Sunday 22 December 2013

Happy Christmas - and my images of the year. Enjoy ;)

House full of food but nothing to eat.

Paying £40 for Turkey crowns that you'd never choose in a restaurant.

Sausages wrapped in bacon are a delicacy?

Buying a nut-cracker and nuts, just in case

Pickled onions that no-one eats. Throwing cheese away on January 6th.

Socks? Thanks.

Family, together. Updating their news. Enjoying each others' company. I love Christmas. I hope you all have a great one.

Just some of my images of the year, enjoy. ;)




Walruss' birthday














































































































































































































































































But I don't want to go home yet mum.














































































































































And a 21-year-old son. Wow.





























Happy Christmas one and all.

Saturday 14 December 2013

Is the arms industry making wars too easy to wage?

There was a time when going to war was an absolute last resort. It didn't, sadly, stop them from happening but it did mean that committing a country to war was a massive deal. An undertaking that meant massive mobilisation of troops and equipment; massive cost in financial terms and in human life on both sides.

It also meant that one would need a compelling argument to commit to war and then an overwhelming force that would not only win militarily, but would hopefully show the opponent that they had no real chance of victory and thereby shorten the conflict, saving lives and forcing the opponent to the negotiating table where proper peace agreements could be forged and future conflicts made less likely to occur. This approach to war afforded to us the most effective means of stopping conflict: deterrent.

Because the leaders knew that if we were so provoked that we would go to war, properly, that we would win it, and then make the changes needed to stop it at source - which would mean taking them and their regimes, out. Permanently.

It seems to me that what we now have - and this situation is proliferating - is technology such as drones and 'fire and forget' missiles made available to us by those nice people at Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems et. al., that allow politicians to wage war at the drop of a hat. This technology means few if any consequences for the lives of 'our' troops, but does not deliver a proper solution to the conflict; does not deter the leaders we are fighting against (who don't really give a toss for the lives of their 'troops') because it does not effect regime change or victory on the ground, instead it delivers pin pricks against the enemy and is then used against us to recruit more fodder for us to target with our technology.

I'm not saying that wars are always unnecessary, I'm no pacifist by any means (see my conclusion). But it seems to me that this technology is making it too easy to engage, and become embroiled in, conflicts that we have no real justification to be involved in and, increasingly, no clear objective position on the desired outcome. 'These horrible people are killing some other horrible people, so why don't we take a few of them out?'

This almost happened in Syria earlier this year. When there was no clear idea as to who the good guys or the bad guys were or what our overall objective was. More here. It also led, in the past few days, to a drone attack on an entirely innocent wedding convoy in Jordan in which 15 people were killed. It's become like playing Space Invaders from some desk in the Pentagon where it is not the countries involved we are trying to help or to target, but some small groups of people within those countries with whom we are in conflict.

Most importantly of all, it is not delivering any kind of solution to the prevailing conflict, just adding an additional - and deadly - and often indiscriminate, element to it.

Sooner or later we will have to go in to these war zones properly and whilst this might seem to be a contradiction in terms, we will have to 'impose' our freedoms upon their citizens and take away their ability to wage petty wars against each other. There is no other long-term solution and a few drone strikes or missile launches from offshore platforms are not helping at the moment.

Technology cannot be 'un-invented'. Nuclear war had attached to it the ultimate deterrent of complete annihilation. But drones do not. This makes the former much less likely to become reality, but the latter much more likely to be used.

How long will it be before the bad guys get drones to use?

At the moment we're fiddling while Damascus and many other places burn. We are, in my opinion, putting off the inevitable. We need to find a true solution to conflict, particularly in the Middle East. It seems to me that negotiation doesn't work against some people particularly when they feel that they have nothing left to lose and when their 'religion' (as delivered to them by those in power) tells them that they will receive their reward in heaven for waging a holy war.

You can't win against these people with a few drone-delivered pin pricks. You have to achieve a proper solution which means a fundamental change to their societies and the way they are governed. It also means delivering prosperity, purpose, opportunity and freedom to their ordinary citizens. A tall order, but the alternative is a never ending cycle of war, conflict and then aid. We're almost certainly spending more on this than it would cost to bring these countries and peoples into the first world in terms of business, industry, prosperity and opportunity.

In my opinion it is time for us to stop fucking about (technical term) and to look towards a proper solution for the good of the whole world. More on the same subject, related to Syria, and thinking the unthinkable, here.

Thanks for reading.






Thursday 12 December 2013

Is the 'Religion of Peace' all it's cracked up to be?

OK let's get the caveats out of the way first. I am not anti-Muslem or racist in any way. I am pro freedom of choice and expression and I live in - and enjoy - a diverse society. I don't impose my views of the world on anybody; you don't have to agree with what I'm saying, that's entirely your choice. I will not threaten, much less carry out, any act of violence upon you if you have a different view. But I do expect the same respect from you in return.

I think that's fair don't you? I will not tell you how to live your life and, in return, I don't expect you to tell me how to live mine - so long as both are within the long-established laws of the land in which we both live. After all, we have both chosen to live here and we could chose to live somewhere else if we really wanted to.

I am not anti any individual, or family or race or creed but I have a serious question (see title) that I think is worthy of being asked.

Most (if not all?) religions were 'created' (by men) when the prevailing belief was that the world was flat and that we were the centre of the universe. That's not necessarily a criticism, but a plain fact. They were devised in times long ago, when our knowledge of science was much more limited than it is today. They were also devised when establishing control and a 'common purpose' (how ironic that phrase seems today) was vital to our survival as a species.

Working together toward a common goal (instead of just fighting each other for today's 'catch' of food) was critical to man's survival and prosperity. And we've done pretty well out of that approach.

Generally speaking religion has lessened in importance over time. The need for control over people in that way, has reduced. Once we had proper laws and governments, accountability and representation, police forces, laws, and latterly surveillance; religion, quite rightly, has taken more of a back seat. That is not to say that it is irrelevant now. There are hundreds of millions of believers out there who take solace and value from their beliefs. And good for them.

But in our modern, scientific world, many people take the view that 'this is it'. That it's not about a comfortable afterlife secured through piousness and good deeds in this one, but that this is your one shot at life, and that one should make the most of it.

This may not be true - there is no real proof - but it is marginally more likely than what religion tells us and, therefore every bit as worthy of our respect and acceptance as any religious doctrine. This is out of 'flow' in this piece I accept, but how does killing someone who doesn't share you view - essentially going against every tennet of 'God's teaching' - secure you a good place in the hereafter? That's just madness.

All of which brings me on to my point. Christianity has recognised that it can no longer impose belief upon people. It encourages one to choose its belief system. It does not force it upon you. Buddhism is about celebrating life and respect for others through spirituality. Neither comes with a threat that if you don't agree or support it you will be diminished, or ostracised or 'cast out'. Almost all religions take this approach in our modern world. It's about your choice and it is a voluntary committment because only by being voluntary can it be genuine.

Do you disagree with that? If so, I'm wasting my time, and so are you. Goodbye.

There is of course one religion that does not follow this logical, modern, respectful, inclusive-if-it's-your-choice stance.

One religion that has not lost over time it's pervasive, controlling, anti women (the others all used to be) stance. One religion whose doctrine advocates the allowance of 8 year old girls being married against their will. Of forced marriages. Of Female genital mutilation for the control of women. Of women being covered from head to toe in public at all times. And of non-belivers being killed for not believing. It is anti gay, anti alcohol, anti liberty and freedom. It is so insecure that it threatens death to anyone who criticises or pokes fun at it. It promises glory in the hereafter to people who kill non-believers. It places religious belief above that of nation states and nationally agreed, long developed and democratically arrived-at laws.

It wants to control what you do, think, say and believe. What your children are taught in schools. Mr Hitler would have had wet dreams about this stuff.

And it will be the dominant religion of the UK by 2050 if the government's own statistics are to be believed.

In a word Islamism is a medieval disaster that is threatening to take us back centuries in terms of our freedoms and lifestyle. And it is coming to a city, town, village near you. Soon.

And we're not resisting it. Oh no; we're welcoming it in with open arms. Paying for it's advocates to live amongst us and protecting it through anti-racism and 'respect' laws.

But then it is the 'Religion of Peace'.

Isn't it?

We're fucking mad as a fucking mad thing from Mad city. By the time we wake up to this shit it will be too late.

And those of us (you) who sat idly by will get what you deserve from your negligence. And will, no doubt, be the first to complain.

Thanks for reading.




       



   

 




Tuesday 10 December 2013

I'm sick of being told I'm a racist

To be honest it doesn't happen very often. In fact it never has happened. But still...

Come round for a meal. If you'd like a glass of wine that's cool. If you're abstemious, that's fine. If you eat meat I can cook it. If you don't I do some great vegetarian stuff. Vegan if that's your thing. I like vegan, it's healthy and good and interesting - my daughter is a vegan and we all enjoy eating that way. It's not difficult, just veggie but no dairy. It's not rocket salad.

You'll be warmly welcomed. Whatever background you have, whoever your parents were, whatever your politics. Whatever the colour of your skin, wherever you're from. And nothing is off limits. If you want to talk about inequality, or the issue of race, or 'the nasty party', or God that's all just fine by me.

And we might disagree; the debate might be heated and passionate. I'll listen to your views and have an open mind about them. The deal is that you have to do the same. That's reasonable I'm sure you'd agree. Above all, I will respect what your views are - I might disagree with them, but you need to understand that that is my right just as I respect your views. I would not dream of trying to impose my views on life or my belief mechanisms on you and I'd humbly ask that you take the same approach.

The bottom line is that when you leave it will be as a friend. Someone who may have a different view of the world from mine, but who is nonetheless worthy of respect; sympathetic to the struggle of ordinary people like you and me.

That's all I ask. Is it too much?


Tuesday 3 December 2013

Teachers: we, and the unions, are letting the good ones down

If you're a good, bright, motivated teacher keen to do well, keen to get the best out of your charges, (which is your job after all), what do you think about Mr Gove's initiative to reward the best and to drive up standards?



Wild guess here, but I'm thinking you might be pleased. You might welcome some recognition, some financial incentive to do your best. After all, as we are constantly told, every day of a child's education is valuable. So valuable in fact that schools are looking at fining parents who take their kids out of school in term time to take advantage of cheaper holidays. Every day is vital. And I agree wholeheartedly with that. At primary and secondary school, every day of learning is of value. I don't think that parents should take their kids out of school in term time. Nor, incidentally, using the same criteria, do I think that teachers should go on strike in term time, thereby taking away these valuable days from our kids.

And this initiative is not just about young NQTs (Newly Qualified Teachers) but about recognising and rewarding the efforts of all teachers who do well. Whose performance is good. Measured in terms of the outcomes achieved by the kids under their supervision. Is there really any other measure that is anywhere near as meaningful? And nor is it about having the brightest kids - so you'll obviously do well - quite the opposite in fact. It's about getting the best out of kids of all abilities - it can be achieved (perhaps even more easily, certainly more noticeably) when the achievement is by kids of lesser ability. It stands out more you see.



I'm struggling to find what's not to like about this initiative if you're a bright, motivated teacher who's keen to get the best out of your charges. And if you agree, you're part of a group that is trying to get the best out of the system; trying to attract the best people to be teachers, trying to deliver the best outcomes in terms of attainment and achievement for our kids. If not you are, almost by definition, letting the kids and the best teachers down.

If you just turn up, take the money and the holidays and run; then you might not welcome what Mr Gove is trying to achieve. If you believe that it is not effort or results, but 'time served' that should dictate whether you get promoted or not, then you are almost certainly going to be in the opposing camp, along with your teaching unions. And along with the system as a whole which, today's report suggests very clearly, is failing our young people.

Obviously incentivising effort and achievement will involve some 'devil in the detail' stuff - at secondary schools in particular teaching is something of a team sport where you don't necessarily control the whole outcome, just the subject you teach, but that is directly measured so it shouldn't be a major problem should it?

In principle at any rate, a method of incentivising, measuring and rewarding outstanding effort (by you) that leads to genuinely better results for one (or all) of your pupils must be a good thing? It's good for you in terms of pay and, thinking about the wider world just for a moment, good for the kid and even better for their future employer and the very economy by which your efforts are paid. Everyone's a winner given the good work that you deliver. Oh happy day.

Yes? Thank you. Truly. Thank you very much.

No?

OK, if you're a teacher - or even if you're not - tell me why, in principle, this could possibly be a bad thing? Yes there will be issues of detail; of measurement. It is a complex situation, but in principle is the concept of identifying, encouraging and rewarding effort and achievement by teachers a bad thing? If it leads, as it surely must, to better outcomes for kids?

Don't give me 'unworkable' or 'complexity' or 'you should leave it to the experts' bullshit. Just tell me why an initiative designed to improve standards and to reward good teachers is a bad thing in principle.

If you have a brain - and presumably you have in order to become someone in the lofty and seriously important position of being able to teach others - I simply do not see how you can reject this issue in principle. I'm not saying this is simple or easy to deliver in practise, but I am saying, firmly, that it is the right direction for us to be trying to go in.

But the NUT (was there ever a better or more apt name for a union?) and the NASUWT are trying to block this initiative at every turn. And they represent you.

Another great day? A strike which should be but doesn't seem to be the last possible resort and which deprives teachers of a day's pay and, more importantly, our kids of a valuable day of learning, can be described by the NUT as 'a great day'? Wouldn't a 'great day' be when our kids' achievements are on the up? When we're rising up the international league for attainment, instead of falling down the tables?

So, the strike is about pensions and benefits. And I have some serious sympathy with that as an issue, but we're living in tough times, largely because of the antics of the last Labour government which the NUT supported. Why should teachers be singled out to ride the storm when everyone else has to feel some pain? But this is not really just about pay and pensions, it's about 'the blob' (read more here) and about trying to discredit Gove at every turn, with any and all excuses to do so taken up by the NUT and the NASUWT. To the point where the unions will do anything to stop his reforms and improvements. So pensions is one thing, but stopping progress is quite another. And if the system was delivering well educated kids, with high achievements on an international scale, I think most people would welcome it and recognise your achievements and back your cause. But that is not currently the case is it?

Since 2000, our kids have fallen, in the world league, from 8th to 27th in maths, 7th to 25th in reading and 4th to 16th in science according to the OECD's Pisa international assessment criteria. So much for Mr Blair's endlessly improving GCSE and A-level results or his 'education, education, education mantra. It was just spin, as usual from him. Shadow education secretary Tristram Hunt is blaming Mr Gove, but, three year's in? After 13 years of Labour and when (as you well know) Mr Gove's reforms have not fully kicked in yet, let alone been responsible for a cycle of educational attainment. And they are still being resisted, tooth and nail, by members of your profession (if you are a teacher, obviously).

Instead of putting all your considerable efforts and brainpower into blocking Mr Gove's improved performance-based initiative, how about putting those same efforts into trying to make it work? To get around the many and varied obstacles and to deliver a better level of education for all our kids and for the benefit of them, their families and the future of our country?

Even if it is difficult to achieve - and I'm sure that it is - why are your efforts designed to make it more difficult rather than trying to achieve a solution that you cannot fault in principle?

If that is the case- and I don't really see what other conclusions one can draw - I can only deduce that those efforts are not about improving the level of our kids' skills and achievement, but about making life easier for crap teachers. And there are crap teachers. You and I both know this to be true, if we're honest, and I'm sure you are. Protecting under-achievement. Maintaining a situation which is seeing ever declining standards and which is failing our kids and our country.

Only 18 teachers have been sacked for incompetency in the last four decades, out of an annual pool of 500,000 teachers. The crap teachers are 'compromised' (compromise agreement) out of their current jobs instead of being sacked (so with no stain on their records) and they just go on to another school and practise their incompetency with another set of unfortunate kids for whom every day is not valuable but, largely a waste of time. Surely you're not resisting this improvement initiative to protect crap teachers?

Well guess what? I think that's exactly what (many of) you (and in particular the teaching unions) are doing. It's exactly what the NUT and the NASUWT are doing, daily. And you, in whose hands the future skills and thereby prosperity of our young people and via them, our country resides, are doing this to defend your own inadequacies or those of your colleagues. If you are a bright, motivated teacher with the interests of your charges at heart, you should not be standing by while this is happening, much less supporting the unions' constant strike action - taking away oh-so-valuable days of teaching and learning from our kids. It's time for you to stand up to this nonsense.

It's not as if we're leading the world in educational standards is it? If we were, you would get much more - probably universal - support for better pay and conditions.

What is currently happening in your name is simply not good enough.

Poor teachers are supported. They have competency support in which they're consulted and 'retrained' in line with what is expected. They are supported and re-measured (you know this of course) and then re-evaluated. And then, if all's well, we move on. But if it's not, if after all that support the person is found to be just not god enough to be a teacher, what happens? They get a compromise agreement, often a pay off, and they are then released with no stain on their record to go and ply their incompetence at another school. How can that be right?

Final point (if I may): this current 'qualified teacher status' stuff is a smokescreen isn't it? It's about pulling up the ladder. Having a PGCE does not mean you're a good teacher, it just means you've completed the course. Likewise someone who might be an expert in their subject but who doesn't have a PGCE might also not be a good teacher. But in both cases they might be a great teacher. And it's really down to the head who employs them to decide and then to monitor the situation.

Tell me I'm wrong, but bring proof not bullshit. Reasons why what you and the unions are doing will be good for our kids rather than protecting and perpetuating what looks increasingly like failure to me. This is not about a 'fun' day out on a strike, preparing placards and banners and having a laugh. This is deadly serious. It's about the skills that our future citizens and leaders will have. It's about the future prosperity of our country. And what it looks increasingly like to me, is that too many of our teachers and teaching unions simply don't give a shit about it.

Thanks for reading.

Monday 2 December 2013

Is HS2 the flagship for our incompetent, unambitious nation?


 It will bring economic riches the like of which you have only dreamed about.

Oh no, actually it won't, sorry.

It will solve the massive problem of (lack of) capacity on our railways between London and the poor impoverished north.

Oh no, sorry again, it won't.

It will eliminate closures and upgrade works - for 14 years - on the West Coast main line.

Erm, sorry. That's not true either.

It's about world-class infrastructure, making Britain a world leader in transport.

What? You mean catching up with the French or Japanese railways of the 1980s by 2030?

Ah you spotted that did you? A tad awkward really. Still onwards and upwards. Or sideways. Whatever. (we need to do it because the EU says we must - but schtum ok? We don't want everyone to know that).

It's the biggest infrastructure project in Europe. You should be proud. It'll come in within budget and on time.


 Yeah right. It's gone up from £30 billion to £80 billion before a single sod has been turned. And this particular sod is not for turning (to coin a phrase). We'll have spent more than £3 billion on the project before we even lay a single yard of track?


Yes but it's important to plan.

And does your cost analysis include every landowner calling in a judicial review along the proposed line of the route?

Erm not as such.



And are you willing to lose an election because of this white elephant?

Now you're being ridiculous.





HS2 if you hadn't guessed. It's a big deal. A flagship project for the UK and one upon which many careers will be made or broken. The stakes are high.

It's a multi £billion pissing contest. And like most political pissing contests it will not make any real difference to you. Unless you live on the route of the proposed line of course. And if you do, the chances are that it will by-pass your tranquil duck pond (whether you have a duck house in it or not), and bring you no benefit whatsoever. In fact it will mean changes to the existing network that will make many places worse off in terms of connectivity into London - just moving the benefits of connectivity rather than enhancing the overall service for everyone.

Anyway there have been lots of 'facts' and some absolute bullshit put out by our EU-led  'establishment' in favour of HS2 - you can google what's out there as easily as I can so I'm not going to regurgitate the figures here. What you'll discover really depends upon whether your source has been paid to come up with positive or negative data. As with seemingly everything in our modern world, from climate change to advice on what to eat, it's about following the money. The BBC has more on the pros and cons here.

It feels to me like this is an EU-mandated project that our government feels compelled to undertake regardless of value for money or proven need. It's often described as a 'legacy' project for Dave, but I'm not sure that can be correct given the time-scales involved - he'll be long-gone by the time the first train rolls out of the station.

I like the idea (if this project is to go ahead) of reversing the schedule so that the northern sections are completed first and then joined up to London later. That might contribute to better connectivity and an uplift in economic performance for the north of the country.

However, one needs to remember (although this is not specifically stated anywhere in the literature) that this is really about feeding London's economic engine, rather than delivering enhanced prosperity to the north. And if London, one of the great world cities, is looking to harvest talent from further afield; from Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and beyond, what is the future chance of those great cities being able to stand on their own two feet as separate, distinct economic powers themselves?

 In 1985, as a mere slip of a lad, (obviously) I found myself in Fontainebleau and needing to get to Venice on the same day.  Romance wasn't quite dead in 'them' days. So I caught this newfangled thing called the TGV (Train Grande Vitesse). It was amazingly smart and sophisticated, all seats facing forward. Comfortable, clean, and very very fast. I expected to arrive in Italy during the Renaissance.

It did well over 200 mph, in comfort and quiet, the scenery was like a speeded-up stop motion film. It was fantastic.

In 1969 we built Concord; the world's first supersonic passenger plane. It could get you to New York in 4 hours instead of eight. It was the envy of the world and quite right too.

In that same year we (humans) put a man on the moon. Obviously if it had been Sandra Bullock instead of Neil Armstrong we'd probably have missed it but nonetheless we did.

In 1969.

So, 45 years' later our ambition is to put a man into Birmingham, from London, 20 minutes more quickly than he could make the same journey on a normal train since about 1971. But we can't do that just yet: It'll be another 15 years or so before that remarkable feat can be achieved. At a cost of £80 billion and counting.

India can send a vehicle to Mars, today, for £45 million. But there might be life on Mars.

The thing is, if we were planning a rail line that would make the journey from Birmingham to London take about 15 minutes. Leeds and Manchester about 30 minutes and Glasgow to London less than an hour, I'd be in favour of it. If our latest mega project meant that we would lead the world in transport technology - let's face it we're paying enough for that to be a realistic expectation - then most if not all of the counter-arguments would fall away. Particularly if the new system complimented the existing one, which works pretty well albeit in a slightly creaking way, rather than (technical term) fucking it up which seems to me to be the inevitable outcome of the current proposals.

I think HS2 in its current form, is a second rate, hugely expensive white elephant whose benefits will not match the hype and whose disruption and blight will not be offset for those who will suffer, because they won't be able to use the thing. 


 In the US there are (admittedly provisional and early stage) plans for HyperLoop - a technically advanced, futuristic new concept that could see travel between Los Angeles and San Francisco taking just 30 minutes - a distance that is very similar to that between London and Glasgow (400 miles). And the estimated cost of that project is $6billion. I realise that this is not proven technology, but we're spending half that amount just on planning for HS2.

 More on HyperLoop here.

Surely, if we want to 'future proof' our vital transport network, we should be looking at something like this that considers future technology and a massively better outcome than catching up with 50 year old existing technology? What happened to our ambition? Our 'aspiration'? Or are we accepting that we cannot do innovation and engineering excellence any more in the UK? 

What we're suggesting here, what we're claiming as a flagship project, is catching up with what the French were doing in the 1980s, by 2030. We're effectively paying enough for this to be a mega, game-changing, standard-setting, envelope-pushing, world-beating project that could put UK technology and engineering prowess back on the global map. And what we're getting is a TGV, 50 years too late.

How did our level of ambition, in this 'aspiration nation' fall so low?

Thanks for reading. And Slough.