Blairgates

Amused to see the follow–up after all the graphological analysis in the papers on Saturday of Tony Blair’s notes from Davos, suggesting that there were “marked differences” from the last time his handwriting had been analysed, that he was showing signs of great pressure, was out of control, etc, etc. It turns out that the real clue was in the “marked differences” from Tony’s usual handwriting. The notes in question weren’t his at all, but those of Bill Gates. Heh heh.

Well, that's the point, isn't it?

The Lord Chancellor, Lord Faulkner, was talking to David Frost this morning about Charles Clarke’s proposed new house–arrest powers.

Talking about the four men just released from Guantanamo, Frost asked “Are they, are they free men now? Are they free men in this country, or are they on some form of preparation for a house arrest?”. Faulkner answered “Well I’m not going to comment on what specific arrangements may be made, there are no charges against them”.

The answer that Faulkner was forced into illustrates the point perfectly. Are there any charges against them whatsoever? No. Are they free men? “I’m not going to comment on what specific arrangements may be made”. Remind me what “innocent until proven guilty” means again?

Woah, woah, woah

This gets more and more worrying. The Times reports that “friends and relatives of the four Britons freed from Guantanamo Bay this week could also face intensive police monitoring. People sharing an address with any of the four could be denied access to the telephone or internet and have to undergo body searches”.

Charles Clarke is quoted as saying:

“I accept that an individual is different to a family but where there is an individual deemed to be a threat on security grounds we need the powers to stop that person engaging in terrorism.

Just because somebody’s wife wants to chat with her friends about going shopping that’s not therefore a reason to let somebody cause a bomb explosion. These are serious people and serious organisations trying to destroy our society”.

This is dangerous nonsense he’s talking, isn’t it? He’s trivialising the interference with freedom and over–exaggerating the threat. Is anyone really going to “destroy our society”. We’re starting from the already shaky position that it is acceptable to curtail the freedom of individuals who have never been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crime, purely on the Government’s assertion that they may be a danger based upon “intelligence”. It is now suggested that this is also a justification to curtail the freedoms of people with whom they associate. Where is this going to end? Fast forward:

“Just because British Muslims want to go about their lawful daily business, own property, drive cars, communicate with their friends, earn a living, that’s not therefore a reason to let somebody cause a bomb explosion”.

Is there really no other way to protect this country than for the executive to have these sorts of draconian, potentially very far–reaching “because we say so” powers? Who exactly is most likely to “destroy our society” here? My money’s on Charles Clarke.

Websense

This site has just been categorized as “adult content” by Websense. Which means many people won’t be able to access it from work any more. I think that’s a bit harsh. I mean, it’s “adult” content in the sense that it discusses issues other than those entirely appropriate for children and perhaps uses the very occasional “rude” word, but then again so does the Sunday Times. It’s not “adult” in the “unacceptable for work” sense. Unless it was the Bigmorian Recursion which triggered this!

I’m going to politely contact Websense and see whether they will correct the category, because I don’t think it should be blocked as “adult”. If companies want to block all non–business/financial sites, that’s a different issue and I’ll take the rap.

UPDATE: Websense have reviewed this site in response to my request and they are going to change the classification in the next version of their database to “message boards and clubs”. Fair play.

This is interesting. A piece by Simon Jenkins in the Times advocating the abolition of trial by jury.

The Bigmorian Recursion

Having seen the Hasselhoffian Recursion, Tumblage has been inspired to create the Bigmorian Recursion. Nice work.

'Congestion' charging

I know I’ve asked this before, but what is the point of congestion charging? I see that there are new plans afoot for a wider charge to be imposed:

“Transport for London realises that charging on congested routes will encourage drivers to find toll–free rat runs. It plans to tackle this by introducing more traffic calming, including road humps and chicanes”.

Why is this appropriate if the aim is to reduce congestion? A charge is imposed on certain busy roads, so people unsurprisingly look for alternative routes where there will be no charge, thereby achieving the allegedly desired aim of reducing congestion on the busy roads with the charge. But TfL then treat such people as if they’re committing some kind of tax evasion by doing so. They employ pejorative language to describe them — “rat–runners” — and institute measures deliberately to force them back onto the roads that charge, so they’ll have to pay.

I know I’m just shooting fish in a barrel here and the aim is obviously not just to reduce congestion but also to raise revenue to fund the administration costs of congestion charge itself and to pay for other projects in future. But the hypocrisy of the way it has been presented to London voters really winds me up.

Wayne's World

Like that bit in Wayne’s World, but instead of lying on the hood of your car in Aurora, Illinois, you can instead be sunning yourself on a tropical beach — cool picture of a plane landing at Philipsburg / St. Maarten in the Netherlands Antilles.

Tact and diplomacy

Ain’t tolerance great? The leader of Iran has reiterated that Salman Rushdie is an apostate whose killing would be authorised by Islam, during a lengthy tirade against Western and Zionist capitalists. Senior British officials, however, were anxious to play it down:

“Almost every time that the current supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, gives a sermon he mentions Salman Rushdie in these terms and denounces him as a man who has insulted the name of the Prophet and who can therefore be killed. It’s just the standard rhetoric”.

Oh, well that’s fiiiiiine then. Ee didn’t mean nuffink by it. It’s just part of his culwcha to go on lengthy tirades about the West and exhort his followers to kill those with whom he disagrees.

“Analysts in Iran played down the remark, suspecting that Ayatollah Khamenei was referring to the fatwa against Rushdie in a historical context and was not calling for it to be implemented now”.

Fair enough, but if so, one might legitimately question the wisdom of starting to go on about it again without making that point expressly. “Oh, my child, you’ve rushed off and removed poor Salman’s head. How perfectly tragic. Didn’t you realise I was only referring to the fatwa in a historical context”?

I must say, if a foreign head of state had recommenced public advocacy for my execution, when I had committed no crime under English law and had received no proper trial or due process, I would have hoped that “senior British officials” would have been the sort of people I could rely upon to stand up for me. No such luck, it appears. Then again, at least they’re consistent. Boldly defending British citizens from breaches of natural justice at the hands of foreign regimes just isn’t part of the remit these days, whether it’s our NATO/special relationship allies (the Americans and Guantanamo Bay), our European Union brothers (the Portuguese and Gary Mann) or, now, members of the axis of evil doing the oppressing. Still, I’m sure they’re doing some fantastic work behind the scenes…

The Hasselhoffian Recursion

Have you lot seen this egregious David Hasselhoff thing? Heh.

Housekeeping

Just a couple of housekeeping points: use spray starch on your collars to obtain that crisp finish, and don’t tumble–dry hi–tech synthetic fibres — they will melt.

Reading half marathon

I’ve been training for three weeks now. It seems to be going fairly well — I managed a relatively brisk 10 miles on Sunday and it felt pretty good. However, I am starting to dread the interval running sessions, starting from the night before I have to do one.

These sessions require you to run at 100% effort for a given time, followed by a recovery jog, repeated a number of times. They are supposed to build your speed and stretch the boundaries of your comfort zone. By definition, therefore, you have to train at a pace that is uncomfortably fast.

I was just derided for declining a 4 o’clock doughnut (in honour of someone’s birthday at work) on the basis that I am doing my speed session this evening. It has been suggested that I am losing perspective. This is supposed to be fun. Have a drink, mate. Have a cake.

However, I now know how hard a half–marathon is. The second time is always worse because you no longer have the naïve optimism born of ignorance as to how much it’s going to hurt.

For sale

Someone I know’s brother–in–law is selling a pretty sweet looking classic Ducati.

Kieron Quirke’s sympathetic take on the personal publishing phenomenon — the rantings of a boring and alienated man with too much time and too little sanity. That should be my new strapline.

Unrealistic target?

So the US Government now recommends that adults do between 60 and 90 minutes of moderate to vigorous exercise most days to sustain weight loss, and at least one hour to prevent weight gain. If that is truly what is necessary, no wonder everyone is fat. That’s more training than I’m doing with the aim of running a 90 minute half–marathon in March 2005. Then again, it makes sense, because although I’m getting fitter, I haven’t lost any weight. But realistically, if losing/not gaining weight via exercise really is THAT hard, is exercise the relevant factor to highlight in managing obesity?

The online sack race

Geezer gets fired from Waterstones for his website. I note that a google search for my name now brings up this site for some reason, notwithstanding that I have tried to keep it anonymous. Then again, I’ve previously said that these days, any company could sack any employee citing reasons relating to use of internet or email. What do you reckon? Are our days numbered?

Reading half marathon

6 March 2005. Do it. Do it.

Fascism

This article likens Paolo di Canio to Mussolini and suggests that he ought to be hanged. Bit extreme for the Times. But this whole fascism/racism in European football thing is obnoxious. Did you see the latest outburst from Luis Aragones earlier in the month? What a wanker:

“The row over Aragones intensified on Friday as he attempted to justify his comment about Henry earlier in the season. He told Spanish newspaper El Mundo: ‘Reyes is ethnically a gypsy. I have got a lot of gypsy and black friends. All I did was to motivate the gypsy by telling him he was better than the black’”.

All over the front page, already

I acquired my first London car just before Christmas and last night I experienced my first incidence of road rage in it. Some guy was crawling along Gray’s Inn Road, so I overtook him. Wrong move. This affront to his masculinity immediately prompted him to chase me across London with his high beams on, blasting his horn. Whatever. Why does he care if I overtook him while he was kerb–crawling? I am quite convinced that some people wake up in an angrier state than I have ever been in, at my most angry. Incidentally, this illustrates one of the benefits of a fast motorcycle (my previous mode of transport) in town — if you decide to overtake someone, you waste them so comprehensively that by the time they realise you’ve gone by, it’s too late for retaliation. Downside is you get wet.

Traffic lights? No, what we need is a hippy street community of love

Great idea. Apparently research from the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany has shown that traffic lights and road signs “…deter road–users from taking responsibility for their actions. A driver simply looks at the colour of the light rather than at people wanting to cross”.

To crack down upon the inconsiderate and arrogant expectation that a green light means that you may progress without some sheep–like wanker wandering out in front of you or some coked–up prick running a red light the other way taking you out and killing you, they are trying a new scheme on a London street:

“All traditional signals and barriers used to separate the carriageway and pavement will be removed and the question of who has priority will deliberately be left open. Even the kerb will be eliminated as part of the scheme to create Britain’s first such ‘shared space’.

The theory is that all street–users are equal. Drivers will be forced to slow down and establish eye contact with pedestrians because they will no longer be able to assume that they have right of way”.

Yeah, ‘peace’, man. Why don’t we hold a contemporary dance festival in our ‘shared space’, while we’re at it? If the trial is successful, maybe we could install crazy golf and a skate park on the M6.