona first and Ray second - it was exactly as I called it two-three weeks ago.
A shaky start for Ray in "a moment like this"...... did not inspire confidence at all....seems to me that he started out of tune with the backing track.
Doesn't seem like a great track to me overall...it is in no way memorable, but then it is the same track that both artistes need to sing.
Leona starts with quite a different feeling to her version.... a Whitney style at first impressions.....
Definitely more emotion and style with this performance compared to a rather bland Ray performance.
I you took my advice to bet Ray into second place via BetFair but to go no further via my earlier tips, then I think that you are now a winner.
This was a difficult track to sing and needed some character and interpretation to make it memorable. For me, Leona made it her own in a way that Ray just could not accomplish....probably just some immaturity and inexperience.
I think we will hear of both artistes in the future, but for now Leona walks it for me.
The late betting suggests that Leona has it (at Decimal 1.13 collapsed in from decimal 1.30), but after I'am a Celibrity, I wouldn't count on anything... I hope that you spread your bets per my advice here.
22:14 Does someone know something? Leona's odds are drifting...out to 1.18. Maybe the votes coming in are not completely going Leona's way, but I think that she has done enough.
Although I have advocated that Ray commands the grannie vote, I don't think that is quite enough in the final.
22:22 Well done Leona!! annoyed that I am that I could not risk all on her.
Congratulations to all those followers here that followed me getting the result perfectly on song with Leona first and Ray second - it was exactly as I called it two-three weeks ago.
X Factor Final 2006
What a final!!
I would not like to call it one way or the other.
Both Ray and Leona sang their hearts out tonight, and if you were to ask me who sang it moost note perfect, it would have to be Ray.
Leona is a wonderful and expressive talent, but sometimes her expressiveness in the softer passages comes through as a nervousness and does not carry great confidence.
Leona SHOULD win if it is all about the potential talent, but there is a nervousness within me that there will be more young ladies than men voting tonight, as per previous reality contests and real talent will not win through.
Don't get me wrong, Ray is extremely talented and in this final he has sung pitch perfect for probably the first time in the whole contest. but I don't see him as a recording star. There were people in the 60s & 70s that recorded these tracks far more capably than Ray can do at this time and I think the time has passed for someone to try and recreate the success of Dean Martin & Frank Sinatra.
If justice is to be served this evening Leona should walk the contest.
Link
I would not like to call it one way or the other.
Both Ray and Leona sang their hearts out tonight, and if you were to ask me who sang it moost note perfect, it would have to be Ray.
Leona is a wonderful and expressive talent, but sometimes her expressiveness in the softer passages comes through as a nervousness and does not carry great confidence.
Leona SHOULD win if it is all about the potential talent, but there is a nervousness within me that there will be more young ladies than men voting tonight, as per previous reality contests and real talent will not win through.
Don't get me wrong, Ray is extremely talented and in this final he has sung pitch perfect for probably the first time in the whole contest. but I don't see him as a recording star. There were people in the 60s & 70s that recorded these tracks far more capably than Ray can do at this time and I think the time has passed for someone to try and recreate the success of Dean Martin & Frank Sinatra.
If justice is to be served this evening Leona should walk the contest.
Labels: Final, Leona, Ray, X Factor
Link
On this day: 1969: MPs vote to abolish hanging
16 December 1969
The voting was 343 in favour, 185 against, a majority of 158, to permanently end hanging in Britain.
The Labour Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, the Conservative leader, Edward Heath, and Liberal leader Jeremy Thorpe all went through the same lobby to support abolition in a rare show of unanimity from the political leaders.
In 1965, there had been an expiemental act passed suspending hanging for 5 years and the vote following a seven and a half-hour debate made it permanent.
However, there were exceptions whereby the death penalty was retained for offences like treason and piracy with violence until 1998. As a result the gallows remained in place at Wandsworth Prison.
In 1999 the home secretary signed the sixth protocol of the European Convention of Human Rights which formally abolished the death penalty in the UK and ensured it could not be brought back.
Of course, this subject was extremely controversial, as it remains to this day - watch for tomorrows article to see particular reasons for it remaining an emotive subject.
The question of restoration of the death penalty is an emotive one. Personally, I firmly support its abolition and would vote against any attempts to return it to our shores for any offence. Our systems of justice are not infallible as has been shown on many an occasion. I have heard arguments that says better to hang the occasional innocent person than let murderers return to our streets. To people who share that view, I say try supporting that argument if that innocent person is one of your loved ones.....would you still say the same? If not, then you must support the fact that Capital Punishment has to be gone forever.
For a sobering thought, read: David Cameron's Diary: Hands-free more dangerous than Drink Driving
15-Dec-2006
On this Day: 2004: Blunkett resigns over visa accusations
15 December 2004
The then Home Secretary, David Blunkett, resigned amid accusations that he used his position to fast-track a visa application for his ex-lover's Kimberly Quinn's nanny. Blunkett insisted he had done nothing wrong, but said questions about his honesty had damaged the government.
Blunkett rebounded somwehat and returned to the Cabinet less than five months later, taking on the role of Work and Pensions Secretary following Labour's 2005 election victory.
Blunkett showed remarkable ability to rise to the position that he did, overcoming his disability. Whilst I respect that and ultimately the manner that he unltimately stood down. Tony Blair should have learned from his earlier mistake of bringing Peter Mandelson back into the fold; it is rare for a politician to make a great comeback and when personal integrity is the reason for someones departure, it is foolish in the extreme to expect that to have changed overnight
For a sobering thought, read: David Cameron's Diary: Hands-free more dangerous than Drink Driving
Blunkett rebounded somwehat and returned to the Cabinet less than five months later, taking on the role of Work and Pensions Secretary following Labour's 2005 election victory.
However, he was again forced to resign in November 2005 after breaking the ministerial code of conduct over paid work he took while he was out of Cabinet as well as a share scandal involving the DNA testing company bhe took employment with.
Blunkett showed remarkable ability to rise to the position that he did, overcoming his disability. Whilst I respect that and ultimately the manner that he unltimately stood down. Tony Blair should have learned from his earlier mistake of bringing Peter Mandelson back into the fold; it is rare for a politician to make a great comeback and when personal integrity is the reason for someones departure, it is foolish in the extreme to expect that to have changed overnight
For a sobering thought, read: David Cameron's Diary: Hands-free more dangerous than Drink Driving
Labels: This Day in History
14-Dec-2006
Stelios Haji-Ioannou - Greatest UK Entrepeneur ever?
Stelios is a serial entrepeneur who started off in shipping before developing his now famous "Easy" brand based upon no frills value for money products and services ranging from flights to pizza (Stelios - maybe you should combine the two for extra inflight catering revenue?).
He is probably best known for all his notable successes, but being a serial entrepeneur means taking a bit of a risk with one's cash to try and identify gaps in the market and it would not be a surprise to have the occasional failure when you try to break the traditional models.
You don't tend to hear of too many business failures with Stelios because he is pretty shrewd.
One failure, or perhaps Stelios just got weary fighting with the Movie Studios was with his EasyCinema concept, mirroring his business model for airline seats and car rental whereby the further ahead you book, the cheaper your seat was (from memory it went as low as £0,50 per cinema seat), obviously hoping to cash in on the popcorn.
Clearly I don't know the financials, but it seemed clear that the EasyCinema concept struggled without access to the latest cinema releases and Stelios ultimately pulled the plug on his Bricks & Mortar Cinemas.
Did that stop Stelios? Indeed it did not; building on the powerful "Easy" brand and already holding "EasyCinema" as a marketed brandname, Stelios simply moved out of the bricks & mortar Cinema business to a model relying upon a virtual cinema and the ability to rent DVDs by post in your own home.
But what's "Easy" about that, you might say?; there must be at least a dozen different providers doing that in the UK today?
With Stelios, there is bound to be a twist, and of course he has one. His offering is uniquely tailored to the DVD renter (like myself actually), that maybe has a busy lifestyle and doesn't necessarilly want to waste money, being tied down to a traditional monthly subscription - once again he has found a gap where you might want to watch a DVD sometime soon, but don't know exactly when the kids might bed down to let you watch it.
With Stelios, you purchase a number of Rental credits (minimum 4) that last for a full 90 days from the date of purchase and you are charged a simple £1.99 (including postage both ways) for every credit (equating to a disk that you rent) irrespective as to how long you retain it provided you still have valid rental credits - those credits are not eroded in any way by the length of time you choose to hold the DVD......Brilliant, or what?
He even has all UK Cinema listings available and searchable on his EasyCinema site and manages bookings, for which he will receive healthy booking commissions. I think EasyCinema will now provide profitable returns.
Stelios, I salute you for all your business vision - the UK could do with a few more like you. Maybe if UK PLC had you as a Cabinet Member we could have an EasyAnswer to all the political hot potatoes and we would have fewer failed Government projects?
It would be remiss not to note that another of Stelios's companies - EasyMobile - recently came to an end when the Joint Venture arrangements to provide the Network infrastructure could not continue. Still, two failures out of an impressive list of successful ventures isn't bad............
Labels: DVD Rental, Easy, Stelios
TV Phone Quizzes Illegal?
There has been a recent explosion on UK TV of dedicated Quiz Channels or program slots where viewers are encourage to phone in to enter at typical charges of £0.75 per call, with no gaurantee that they will even be allowed to answer the question i.e. you will be selected based upon a chance selection.
Although there is no statutory definition as to what constitutes a lottery, the courts have determined that
However, I imagine that they have got around the strict definition of a lottery by removing the mandatory requirement to make a payment by allowing free web entry.
Of course these programmes will not make money from free web entry, so they make it as difficult as they can for you to make multiple web entries by opening their webpage in a new browser window minus the toolbars (disabling any auto form filling software that you have).
A couple of weeks ago, I carried out a web experiment with "The Mint" quiz slot broadcast on ITV and I believe is also simulcast on ITV Play. I managed to locate the URL for their entry page and opened it in a new TAB in IE7, allowing me to autofill most of the form and to continuously submit every minute or two over the course of a couple of hours. I did not count the submissions, but it would have been in the range of 120-150 during which time I was invited to call a Freephone number a grand total of twice, but still not selected to be put through to the studio.
Of course, I don't know whether I was disadvantaged by making a free entry, but I believe that the law states that I should have the same chance as anyone making a payment via a phone call.
If all things are equal, then I could have spent £90 trying that evening and still not been given a chance to call out an answer.
Even when you are put through to the studio, many of the games are now of the form of a guessing game with many, many possible answers that are not incorrect....they are just not the answer that the Company is looking for and you still win nothing.
Nobody tells you what the likelihood is of ever getting through to the studio in the nextminutes.
To my mind, this stinks...some people will be paying a fortune on this activity lured in by presenters urging people to call in when the rate of callers accepted into the studio is pretty arbitrary. I welcome any investigation into the legality of these shows.
But why did these shows spawn up in the first place....how did the TV Gurus know that there would be a market?
The fact is that this has been going on for years on a smaller scale .... many TV programmes run competitions along the lines of "answer thisquestion correctly for the chance of winning ".
In some respects these are worse and even more illegal as they require you to pay perhaps £1.00 or £1.50 per call to enter with no opportunity of a free web entry.
How do TV companies get away with running such lotteries? If I printed a batch of entry forms in the same way that they do, then I would expect to be hauled in front of the courts.
At least when you buy a ppacket of crisps or whatever product is promoting a chance type win, you at least have the product to enjoy or can enter across the web free or for the cost of a postage stamp - with these TV quiz lotteries you spend a fortune on a phone call and more likely than not, you end up with nothing. The charges that TV companies make are completely disproprtionate to the chance of winning from what I can see.
I say that the Government should ban all phone-ins that demand ripoff entry fees and in the interim you should boycott them. For every winner, there will be thousands of losers, just like you and I.
Link
Although there is no statutory definition as to what constitutes a lottery, the courts have determined that
a lottery is the distribution of prizes by chance where the persons taking part,That definition would correlate very closely with the way these new channels or programming slots have organised themselves.
or a substantial number of them, make a payment or consideration in return for obtaining their chance of a prize.
However, I imagine that they have got around the strict definition of a lottery by removing the mandatory requirement to make a payment by allowing free web entry.
Of course these programmes will not make money from free web entry, so they make it as difficult as they can for you to make multiple web entries by opening their webpage in a new browser window minus the toolbars (disabling any auto form filling software that you have).
A couple of weeks ago, I carried out a web experiment with "The Mint" quiz slot broadcast on ITV and I believe is also simulcast on ITV Play. I managed to locate the URL for their entry page and opened it in a new TAB in IE7, allowing me to autofill most of the form and to continuously submit every minute or two over the course of a couple of hours. I did not count the submissions, but it would have been in the range of 120-150 during which time I was invited to call a Freephone number a grand total of twice, but still not selected to be put through to the studio.
Of course, I don't know whether I was disadvantaged by making a free entry, but I believe that the law states that I should have the same chance as anyone making a payment via a phone call.
If all things are equal, then I could have spent £90 trying that evening and still not been given a chance to call out an answer.
Even when you are put through to the studio, many of the games are now of the form of a guessing game with many, many possible answers that are not incorrect....they are just not the answer that the Company is looking for and you still win nothing.
Nobody tells you what the likelihood is of ever getting through to the studio in the next
To my mind, this stinks...some people will be paying a fortune on this activity lured in by presenters urging people to call in when the rate of callers accepted into the studio is pretty arbitrary. I welcome any investigation into the legality of these shows.
But why did these shows spawn up in the first place....how did the TV Gurus know that there would be a market?
The fact is that this has been going on for years on a smaller scale .... many TV programmes run competitions along the lines of "answer this
In some respects these are worse and even more illegal as they require you to pay perhaps £1.00 or £1.50 per call to enter with no opportunity of a free web entry.
How do TV companies get away with running such lotteries? If I printed a batch of entry forms in the same way that they do, then I would expect to be hauled in front of the courts.
At least when you buy a ppacket of crisps or whatever product is promoting a chance type win, you at least have the product to enjoy or can enter across the web free or for the cost of a postage stamp - with these TV quiz lotteries you spend a fortune on a phone call and more likely than not, you end up with nothing. The charges that TV companies make are completely disproprtionate to the chance of winning from what I can see.
I say that the Government should ban all phone-ins that demand ripoff entry fees and in the interim you should boycott them. For every winner, there will be thousands of losers, just like you and I.
Labels: Quiz Channels. Lottery, The Mint
Link
On this day in History: 2003: Saddam Hussain is captured
14 Dec 2003
The ousted President of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, was under arrest after he was captured by US soldiers.
The ousted President of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, was under arrest after he was captured by US soldiers.
"Ladies and gentlemen, we got him," US administrator Paul Bremer told journalists in Baghdad. "The tyrant is a prisoner."
Saddam Hussein was found hidden in a tiny bunker at a farmhouse about 10 miles (15 km) south of his home town, Tikrit following the coalition forces entering Iraq and toppling Saddam's Republican Guard.
In 2006, Saddam has been convicted under unusual criminal proceedings where the original trial judge recused himself and trial lawyers were murdered along the way
.
I have no doubt that Saddam was a tyrant and unless something comes out at his present appeal, would certainly appear to merit the death sentence permitted under Iraqi law, but I am uncomfortable around the present environment in Iraq which seems to even be more dangerous than in Saddam's reign of power and in some factions eyes, at war with the Coalition forces.
I am saddened at the continued loss of life since toppling Saddam and as we approach Christmas with our loved ones, we should spare a thought for those who will not welcome their own loved ones home as a consequence of war, illness, accident or some other tragedy this year
For a sobering thought, read: David Cameron's Diary: Hands-free more dangerous than Drink Driving
Labels: This Day in History
13-Dec-2006
UK Government prepared to force Octogenarian out of her home
Why can the law be such an ass?
The law has caught up with evolving society to determine that gay couples that have gone through a civil ceremony akin to marriage will enjoy the same rights as a married couple with regard the right to transfer the family home.
Yet today (refer: Daily Mail) we hear that two elderly spinster sisters face the agony of selling the home they have shared for 40 years when one of them dies after judges ruled they are not entitled to the same rights as married or gay and lesbian couples.
Yesterday the European Court of Human Rights threw out their case, by a very close 4-3 verdict, landing them with a £10,000 legal bill and facing certain future heartbreak for the surviving sister who will be forced to sell the family home to pay the required Inheritance tax.
I am sickened by this result - if you don't have to pay capital gains tax on the basis of a property being your main residence (or at the very least obtain a tapered tax relief), then it is surely inequitable that you should pay an inheritance tax to continue to live in it.
At a minimum, the Government should be able to defer collection of Inheritance Tax until such times as a property is sold when the recipient has already been permanently resident; irrespective of the prevailing state of the economy and any budget deficits, I doubt that the Government is dependent upon collecting all these charges from octogenarians.
I should imagine that it would be very easy to modify legislation such that a charge or covenant (whatever the correct legalese is) could be placed on a property in respect of the Governments tax bill, payable when it is next sold (plus appropriate interest).
It can't be right for Government to evict an octogenarian when they will have done nothing wrong.
The appeal to Europe was lost on the slenderest of majorities - I hope that the case can be heard again and common sense prevails next time or that the UK Government can have a re-think.
Link
The law has caught up with evolving society to determine that gay couples that have gone through a civil ceremony akin to marriage will enjoy the same rights as a married couple with regard the right to transfer the family home.
Yet today (refer: Daily Mail) we hear that two elderly spinster sisters face the agony of selling the home they have shared for 40 years when one of them dies after judges ruled they are not entitled to the same rights as married or gay and lesbian couples.
Yesterday the European Court of Human Rights threw out their case, by a very close 4-3 verdict, landing them with a £10,000 legal bill and facing certain future heartbreak for the surviving sister who will be forced to sell the family home to pay the required Inheritance tax.
I am sickened by this result - if you don't have to pay capital gains tax on the basis of a property being your main residence (or at the very least obtain a tapered tax relief), then it is surely inequitable that you should pay an inheritance tax to continue to live in it.
At a minimum, the Government should be able to defer collection of Inheritance Tax until such times as a property is sold when the recipient has already been permanently resident; irrespective of the prevailing state of the economy and any budget deficits, I doubt that the Government is dependent upon collecting all these charges from octogenarians.
I should imagine that it would be very easy to modify legislation such that a charge or covenant (whatever the correct legalese is) could be placed on a property in respect of the Governments tax bill, payable when it is next sold (plus appropriate interest).
It can't be right for Government to evict an octogenarian when they will have done nothing wrong.
The appeal to Europe was lost on the slenderest of majorities - I hope that the case can be heard again and common sense prevails next time or that the UK Government can have a re-think.
Labels: inequality, Inheritance Tax, Octogenarian
Link
On this Day in History: 1981: Poland declares state of emergency
13 Dec 1981
This may have been the deciding turning point in the Polish struggle for democracy. Lech Walesa had become the prominent face of the campaign to end communism and all the Solidarity leaders except for him were arrested that day as Poland declared the state of emergency.
Walesa was later interned in a country house in a remote spot.
In November 1982 Walesa was released and reinstated at the Gdansk shipyards.
Martial law was not lifted until 1983 and in that year Lech Walesa won the Nobel Peace Prize.
In 1989, with the economy close to collapse, General Jaruzelski convened talks and allowed free elections open to Solidarity candidates. Communists were swept from power and Lech Walesa became president of Poland.
He turned Poland into a market economy virtually overnight and his reforms, while controversial, were generally successful, sparking rapid growth and major foreign investment.
In 1995 Mr Walesa lost his re-election bid, but the legacy of his vision meant by 2000 Poland enjoyed full membership in Nato and joined the European Union in 2004.
Labels: This Day in History
12-Dec-2006
Time to legalise and license prostitution in the UK
Prostitution is recognised as just about the oldest profession ever and despite clampdowns and displays of zero tolerance it has never gone away; I don't imagine that it ever will.
I have been shocked, as I am sure many people reading here are, to hear that 5 prostitutes have been found murdered in Suffolk.
Despite the debate over the rights and wrongs over prostitution being acceptable, it is an inescapable fact that these women had a right to life and to enjoy life in safety.
Unfortunately history shows that street prostitution is filled with danger. Many prostitutes have been murdered over the ages with the the most (in)famous of all being Jack the Ripper.
Of course, there is always danger for the clients too, arising from the risk of spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
Now, I may be controversial here, but my policy would be to figure out a way not only to decriminalise prostitution, but to fully legalise it.
My reasons for suggesting this are:
There has to be some sensible ground somewhere that makes sense considering the fact that
prostitution is NEVER going away.........so we need to make it work in the best way that we can for all involved.
Link
I have been shocked, as I am sure many people reading here are, to hear that 5 prostitutes have been found murdered in Suffolk.
Despite the debate over the rights and wrongs over prostitution being acceptable, it is an inescapable fact that these women had a right to life and to enjoy life in safety.
Unfortunately history shows that street prostitution is filled with danger. Many prostitutes have been murdered over the ages with the the most (in)famous of all being Jack the Ripper.
Of course, there is always danger for the clients too, arising from the risk of spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
Now, I may be controversial here, but my policy would be to figure out a way not only to decriminalise prostitution, but to fully legalise it.
My reasons for suggesting this are:
- It can become more of a profession for those that seek that way of life
- It can be licensed and ensure appropriate health checks and certification of such are in place
- Making it legal could help eliminate the people trafficking that takes place by having employed prostitutes on a recognised payroll or "sex register" if self-employed
- The prostitute can formally become part of the Income Taxation system
- Everyone has a right to a safe place of employment...a licensed brothel should provide greater security
- reduce the risk of 'ordinary' women being approached on the street; clients would then be able to visit "
There has to be some sensible ground somewhere that makes sense considering the fact that
prostitution is NEVER going away.........so we need to make it work in the best way that we can for all involved.
Labels: legalise prostitution
Link
X Factor Latest Odds : Minimise your exposure
I wrote earlier with a tutorial on how to create a win win scenario in betting, similar to how traditional bookmakers would operate at http://www.davidcameronsdiary.co.uk/2005/12/x-factor-betlay-tutorial-create-win-win.html.
I want to point out that I have since updated it as it contained an error. If you were interested, then I encourage you to have a further read as the guarantees given in this real life example have increased considerably.
At current available X Factor odds on BetFair of :
Leona to Win: 1.36
and requested to lay Ray to win : 3.75,
Then if you already have a bet riding on Ray to win as I suggested that you do last week at decimal odds of ~11, then you could lay twice your stake and bet it on Leona to assure you of 172% profit if Leona wins and 450% should ray win (these %ages are gross - net winnings will typically be reduced - a 5% commission in Betfair's scenario).
Apologies for the error, but at least I underestimated the guranteed return.
Link
I want to point out that I have since updated it as it contained an error. If you were interested, then I encourage you to have a further read as the guarantees given in this real life example have increased considerably.
At current available X Factor odds on BetFair of :
Leona to Win: 1.36
and requested to lay Ray to win : 3.75,
Then if you already have a bet riding on Ray to win as I suggested that you do last week at decimal odds of ~11, then you could lay twice your stake and bet it on Leona to assure you of 172% profit if Leona wins and 450% should ray win (these %ages are gross - net winnings will typically be reduced - a 5% commission in Betfair's scenario).
Apologies for the error, but at least I underestimated the guranteed return.
Link
On this Day in History: 1988: 35 dead in Clapham rail collision
12th Dec 1988
Many of my articles here are safety related and I encourage us all to apply best practice for our own safety.
On this day In 1988, 35 people died when two commuter trains collided and a third later ploughed into the wreckage killing survivors of the earlier crash.
Amazingly, 11 years later in 1999, safety recommendations had still not been implemented as put forward by an inquiry into the Clapham disaster, needlessly losing lives in the 1999 Paddington rail crash.
Safety does come at a price and we should always be prepared to pay for it lest we pay the biggest price of all .
Labels: This Day in History
Link
11-Dec-2006
On this day in History - a daily thought
I am going to try something new in my blog.
It is often said that we should learn from History, so starting today per my prior post talking about the UK-Icelandic Cod War, I will scour the archives to find something historic that happened on this same day in the past that may give a cause for reflection.
I have started looking at some of the history covering the next few days and it has been fascinating to think that there was something big breaking on each of those days and very often it is something long forgotten or its significance overlooked.
If you want to subscribe and get a reminder of "This Day in History" , remember that an RSS\Atom feed is available and you should look out for the tag This Day in History.
Link
It is often said that we should learn from History, so starting today per my prior post talking about the UK-Icelandic Cod War, I will scour the archives to find something historic that happened on this same day in the past that may give a cause for reflection.
I have started looking at some of the history covering the next few days and it has been fascinating to think that there was something big breaking on each of those days and very often it is something long forgotten or its significance overlooked.
If you want to subscribe and get a reminder of "This Day in History" , remember that an RSS\Atom feed is available and you should look out for the tag This Day in History.
Labels: This Day in History
Link
On this day in History: 1975: Attack on British vessels heightens Cod War
11 Dec 1975
31 years ago, the UK-Icelandic Cod war was at it's peak when Iceland extended its fishing claim to 200 miles rather than the 50miles it had been until 2 months previously. Iceland's territorial waters extended to 12 miles.
Such was the depth of the dispute that even although three British ships were sheltering inside the 12 mile limit in gale conditions and taking on supplies and water from a supply vessel, an Icelandic coastguard ship attempted to arrest the ships involved and somehow ended up with damage although the three British ships remained pretty much unscathed.
As Iceland does not have much in the way of natural resource, it is not at all surprising that they sought to protect their fishing Industry from British overfishing. Sadly, as we all know now, overfishing has led to a major decline in fish stocks to everyone's (especially the fish's detriment). Perhaps now is the time to either abandon our snobbish approach to fish and be prepared to try eating more abundent or different varieties of fish rather than selling them to the continent, or to accept that controlled and welfare-friendly farming on a factory scale is the answer.
Link
31 years ago, the UK-Icelandic Cod war was at it's peak when Iceland extended its fishing claim to 200 miles rather than the 50miles it had been until 2 months previously. Iceland's territorial waters extended to 12 miles.
Such was the depth of the dispute that even although three British ships were sheltering inside the 12 mile limit in gale conditions and taking on supplies and water from a supply vessel, an Icelandic coastguard ship attempted to arrest the ships involved and somehow ended up with damage although the three British ships remained pretty much unscathed.
As Iceland does not have much in the way of natural resource, it is not at all surprising that they sought to protect their fishing Industry from British overfishing. Sadly, as we all know now, overfishing has led to a major decline in fish stocks to everyone's (especially the fish's detriment). Perhaps now is the time to either abandon our snobbish approach to fish and be prepared to try eating more abundent or different varieties of fish rather than selling them to the continent, or to accept that controlled and welfare-friendly farming on a factory scale is the answer.
Labels: This Day in History
Link
ADSL: What download speed should I have?
My local exchange is due to be unbundled at the end of this month by Be 24.
Having got all excited previously by the prospect of up to 8Mb, with BT later lowering that expectation on their availability checker to 5.5Mb, I was bitterly disappointed to only typically get somewhere between 2.0 and 3.5 Mb.
I just checked today and BT have reduced the expectations still further to a sustained rate of ~3Mb, maybe now reflecting their actual knowledge about how my line has operated. I am approximately 1.77km from the exchange (straight line), so didn't necessarilly expect to get full 8Mb service, but it seems a poor increase versus the prior 2Mb linespeed and being relatively local to the exchange.
I now have this new contender offering speeds of again up to 24Mb. But what can I realistically expect from that service...3Mb, 5, 10, 15 or what??
I find it a horrible way to sell with no guarantee what service you might receive - they could theoretically switch me to an even lower speed. Surely with technology being what it is, it should not be impossible to perform some form of line test to give a guaranteed minimum service?
Anyway, I am sure that there are some experts out there, so here are all my noise stats. Can anyone tell me what speed I could expect from ADSL2 unbundling?
So....if you understand all these numbers, can you tell me :
why I might have such a slow speed today compared to the potential speeds and advise whether there is anything that I can do at home to improve it?, and What speeds I might be able to extract from a 24Mb service?
Obviously if I am going to be charged for a speed even although I can't currently reach it, I would like to all I can to extract the maximum bang for my buck and to be able to decide whether there is any justification to change my ADSL provider.
Link
Having got all excited previously by the prospect of up to 8Mb, with BT later lowering that expectation on their availability checker to 5.5Mb, I was bitterly disappointed to only typically get somewhere between 2.0 and 3.5 Mb.
I just checked today and BT have reduced the expectations still further to a sustained rate of ~3Mb, maybe now reflecting their actual knowledge about how my line has operated. I am approximately 1.77km from the exchange (straight line), so didn't necessarilly expect to get full 8Mb service, but it seems a poor increase versus the prior 2Mb linespeed and being relatively local to the exchange.
I now have this new contender offering speeds of again up to 24Mb. But what can I realistically expect from that service...3Mb, 5, 10, 15 or what??
I find it a horrible way to sell with no guarantee what service you might receive - they could theoretically switch me to an even lower speed. Surely with technology being what it is, it should not be impossible to perform some form of line test to give a guaranteed minimum service?
Anyway, I am sure that there are some experts out there, so here are all my noise stats. Can anyone tell me what speed I could expect from ADSL2 unbundling?
So....if you understand all these numbers, can you tell me :
why I might have such a slow speed today compared to the potential speeds and advise whether there is anything that I can do at home to improve it?, and What speeds I might be able to extract from a 24Mb service?
Obviously if I am going to be charged for a speed even although I can't currently reach it, I would like to all I can to extract the maximum bang for my buck and to be able to decide whether there is any justification to change my ADSL provider.
Labels: ADSL, Be 24, linespeed
Link
When will UK fuel bills drop? Take some positive action.
There is an interesting article under the BBC News banner looking at the short to medium prospect for UK energy prices as new inter-connectors come on line bringing new gas supplies to the UK from the continent.
The latest interconnector was brought on stream at the start of December from the Netherlands into Bacton (Norfolk) and can provide for 8% of the UK Gas demand.
Because we use considerable volumes of natural gas to generate Electricity, the volatility of the Gas prices has also led to massive increases in both Gas & Electricity prices.
The BBC News article suggests that prices will not fall immediately because the Wholesale buyers will have bought at the higher prices and will need to recover their contract costs and we as consumers should not get our hopes up for custs in our fuel costs.
I take a slightly different view - much of the North Sea supply is likely to have been contracted for periods of 5,10,15, 20 years or even more and would not necessarilly have been renegotiated during the current high prices. I would expect someone to break away from the pack with lower prices and irrespective as to whether a company has bought at the higher price, then unless he brings his price down to the leading level then he will not sell his gas (or electricity) to astute buyers.
Therefore if we always buy astutely, then we can help drive down the fuel costs.
Of course, if you don't have a look now again and compare the prices being charged in the Energy Markets, then you are helping to sustain the higher prices for longer.
So.....keep an eye on the prices, compare other suppliers prices to that of your current supplier and make the switch. There is no different quality of gas or electricity arriving at your house, it is just a different billing arrangement whereby the new supplier agrees to put your energy into the network to keep it in balance.
That sounds hard to go around all the different suppliers websites and compare prices, but in practice the hard work is removed by using one of the Energy Price Comparison websites that have pulled all the information together in one place. You enter your details once and it will advise what the best offers are for your consumption pattern.
There are others out there, just 'google' for "energy price comparison". The site that I recommend is Uswitch who say that the average household could save £140 off their energy bills if they changed supplier. Click here to find out how much you could save.
Remember, don't wait for your own suppliers prices to fall. The likelihood is that you could start saving on your Gas and\or Electricity today. There is no obligation by using Uswitch, but only an opportunity to start saving now when our fuel consumption is at its peak and you have the maximum potential to save.
If you have wondered about how to buy "Green" energy from renewable sources, then Uswitch can provide comparisons for that too. Even paying a premium for "Green" energy, you could still be paying less than you are today.
Therefore ..... go be an empowered consumer and do your bit to drive fuel prices down as quickly as we can and if you can buy "Green", then the planet saves something too..
Link
The latest interconnector was brought on stream at the start of December from the Netherlands into Bacton (Norfolk) and can provide for 8% of the UK Gas demand.
Because we use considerable volumes of natural gas to generate Electricity, the volatility of the Gas prices has also led to massive increases in both Gas & Electricity prices.
The BBC News article suggests that prices will not fall immediately because the Wholesale buyers will have bought at the higher prices and will need to recover their contract costs and we as consumers should not get our hopes up for custs in our fuel costs.
I take a slightly different view - much of the North Sea supply is likely to have been contracted for periods of 5,10,15, 20 years or even more and would not necessarilly have been renegotiated during the current high prices. I would expect someone to break away from the pack with lower prices and irrespective as to whether a company has bought at the higher price, then unless he brings his price down to the leading level then he will not sell his gas (or electricity) to astute buyers.
Therefore if we always buy astutely, then we can help drive down the fuel costs.
Of course, if you don't have a look now again and compare the prices being charged in the Energy Markets, then you are helping to sustain the higher prices for longer.
So.....keep an eye on the prices, compare other suppliers prices to that of your current supplier and make the switch. There is no different quality of gas or electricity arriving at your house, it is just a different billing arrangement whereby the new supplier agrees to put your energy into the network to keep it in balance.
That sounds hard to go around all the different suppliers websites and compare prices, but in practice the hard work is removed by using one of the Energy Price Comparison websites that have pulled all the information together in one place. You enter your details once and it will advise what the best offers are for your consumption pattern.
There are others out there, just 'google' for "energy price comparison". The site that I recommend is Uswitch who say that the average household could save £140 off their energy bills if they changed supplier. Click here to find out how much you could save.
Remember, don't wait for your own suppliers prices to fall. The likelihood is that you could start saving on your Gas and\or Electricity today. There is no obligation by using Uswitch, but only an opportunity to start saving now when our fuel consumption is at its peak and you have the maximum potential to save.
If you have wondered about how to buy "Green" energy from renewable sources, then Uswitch can provide comparisons for that too. Even paying a premium for "Green" energy, you could still be paying less than you are today.
Therefore ..... go be an empowered consumer and do your bit to drive fuel prices down as quickly as we can and if you can buy "Green", then the planet saves something too..
Labels: comparison, Electricity, Energy, Gas, Green, Prices, save
Link
Fart moo many emissions, says UN
Just when Gordon Brown starts slapping on more 'Green' taxes, the UN comes out with a report here that says intensive rearing of cattle for food and by-products is actually the biggest contributor to global warming.
With airline travel accounting for just ~2% of Greenhouse gases yet having passenger taxes doubled from next year, what do we expect our politicians responses will be?
My prediction will be that we hear nothing from our law and policy-makers because any reactionary measures would be laughable in the extreme.
Some potential options:
1. Have an environmental cull
2. Ban meat and declare Britain vegetarian
3. Operate a Gas & Manure recovery scheme (actually this one isn't so daft - look here)
4. Stick a Green Tax on it all - milk, beef, leather - but no Government will ever do that.
I can't see any of this happening....call me a cynic, but I think we consumers & taxpayers are just such an easy target and it is easy to pitch the blame on transport and tax us on that.
Link
With airline travel accounting for just ~2% of Greenhouse gases yet having passenger taxes doubled from next year, what do we expect our politicians responses will be?
My prediction will be that we hear nothing from our law and policy-makers because any reactionary measures would be laughable in the extreme.
Some potential options:
1. Have an environmental cull
2. Ban meat and declare Britain vegetarian
3. Operate a Gas & Manure recovery scheme (actually this one isn't so daft - look here)
4. Stick a Green Tax on it all - milk, beef, leather - but no Government will ever do that.
I can't see any of this happening....call me a cynic, but I think we consumers & taxpayers are just such an easy target and it is easy to pitch the blame on transport and tax us on that.
Link
5.5m Britons 'opt to live abroad'
This was a remarkable figure reported today in the BBC News here.
Note too that this isn't aspirational figures - this talks to 10% of current British citizens that are currently resident abroad. In the same article it talks about immigrants to Britain.
That set me thinking. Why is Britain so appealing to immigrants yet not so to it's own population?
It may be easy to suggest that we have a 'soft touch' benefits system that makes it easier for immigrants to survive here than to stay in their country of origin, but I believe that things are more complex than that.
Discussing the exodus, there are the following factors at play:
1. We have a global economy now and many more companies are multi-nationals creating opportunities for overseas job postings that may not have been available historically.
2. The switch from dependence on state pensions to people making their own pension arrangements has meant that we will have a more affluent elder society that is better able to make life-changing choices.
3. In some countries, the cost of living may actually provide for a less expensive retirement.
4. The rise of package holidays and cheap flights has given us all the chance to sample other cultures albeit in a holiday environment and perhaps we simply prefer what we see
5. The British Weather!! do I need to say more.....the grass may literally be greener in Britain, but it can be a damp & miserable country and other more temperate cimates will hold their own appeal.
As for the influx:
1. Britain will also receive an influx through multi-national job postings
2. Britain does have a growing economy that cries out for people to take on jobs that otherwise would go unfilled, witness the calls to Poland to recruit Bus Drivers.
3. The EEC has created the climate where movement is relatively unhindered and, of course people will see an opportunity to increase their salary opportunities.
4. I discount the benefits argument - the vast majority of migrants would appear to be economic migrants who simply want to work.
I actually welcome this two-way migration and think that it ought to be very enriching for the receiving countries and through that diversity we should see a greater understanding and acceptance of different cultures and a springing up of new ideas as different cultures meet.
Unfortunately, from what I witness, integration is still the biggest barrier to full acceptance of mult-culturalism. It is all too easy to move to a country and createtowns ala ChinaTowns where you can continue to speak your native language, buy your native foods & participate in familiar activities.
For the most part, with immigration comes this voluntary segregation creating micro-communities rather than proper integration. These micro-communities (and I especially include Brits in Spain) must surely create a chasm between the two cultures when there is no attempt to embrace the culture of the host country and instead continue to support the culture of the country you chose to leave behind.
So.....whilst I fully support the idea that we can move freely and choose where to live, do think about what is about the new culture that you like, grab it by the B*lls and be bold enough to leave "egg & chips" behind. Include yourself in the host culture rather than exclude yourself in a micro-community and I believe that the experience will be more fulfilling and educational.
Before I go, I should state my position.......
I have a dream for retirement which may or may not be fulfilled; my dream is to retire to a sunny part of France with a bit of land to become semi self-sufficient and enjoy the sedate lifestyle that I appreciate on holiday. And yes, if that dream ever becomes true, I would look to locate myself in the heart of a real French community that can share their knowledge of the area with me, and in turn I can try to develop my still (stale?) schoolboy French.
Link
Note too that this isn't aspirational figures - this talks to 10% of current British citizens that are currently resident abroad. In the same article it talks about immigrants to Britain.
That set me thinking. Why is Britain so appealing to immigrants yet not so to it's own population?
It may be easy to suggest that we have a 'soft touch' benefits system that makes it easier for immigrants to survive here than to stay in their country of origin, but I believe that things are more complex than that.
Discussing the exodus, there are the following factors at play:
1. We have a global economy now and many more companies are multi-nationals creating opportunities for overseas job postings that may not have been available historically.
2. The switch from dependence on state pensions to people making their own pension arrangements has meant that we will have a more affluent elder society that is better able to make life-changing choices.
3. In some countries, the cost of living may actually provide for a less expensive retirement.
4. The rise of package holidays and cheap flights has given us all the chance to sample other cultures albeit in a holiday environment and perhaps we simply prefer what we see
5. The British Weather!! do I need to say more.....the grass may literally be greener in Britain, but it can be a damp & miserable country and other more temperate cimates will hold their own appeal.
As for the influx:
1. Britain will also receive an influx through multi-national job postings
2. Britain does have a growing economy that cries out for people to take on jobs that otherwise would go unfilled, witness the calls to Poland to recruit Bus Drivers.
3. The EEC has created the climate where movement is relatively unhindered and, of course people will see an opportunity to increase their salary opportunities.
4. I discount the benefits argument - the vast majority of migrants would appear to be economic migrants who simply want to work.
I actually welcome this two-way migration and think that it ought to be very enriching for the receiving countries and through that diversity we should see a greater understanding and acceptance of different cultures and a springing up of new ideas as different cultures meet.
Unfortunately, from what I witness, integration is still the biggest barrier to full acceptance of mult-culturalism. It is all too easy to move to a country and create
For the most part, with immigration comes this voluntary segregation creating micro-communities rather than proper integration. These micro-communities (and I especially include Brits in Spain) must surely create a chasm between the two cultures when there is no attempt to embrace the culture of the host country and instead continue to support the culture of the country you chose to leave behind.
So.....whilst I fully support the idea that we can move freely and choose where to live, do think about what is about the new culture that you like, grab it by the B*lls and be bold enough to leave "egg & chips" behind. Include yourself in the host culture rather than exclude yourself in a micro-community and I believe that the experience will be more fulfilling and educational.
Before I go, I should state my position.......
I have a dream for retirement which may or may not be fulfilled; my dream is to retire to a sunny part of France with a bit of land to become semi self-sufficient and enjoy the sedate lifestyle that I appreciate on holiday. And yes, if that dream ever becomes true, I would look to locate myself in the heart of a real French community that can share their knowledge of the area with me, and in turn I can try to develop my still (stale?) schoolboy French.
Labels: Immigration, integration, migration
Link
Planning loophole?: Farmers blight the countryside
Now before I start, I should say that this David Cameron is no expert on planning laws.
However, having driven 700 motorway miles this weekend to Glasgow and back south again, I noticed that farmers have started planting a new cash crop......advertisement hoardings either on the side of wagons or a trailer that has been set down next to the motorway...none of which were permanent erections.
My guess is that planning regulations prohibit permanent hoardings, and the fact that the vehicles are mobile allows the farmers to advertise within curernt planning legislation.
This smacks of double standards on a couple of fronts:
1. The farmers whom if you listen to them will regard it as their life's mission and an obligation passed down through generations to protect the countryside, yet they blight it with these tacky messages offering loans, cheap glasses or used cars.
2. Motorway Service stations are only allowed to put up the briefest of information - I can't even see the company that operates the fuel station on the motorway signage....necessary if I need to use a particular company for my fuel, yet with this apparent loophole farmers can display adverts of around 10meters x 3meters
But there is another more important point.....these hoardings are intrusive and distracting and in my opinion could trigger an accident if a driver lets his attention wander over to that hoarding for too long. It is one thing being subjected to adverts in town whilst travelling at 20-30mph - quite another on the motorway when reaction times are shorter at 70mph.
Sorry Farmers.....I support locally produced products all the way and delight in trying new home produced products...diversify that way if you need extra income, but don't bend the law in such a potentially dangerous way.
And law-makers, close this legal loophole and let the countryside be what it is meant to be...certainly not a trailer graveyard.
Link
However, having driven 700 motorway miles this weekend to Glasgow and back south again, I noticed that farmers have started planting a new cash crop......advertisement hoardings either on the side of wagons or a trailer that has been set down next to the motorway...none of which were permanent erections.
My guess is that planning regulations prohibit permanent hoardings, and the fact that the vehicles are mobile allows the farmers to advertise within curernt planning legislation.
This smacks of double standards on a couple of fronts:
1. The farmers whom if you listen to them will regard it as their life's mission and an obligation passed down through generations to protect the countryside, yet they blight it with these tacky messages offering loans, cheap glasses or used cars.
2. Motorway Service stations are only allowed to put up the briefest of information - I can't even see the company that operates the fuel station on the motorway signage....necessary if I need to use a particular company for my fuel, yet with this apparent loophole farmers can display adverts of around 10meters x 3meters
But there is another more important point.....these hoardings are intrusive and distracting and in my opinion could trigger an accident if a driver lets his attention wander over to that hoarding for too long. It is one thing being subjected to adverts in town whilst travelling at 20-30mph - quite another on the motorway when reaction times are shorter at 70mph.
Sorry Farmers.....I support locally produced products all the way and delight in trying new home produced products...diversify that way if you need extra income, but don't bend the law in such a potentially dangerous way.
And law-makers, close this legal loophole and let the countryside be what it is meant to be...certainly not a trailer graveyard.
Labels: Farmers, Hoardings, Planning
Link
10-Dec-2006
X Factor: Bet/Lay Tutorial = create a win-win outcome
I admit it, I bailed out on my bets with Ray.
I had written earlier about my theories that the more mature audience likely to be at home on a Saturday night would prefer the 50s & 60s material that Ray comes out with. There was strong precedent for that view of mine based upon looking at prior shows, but I chickened out.
If you did take my tip last week to get Ray into second place at the then odds of 10.5-11.5 and showed more courage than me and kept your bets in play till now, then the odds requested via BetFair for Ray are now ~4.3, but your bet still stands art the original odds. You have an opportunity to create a win-win situation whomever wins X Factor 2006.
As things stand, you win nothing if you only have that bet on Ray and he does not win X Factor.
If you have a BetFair account, then you could lay off right now for treble your original stake at the now lower odds requested - of course you only profit on others stakes if Ray loses.
I will now demonstrate a potentially better option if you prefer not to take too many risks and would like to be in a win-win situation:
If you took my tip and you now have a bet with odds of ~11 on Ray then you could lay (act as bookmaker to someone else wanting to bet on Ray) double your original Ray stake (If Ray wins you give up £20 x 3.3 [taking 1 off of the the current 4.3 odds requested - the first 1.0 represents the stake that would be returned should you win and is not actually winnings] = £66 0ut of the £100 winnings from your first bet, still giving you £34 winnings on the original £10 bet should Ray win outright = 340% profit on the original £10 stake.
If you take that £20 that another punter is giving you on Ray and bet it on Leona now at 1.33 you win £20 x 0.33 [again, take 1 away from the 1.33 current decimal odds to separate the basic stake from the winnings fraction] = £6.66 + an extra £10 stake given tou you as a bet on Ray from what started out as an original £10 stake = 167% profit on the original £10 stake should Leona win.
So to recap, if you followed my tip on Ray last week, then you are now in a position to create a win-win position with a guaranteed minimum 167% return on your stake over just 2 weeks.
By now you may have figured that you could adjust the figures above to tweak your own book on the outcome to get a different guaranteed minimum.....perhaps you would choose to lay only the original stake and settle on a guaranteed minimum 33% and carry extra risk and potential reward from Ray.
Above is demonstrative of the benefits of avoiding traditional bookmakers where they only let you bet for an event and not against (laying) it and have to ride it out all the way to the end...there may be other sites that let you do juggle in this way, but BetFair is the only one that I am familiar with and it gives an added dimension to any betting that you do.
My bets are all very modest and just for fun, but it is techniques like these that help bookmakers win most of the time...why not play the same game that they do?
(this article has been edited since first published to correct an error whereby I neglected to include the important fact that the extra £10 stake collected from laying on Ray would also convert to a 100% profit on betting Leona should she win)
Link
I had written earlier about my theories that the more mature audience likely to be at home on a Saturday night would prefer the 50s & 60s material that Ray comes out with. There was strong precedent for that view of mine based upon looking at prior shows, but I chickened out.
If you did take my tip last week to get Ray into second place at the then odds of 10.5-11.5 and showed more courage than me and kept your bets in play till now, then the odds requested via BetFair for Ray are now ~4.3, but your bet still stands art the original odds. You have an opportunity to create a win-win situation whomever wins X Factor 2006.
As things stand, you win nothing if you only have that bet on Ray and he does not win X Factor.
If you have a BetFair account, then you could lay off right now for treble your original stake at the now lower odds requested - of course you only profit on others stakes if Ray loses.
I will now demonstrate a potentially better option if you prefer not to take too many risks and would like to be in a win-win situation:
If you took my tip and you now have a bet with odds of ~11 on Ray then you could lay (act as bookmaker to someone else wanting to bet on Ray) double your original Ray stake (If Ray wins you give up £20 x 3.3 [taking 1 off of the the current 4.3 odds requested - the first 1.0 represents the stake that would be returned should you win and is not actually winnings] = £66 0ut of the £100 winnings from your first bet, still giving you £34 winnings on the original £10 bet should Ray win outright = 340% profit on the original £10 stake.
If you take that £20 that another punter is giving you on Ray and bet it on Leona now at 1.33 you win £20 x 0.33 [again, take 1 away from the 1.33 current decimal odds to separate the basic stake from the winnings fraction] = £6.66 + an extra £10 stake given tou you as a bet on Ray from what started out as an original £10 stake = 167% profit on the original £10 stake should Leona win.
So to recap, if you followed my tip on Ray last week, then you are now in a position to create a win-win position with a guaranteed minimum 167% return on your stake over just 2 weeks.
By now you may have figured that you could adjust the figures above to tweak your own book on the outcome to get a different guaranteed minimum.....perhaps you would choose to lay only the original stake and settle on a guaranteed minimum 33% and carry extra risk and potential reward from Ray.
Above is demonstrative of the benefits of avoiding traditional bookmakers where they only let you bet for an event and not against (laying) it and have to ride it out all the way to the end...there may be other sites that let you do juggle in this way, but BetFair is the only one that I am familiar with and it gives an added dimension to any betting that you do.
My bets are all very modest and just for fun, but it is techniques like these that help bookmakers win most of the time...why not play the same game that they do?
(this article has been edited since first published to correct an error whereby I neglected to include the important fact that the extra £10 stake collected from laying on Ray would also convert to a 100% profit on betting Leona should she win)
Labels: Betfair, betting, Leona, Ray, X Factor
Link
08-Dec-2006
X Factor: Who goes 9th December?
Last week in this column (X Factor - The Grannie Vote continues.....), I tipped Ray at odds then of 10.5-11.5 to end up in 2nd place to Leona in the X Factor.
This was based upon the public vote two weeks ago that put Ben in the bottom two, showing Ray more popular. The inference being that all things being equal, one would expect Ray to end up ahead of Ben to make the final two.
As I gave out my tip, I feel that I should share my new opinions.
Searching around the internet this evening, the polls (e.g. on DigitalSpy Week 9: Favourite Act and Week 9: Least Favourite Act ) are putting Ben and Ray quite a bit closer than I expected with Leona way out in front to win by a considerable margin.
It may now be a risky strategy to continue to hold bets on Ray.
Whilst my theories around the 'mature' vote have held good so far, the safest approach right now may be to lay off via BetFair at current odds of 8.6 - if you took my advice last week and bet at the odds available when I posted, then if you lay off all your current potential winnings on Ray, you will have made up to 35% profit on your stake in 1 week.
35% profit over one week aint bad.
Good luck if you choose to stick with Ray - my money is still on Leona to win overall.
Link
This was based upon the public vote two weeks ago that put Ben in the bottom two, showing Ray more popular. The inference being that all things being equal, one would expect Ray to end up ahead of Ben to make the final two.
As I gave out my tip, I feel that I should share my new opinions.
Searching around the internet this evening, the polls (e.g. on DigitalSpy Week 9: Favourite Act and Week 9: Least Favourite Act ) are putting Ben and Ray quite a bit closer than I expected with Leona way out in front to win by a considerable margin.
It may now be a risky strategy to continue to hold bets on Ray.
Whilst my theories around the 'mature' vote have held good so far, the safest approach right now may be to lay off via BetFair at current odds of 8.6 - if you took my advice last week and bet at the odds available when I posted, then if you lay off all your current potential winnings on Ray, you will have made up to 35% profit on your stake in 1 week.
35% profit over one week aint bad.
Good luck if you choose to stick with Ray - my money is still on Leona to win overall.
Labels: Ben, Leona, Ray, X Factor
Link
Last chance for 40% Discount on Thresher's wines
I wrote previously about the offer, but I was not able to host the voucher myself.
As I now have a hosting solution for this site, I thought I would give a reminder that the voucher is only valid until 10th December (Sunday) and I can now provide a direct link here to the voucher rather than pinching someone else's bandwidth.
Just be careful when pricing....supermarkets might be cheaper even with everyday pricing.
Link
As I now have a hosting solution for this site, I thought I would give a reminder that the voucher is only valid until 10th December (Sunday) and I can now provide a direct link here to the voucher rather than pinching someone else's bandwidth.
Just be careful when pricing....supermarkets might be cheaper even with everyday pricing.
Labels: Champagne, Discount, Threshers, Wine
Link
Is there a conspiracy to keep customers at home all day?
My biggest annoyance ever in the UK must be stores that make you wait in all day for deliveries. Have you tried playing the game of trying to pin them down to a particular window...maybe it is just a UK thing?
Let's suggest that I want a new dishwasher (not that implausible as mine has broken down and is an uneconomic repair):
Invariably, it will go something like this.....
I would really be interested in a Retailers perspective or experiences in other Countries.
Link
Let's suggest that I want a new dishwasher (not that implausible as mine has broken down and is an uneconomic repair):
Invariably, it will go something like this.....
Is this just a UK thing where we are treated so badly?Me: OK, I would like to purchase
, when can you deliver?
Sales Droid: Our next delivery to your area is on whatever day
Me: That will be OK. What time of day?
Sales Droid: I can't tell you that at this time.
Me: That's somewhat inconvenient to reserve the whole day, can you tell me whether it will be morning or afternoon?
Sales Droid: Not at this time, but if you phone late evening day beforeor early morning on date of delivery they will give you an indication.
Me: That's still not really good enough. That is too late to avoid me planning to be at home all day. Can you give me something narrower...I am prepared to pay extra if necessary.
Sales Droid: No, it is not in our control...it is our delivery company that sets the arrangements....
Me, interrupting sharply: No.... it is your companythat hires delivery companies and sets the terms of the contract. That is not an acceptable excuse for not accommodating customer requests. Why don't you hire a company that offers choices....I can choose to pay the premium or not, but at least let me choose whether I want a slot rather than being held to ransom at home pending whenever your company decides to turn up.
I would really be interested in a Retailers perspective or experiences in other Countries.
Labels: customer services, delivery, Retail
Link
Erase my Carbon Footprint
I have been writing recently about negating the effects of Carbon around car mileage and advocated http://www.targetneutral.com as a good starting point.What that site lacks though is the ability to calculate one's total Carbon footprint, including domestic fuels and holidays. I have come across this site "Erase my Footprint" this evening and it is something that I am definitely going to research further as I am shocked to see the Executive Summary of the full Stern Report commissioned by the UK Government talking of mass flooding in some areas, famine and up to 40% extinction of animal species.
The report shows that if