Today's Daily Telegraph reports that a 100 strong army of census enforcers with police powers are being used to ensure that census forms are completed. They will be authorised to conduct interviews under caution of those people from whom the 30,000 enforcers have been unable get a satisfactory response.
I wonder if they will be visiting the sink estates and immigrant ghettos?
What is the probability that all the prosecutions will be of basically law-abiding middle class citizens who have some ethical or moral reasons for not wanting to complete the intrusive forms?
All this to get information which, if the authorities had done their job properly, should already be in their records.
Saturday, 26 March 2011
Friday, 25 March 2011
Census Gestapo
According to the Daily Mail, a 30,000 strong "census police force" will be used to chase up those who have failed to respond to the census questionnaire.
"The enforcement army will be deployed early next month as the first wave of an operation costing hundreds of millions of pounds to try to ensure no home in the country fails to comply with the census".
I wonder . . . . . . . ?
Will they be like social workers, who in the main are happy to go to homes in well kept middle-class housing estates and harass normally law-abiding parents over some triviality? Will they go to the sink estates where even the police won't venture alone or without body armour? Will they go to the immigrant ghettos where we most need accurate information as to numbers? What threat will a £1000 fine be to someone on benefits who decides not to comply?
And more to the point, what are they going to do to ensure that people tell the truth anyway?
With an interest in family history, my wife and I have traced our ancestors in all the censuses (shouldn't it be censii ?) from 1841 to 1911, and rarely do two consecutive censuses agree, in spite of the small amount of information requested. Some "errors" were probably lack of knowledge such as their not knowing their birthplace or even their true age (or perhaps they couldn't subtract). With others, it is clear that they were downright lies, particularly regarding family relationships, and the describing of "boarders" who presumably pay rent as "visitors" who don't!
All in all, a total waste of money, although I have no doubt that there will be a few high profile court cases to "prove" how efficient they are.
Perhaps we need to amend the old saying to "There are lies, dammed lies, statistics and censuses"!
"The enforcement army will be deployed early next month as the first wave of an operation costing hundreds of millions of pounds to try to ensure no home in the country fails to comply with the census".
I wonder . . . . . . . ?
Will they be like social workers, who in the main are happy to go to homes in well kept middle-class housing estates and harass normally law-abiding parents over some triviality? Will they go to the sink estates where even the police won't venture alone or without body armour? Will they go to the immigrant ghettos where we most need accurate information as to numbers? What threat will a £1000 fine be to someone on benefits who decides not to comply?
And more to the point, what are they going to do to ensure that people tell the truth anyway?
With an interest in family history, my wife and I have traced our ancestors in all the censuses (shouldn't it be censii ?) from 1841 to 1911, and rarely do two consecutive censuses agree, in spite of the small amount of information requested. Some "errors" were probably lack of knowledge such as their not knowing their birthplace or even their true age (or perhaps they couldn't subtract). With others, it is clear that they were downright lies, particularly regarding family relationships, and the describing of "boarders" who presumably pay rent as "visitors" who don't!
All in all, a total waste of money, although I have no doubt that there will be a few high profile court cases to "prove" how efficient they are.
Perhaps we need to amend the old saying to "There are lies, dammed lies, statistics and censuses"!
Sunday, 20 March 2011
Libya - Why?
I remain undecided as to the merits of our actions in Libya and totally unconvinced by the official reasons.
I understand the moral and humanitarian arguments. They are logical and perfectly acceptable, and I feel that no one could reasonably disagree with the need to stop fighting, whether it is two factions within a country, or a bully beating up someone in the school playground.
What I do find strange is this sudden outbreak of morals in our government and parts of the EU.
There has been plenty of other similar incidents of suppression and killing in African countries over the past few years, and these governments have merely sat on their hands and done nothing.
Zimbabwe, or Rhodesia as I prefer to call it, has been terrorised by Mugabe and many thousands have been killed with even greater numbers dying of starvation and disease. The life expectancy there is now at an all time low. This for a country which, at the time of independence was the "bread basket" of Africa with one of the highest living standards on the continent.
Then there was Rwanda, a former Belgian colony, Angola and Congo, both former Portuguese colonies, Algeria and the Ivory Coast, both former French colonies all of which have had civil wars with huge death tolls, not only from the war, but also as in Rhodesia, from the subsequent starvation.
None of these stirred the morals of any of the individual ex-colonial powers, the EU or the UN. So why should Libya.
Now there are good reasons for the EU to intervene in Libya apart from oil, the main one being the likelihood of huge numbers of refugees. Italy and Malta are already experiencing a huge influx of refugees from Tunisia, a small country compared with Libya, and were this to be repeated by similar numbers from Libya the EU could be inundated.
So, on balance, I support the action being taken at present, albeit with numerous reservations.
What I do hope is that part of the eventual resolution of the situation will involve the splitting if Libya up into the two original countries from which it was formed after the war, Cirenaica and Tripolitania which were based on the original tribal territories.
I understand the moral and humanitarian arguments. They are logical and perfectly acceptable, and I feel that no one could reasonably disagree with the need to stop fighting, whether it is two factions within a country, or a bully beating up someone in the school playground.
What I do find strange is this sudden outbreak of morals in our government and parts of the EU.
There has been plenty of other similar incidents of suppression and killing in African countries over the past few years, and these governments have merely sat on their hands and done nothing.
Zimbabwe, or Rhodesia as I prefer to call it, has been terrorised by Mugabe and many thousands have been killed with even greater numbers dying of starvation and disease. The life expectancy there is now at an all time low. This for a country which, at the time of independence was the "bread basket" of Africa with one of the highest living standards on the continent.
Then there was Rwanda, a former Belgian colony, Angola and Congo, both former Portuguese colonies, Algeria and the Ivory Coast, both former French colonies all of which have had civil wars with huge death tolls, not only from the war, but also as in Rhodesia, from the subsequent starvation.
None of these stirred the morals of any of the individual ex-colonial powers, the EU or the UN. So why should Libya.
Now there are good reasons for the EU to intervene in Libya apart from oil, the main one being the likelihood of huge numbers of refugees. Italy and Malta are already experiencing a huge influx of refugees from Tunisia, a small country compared with Libya, and were this to be repeated by similar numbers from Libya the EU could be inundated.
So, on balance, I support the action being taken at present, albeit with numerous reservations.
What I do hope is that part of the eventual resolution of the situation will involve the splitting if Libya up into the two original countries from which it was formed after the war, Cirenaica and Tripolitania which were based on the original tribal territories.
Friday, 18 March 2011
Actions Not Words
According to the BBC web site:
British Prime Minister David Cameron said Col Gaddafi would be judged by "his actions, not his words".
What is exactly what the British electorate have been doing to Cameron since he was elected, and as far as L am concerned, he has been judged and failed.
British Prime Minister David Cameron said Col Gaddafi would be judged by "his actions, not his words".
What is exactly what the British electorate have been doing to Cameron since he was elected, and as far as L am concerned, he has been judged and failed.
Thursday, 17 March 2011
Nuclear Disaster
The Japanese earthquake, Tsunami and subsequent problems at one of their nuclear power stations have been world news for a week now and we must all have great sympathy for the Japanese people.
However, in this country, I have noticed that the anti-nuclear power contingent are already using the disaster at the power station to press their case against nuclear power generation, without, of course, offering any alternative.
Personally, I would prefer to wait until we see the final outcome before jumping to any rash conclusions. Most importantly, we need to know how many people have been killed by the accident (as distinct from the earthquake & tsunami), together with an assessment of the numbers who are likely to suffer from the effects of radiation either now, or later in their lives. In this respect, at the time of Chernobyl, the predictions ranged from tens to hundreds of thousands, which has since been proven to be more like hundreds rather than thousands.
But as a retired engineer (albeit in a different field) I would like to make a few points which have applied to all engineering activities over the last few hundred years.
The first thing to note is that the initial engineering in most areas was usually very crude when compared with later developments, but was always inspired by a desire to do something better or more efficiently than the existing method.
Thus bridges were built of cast iron and later steel, rather than wood, because they could have longer spans and take larger loads; Steam engines started to be used instead of horses, because they had more power and became cheaper to run; aeroplanes took over from trains and ships because people wanted to get to their destination quicker; the list is endless.
However, it is important to note that none of these developments were without risk, and that there were a large number of accidents and disasters along the way before they reached their present state of development. I honestly believe that engineering is one of the few activities where those responsible can genuinely claim to have learnt from their mistakes, unlike many other areas where "We will learn from our mistakes" is merely a catchphrase.
Steam Engines and the early railways probably caused the highest number of deaths over the years, and although unfortunately accidents still happen, their frequency and severity has been considerably reduced.The deaths certainly did not stop the development of the railways, but invariably led to improvements following an enquiry into the causes.
Shipping has had its fair share of disasters; whether you regard the wrecking of the British naval fleet on the Scillies as an engineering disaster is a moot point, but the solution certainly was in the form of Harrison's chronometer.
Bridges too, have not been immune. The most famous is the collapse of the Tay Bridge disaster of 1879 when 75 people were killed following the collapse of the bridge whilst a train was crossing. However it didn't stop a new bridge being build in 1887 which is still in use today, having had its only major maintenance in 2007, 130 years later!
Air accidents, of course always hit the headlines, but the two Comet disasters didn't stop the construction of jet aircraft, nor indeed have recent accidents stopped people still wanting to fly.
I make these points at some length because nothing that man does in this world is 100% safe, and engineering is no exception. But as I said above, engineers always learn from accidents, which frequently occur due to factors of which they were either unaware or for which they made insufficient allowances. This will be true of what happened in Japan, and strictly from an engineering standpoint, one could say that this disaster has stress tested the reactors to a level that they would never have received otherwise. To a non-specialist like myself, it would seem that the actual reactor design was adequate but that it was the cooling system, or its power supplies which failed and that their design clearly will need re-appraisal in any new construction.
That, of course, is my initial reaction without real facts; I would much prefer that all the so-called experts desisted from making comments until the full effects are known and an enquiry by genuine experts has reached its conclusions.
However, in this country, I have noticed that the anti-nuclear power contingent are already using the disaster at the power station to press their case against nuclear power generation, without, of course, offering any alternative.
Personally, I would prefer to wait until we see the final outcome before jumping to any rash conclusions. Most importantly, we need to know how many people have been killed by the accident (as distinct from the earthquake & tsunami), together with an assessment of the numbers who are likely to suffer from the effects of radiation either now, or later in their lives. In this respect, at the time of Chernobyl, the predictions ranged from tens to hundreds of thousands, which has since been proven to be more like hundreds rather than thousands.
But as a retired engineer (albeit in a different field) I would like to make a few points which have applied to all engineering activities over the last few hundred years.
The first thing to note is that the initial engineering in most areas was usually very crude when compared with later developments, but was always inspired by a desire to do something better or more efficiently than the existing method.
Thus bridges were built of cast iron and later steel, rather than wood, because they could have longer spans and take larger loads; Steam engines started to be used instead of horses, because they had more power and became cheaper to run; aeroplanes took over from trains and ships because people wanted to get to their destination quicker; the list is endless.
However, it is important to note that none of these developments were without risk, and that there were a large number of accidents and disasters along the way before they reached their present state of development. I honestly believe that engineering is one of the few activities where those responsible can genuinely claim to have learnt from their mistakes, unlike many other areas where "We will learn from our mistakes" is merely a catchphrase.
Steam Engines and the early railways probably caused the highest number of deaths over the years, and although unfortunately accidents still happen, their frequency and severity has been considerably reduced.The deaths certainly did not stop the development of the railways, but invariably led to improvements following an enquiry into the causes.
Shipping has had its fair share of disasters; whether you regard the wrecking of the British naval fleet on the Scillies as an engineering disaster is a moot point, but the solution certainly was in the form of Harrison's chronometer.
Bridges too, have not been immune. The most famous is the collapse of the Tay Bridge disaster of 1879 when 75 people were killed following the collapse of the bridge whilst a train was crossing. However it didn't stop a new bridge being build in 1887 which is still in use today, having had its only major maintenance in 2007, 130 years later!
Air accidents, of course always hit the headlines, but the two Comet disasters didn't stop the construction of jet aircraft, nor indeed have recent accidents stopped people still wanting to fly.
I make these points at some length because nothing that man does in this world is 100% safe, and engineering is no exception. But as I said above, engineers always learn from accidents, which frequently occur due to factors of which they were either unaware or for which they made insufficient allowances. This will be true of what happened in Japan, and strictly from an engineering standpoint, one could say that this disaster has stress tested the reactors to a level that they would never have received otherwise. To a non-specialist like myself, it would seem that the actual reactor design was adequate but that it was the cooling system, or its power supplies which failed and that their design clearly will need re-appraisal in any new construction.
That, of course, is my initial reaction without real facts; I would much prefer that all the so-called experts desisted from making comments until the full effects are known and an enquiry by genuine experts has reached its conclusions.
Wednesday, 16 March 2011
French Racist Joke? You're Joking!
I couldn't resist a link to this joke on the "Gates of Vienna"
Shazam
Translated from the French, it was declared to be racist by Sarkozy’s ruling UMP party
Shazam
Translated from the French, it was declared to be racist by Sarkozy’s ruling UMP party
Our European President
As a change from Nigel Farrage having a go at the EU President, I offer you this by by the
Belgian ECR MEP Derk-Jan Eppink.
Eurosceptism is clearly not the prerogative of the British!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
