Our local council has just decided to split the recycling collections again, meaning on recycling day we have to put out up to five different containers. When will this lunacy end?
A short history:-
We started off with a brown bin for garden waste and cardboard, a blue box for plastics, cans and glass, a blue bag for paper and a red bag for textiles.
Very quickly the council decided that lids were needed for the boxes, so these were issued. More boxes were handed out to people as they were not large enough to hold all the recycling!
The blue boxes were then scrapped (not being made of recyclable materials!!) and blue bins were issued instead.
So far so good except that putting paper in a bag quite often meant it blew all over the place when the wind got up.
Now we have been issued with orange bags for cardboard - as with the paper collection this either becomes a sodden mess when it rains or will blow around if the wind gets up.
The situation gets worse of course because we now have four lorries on recycling day - brown bin, blue bin, paper/textiles and cardboard. How can this be good for the environment?
Add to that the fact that with the bags for paper we find a lot of them blowing away after being emptied because they are not securely returned by the refuse crews. This will now be added to by the new bags. Two problems arise here, firstly they are made of plastic so litter the country side and do not biodegrade, secondly they have to be replaced.
Some people, myself included, have reused the old blue boxes for paper. This may not work for card because the crews will not easily see the difference (lids on to prevent rubbish blowing everywhere)
Why can we not follow the lead of Europe, where recycling is collected in one bin and sorted at the recycling centre - the technology exists to do this nowadays and that which cannot be done automatically will create employment?
Friday, December 16, 2011
Friday, December 9, 2011
Media Hysteria
I was greeted by a picture in the paper today of an airliner landing at Edinburgh Airport in the recent bad weather.
The caption refers to 'bumpy landing' and the airliner being 'buffeted by strong winds'. Media panic?
This is not necessarily supported by the photograph however. All we see is an airliner coming in 'wing low'.
Any pilot in the audience will recognise this as a standard option available to pilots in strong cross winds and does not imply buffeting or a bumpy landing. There are two approaches available to pilots which may be used alone or in combination.
The first is the crab approach whereby the aircraft is kept level but pointing in to the wind, hence the name as it appears to be crabbing sideways down the runway. This requires the pilot to straighten the aircraft just before touchdown. Too early and the aircraft will drift sideways, too late and there will be excessive load on the landing gear and a jerk as the aircraft pulls straight.
The second approach, which may be what is displayed here, is the wing down approach which allows the aircraft to sideslip into the wind while remaining straight down the runway. It has the advantage that it can often be maintained until touchdown. Where a risk does exist however is if the bank angle exceeds a certain aircraft specific figure which means there is a risk of the wingtip or an engine touching the runway.
Airline pilots are highly trained for these situations, aircraft are designed to handle them, only the media like to hype it up to generate a story.
The caption refers to 'bumpy landing' and the airliner being 'buffeted by strong winds'. Media panic?
This is not necessarily supported by the photograph however. All we see is an airliner coming in 'wing low'.
Any pilot in the audience will recognise this as a standard option available to pilots in strong cross winds and does not imply buffeting or a bumpy landing. There are two approaches available to pilots which may be used alone or in combination.
The first is the crab approach whereby the aircraft is kept level but pointing in to the wind, hence the name as it appears to be crabbing sideways down the runway. This requires the pilot to straighten the aircraft just before touchdown. Too early and the aircraft will drift sideways, too late and there will be excessive load on the landing gear and a jerk as the aircraft pulls straight.
The second approach, which may be what is displayed here, is the wing down approach which allows the aircraft to sideslip into the wind while remaining straight down the runway. It has the advantage that it can often be maintained until touchdown. Where a risk does exist however is if the bank angle exceeds a certain aircraft specific figure which means there is a risk of the wingtip or an engine touching the runway.
Airline pilots are highly trained for these situations, aircraft are designed to handle them, only the media like to hype it up to generate a story.
The Wind Turbine Fallacy
As our government and environmentalists make ever greater demands for alternative power sources for when fossil fuels run out, more investment is being made in wind farms.
The recent bad weather in Scotland and northern England however is demonstrating why this won't work.
In strong winds, wind turbines have to be stopped. I believe this is achieved by both 'feathering' the blades to reduce their thrust to zero and also by applying a brake to prevent the rotor from turning.
In low winds the turbines just don't turn anyway as there is insufficient strength.
As a result we are left with a relatively narrow window of conditions in which wind turbines can produce any power. It gets worse however in that we don't have the infrastructure to take all the power they can produce when we are in the right zone so suppliers are paid to turn them off!
In the news today, I read of the wind turbines damaged by the wind! Both in Scotland, one of them has caught fire - as yet the cause is unconfirmed but it could well be that it was rotating against it's brake and hence building up heat, the second just simply blew over.
These incidents are not isolated, in the past there have been incidents of turbines losing blades whilst operating. The consequences of that striking someone or damaging property could be very serious, not to mention any further damage that may be caused by an out of balance turbine continuing to rotate.
So they are inefficient, provide power in fits and starts depending on the weather, and are potentially very dangerous.
Time to look elsewhere for our alternative energy sources I believe.
The recent bad weather in Scotland and northern England however is demonstrating why this won't work.
In strong winds, wind turbines have to be stopped. I believe this is achieved by both 'feathering' the blades to reduce their thrust to zero and also by applying a brake to prevent the rotor from turning.
In low winds the turbines just don't turn anyway as there is insufficient strength.
As a result we are left with a relatively narrow window of conditions in which wind turbines can produce any power. It gets worse however in that we don't have the infrastructure to take all the power they can produce when we are in the right zone so suppliers are paid to turn them off!
In the news today, I read of the wind turbines damaged by the wind! Both in Scotland, one of them has caught fire - as yet the cause is unconfirmed but it could well be that it was rotating against it's brake and hence building up heat, the second just simply blew over.
These incidents are not isolated, in the past there have been incidents of turbines losing blades whilst operating. The consequences of that striking someone or damaging property could be very serious, not to mention any further damage that may be caused by an out of balance turbine continuing to rotate.
So they are inefficient, provide power in fits and starts depending on the weather, and are potentially very dangerous.
Time to look elsewhere for our alternative energy sources I believe.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
London Olympics 2012
We hear in the news that yet more of our money may be required for the 2012 London Olympics.
This is a ridiculous waste of public money.
Jobs are being lost in the public sector, services are being reduced, taxation is increasing. Why are we not capping the spend on the Olympics? We cannot afford to spend any more and it looks like a number of the promised benefits may well not be realised.
During the Olympics it appears that travel in London will become much more difficult as the public transport system struggles to cope and the roads become more congested, especially in areas where there are the special lanes for competitors and VIPs.
This will have the most impact upon those who live and work in London and is likely to be rather disruptive.
So what benefits will we get:
Increased tourism? Possibly not as many have announced they will not visit due to the expected congestion so we will find the visitors to the games will merely replace those who are no longer comings as tourists.
New facilities? Maybe but the Velodrome is rather specialised, the Aquatic Centre is similar and the main stadium is probably going to be sold or given to a football team and used for little else. Remember the Millennium Dome, now the O2 Arena, which cost the taxpayer a fortune before being more or less given away.
Improved transport? Better links to an area where many will not wish to go - great!
The London Olympics is just a case of trying to show off to the rest of the world. We should never have looked to host the Olympics and given that we have no way to back out, we must keep a lid on the costs before it cripples the country.
This is a ridiculous waste of public money.
Jobs are being lost in the public sector, services are being reduced, taxation is increasing. Why are we not capping the spend on the Olympics? We cannot afford to spend any more and it looks like a number of the promised benefits may well not be realised.
During the Olympics it appears that travel in London will become much more difficult as the public transport system struggles to cope and the roads become more congested, especially in areas where there are the special lanes for competitors and VIPs.
This will have the most impact upon those who live and work in London and is likely to be rather disruptive.
So what benefits will we get:
Increased tourism? Possibly not as many have announced they will not visit due to the expected congestion so we will find the visitors to the games will merely replace those who are no longer comings as tourists.
New facilities? Maybe but the Velodrome is rather specialised, the Aquatic Centre is similar and the main stadium is probably going to be sold or given to a football team and used for little else. Remember the Millennium Dome, now the O2 Arena, which cost the taxpayer a fortune before being more or less given away.
Improved transport? Better links to an area where many will not wish to go - great!
The London Olympics is just a case of trying to show off to the rest of the world. We should never have looked to host the Olympics and given that we have no way to back out, we must keep a lid on the costs before it cripples the country.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Jeremy Clarkson on The One Show
It has to be said that Mr Clarkson knows how to upset people. I know he is normally controversial but this time he has really offended people.
The comment on last night's show about shooting strikers could be considered harsh but is only an opionion.
However I feel we cannot accept his remarks about being delayed in his journey when a person has been hit by a train. If it was suicide then someone has clearly been in a very bad place in their mind. Whether suicide or accident there are still those left behind to feel for.
At the time of writing I understand that the BBC has issued an apology but I think Jeremy Clarkson should make a very visible public apology.
The comment on last night's show about shooting strikers could be considered harsh but is only an opionion.
However I feel we cannot accept his remarks about being delayed in his journey when a person has been hit by a train. If it was suicide then someone has clearly been in a very bad place in their mind. Whether suicide or accident there are still those left behind to feel for.
At the time of writing I understand that the BBC has issued an apology but I think Jeremy Clarkson should make a very visible public apology.
Monday, November 28, 2011
Contactless Payment
It seems the in thing from banks now is 'contactless payment'. This allows small transactions to be made without putting your payment card into a reader, and for the majority of transactions, without entering a PIN
On the surface this seems like a good thing, eliminating the fiddling around for small change and speeding up these transactions. However it appears that we have another case whereby neither side is prepared to invest in a full roll out.
To be of much use, not only do the majority of card suppliers need to offer it, but also we need a large infrastructure in the places where it could be useful.
I read recently that my bank would be implementing the technology from December 2011 on it's Visa cards. As my Visa debit card with them was due for renewal soon I thought I would ask whether my replacement card would include this technology.
Their response was - No, we are not implementing this in our debit cards at present and cannot say when and if we will do so in future. Seemingly it is being implemented in credit cards only. It will also be added to a very small number of smartphones, but again charged either to a credit card or phone account.
Most people like myself would not wish to run up all these transactions on a credit card, the debit card being the logical option as it replaces visits to the cash machine.
So from the point of cards, it seems we have a limited roll out.
Now look at the other side, the places where they can be used. So far this appears to be some coffee shops and I have seen them in Little Chef. I don't frequent coffee shops often and a typical LC bill would exceed the £15 limit on these transactions anyway.
How about implementing it on buses and trams, and small shops where people do make small transactions typically in cash? Unlikely to happen because the retailer is unlikely to see a benefit for the investment they will have to make in the readers.
So we are stuck. Card suppliers will be reluctant to make it widely available as there are few places to use it, retailers will be reluctant to invest as their are so few cards out there. Catch 22.
If it is so wonderful then why don't the promoters (who I assume to be the banks and card companies) back it properly and get a decent roll out?
I wonder if the fact that it's fraud implications haven't yet been fully tested is also worrying some. With a limit of £15 per transaction and a request for a PIN being likely to be made only every 5 or so transactions it would be possible for a stolen card to be used for say £60 before it is even noticed. Are the card issuers / banks prepared to fund this?
On the surface this seems like a good thing, eliminating the fiddling around for small change and speeding up these transactions. However it appears that we have another case whereby neither side is prepared to invest in a full roll out.
To be of much use, not only do the majority of card suppliers need to offer it, but also we need a large infrastructure in the places where it could be useful.
I read recently that my bank would be implementing the technology from December 2011 on it's Visa cards. As my Visa debit card with them was due for renewal soon I thought I would ask whether my replacement card would include this technology.
Their response was - No, we are not implementing this in our debit cards at present and cannot say when and if we will do so in future. Seemingly it is being implemented in credit cards only. It will also be added to a very small number of smartphones, but again charged either to a credit card or phone account.
Most people like myself would not wish to run up all these transactions on a credit card, the debit card being the logical option as it replaces visits to the cash machine.
So from the point of cards, it seems we have a limited roll out.
Now look at the other side, the places where they can be used. So far this appears to be some coffee shops and I have seen them in Little Chef. I don't frequent coffee shops often and a typical LC bill would exceed the £15 limit on these transactions anyway.
How about implementing it on buses and trams, and small shops where people do make small transactions typically in cash? Unlikely to happen because the retailer is unlikely to see a benefit for the investment they will have to make in the readers.
So we are stuck. Card suppliers will be reluctant to make it widely available as there are few places to use it, retailers will be reluctant to invest as their are so few cards out there. Catch 22.
If it is so wonderful then why don't the promoters (who I assume to be the banks and card companies) back it properly and get a decent roll out?
I wonder if the fact that it's fraud implications haven't yet been fully tested is also worrying some. With a limit of £15 per transaction and a request for a PIN being likely to be made only every 5 or so transactions it would be possible for a stolen card to be used for say £60 before it is even noticed. Are the card issuers / banks prepared to fund this?
Friday, November 25, 2011
The lunatics have taken over the asylum
The world is getting weirder by the day - I am beginning to wonder when listening to the news or reading the paper (any paper) whether everyday is now April the 1st.
Two recent news items only serve to help in this perception.
The first is a government minister who claims that despite continually rising energy prices, fed in part by taxes for renewable energy, our bills will be smaller in 2020. Who are they kidding?
This year alone most energy suppliers have had a series of price hikes, with the latest round being in the range of 10 to 20 percent. The minister supported the claim by suggesting our use of energy will fall more than enough to compensate for the increased unit costs.
Personally I cannot see how I can save 10 percent of my present energy use. I already have a well insulated home, switch electrical equipment off when not in use, have low energy light bulbs and even switch those off.
A wind turbine on the roof will be pointless and will likely never recoup it's purchase and installation costs, likewise the calculations I have done (and had from Solar Energy suppliers) indicate that that too will always run at a loss.
We need to see a return on our renewables tax in the form of cheaper, more effective renewable energy supplies otherwise there really is no point.
The second news item is even more unbelievable - the Isle of Wight is to become a self sufficient island and eco friendly.
This will be achieved by installing an army of wind turbines, acres of solar panels, geothermal energy plants. To supplement this there will be recycling on a massive scale, fleets of electric cars and doubtless houses will be insulated to the point where the inside space shrinks to nothing!
I have just looked at their brochure - it talks of plans for the period 2008 to 2010, so we should already have the EcoIsland we are promised, but somehow I doubt it.
If I were to visit the island again (having not been for over 15 years now) I suspect I would not notice any of the eco improvements - perhaps someone can prove me wrong. I believe that even the wind turbine factory has closed down, so any turbines would have to be manufactured elsewhere and imported with all the associated carbon footprint.
Two recent news items only serve to help in this perception.
The first is a government minister who claims that despite continually rising energy prices, fed in part by taxes for renewable energy, our bills will be smaller in 2020. Who are they kidding?
This year alone most energy suppliers have had a series of price hikes, with the latest round being in the range of 10 to 20 percent. The minister supported the claim by suggesting our use of energy will fall more than enough to compensate for the increased unit costs.
Personally I cannot see how I can save 10 percent of my present energy use. I already have a well insulated home, switch electrical equipment off when not in use, have low energy light bulbs and even switch those off.
A wind turbine on the roof will be pointless and will likely never recoup it's purchase and installation costs, likewise the calculations I have done (and had from Solar Energy suppliers) indicate that that too will always run at a loss.
We need to see a return on our renewables tax in the form of cheaper, more effective renewable energy supplies otherwise there really is no point.
The second news item is even more unbelievable - the Isle of Wight is to become a self sufficient island and eco friendly.
This will be achieved by installing an army of wind turbines, acres of solar panels, geothermal energy plants. To supplement this there will be recycling on a massive scale, fleets of electric cars and doubtless houses will be insulated to the point where the inside space shrinks to nothing!
I have just looked at their brochure - it talks of plans for the period 2008 to 2010, so we should already have the EcoIsland we are promised, but somehow I doubt it.
If I were to visit the island again (having not been for over 15 years now) I suspect I would not notice any of the eco improvements - perhaps someone can prove me wrong. I believe that even the wind turbine factory has closed down, so any turbines would have to be manufactured elsewhere and imported with all the associated carbon footprint.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
How not to run a restaurant
Recently we have had a new restaurant open just a few miles away.
This is part of the Chiquito chain and replaces an 'Old Orleans' restaurant that has been on the site for many years and although frequently quiet, served very good food, with good service.
The new Chiquito restaurant however has gone to the opposite extreme by being moderately busy but offering poor food and disappointing service.
On entering the restaurant we did have to wait a while before being seated, not because of a shortage of tables but because all the staff were running around, heads down and prodding away at their electronic order devices with a stylus.
We were duly shown to a table - standard fit I suppose, just too small to do the job! The waitress was pleasant but struggled with the electronic device and could have taken the order in a fraction of the time if only she was allowed to use a pad and pencil!
The first course arrived OK and tasted very good - no problem there. The trouble started when the main courses arrived. Given that we were a table of only two it should be within their capability to ensure both meals arrived together, but no they were slightly staggered in timing. I should have expected this because a nearby table had theirs delivered in three lots for a table of four!
I had ordered the fajitas which were excellent but this is where the small table got in the way. The tray with everything on is quite large and by the time you have your drinks on the table it becomes very crowded.
My wife ordered the chicken burger. This was where it all went downhill fast. The chicken in the burger was extremely dry and tough. We duly summoned the waitress, who had to call a manager because she was clearly not empowered to do anything.
A somewhat unkempt individual came to the table, and arranged for the chef to prepare a replacement, calling to the chef 'make sure you do it really nicely this time' - something that could be heard by the other customers.
The replacement burger was equally dry and tough despite this and once again the waitress was summoned, who then of course had to find the manager again. We decided that we had had enough and were going to leave. Graciously the manager agreed to not charge for the inedible food.
When the bill arrived, the way in which it was presented was confusing. So once again we asked the waitress, who summoned a manager (get the picture?).
This manager was far more smartly attired and professional in his manner and explained the confusion on the bill. He also did more to try and make up for the problems. However by now we had had enough, paid the bill and left.
This is clearly NOT how to run a restaurant. OK, it is new but I think the staff were poorly utilised, the electronic order machines took them away from being customer focused (and slowed them down) and at least one of the managers could learn about customer service. It would also help if the waitresses were empowered to address issues such as this themselves, OK not the cancellation from the bill but certainly organising a replacement meal.
I was extremely disappointed with the experience and given the price of the meals I am very reluctant to try the restaurant again.
The chain had a customer feedback survey on the Internet to which all customers are invited to respond. I reported my experience, fully expecting to be contacted further. As yet - nothing.
This is part of the Chiquito chain and replaces an 'Old Orleans' restaurant that has been on the site for many years and although frequently quiet, served very good food, with good service.
The new Chiquito restaurant however has gone to the opposite extreme by being moderately busy but offering poor food and disappointing service.
On entering the restaurant we did have to wait a while before being seated, not because of a shortage of tables but because all the staff were running around, heads down and prodding away at their electronic order devices with a stylus.
We were duly shown to a table - standard fit I suppose, just too small to do the job! The waitress was pleasant but struggled with the electronic device and could have taken the order in a fraction of the time if only she was allowed to use a pad and pencil!
The first course arrived OK and tasted very good - no problem there. The trouble started when the main courses arrived. Given that we were a table of only two it should be within their capability to ensure both meals arrived together, but no they were slightly staggered in timing. I should have expected this because a nearby table had theirs delivered in three lots for a table of four!
I had ordered the fajitas which were excellent but this is where the small table got in the way. The tray with everything on is quite large and by the time you have your drinks on the table it becomes very crowded.
My wife ordered the chicken burger. This was where it all went downhill fast. The chicken in the burger was extremely dry and tough. We duly summoned the waitress, who had to call a manager because she was clearly not empowered to do anything.
A somewhat unkempt individual came to the table, and arranged for the chef to prepare a replacement, calling to the chef 'make sure you do it really nicely this time' - something that could be heard by the other customers.
The replacement burger was equally dry and tough despite this and once again the waitress was summoned, who then of course had to find the manager again. We decided that we had had enough and were going to leave. Graciously the manager agreed to not charge for the inedible food.
When the bill arrived, the way in which it was presented was confusing. So once again we asked the waitress, who summoned a manager (get the picture?).
This manager was far more smartly attired and professional in his manner and explained the confusion on the bill. He also did more to try and make up for the problems. However by now we had had enough, paid the bill and left.
This is clearly NOT how to run a restaurant. OK, it is new but I think the staff were poorly utilised, the electronic order machines took them away from being customer focused (and slowed them down) and at least one of the managers could learn about customer service. It would also help if the waitresses were empowered to address issues such as this themselves, OK not the cancellation from the bill but certainly organising a replacement meal.
I was extremely disappointed with the experience and given the price of the meals I am very reluctant to try the restaurant again.
The chain had a customer feedback survey on the Internet to which all customers are invited to respond. I reported my experience, fully expecting to be contacted further. As yet - nothing.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Supermarket Price Matches
In these difficult economic times it is not surprising that the supermarkets are upping the game when competing against each other. The latest weapon appears to be price matching. So far I have seen two ways of doing this.
With Asda, after shopping you have to visit their website, enter some details from your receipt and if using their rules your shopping would have been cheaper in their competitors then they give you a voucher to use when you next shop with them.
So far so good and after an initial problem whereby they failed to make it clear that it only applied to grocery items it seems to be working. I even managed to get one of these vouchers after getting a basket of shopping in which they considered there were enough (minimum of eight) comparable items.
There is of course the issue of comparable items and these are quite often branded items, which you may not buy, especially if buying on a budget. The other issue of course is that you have to take action to get your voucher by visiting the website, printing off the voucher and then taking it and the original till receipt with you when wish to redeem it (looks like they are at least valid for a month though).
Sainsbury's have now taken up the idea, but they make it simpler in that they do the sums for you at the checkout. Here when you finish the process the till prints the voucher for you. I think they do however only offer this on branded goods and not on own brand so perhaps even less chance of meeting the criteria if you shop to a budget.
Why don't they just reduce their prices to match their competitors so there is no need for all this messing around? I can think of two simple reasons immediately and I am sure my readers can come up with many more.
The one the supermarkets will quote is the frequently changing prices will be difficult to manage in terms of shelf edge pricing tickets having to be regularly updated. This is a bit of a cop out because I have encountered issues in all the major supermarkets where the shelf edge price is at odds with the till price due to an error or oversight. This is also easy to address with technology. It has been some years now since I met electronic shelf edge pricing in a retail organisation I worked with which meant that the price displayed on the shelf was driven from the same data as the tills. This also simplifies the introduction of special offers etc.
The second, and the one that they won't tell you is that there will be two groups of customers who help fund this.
Customers whose basket of goods doesn't meet the criteria for the price match and therefore they pay the higher price, which earns revenue that would not be there if the price was kept in line, and customers who qualify for the price match and either do not check (in the case of Asda) or do not redeem their vouchers.
These two groups will help cover the costs of the scheme.
As a footnote, sometimes I shop in Asda when it would cost more in fuel to go to my usual store. Every time that I have met the criteria for the price guarantee it turns out that my usual store (Tesco) would have been cheaper! Therefore I qualify for the voucher (and use it).
This means I revisit the more expensive store to use my voucher - crafty marketing eh?
At least I am reassured that my choice of Tesco for my major shop is the right one for me.
Legal disclaimer: Choice of supermarket is personal and for my profile and in this area Tesco is the best choice. Other supermarkets are available.
With Asda, after shopping you have to visit their website, enter some details from your receipt and if using their rules your shopping would have been cheaper in their competitors then they give you a voucher to use when you next shop with them.
So far so good and after an initial problem whereby they failed to make it clear that it only applied to grocery items it seems to be working. I even managed to get one of these vouchers after getting a basket of shopping in which they considered there were enough (minimum of eight) comparable items.
There is of course the issue of comparable items and these are quite often branded items, which you may not buy, especially if buying on a budget. The other issue of course is that you have to take action to get your voucher by visiting the website, printing off the voucher and then taking it and the original till receipt with you when wish to redeem it (looks like they are at least valid for a month though).
Sainsbury's have now taken up the idea, but they make it simpler in that they do the sums for you at the checkout. Here when you finish the process the till prints the voucher for you. I think they do however only offer this on branded goods and not on own brand so perhaps even less chance of meeting the criteria if you shop to a budget.
Why don't they just reduce their prices to match their competitors so there is no need for all this messing around? I can think of two simple reasons immediately and I am sure my readers can come up with many more.
The one the supermarkets will quote is the frequently changing prices will be difficult to manage in terms of shelf edge pricing tickets having to be regularly updated. This is a bit of a cop out because I have encountered issues in all the major supermarkets where the shelf edge price is at odds with the till price due to an error or oversight. This is also easy to address with technology. It has been some years now since I met electronic shelf edge pricing in a retail organisation I worked with which meant that the price displayed on the shelf was driven from the same data as the tills. This also simplifies the introduction of special offers etc.
The second, and the one that they won't tell you is that there will be two groups of customers who help fund this.
Customers whose basket of goods doesn't meet the criteria for the price match and therefore they pay the higher price, which earns revenue that would not be there if the price was kept in line, and customers who qualify for the price match and either do not check (in the case of Asda) or do not redeem their vouchers.
These two groups will help cover the costs of the scheme.
As a footnote, sometimes I shop in Asda when it would cost more in fuel to go to my usual store. Every time that I have met the criteria for the price guarantee it turns out that my usual store (Tesco) would have been cheaper! Therefore I qualify for the voucher (and use it).
This means I revisit the more expensive store to use my voucher - crafty marketing eh?
At least I am reassured that my choice of Tesco for my major shop is the right one for me.
Legal disclaimer: Choice of supermarket is personal and for my profile and in this area Tesco is the best choice. Other supermarkets are available.
Monday, November 7, 2011
Strike Ballots
As we approach the 30th of November when a number of unions in the UK have planned to strike to make their point to the government about pensions I felt it was time to look at the ballots they hold.
A fine example of this is the Unison ballot.
As a percentage of those voting it seemed that there was a reasonable number of their members who supported the strike action propose by the union. I believe the figure was in the region of 78% of those who voted.
The problem however lies in the very low turnout for the ballot. If you take the number of yes votes as a percentage of the total balloted membership then the number voting for action falls to less than 23%.
We have on of two problems here (or perhaps both). Either members think that by not voting they will be counted as a no, or there is apathy about the result.
One way or another I think it needs to be changed to ensure that a strike cannot be called unless a majority of the total membership express a desire to strike. Whether this is achieved by making voting mandatory, or setting targets that ensure a higher percentage is required to call a strike if there is a lower turnout.
Neither are likely to be particularly well received, and certainly the latter would have been a problem in the recent ballot as the turnout was in the region of one third of those entitled to vote.
I do believe these people have the right to express their grievances, but it should be decided by a majority and not by a few hardened activists.
A fine example of this is the Unison ballot.
As a percentage of those voting it seemed that there was a reasonable number of their members who supported the strike action propose by the union. I believe the figure was in the region of 78% of those who voted.
The problem however lies in the very low turnout for the ballot. If you take the number of yes votes as a percentage of the total balloted membership then the number voting for action falls to less than 23%.
We have on of two problems here (or perhaps both). Either members think that by not voting they will be counted as a no, or there is apathy about the result.
One way or another I think it needs to be changed to ensure that a strike cannot be called unless a majority of the total membership express a desire to strike. Whether this is achieved by making voting mandatory, or setting targets that ensure a higher percentage is required to call a strike if there is a lower turnout.
Neither are likely to be particularly well received, and certainly the latter would have been a problem in the recent ballot as the turnout was in the region of one third of those entitled to vote.
I do believe these people have the right to express their grievances, but it should be decided by a majority and not by a few hardened activists.
Motorway Speed Limits
For some time now there have been proposals to increase the motorway speed limit in the UK to 80mph (or its kph equivalent when the EU interferes!)
Personally I think this is a good idea with one caveat - it needs to be enforced properly. Given that it appears many drivers already travel at this sort of speed, enforcing it positively will not mean much of an increase overall - though drivers who presently obey the 70 limit may well travel faster.
Opponents claim that speed kills and increasing the limit will increase road deaths. This is somewhat of a fallacy as it is inappropriate speed that kills. There are many instances where 70mph is far too fast on the motorway.
Only recently we had the horrific accident on the M5 near Taunton. I have no intention of second guessing the investigation into the cause but given the reported weather conditions at the time it would strike me that this is one of the cases where 70mph would be far too fast.
I had a very personal experience of this some years ago, travelling north on the M6 near Birmingham. As I was driving the fog became thicker and thicker to the point where I had slowed to about 20mph and was frightened by trucks overtaking with a very high relative speed.
With the conditions worsening I made the decision to leave the motorway at the next service station, contemplating spending the night there. I went for a coffee and a meal and after an hour or so reviewed the weather. There had been a significant improvement so I decided to refuel and continue my journey.
Whilst fuelling I talked to a driver who had just pulled off the motorway who told me of an accident that he had just passed. It would appear that on the southbound carriageway there had been a significant pile up which had then triggered further accidents both in the traffic slowing down behind it and also on the northbound carriageway as people slowed to 'rubber-neck' the southbound carriageway. Apparently drivers were still being caught out and he felt that more collisions could occur.
Drivers must adapt to the weather and road conditions. The speed limit is just that, a limit, not a target to be achieved at all times.
I have however witnessed an amusing incident whereby a driver whilst probably travelling within the legal limit was too fast for the road conditions / his ability. Traffic on the motorway had come to a crawl as a result of an accident and most drivers were filtering into lane one as indicated by the police Range Rover in lane two. One driver was however not paying attention and by the time he braked it was too late and in a cloud of tyre smoke he slid into the back of the police vehicle. Fortunately it seems that no one was injured as he had slowed a lot but I would have loved to have heard his explanation to the officer whose car he had hit. Given that it was fully lit with flashing blues, the red lights they use and a message board he could hardly deny having seen it.
Our sympathies should be with those affected by the horrendous accident on the M5, and others, but it should not be used as a reason not to increase the speed limit.
Personally I think this is a good idea with one caveat - it needs to be enforced properly. Given that it appears many drivers already travel at this sort of speed, enforcing it positively will not mean much of an increase overall - though drivers who presently obey the 70 limit may well travel faster.
Opponents claim that speed kills and increasing the limit will increase road deaths. This is somewhat of a fallacy as it is inappropriate speed that kills. There are many instances where 70mph is far too fast on the motorway.
Only recently we had the horrific accident on the M5 near Taunton. I have no intention of second guessing the investigation into the cause but given the reported weather conditions at the time it would strike me that this is one of the cases where 70mph would be far too fast.
I had a very personal experience of this some years ago, travelling north on the M6 near Birmingham. As I was driving the fog became thicker and thicker to the point where I had slowed to about 20mph and was frightened by trucks overtaking with a very high relative speed.
With the conditions worsening I made the decision to leave the motorway at the next service station, contemplating spending the night there. I went for a coffee and a meal and after an hour or so reviewed the weather. There had been a significant improvement so I decided to refuel and continue my journey.
Whilst fuelling I talked to a driver who had just pulled off the motorway who told me of an accident that he had just passed. It would appear that on the southbound carriageway there had been a significant pile up which had then triggered further accidents both in the traffic slowing down behind it and also on the northbound carriageway as people slowed to 'rubber-neck' the southbound carriageway. Apparently drivers were still being caught out and he felt that more collisions could occur.
Drivers must adapt to the weather and road conditions. The speed limit is just that, a limit, not a target to be achieved at all times.
I have however witnessed an amusing incident whereby a driver whilst probably travelling within the legal limit was too fast for the road conditions / his ability. Traffic on the motorway had come to a crawl as a result of an accident and most drivers were filtering into lane one as indicated by the police Range Rover in lane two. One driver was however not paying attention and by the time he braked it was too late and in a cloud of tyre smoke he slid into the back of the police vehicle. Fortunately it seems that no one was injured as he had slowed a lot but I would have loved to have heard his explanation to the officer whose car he had hit. Given that it was fully lit with flashing blues, the red lights they use and a message board he could hardly deny having seen it.
Our sympathies should be with those affected by the horrendous accident on the M5, and others, but it should not be used as a reason not to increase the speed limit.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Archbishop of Canterbury and the Tobin Tax
The news today reports that the Archbishop of Canterbury backs the introduction of the so called Tobin Tax on financial transactions.
Apart from the fact that I strongly believe that church and state should be totally separate, has he considered the implications of the tax?
I suggest he has not fully thought it through.
For starters, a tax on trading will be payable by the church on all the transactions it carries out in this field. Those managing the church investment portfolio will perhaps then look to trade in countries which are not subject to the same taxation, which may well be where many of the financial institutions from the City of London decide to relocate also.
Secondly, the proceeds are supposed to go to helping fund social projects and investments. We have all seen from the lottery that many so called good causes are anything but.
Finally, what will be the cost of administering all this. I remember in the days of CB radio, the government freely admitted that the cost of issuing and tracking licenses far outweighed the revenue earned from them - hence nowadays CBs are licence free. Someone somewhere has to pay for another group of bean counters to administer this.
You've guessed it. The taxpayer will pay but no one will really benefit!
Apart from the fact that I strongly believe that church and state should be totally separate, has he considered the implications of the tax?
I suggest he has not fully thought it through.
For starters, a tax on trading will be payable by the church on all the transactions it carries out in this field. Those managing the church investment portfolio will perhaps then look to trade in countries which are not subject to the same taxation, which may well be where many of the financial institutions from the City of London decide to relocate also.
Secondly, the proceeds are supposed to go to helping fund social projects and investments. We have all seen from the lottery that many so called good causes are anything but.
Finally, what will be the cost of administering all this. I remember in the days of CB radio, the government freely admitted that the cost of issuing and tracking licenses far outweighed the revenue earned from them - hence nowadays CBs are licence free. Someone somewhere has to pay for another group of bean counters to administer this.
You've guessed it. The taxpayer will pay but no one will really benefit!
Archbishop of Canterbury - Capitalist?
In the news we read that the Archbishop of Canterbury has spoken out about the so called invasion of St Paul's. Apparently he backs the protesters.
First I think it is necessary to correct the media, no invasion of the cathedral took place as the protesters were outside the building and were at the time given permission to be on the church land by the chancellor of the church.
Secondly the target was not the cathedral but the nearby London Stock Exchange.
My understanding is that the protest is about capitalism. So perhaps they do want to target the church. We have seen in recent days that the church is threatening to withdraw their investment from Internet service providers if they do not address the issue of porn.
I find it commendable that the church wishes to address porn but do think that they ought to address issues in the church before telling the rest of the world what to do.
What does strike me as odd is the fact that the church has so much money invested in this way. What we are seeing is just one element of a massive financial organisation. Investing in ISPs is a very roundabout way of supporting the needy (I think that was one of the stated aims of the church).
So is the church just a capitalist organisation just like the others the protesters are attacking? It seems to me that it is, after all it raises considerable income (including admission charges for cathedrals and profit from trading on Sunday (making people work on Sunday by definition), which it then invests in a variety of portfolios to make profit.
Yet when a church needs a new roof, or the bells need work we see the familiar thermometer on the side of the building and a plea for donations - this should be covered by existing funds.
When there is a disaster in this country, for example the flooding in Cumbria from which many are still recovering, how much input is there from the church? Not a lot that I have seen, though the community supports itself and often companies offer support to those affected.
I have long since wondered about the openness of the church and it's accounting. When I was younger and before I recovered from religion I remember two things.
The first was thinking how much money must be taken in the collection plate, or nowadays by direct debit from the faithful.
The second was at my wedding - my wife and I had to pay various fees, which I have no problem with, but in cash in envelopes. Some would say that that was to avoid banking charges but to be fair the charge for banking a cheque is trivial compared to the amounts involved. So the other possible explanation is that the moneys received were perhaps not accurately recorded and accounted for.
Before anyone gets on their soapbox, I am merely speculating here and not accusing any one of wrongdoing - but the method used leaves itself open to such speculation.
The accounts for the Church of England for 2010 make very interesting reading, both in terms of the amount of assets the church has but also for little nuggets like the fact that seventeen members of staff within the church have emoluments (good word) of between £60,000 and £310,000 with five of them getting over £100,000.
Clearly doing god's work pays quite well.
As a final humorous note, if the local church went on Dragon's Den to seek investment for roof repairs or the like, the dragons would ask what assets the parent organisation had. After reviewing this they would all declare themselves out on the grounds that the need should be addressed with existing funds.
First I think it is necessary to correct the media, no invasion of the cathedral took place as the protesters were outside the building and were at the time given permission to be on the church land by the chancellor of the church.
Secondly the target was not the cathedral but the nearby London Stock Exchange.
My understanding is that the protest is about capitalism. So perhaps they do want to target the church. We have seen in recent days that the church is threatening to withdraw their investment from Internet service providers if they do not address the issue of porn.
I find it commendable that the church wishes to address porn but do think that they ought to address issues in the church before telling the rest of the world what to do.
What does strike me as odd is the fact that the church has so much money invested in this way. What we are seeing is just one element of a massive financial organisation. Investing in ISPs is a very roundabout way of supporting the needy (I think that was one of the stated aims of the church).
So is the church just a capitalist organisation just like the others the protesters are attacking? It seems to me that it is, after all it raises considerable income (including admission charges for cathedrals and profit from trading on Sunday (making people work on Sunday by definition), which it then invests in a variety of portfolios to make profit.
Yet when a church needs a new roof, or the bells need work we see the familiar thermometer on the side of the building and a plea for donations - this should be covered by existing funds.
When there is a disaster in this country, for example the flooding in Cumbria from which many are still recovering, how much input is there from the church? Not a lot that I have seen, though the community supports itself and often companies offer support to those affected.
I have long since wondered about the openness of the church and it's accounting. When I was younger and before I recovered from religion I remember two things.
The first was thinking how much money must be taken in the collection plate, or nowadays by direct debit from the faithful.
The second was at my wedding - my wife and I had to pay various fees, which I have no problem with, but in cash in envelopes. Some would say that that was to avoid banking charges but to be fair the charge for banking a cheque is trivial compared to the amounts involved. So the other possible explanation is that the moneys received were perhaps not accurately recorded and accounted for.
Before anyone gets on their soapbox, I am merely speculating here and not accusing any one of wrongdoing - but the method used leaves itself open to such speculation.
The accounts for the Church of England for 2010 make very interesting reading, both in terms of the amount of assets the church has but also for little nuggets like the fact that seventeen members of staff within the church have emoluments (good word) of between £60,000 and £310,000 with five of them getting over £100,000.
Clearly doing god's work pays quite well.
As a final humorous note, if the local church went on Dragon's Den to seek investment for roof repairs or the like, the dragons would ask what assets the parent organisation had. After reviewing this they would all declare themselves out on the grounds that the need should be addressed with existing funds.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Religious Indoctrination?
About six weeks ago I visited my sister and her family. During the visit my twelve year old niece asked if we could all help with her homework from her RE class.
The task set for the homework was to ask four people if they believed in god and why (or why not). I have to say I was appalled that such a biased question had been asked, and not only that but many people's beliefs are very much private and the school was assuming that they would wish to discuss them.
I was quite happy to say I am an atheist, but that the reasons why would take up more than the few words the school would expect and to be fair I don't feel I need to explain myself to them.
I checked the school's RE curriculum and found that basically they preach Christianity (I don't think that is too strong a word) and make a brief mention of Islam - beyond that there may be five minutes a year where they mention atheism and other faiths.
Therefore it doesn't surprise me that they phrased the question in this way but I feel it would be better if it were to be multi part. Firstly, would you mind me asking about your views on religion, secondly if OK then what religion if any do you follow and finally, would you like to say a few words on why this is your choice.
My brother in law wrote to the school explaining that he was not happy with this homework that had been set and received a rather abrupt response that the purpose was to provide a topic for discussion in class. Clearly the teacher felt that by rigging the question the discussion could be kept in line with the school's RE curriculum.
Furthermore my niece was then taken out of class whereupon the teacher expressed surprise that she had not completed the homework, despite the fact that her father had explained why.
So here we have a school which promotes a biased view of religion, uses homework to reinforce the bias and finally takes issue with those who choose to have their own opinions.
Perhaps if should be renamed the 'George Orwell School of 1984'
Footnote:
My nephew attends the same school and is three years older than his sister. He has managed to ignore the indoctrination and has chosen to be an atheist. I must add that he made this decision independently and was not to my knowledge influenced by my atheism, certainly I had not discussed my views or beliefs regarding this with him until after he had made his views clear.
The task set for the homework was to ask four people if they believed in god and why (or why not). I have to say I was appalled that such a biased question had been asked, and not only that but many people's beliefs are very much private and the school was assuming that they would wish to discuss them.
I was quite happy to say I am an atheist, but that the reasons why would take up more than the few words the school would expect and to be fair I don't feel I need to explain myself to them.
I checked the school's RE curriculum and found that basically they preach Christianity (I don't think that is too strong a word) and make a brief mention of Islam - beyond that there may be five minutes a year where they mention atheism and other faiths.
Therefore it doesn't surprise me that they phrased the question in this way but I feel it would be better if it were to be multi part. Firstly, would you mind me asking about your views on religion, secondly if OK then what religion if any do you follow and finally, would you like to say a few words on why this is your choice.
My brother in law wrote to the school explaining that he was not happy with this homework that had been set and received a rather abrupt response that the purpose was to provide a topic for discussion in class. Clearly the teacher felt that by rigging the question the discussion could be kept in line with the school's RE curriculum.
Furthermore my niece was then taken out of class whereupon the teacher expressed surprise that she had not completed the homework, despite the fact that her father had explained why.
So here we have a school which promotes a biased view of religion, uses homework to reinforce the bias and finally takes issue with those who choose to have their own opinions.
Perhaps if should be renamed the 'George Orwell School of 1984'
Footnote:
My nephew attends the same school and is three years older than his sister. He has managed to ignore the indoctrination and has chosen to be an atheist. I must add that he made this decision independently and was not to my knowledge influenced by my atheism, certainly I had not discussed my views or beliefs regarding this with him until after he had made his views clear.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Capitalist Church
On Friday the protests in London under the name 'Occupy' led St Paul's Cathedral to close.
I presume the protesters are happy because it would appear that the church were not as focused on the fact that their flock would not be able to worship there but more that they were losing money. Apparently the takings from the various sources within - including the 'donation' for entry - average at nearly 23,000 pounds per day!
This has uncovers an aspect of the church that it would rather was kept hidden, it's capitalist element.
Why as the protesters ask has it closed now, because any 'risks' were no different on previous days? Surely it must be because the loss of revenue is hitting it hard and if it closes there will be less outlay. They clearly don't worry about their flock! But then they can worship their IMF elsewhere.
I presume the protesters are happy because it would appear that the church were not as focused on the fact that their flock would not be able to worship there but more that they were losing money. Apparently the takings from the various sources within - including the 'donation' for entry - average at nearly 23,000 pounds per day!
This has uncovers an aspect of the church that it would rather was kept hidden, it's capitalist element.
Why as the protesters ask has it closed now, because any 'risks' were no different on previous days? Surely it must be because the loss of revenue is hitting it hard and if it closes there will be less outlay. They clearly don't worry about their flock! But then they can worship their IMF elsewhere.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Annoying Sales Calls
Am I the only one who has noticed an increase in so called 'information' and 'survey' phone calls?
Tired of being pestered by sales calls I signed up to the Telephone Preference Service (TPS) which companies based in the UK are supposed to check their phone number database against so they don't call numbers which are subscribed to the service.
Trouble is, companies are getting wise to this.
Some are employing call centres outside the UK which are not subject to the same rules - this is complying with the letter of the law so to speak but certainly not the spirit.
The other way round that is increasing is by claiming it is not a sales call, merely a survey to determine opinions or an information call. These types of call are not apparently restricted under TPS as a shirty call centre agent told me last night.
In reality however, they are sales calls. For example, I had one purporting to ask me about my views on personal and home security. Before partaking in the call I pressed the agent and they did admit that as most people would admit to being concerned about say being burgled, the call would then go on to how they, an alarm company, could help you. Even after I advised the agent that I had an alarm with which I was very satisfied they still tried to sell me their product, claiming a number of ways in which it was better than what I already had (in their opinion).
Last night the call was on the subject of mis-sold Payment Protection Insurance on loans and credit cards - purportedly an information call but what these people do not seem to realise is that we are wise to it. If it was purely an information call and they would earn nothing from it, then why would they run up phone bills and pay agents wages - I cannot see these companies being truly altruistic.
Despite saying that I had not had PPI (white lie but no worse than theirs) and that I was not interested in the service or 'information' they persisted. Doesn't that sound like they have sales targets to achieve?
I think in future I should follow the approach demonstrated in this YouTube video - it may not terminate the call any quicker but you may feel better. Substitute No for Yes if you wish!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33BCEPMGggU&feature=related
Tired of being pestered by sales calls I signed up to the Telephone Preference Service (TPS) which companies based in the UK are supposed to check their phone number database against so they don't call numbers which are subscribed to the service.
Trouble is, companies are getting wise to this.
Some are employing call centres outside the UK which are not subject to the same rules - this is complying with the letter of the law so to speak but certainly not the spirit.
The other way round that is increasing is by claiming it is not a sales call, merely a survey to determine opinions or an information call. These types of call are not apparently restricted under TPS as a shirty call centre agent told me last night.
In reality however, they are sales calls. For example, I had one purporting to ask me about my views on personal and home security. Before partaking in the call I pressed the agent and they did admit that as most people would admit to being concerned about say being burgled, the call would then go on to how they, an alarm company, could help you. Even after I advised the agent that I had an alarm with which I was very satisfied they still tried to sell me their product, claiming a number of ways in which it was better than what I already had (in their opinion).
Last night the call was on the subject of mis-sold Payment Protection Insurance on loans and credit cards - purportedly an information call but what these people do not seem to realise is that we are wise to it. If it was purely an information call and they would earn nothing from it, then why would they run up phone bills and pay agents wages - I cannot see these companies being truly altruistic.
Despite saying that I had not had PPI (white lie but no worse than theirs) and that I was not interested in the service or 'information' they persisted. Doesn't that sound like they have sales targets to achieve?
I think in future I should follow the approach demonstrated in this YouTube video - it may not terminate the call any quicker but you may feel better. Substitute No for Yes if you wish!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33BCEPMGggU&feature=related
Monday, October 10, 2011
Pressure Selling
I have just received a replacement credit card for one that is expiring.
As is standard nowadays you must activate the card in order to confirm it's safe receipt. I am all for that and it should hopefully reduce fraud a little.
What I do object to however is the fact that with many card issuers they delegate the task of handling these calls to one of the 'Credit Card Protection' companies. They activate the card for you and then launch into the sales pitch about how many calls they take each day from people who have lost their cards or had them stolen.
Without pausing for breath they then go on to say that they will send you a registration form for their product to provide protection against all these things such as loss of cards, loss of passport, loss of mobile phone, loss of cash, loss of house or car keys, and also the theft of any of these items. They say that one phone call will enable you to ensure that all your providers are notified.
I thought the government had already given one of these companies a reprimand for this type of selling but clearly it continues.
What they omit to mention is that many people have home insurance which covers against some or all of these. More importantly they forget to tell you (and it is in the small print but boy is it small) is that you are only covered for the other items IF your credit cards are stolen or lost in the same incident. Even then there are some pretty strict rules regarding reporting the loss or theft and then there are a number of organisations (and I believe the mobile phone companies are amongst these) who will only take the call from the owner and not a third party. Many more require you to confirm in writing yourself. So what are these companies offering - a handsome profit for themselves.
It is time banks and credit card companies got back to being suppliers of the service we want and not marketing gateways for many others.
As is standard nowadays you must activate the card in order to confirm it's safe receipt. I am all for that and it should hopefully reduce fraud a little.
What I do object to however is the fact that with many card issuers they delegate the task of handling these calls to one of the 'Credit Card Protection' companies. They activate the card for you and then launch into the sales pitch about how many calls they take each day from people who have lost their cards or had them stolen.
Without pausing for breath they then go on to say that they will send you a registration form for their product to provide protection against all these things such as loss of cards, loss of passport, loss of mobile phone, loss of cash, loss of house or car keys, and also the theft of any of these items. They say that one phone call will enable you to ensure that all your providers are notified.
I thought the government had already given one of these companies a reprimand for this type of selling but clearly it continues.
What they omit to mention is that many people have home insurance which covers against some or all of these. More importantly they forget to tell you (and it is in the small print but boy is it small) is that you are only covered for the other items IF your credit cards are stolen or lost in the same incident. Even then there are some pretty strict rules regarding reporting the loss or theft and then there are a number of organisations (and I believe the mobile phone companies are amongst these) who will only take the call from the owner and not a third party. Many more require you to confirm in writing yourself. So what are these companies offering - a handsome profit for themselves.
It is time banks and credit card companies got back to being suppliers of the service we want and not marketing gateways for many others.
Bombardier - Round Two
I was in Derby at the weekend and came across a number of people under the 'Socialist Worker' banner.
They were trying to address the Bombardier situation in a couple of ways. (For history, please see http://scepticalcurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2011/07/bombardier-saga.html)
The first was to ask people to sign a petition to the government to save the jobs at Bombardier.
I have no idea why they feel another petition will achieve any more than those that have gone before but if they wish to spend their time this way that is their choice. Furthermore we have seen from petitions to both the present govenrment and previous governments that they are frequently ignored. I remember signing the online 'e-petition' for a number of causes, some of which I had replies to telling me I was wrong and the government was right, others have simply been ignored. That is democracy for you.
The second approach was to demand that the government nationalise Bombardier.
Bombardier in the UK is ultimately a division of a Canadian group of companies.
Therefore if we wished to nationalise it we would first of all have to buy the company from it's parent company. I have no idea how much this would cost but given that our government has a massive debt to address I very much doubt that buying the UK arm of Bombardier would be viable.
Let us assume that the UK does buy Bombardier and nationalise it - then what? We will own a company that still doesn't have the ThamesLink contract and therefore we could still not save the jobs that at present are to be lost. All we have gained is more debt, more risk. Look at the banks that we the taxpayer own - not a pretty sight.
I suspect that 'Socialist Worker' are then proposing that all contracts for rail are awarded in future to National Bombardier or whatever they call them. This would be in breach of so many rules that I believe it could not be done.
This approach could be adopted by other countries, so all those that buy from UK companies are instructed to buy from their own national companies - so Rolls Royce as a local example would lose a lot of work as theur aero engines are supplied to many airlines across the world, including a number of countries which do produce their own engines. BAE systems is another one, they supply many international markets and if they lost that work then they too would be at risk of even greater job losses.
Apparently Bombardier have already been invited to tender for the upgrade of Cross Country Trains rolling stock but they don't believe they can do the work in Derby, or possibly the UK at all, as they don't have the necessary machinery or expertise. So just giving the company contracts may still not achieve anything.
I feel for those at Bombardier that are to lose their jobs but unfortunately it seems that many people are proposing solutions which are not fully thought out and are clearly flawed.
They were trying to address the Bombardier situation in a couple of ways. (For history, please see http://scepticalcurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2011/07/bombardier-saga.html)
The first was to ask people to sign a petition to the government to save the jobs at Bombardier.
I have no idea why they feel another petition will achieve any more than those that have gone before but if they wish to spend their time this way that is their choice. Furthermore we have seen from petitions to both the present govenrment and previous governments that they are frequently ignored. I remember signing the online 'e-petition' for a number of causes, some of which I had replies to telling me I was wrong and the government was right, others have simply been ignored. That is democracy for you.
The second approach was to demand that the government nationalise Bombardier.
Bombardier in the UK is ultimately a division of a Canadian group of companies.
Therefore if we wished to nationalise it we would first of all have to buy the company from it's parent company. I have no idea how much this would cost but given that our government has a massive debt to address I very much doubt that buying the UK arm of Bombardier would be viable.
Let us assume that the UK does buy Bombardier and nationalise it - then what? We will own a company that still doesn't have the ThamesLink contract and therefore we could still not save the jobs that at present are to be lost. All we have gained is more debt, more risk. Look at the banks that we the taxpayer own - not a pretty sight.
I suspect that 'Socialist Worker' are then proposing that all contracts for rail are awarded in future to National Bombardier or whatever they call them. This would be in breach of so many rules that I believe it could not be done.
This approach could be adopted by other countries, so all those that buy from UK companies are instructed to buy from their own national companies - so Rolls Royce as a local example would lose a lot of work as theur aero engines are supplied to many airlines across the world, including a number of countries which do produce their own engines. BAE systems is another one, they supply many international markets and if they lost that work then they too would be at risk of even greater job losses.
Apparently Bombardier have already been invited to tender for the upgrade of Cross Country Trains rolling stock but they don't believe they can do the work in Derby, or possibly the UK at all, as they don't have the necessary machinery or expertise. So just giving the company contracts may still not achieve anything.
I feel for those at Bombardier that are to lose their jobs but unfortunately it seems that many people are proposing solutions which are not fully thought out and are clearly flawed.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Sales Truths
Isn't it amazing how much difference there is between what a sales person offers and what you actually get?
My most recent example is with a well known company called BT, you may have heard of them. In late August this year I received a phone call from BT about their broadband offerings. Apparently I could switch my broadband supplier to them immediately and sign up for BT Total Broadband, or if I signed up for BT Infinity I could have the high speed of their new fibre system but would have to wait until 1st October for this.
Knowing people who have been lucky enough to get BT Infinity and the speeds they report, I was excited. Fortunately however I did not contact my existing broadband supplier to start the switch over process at any point.
The sales person who called was very keen that I sign up there and then, I wouldn't be receiving another call when BT Infinity was available. I enquired and was told that whilst I could wait until I was ready to switch, the 'wonderful offer' would have expired so I would have to take on the standard contract terms - a risk I was prepared to take.
As I say, I am glad I didn't sign up then, because although I have seen the installation of new BT cabinets in the local area and engineers connecting them to the existing cabinets, when I check on availability ( I was told available from 1st October 2011 ) I find that BT Infinity is NOT in my area and is presently expected to be available from 31st December 2011. Somewhat of a discrepancy!
What would have happened if I had contacted my existing supplier to terminate the contract ( which you have to do to get the MAC code for the new supplier ) - I would have been cut off without any broadband.
I would then have had to resort to my 3G dongle - which only offers about 1.5 meg and of course costs a fortune if I exceed my monthly data limit.
It is another case of buyer beware - it is not always a good idea to sign up to 'special offers' by phone even if they are from a supposedly reputable company!
As an example of a previous instance try this - I once worked for a company implementing an Oracle system. In 1997 when the salesman made his pitch he was specifically asked about a particular feature and confidently said this was available in the current release of the day.
After installation it was necessary to place a support call with Oracle to ask how to configure it, only to be told it was NOT available but may be in the next release.
I understand from my former colleagues that even now in 2011 it is still NOT available, and I think even the promise of a future release has been dropped!
My most recent example is with a well known company called BT, you may have heard of them. In late August this year I received a phone call from BT about their broadband offerings. Apparently I could switch my broadband supplier to them immediately and sign up for BT Total Broadband, or if I signed up for BT Infinity I could have the high speed of their new fibre system but would have to wait until 1st October for this.
Knowing people who have been lucky enough to get BT Infinity and the speeds they report, I was excited. Fortunately however I did not contact my existing broadband supplier to start the switch over process at any point.
The sales person who called was very keen that I sign up there and then, I wouldn't be receiving another call when BT Infinity was available. I enquired and was told that whilst I could wait until I was ready to switch, the 'wonderful offer' would have expired so I would have to take on the standard contract terms - a risk I was prepared to take.
As I say, I am glad I didn't sign up then, because although I have seen the installation of new BT cabinets in the local area and engineers connecting them to the existing cabinets, when I check on availability ( I was told available from 1st October 2011 ) I find that BT Infinity is NOT in my area and is presently expected to be available from 31st December 2011. Somewhat of a discrepancy!
What would have happened if I had contacted my existing supplier to terminate the contract ( which you have to do to get the MAC code for the new supplier ) - I would have been cut off without any broadband.
I would then have had to resort to my 3G dongle - which only offers about 1.5 meg and of course costs a fortune if I exceed my monthly data limit.
It is another case of buyer beware - it is not always a good idea to sign up to 'special offers' by phone even if they are from a supposedly reputable company!
As an example of a previous instance try this - I once worked for a company implementing an Oracle system. In 1997 when the salesman made his pitch he was specifically asked about a particular feature and confidently said this was available in the current release of the day.
After installation it was necessary to place a support call with Oracle to ask how to configure it, only to be told it was NOT available but may be in the next release.
I understand from my former colleagues that even now in 2011 it is still NOT available, and I think even the promise of a future release has been dropped!
Friday, September 30, 2011
Ban the Plastic Bag
We have been hearing a lot about banning the plastic throwaway bag so often handed out by supermarkets. At least one of the tabloid newspapers seems to think they are 'leading the way' but then don't the tabloids all jump on to whatever is the current bandwagon to try and increase their popularity?
I am not interested here in the tabloids however, more in the underlying problem of the single use plastic bag. It cannot be denied that they contribute a lot to our waste stream and thus increase the burden on landfill. They also get into the environment and cause litter and problems for wildlife.
Part of the problem is how people use the bags, not just the bags themselves.
When they were freely given out I tended to use them for bin liners in small bins, for bagging other rubbish before putting it in the wheelie bin, for separating laundry when returning from holiday, for storage of out of season clothing etc. In short I tried to get as much use as possible out of them and in doing so avoided buying other plastic bags to address those needs.
Now I use bags for life for my shopping, which means I need to buy bin liners, bags for storage etc. See the problem - in my case just a shift of bag type.
You also get the people who do see them as single use bags and just dump them. Many of those that spoil the environment are probably just thrown away casually without even being placed in a bin which is why they end up in hedgerows, on beaches, etc. Will the proposed charge for single use bags affect these people? Probably not.
Where a charge has been imposed it is likely to stop responsible people using so many bags - but those bags are the ones less likely to cause problems.
Charging is also a way of increasing the supermarkets profits - we have seen this already with a leading company who by charging for their bags cover all the costs of bag production, previously borne by themselves, and donate only the profits to charity. Thus they increase their own profits - a fact they are rather quiet about!
Could we ban them altogether and insist shoppers either use reusable bags or boxes. This is a possibility but I doubt it would go down well. In the past I have used the trolley liners which did get heavy but you simply lifted them from the trolley to the car and then to the house. Whoops, you must always take your car shopping! The best solution which a now defunct supermarket had was plastic crates - they combined this with self scanning at the point of loading your trolley. Simple checkout procedure but again you needed a car. Reusing cardboard boxes that the goods arrive at the supermarket in was once used but probably waned as goods became more palletised.
What is the solution - I don't know, perhaps my readers have some ideas.
We must also consider the impact upon industry - if we do succeed in significantly reducing bag usage - will the businesses and their employees who make them be able to redeploy their resources without loss of employment?
One final note - everyone goes on about supermarket bags - what about the vast number of charity collection bags that come through our doors every year? Most of these are likely to end up in land fill without even being taken out of their (plastic) wrapper. The solution here is perhaps to just pop a small leaflet through the door inviting people to use their own bag if they have goods to donate. The leaflet can be recycled as paper and maybe we can even reduce the frequency of these calls on our unwanted goods - frequently I have nothing to donate when a bag comes through (and before you comment - I reuse these as rubbish bags also)
I am not interested here in the tabloids however, more in the underlying problem of the single use plastic bag. It cannot be denied that they contribute a lot to our waste stream and thus increase the burden on landfill. They also get into the environment and cause litter and problems for wildlife.
Part of the problem is how people use the bags, not just the bags themselves.
When they were freely given out I tended to use them for bin liners in small bins, for bagging other rubbish before putting it in the wheelie bin, for separating laundry when returning from holiday, for storage of out of season clothing etc. In short I tried to get as much use as possible out of them and in doing so avoided buying other plastic bags to address those needs.
Now I use bags for life for my shopping, which means I need to buy bin liners, bags for storage etc. See the problem - in my case just a shift of bag type.
You also get the people who do see them as single use bags and just dump them. Many of those that spoil the environment are probably just thrown away casually without even being placed in a bin which is why they end up in hedgerows, on beaches, etc. Will the proposed charge for single use bags affect these people? Probably not.
Where a charge has been imposed it is likely to stop responsible people using so many bags - but those bags are the ones less likely to cause problems.
Charging is also a way of increasing the supermarkets profits - we have seen this already with a leading company who by charging for their bags cover all the costs of bag production, previously borne by themselves, and donate only the profits to charity. Thus they increase their own profits - a fact they are rather quiet about!
Could we ban them altogether and insist shoppers either use reusable bags or boxes. This is a possibility but I doubt it would go down well. In the past I have used the trolley liners which did get heavy but you simply lifted them from the trolley to the car and then to the house. Whoops, you must always take your car shopping! The best solution which a now defunct supermarket had was plastic crates - they combined this with self scanning at the point of loading your trolley. Simple checkout procedure but again you needed a car. Reusing cardboard boxes that the goods arrive at the supermarket in was once used but probably waned as goods became more palletised.
What is the solution - I don't know, perhaps my readers have some ideas.
We must also consider the impact upon industry - if we do succeed in significantly reducing bag usage - will the businesses and their employees who make them be able to redeploy their resources without loss of employment?
One final note - everyone goes on about supermarket bags - what about the vast number of charity collection bags that come through our doors every year? Most of these are likely to end up in land fill without even being taken out of their (plastic) wrapper. The solution here is perhaps to just pop a small leaflet through the door inviting people to use their own bag if they have goods to donate. The leaflet can be recycled as paper and maybe we can even reduce the frequency of these calls on our unwanted goods - frequently I have nothing to donate when a bag comes through (and before you comment - I reuse these as rubbish bags also)
Monday, September 26, 2011
Big Brother and 1984
Yesterday we had a protest on the M1 in the area by motorcyclists against proposed new legislation from the EU. This took the form of a peaceful go slow.
They were taking issue with proposed new legislation for motorbikes from the EU. Some of the new legislation makes sense but much of it is a combination of Nanny State and Big Brother. It may also be a sign of things to come.
One element that I think has a grounding in common sense is a proposed requirement for motorcyclists to wear high visibility clothing - something which a reasonable number already do as it helps protect them from other road users who don't see them (it can do nothing for those who don't look unfortunately)
Then it starts getting more controlling - severe restrictions on what changes may be made to the motorbike from it's factory specification. I know bikers like to customise their bikes and I am sure most do so in a perfectly safe and sensible manner - after all they are more at risk than car drivers if something does go wrong. We also have the MOT test to oversee vehicle safety.
The most worring element as far as I am concerned is the planned requirement for all new bikes to be fitted with a GPS tracker to record the details of all the bikes journeys. I don't recall whether the plans were for this requirement to be retrofitted to existing bikes but if not now, then I am sure it will be.
This would then open the way for the legislators to expand the scope to cover all motor vehicles.
Once this has been done, what would the data be used for. If only to provide an impartial witness in the event of an accident by recording what happened in the run up to the accident then that seems fine. But in reality we know that the information will be used for more than that. What is more with a number of high profile data losses by public bodies, you can never be sure who will get hold of the data. Or in times of financial hardship, who the data will be sold to!
Even for accident analysis I would be concerned. Without expensive additional components (and services that as yet may not be available everywhere) a GPS derived position is not accurate enough to determine whether a biker was on the correct side of the road for example. Use in Germany of GPS for road tolls has resulted in errors whereby drivers have been charged for being on a toll road when in fact they were on an adjacent local road.
Where will this end? Maybe we should all have RFID tracking chips fitted now and the government can be sure where we all are at all times, even when we are not using our vehicles!
They were taking issue with proposed new legislation for motorbikes from the EU. Some of the new legislation makes sense but much of it is a combination of Nanny State and Big Brother. It may also be a sign of things to come.
One element that I think has a grounding in common sense is a proposed requirement for motorcyclists to wear high visibility clothing - something which a reasonable number already do as it helps protect them from other road users who don't see them (it can do nothing for those who don't look unfortunately)
Then it starts getting more controlling - severe restrictions on what changes may be made to the motorbike from it's factory specification. I know bikers like to customise their bikes and I am sure most do so in a perfectly safe and sensible manner - after all they are more at risk than car drivers if something does go wrong. We also have the MOT test to oversee vehicle safety.
The most worring element as far as I am concerned is the planned requirement for all new bikes to be fitted with a GPS tracker to record the details of all the bikes journeys. I don't recall whether the plans were for this requirement to be retrofitted to existing bikes but if not now, then I am sure it will be.
This would then open the way for the legislators to expand the scope to cover all motor vehicles.
Once this has been done, what would the data be used for. If only to provide an impartial witness in the event of an accident by recording what happened in the run up to the accident then that seems fine. But in reality we know that the information will be used for more than that. What is more with a number of high profile data losses by public bodies, you can never be sure who will get hold of the data. Or in times of financial hardship, who the data will be sold to!
Even for accident analysis I would be concerned. Without expensive additional components (and services that as yet may not be available everywhere) a GPS derived position is not accurate enough to determine whether a biker was on the correct side of the road for example. Use in Germany of GPS for road tolls has resulted in errors whereby drivers have been charged for being on a toll road when in fact they were on an adjacent local road.
Where will this end? Maybe we should all have RFID tracking chips fitted now and the government can be sure where we all are at all times, even when we are not using our vehicles!
Industry managed by the Church?
Last week the Archbishop of Canterbury visited Derbyshire. As part of his visit he came to Derby.
During the visit to Derby he once more crossed the line and gave evidence of the Church meddling outside it's remit. He chose to stir up the Bombardier issue yet again.
We have had the initial outcry when Bombardier learned they had lost the Thameslink contract, this was perfectly understandable given the impact it would have on the area and the country.
I don't believe any of us know the full details of why the contract was not awarded locally so cannot speculate further on this.
Since then we have had the unions demanding that the tender process effectively be rerun, local councillors making the same demands (using our money to support the unions as well) and now we have the Archbishop of Canterbury throwing his oar in.
I am an atheist and some of you will think that this is my only reason for being annoyed at this. However I believe that many religious believers will also see that it is wrong for the Church to get involved in matters of industry and politics.
There is no reason to believe that the Archbishop has any more understanding than anyone else of why the contract was awarded to Siemens and I doubt that his god instructed him to campaign on the matter.
Many atheists and religious people alike believe as I do that Church and State should be separate. It will allow each to do what they are best at unhindered by outside interference. I was unable to attend the recent march for a Secular Europe but I fully support the ideal.
Where would this intereference end, would the Chruch become like the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and issue rulings on any business deals they were unhappy with? Maybe they would call for pubs to be closed on Sundays to respect the Sabbath (and Saturday to respect those of other faiths).
It must stop and it must stop NOW.
During the visit to Derby he once more crossed the line and gave evidence of the Church meddling outside it's remit. He chose to stir up the Bombardier issue yet again.
We have had the initial outcry when Bombardier learned they had lost the Thameslink contract, this was perfectly understandable given the impact it would have on the area and the country.
I don't believe any of us know the full details of why the contract was not awarded locally so cannot speculate further on this.
Since then we have had the unions demanding that the tender process effectively be rerun, local councillors making the same demands (using our money to support the unions as well) and now we have the Archbishop of Canterbury throwing his oar in.
I am an atheist and some of you will think that this is my only reason for being annoyed at this. However I believe that many religious believers will also see that it is wrong for the Church to get involved in matters of industry and politics.
There is no reason to believe that the Archbishop has any more understanding than anyone else of why the contract was awarded to Siemens and I doubt that his god instructed him to campaign on the matter.
Many atheists and religious people alike believe as I do that Church and State should be separate. It will allow each to do what they are best at unhindered by outside interference. I was unable to attend the recent march for a Secular Europe but I fully support the ideal.
Where would this intereference end, would the Chruch become like the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and issue rulings on any business deals they were unhappy with? Maybe they would call for pubs to be closed on Sundays to respect the Sabbath (and Saturday to respect those of other faiths).
It must stop and it must stop NOW.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
A Proper British Chip Shop
Recently while on holiday near Weymouth I decided to visit the sights of Weymouth.
This can be quite exhausting if you walk between them - the Park and Ride is far better than taking your car into the town centre with it's limited, expensive parking.
As a result, with lunchtime arriving it was time to search for food and a rest.
Both requirements were satisfied with a stop at the King Edward's Fish and Chips takeaway and restaurant. In need of a sit down I decided to eat in the restaurant and have to say I was very impressed and would recommend it to others.
The restaurant was clean and inviting and the staff welcoming. Service was efficient and the food I had - Haddock and Chips - was freshly prepared and very tasty.
I have no connection with the establishment other than as a happy customer. Judging by the number of customers it is a popular place and I certainly felt that everyone I saw seemed as happy as I was with the experience.
I may be a curmudgeon, but there are times when you have to be positive, and I am pleased to be able to recommend this eatery. It can be found where King Edward's Road meets the Esplanade.
Enjoy
This can be quite exhausting if you walk between them - the Park and Ride is far better than taking your car into the town centre with it's limited, expensive parking.
As a result, with lunchtime arriving it was time to search for food and a rest.
Both requirements were satisfied with a stop at the King Edward's Fish and Chips takeaway and restaurant. In need of a sit down I decided to eat in the restaurant and have to say I was very impressed and would recommend it to others.
The restaurant was clean and inviting and the staff welcoming. Service was efficient and the food I had - Haddock and Chips - was freshly prepared and very tasty.
I have no connection with the establishment other than as a happy customer. Judging by the number of customers it is a popular place and I certainly felt that everyone I saw seemed as happy as I was with the experience.
I may be a curmudgeon, but there are times when you have to be positive, and I am pleased to be able to recommend this eatery. It can be found where King Edward's Road meets the Esplanade.
Enjoy
The Nanny State
It appears that once again our government are meddling where they aren't needed and won't have any beneficial effect.
This time it is an attempt to reduce the salt in our diets.
Some time ago we read of a council which tried to reduce salt consumption by insisting that takeaway food shops, primarily fish and chips, only had salt cellars with a reduced number of holes as opposed to those with many holes commonly used.
I doubt that had any effect, people would just shake longer to get the amount of salt they wanted, and very much doubt anyone from the council measured whether there was any benefit.
This time it is being tackled at government level with instructions to manufacturers to reduce salt levels in food stuffs, bacon being a prime example. Not only is salt a flavouring it is also a preservative. We therefore risk having products that neither taste as good or last as long!
This has already been demonstrated with HP Sauce. This already had a lower salt version available for those who choose to reduce their salt intake, but the government insisted the salt level in the standard version was reduced - to the disgust of lovers of the sauce. It is not as if the changed level will have a significant effect anyway - a reduction of a fraction of a gram in one hundred grams of product translates into a minuscule amount when you consider how little sauce is consumed in any one meal.
What is happening here is that the public are not being given the choice of taking the existing low salt version if they wish, but being forced to have a low salt version.
What next? Perhaps we will be told that plain crisps should be just that, no salt at all. Then we can extend it across the rest of the crisp range - for example it will perhaps just be vinegar crisps!
Salt sales in shops will also have to be banned - or maybe put on ration coupons to prevent individuals getting too much.
The reality is that if people want salt with their food they will have salt with their food, whether this be as a constituent or an addition they make at home.
Some of my examples above are extreme and ridiculous - or are they?
This time it is an attempt to reduce the salt in our diets.
Some time ago we read of a council which tried to reduce salt consumption by insisting that takeaway food shops, primarily fish and chips, only had salt cellars with a reduced number of holes as opposed to those with many holes commonly used.
I doubt that had any effect, people would just shake longer to get the amount of salt they wanted, and very much doubt anyone from the council measured whether there was any benefit.
This time it is being tackled at government level with instructions to manufacturers to reduce salt levels in food stuffs, bacon being a prime example. Not only is salt a flavouring it is also a preservative. We therefore risk having products that neither taste as good or last as long!
This has already been demonstrated with HP Sauce. This already had a lower salt version available for those who choose to reduce their salt intake, but the government insisted the salt level in the standard version was reduced - to the disgust of lovers of the sauce. It is not as if the changed level will have a significant effect anyway - a reduction of a fraction of a gram in one hundred grams of product translates into a minuscule amount when you consider how little sauce is consumed in any one meal.
What is happening here is that the public are not being given the choice of taking the existing low salt version if they wish, but being forced to have a low salt version.
What next? Perhaps we will be told that plain crisps should be just that, no salt at all. Then we can extend it across the rest of the crisp range - for example it will perhaps just be vinegar crisps!
Salt sales in shops will also have to be banned - or maybe put on ration coupons to prevent individuals getting too much.
The reality is that if people want salt with their food they will have salt with their food, whether this be as a constituent or an addition they make at home.
Some of my examples above are extreme and ridiculous - or are they?
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Always Read the Small Print
A cautionary tale - in this case involving the solar energy industry but applicable to all contracts. It happened to a colleague of my wife recently.
It all started off innocently enough with a sales call from a firm offering to install solar PV on their house for free. Sounds a reasonable deal so they invited the company to send someone round to discuss the proposal and carry out the necessary survey.
There are two ways of installing solar PV to generate electricity:
Pay for an installation and it's ongoing maintenance yourself. This way you should benefit from reduced electricity bills (depending upon how much power you use when the sun is shining) and you get the government feed in tariff for the power you generate.
Alternatively, and this is the option here, a company installs the solar panels at their expense and also maintains them. This way you don't own the panels and basically you gain from reducing your electricity bill. To pay for the installation the company that installed the system gets the revenue from the government feed in tariff.
After the survey, the company announced that the roof was suitable and came back with a figure of how much the cost savings would be. They also reported that the roof might need strengthening to handle the weight of the panels and they would send a specialist around to investigate. My understanding is that this is quite common as roofs were only ever designed to be that - and not to bolt a considerable weight of solar panels on as well (remember this is above the tiles and not instead of).
This investigation showed that the roof would need strengthening at a cost of £4,000. The householder gave the go ahead and the work was carried out.
This is where the problems started. The company who had carried out the work on the roof presented the housholder with the bill. They had assumed that this was part of the 'free' installation so suggested the roofing firm sent the bill to the solar panel company, who to their surprise rejected it.
My wife's colleague has now drafted in legal help to go through the signed contract with the solar company to see if there is any clause stating they would pay ALL costs, not just the installation costs. They felt they were given to understand that 'free installation' covered all costs associated. In reality I think that 'free installation' just covers a standard PV installation without any associated work. They may even charge more if the existing electricity supply is difficult to connect into.
As yet they have not gone ahead with the solar PV installation whilst this dispute is under way. To rub salt in the wound the solar PV company have now come back and suggested their original savings figure may have been somewhat optimistic and actual benefits may be somewhat less!
The matter may well end up in legal proceedings so I will not name the company - I believe however that with many companies joining the 'gold rush' for solar PV installations this may well not be an isolated incident with just them anyway.
A final thought on this type of solar PV installation. You are signing up for twenty five years - if you wish to sell your house the new buyer must agree to the same terms, namely giving up their right to the feed in tariff income. This has probably not yet been tested in the housing market but it may be a disincentive to prospective buyers.
Caveat Emptor - let the buyer beware. Always read the small print and take legal advice if you don't understand it. It may cost in the short term but the savings could be massive.
It all started off innocently enough with a sales call from a firm offering to install solar PV on their house for free. Sounds a reasonable deal so they invited the company to send someone round to discuss the proposal and carry out the necessary survey.
There are two ways of installing solar PV to generate electricity:
Pay for an installation and it's ongoing maintenance yourself. This way you should benefit from reduced electricity bills (depending upon how much power you use when the sun is shining) and you get the government feed in tariff for the power you generate.
Alternatively, and this is the option here, a company installs the solar panels at their expense and also maintains them. This way you don't own the panels and basically you gain from reducing your electricity bill. To pay for the installation the company that installed the system gets the revenue from the government feed in tariff.
After the survey, the company announced that the roof was suitable and came back with a figure of how much the cost savings would be. They also reported that the roof might need strengthening to handle the weight of the panels and they would send a specialist around to investigate. My understanding is that this is quite common as roofs were only ever designed to be that - and not to bolt a considerable weight of solar panels on as well (remember this is above the tiles and not instead of).
This investigation showed that the roof would need strengthening at a cost of £4,000. The householder gave the go ahead and the work was carried out.
This is where the problems started. The company who had carried out the work on the roof presented the housholder with the bill. They had assumed that this was part of the 'free' installation so suggested the roofing firm sent the bill to the solar panel company, who to their surprise rejected it.
My wife's colleague has now drafted in legal help to go through the signed contract with the solar company to see if there is any clause stating they would pay ALL costs, not just the installation costs. They felt they were given to understand that 'free installation' covered all costs associated. In reality I think that 'free installation' just covers a standard PV installation without any associated work. They may even charge more if the existing electricity supply is difficult to connect into.
As yet they have not gone ahead with the solar PV installation whilst this dispute is under way. To rub salt in the wound the solar PV company have now come back and suggested their original savings figure may have been somewhat optimistic and actual benefits may be somewhat less!
The matter may well end up in legal proceedings so I will not name the company - I believe however that with many companies joining the 'gold rush' for solar PV installations this may well not be an isolated incident with just them anyway.
A final thought on this type of solar PV installation. You are signing up for twenty five years - if you wish to sell your house the new buyer must agree to the same terms, namely giving up their right to the feed in tariff income. This has probably not yet been tested in the housing market but it may be a disincentive to prospective buyers.
Caveat Emptor - let the buyer beware. Always read the small print and take legal advice if you don't understand it. It may cost in the short term but the savings could be massive.
Friday, September 2, 2011
The Highwaymen Strike Again
Yesterday a stretch of road I regularly use was closed all day for repairs. Nothing new there and indeed the surface was badly cracked and contained many potholes of varying depth. Repairs were long overdue. As a cyclist I found the road very bad to ride along.
Having closed the whole road, in both directions you would expect the highways team to arrive, strip back the road surface, make any necessary deeper repairs and then resurface the road.
But no, it seems that some of the potholes were clearly not important enough to fix, similarly some of the cracks in the surface. What was actually done was selected areas of the road, probably between eighty and ninety percent of the surface, were stripped back and resurfaced. This left a patchwork quilt of unrepaired areas. Had these been pristine road surface then I could have understood the logic, save money perhaps, but no.
It may even not have saved any money, because I think the job would have taken less time and manpower if the whole stretch had been resurfaced rather than doing a patchwork job which then involved selectively cutting out areas.
What we are left with therefore is a road that is good in parts, but where the unrepaired areas will have to be done as a separate job. I am no expert but I also suspect that the joins may well be a weak area which could soon allow water in and start the cracking process all over again.
And just to add insult to (potential) injury, in some areas the strip either side of the centre line has been repaired but the areas where cyclists and motorbike riders will ride has been left unrepaired.
I will report back when the next round of repairs on this road is undertaken.
And our councils wonder why they are struggling financially!
Having closed the whole road, in both directions you would expect the highways team to arrive, strip back the road surface, make any necessary deeper repairs and then resurface the road.
But no, it seems that some of the potholes were clearly not important enough to fix, similarly some of the cracks in the surface. What was actually done was selected areas of the road, probably between eighty and ninety percent of the surface, were stripped back and resurfaced. This left a patchwork quilt of unrepaired areas. Had these been pristine road surface then I could have understood the logic, save money perhaps, but no.
It may even not have saved any money, because I think the job would have taken less time and manpower if the whole stretch had been resurfaced rather than doing a patchwork job which then involved selectively cutting out areas.
What we are left with therefore is a road that is good in parts, but where the unrepaired areas will have to be done as a separate job. I am no expert but I also suspect that the joins may well be a weak area which could soon allow water in and start the cracking process all over again.
And just to add insult to (potential) injury, in some areas the strip either side of the centre line has been repaired but the areas where cyclists and motorbike riders will ride has been left unrepaired.
I will report back when the next round of repairs on this road is undertaken.
And our councils wonder why they are struggling financially!
Con the Customer
A certain well known supermarket, as part of it's health and environment plan, pledges to reduce salt in their foods.
This is widely advertised in their stores and on their website, as well as in the downloaded documents they provide. They claim to be reducing salt in their foods, ahead of government guidelines.
So you may think that if you buy their own brand foods you will get a low salt product. Yes?
No actually, in fact in a recent survey of bread they came out in the worst five prepackaged breads for salt content. A couple of sandwiches (without spread or filling, some sandwich) could use as much as one third of the guideline maximum salt intake for an adult.
I happened to find that we had a pack of this in our larder, and guess what - the report is correct.
Back to reading the label and not believing the advertising!
Caveat Emptor
This is widely advertised in their stores and on their website, as well as in the downloaded documents they provide. They claim to be reducing salt in their foods, ahead of government guidelines.
So you may think that if you buy their own brand foods you will get a low salt product. Yes?
No actually, in fact in a recent survey of bread they came out in the worst five prepackaged breads for salt content. A couple of sandwiches (without spread or filling, some sandwich) could use as much as one third of the guideline maximum salt intake for an adult.
I happened to find that we had a pack of this in our larder, and guess what - the report is correct.
Back to reading the label and not believing the advertising!
Caveat Emptor
Thursday, September 1, 2011
My Freedom from Religion
Like many people, I started out life labelled by my parents' religion. Through time I have come to question this and am now free from religion. Let me run through the key stages:
When I was born I was christened by my parents and of course as a baby had no say in this. This meant I was now officially a Christian by paperwork. As Richard Dawkins would correctly say, I should have been identified as the child of Christian parents rather than a Christian child.
Time went by and I attended church most Sundays with my family.
When I got to about fourteen I was sent by my parents to 'confirmation classes'. These were run by the local vicar and seemed in hindsight to be basically a form of indoctrination. I wasn't keen but it was made clear that this was the done thing and at the end of the process I would be Confirmed in the church. I suppose it was out of respect for my parents that I went through with this but I wouldn't class myself as a true believer event then.
Over the next few years I didn't think much about religion, and only attended church for the usual events of births, marriages and deaths - certainly not a regular Sunday service goer by any means.
The time came when I wanted to get married. Obviously it was expected by both sets of parents that we would marry in church. I was by then fairly well agnostic but felt it was important to celebrate our wedding in front of family and friends in a very positive ceremony which I felt a registry office wedding would not give.
After marrying, neither my wife or I were regular church goers - again the usual round of BMD to attend but otherwise nothing.
During these years I started to think more about religion, and the more I thought about it the more I decided that I had no belief at all in it.
There were too many questions that were unanswered by religion, with the usual reply 'it just is' or 'the bible tells us this' Added to that I was finding more contradictions in religious teachings and writings. Finally there were the massive discrepancies between what religion teaches and known scientific evidence.
Faced with all of this I decided it was time to finally decide I was an atheist. I watched a Richard Dawkins series on Channel Four and this highlighted even more issues that convinced me. I also read his book 'The God Delusion' which reinforced my decision. Subsequently I have read other books by the so called 'Four Horsemen': Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett and Harris. Unlike the bible they don't ell me what to think, but give me a starting point and ASK me to think.
At this time I was in correspondence with a friend who would label herself as a devout Christian. We did a book reading exchange whereby I asked her to read 'The God Delusion' and she selected parts of the bible for me to read, including the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John amongst other sections.
After doing so, she reported that reading Dawkins had merely confirmed her views, but without explanation why. I asked her some questions and raised some issues about the sections I had read but got the 'it just is' response and better still, 'we mustn't try and understand that in today's world' - surely a cop out.
So here I am now, an Atheist (or should that be atheist?) I respect other people's rights to believe in their god or gods and hope they respect my right to believe there are no gods.
To quote Ricky Gervais 'If God exists, why did he make me an atheist?'
Need I say more?
When I was born I was christened by my parents and of course as a baby had no say in this. This meant I was now officially a Christian by paperwork. As Richard Dawkins would correctly say, I should have been identified as the child of Christian parents rather than a Christian child.
Time went by and I attended church most Sundays with my family.
When I got to about fourteen I was sent by my parents to 'confirmation classes'. These were run by the local vicar and seemed in hindsight to be basically a form of indoctrination. I wasn't keen but it was made clear that this was the done thing and at the end of the process I would be Confirmed in the church. I suppose it was out of respect for my parents that I went through with this but I wouldn't class myself as a true believer event then.
Over the next few years I didn't think much about religion, and only attended church for the usual events of births, marriages and deaths - certainly not a regular Sunday service goer by any means.
The time came when I wanted to get married. Obviously it was expected by both sets of parents that we would marry in church. I was by then fairly well agnostic but felt it was important to celebrate our wedding in front of family and friends in a very positive ceremony which I felt a registry office wedding would not give.
After marrying, neither my wife or I were regular church goers - again the usual round of BMD to attend but otherwise nothing.
During these years I started to think more about religion, and the more I thought about it the more I decided that I had no belief at all in it.
There were too many questions that were unanswered by religion, with the usual reply 'it just is' or 'the bible tells us this' Added to that I was finding more contradictions in religious teachings and writings. Finally there were the massive discrepancies between what religion teaches and known scientific evidence.
Faced with all of this I decided it was time to finally decide I was an atheist. I watched a Richard Dawkins series on Channel Four and this highlighted even more issues that convinced me. I also read his book 'The God Delusion' which reinforced my decision. Subsequently I have read other books by the so called 'Four Horsemen': Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett and Harris. Unlike the bible they don't ell me what to think, but give me a starting point and ASK me to think.
At this time I was in correspondence with a friend who would label herself as a devout Christian. We did a book reading exchange whereby I asked her to read 'The God Delusion' and she selected parts of the bible for me to read, including the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John amongst other sections.
After doing so, she reported that reading Dawkins had merely confirmed her views, but without explanation why. I asked her some questions and raised some issues about the sections I had read but got the 'it just is' response and better still, 'we mustn't try and understand that in today's world' - surely a cop out.
So here I am now, an Atheist (or should that be atheist?) I respect other people's rights to believe in their god or gods and hope they respect my right to believe there are no gods.
To quote Ricky Gervais 'If God exists, why did he make me an atheist?'
Need I say more?
Monday, August 22, 2011
The Tobin Tax
There are reports in the news that the EU wants to introduce a so called 'Tobin Tax', named after the economist who originally proposed it. Some also label it the Robin Hood tax in that in theory it takes from the rich and gives to the poor.
Sweden tried a version of this in 1984 but dropped it in 1991 as a disasterous experiment. It reduced share prices when implemented and decimated trading. After it's abolition, the trading market recovered.
So why do the EU want to implement it now? Simple, seventy percent of the financial services transactions in Europe take place in London which would therefore bear the brunt of the tax. The proposal comes not from the UK but from Germany and France. It would have far less effect in their countries and rather than going to help the poor and needy as the Robin Hood name would suggest the monies will go into a EU fund to support the Euro (of which the UK is not a part).
If the tax is not implemented across all the major world markets, traders will move to the markets which are not taxed. This would mean a massive exodus from London to other centres such as Hong Kong and New York. The major financial institutions are already global so it would be relatively painless for them to move, indeed I believe HSBC had already threatened to do so before the tax was proposed in the EU.
This country is not in the Euro, at present would not stand to benefit from being so, and is not responsible for the financial struggles of those that are. We have already bailed out Euro Zone countries with money we don't have and it is time we vetoed any further attacks on UK finances.
Sweden tried a version of this in 1984 but dropped it in 1991 as a disasterous experiment. It reduced share prices when implemented and decimated trading. After it's abolition, the trading market recovered.
So why do the EU want to implement it now? Simple, seventy percent of the financial services transactions in Europe take place in London which would therefore bear the brunt of the tax. The proposal comes not from the UK but from Germany and France. It would have far less effect in their countries and rather than going to help the poor and needy as the Robin Hood name would suggest the monies will go into a EU fund to support the Euro (of which the UK is not a part).
If the tax is not implemented across all the major world markets, traders will move to the markets which are not taxed. This would mean a massive exodus from London to other centres such as Hong Kong and New York. The major financial institutions are already global so it would be relatively painless for them to move, indeed I believe HSBC had already threatened to do so before the tax was proposed in the EU.
This country is not in the Euro, at present would not stand to benefit from being so, and is not responsible for the financial struggles of those that are. We have already bailed out Euro Zone countries with money we don't have and it is time we vetoed any further attacks on UK finances.
Electric Cars (2)
Recent discussions in the news and a Top Gear item have prompted me to post again on the subjetc of electric cars.
Top Gear carried out a review of two electric cars at around about twenty five to twenty seven thousand pounds AFTER the government subsidy had been applied. These are not cheap cars then. The exact models are irrelevant as it seems these are representative of those presently coming on to the market.
The manufacturer of one of the cars claimed that before the test journey the cars were not fully charged and therefore this was not representative. I have to disagree in that you may well find yourself in a situation whereby the car is not fully recharged before a journey. With petrol, diesel and lpg cars you can handle this by fuelling quickly and easily en route.
Their next comment was that the cars were run down to ensure they ran out of charge in a place where there were no public charging points. Again fair as there are very few of these in the whole of the UK especially if you are outside of the major cities.
I don't doubt that Top Gear did emphasise the negative features, but there have been mamy longer term tests over a week or more which have come to the same conclusions. Top Gear is an entertainment programme with limited time. They made the key points about electric cars well I feel.
Supporters of the electric car have said that it is all being viewed wrongly. They suggest that the electric car is primarily a city car.
Sounds good so far as the daily mileage is likely to be low. All these city car owners will then need a second car to use on longer journeys or succumb to expensive and unreliable public transport.
More of a problem however is charging. As there are very few public charge points, even in London, then you can only realistically charge your car at home. Fine if you live in a property with a drive or better still a garage (to minimise jokers and vandals tampering with the charging cable). Many people who live in cities have neither of these, and whilst those in ground floor properties could try and run a cable across the pavement to their car (Health and Safety!!) what about those on upper floors?
Someone suggested that electric cars have replaceable battery packs so you can drive into a filling station and swap your flat battery for a fully charged one. There are two big problems here. Given the weight of these battery packs a fair amount of insfratructure will have to be installed to achieve this, and a reasonable stockpile of batteries to ensure there are always some fully charged. More importantly is the design of a common battery pack - manufacturers all have their own designs tailored to their car design - the chance of a common battery for all cars, fitted in a location where it can be changed in a reasonable timescale is somewhere close to none at all.
Electric cars have only one purpose in their existence - to allow wealthy 'eco friendly' people to make a public statement.
I cannot see them being a practical solution in my lifetime.
Top Gear carried out a review of two electric cars at around about twenty five to twenty seven thousand pounds AFTER the government subsidy had been applied. These are not cheap cars then. The exact models are irrelevant as it seems these are representative of those presently coming on to the market.
The manufacturer of one of the cars claimed that before the test journey the cars were not fully charged and therefore this was not representative. I have to disagree in that you may well find yourself in a situation whereby the car is not fully recharged before a journey. With petrol, diesel and lpg cars you can handle this by fuelling quickly and easily en route.
Their next comment was that the cars were run down to ensure they ran out of charge in a place where there were no public charging points. Again fair as there are very few of these in the whole of the UK especially if you are outside of the major cities.
I don't doubt that Top Gear did emphasise the negative features, but there have been mamy longer term tests over a week or more which have come to the same conclusions. Top Gear is an entertainment programme with limited time. They made the key points about electric cars well I feel.
Supporters of the electric car have said that it is all being viewed wrongly. They suggest that the electric car is primarily a city car.
Sounds good so far as the daily mileage is likely to be low. All these city car owners will then need a second car to use on longer journeys or succumb to expensive and unreliable public transport.
More of a problem however is charging. As there are very few public charge points, even in London, then you can only realistically charge your car at home. Fine if you live in a property with a drive or better still a garage (to minimise jokers and vandals tampering with the charging cable). Many people who live in cities have neither of these, and whilst those in ground floor properties could try and run a cable across the pavement to their car (Health and Safety!!) what about those on upper floors?
Someone suggested that electric cars have replaceable battery packs so you can drive into a filling station and swap your flat battery for a fully charged one. There are two big problems here. Given the weight of these battery packs a fair amount of insfratructure will have to be installed to achieve this, and a reasonable stockpile of batteries to ensure there are always some fully charged. More importantly is the design of a common battery pack - manufacturers all have their own designs tailored to their car design - the chance of a common battery for all cars, fitted in a location where it can be changed in a reasonable timescale is somewhere close to none at all.
Electric cars have only one purpose in their existence - to allow wealthy 'eco friendly' people to make a public statement.
I cannot see them being a practical solution in my lifetime.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Supermarket Green Trickery Part Two
Previously in this blog I have discussed how supermarkets use environmental claims to enhance their image whilst in fact what they are doing benefits the supermarket more than the environment and also gives them a nice image with prospective customers.
I have downloaded a policy document from one such supermarket and would like here to address a number of the points. Don't get me wrong, some of their actions do benefit others more than themselves, but these are mixed in with many that are far from altruistic.
I have written to various people within the organisation concerned but they typically respond either by re-stating the policy document or by claiming I don't understand it correctly (making no attempt to explain it!)
An amusing starting point however is their target of reducing CO2 emissions from business travel. So far they have INCREASED emissions by 33%!
There are a number of items related to energy production, the first of which suggests generating their own electricity from anaerobic digestion plants - they now find it won't work for them so are rewriting the objective - sounds like politicians to me. Secondly they talk about on site renewables to generate power - again too hard so the objective is to be revised.
Let's move on to transport, with a couple of interesting ones here. The first relates to increasing use of bio-diesel. This has been suspended as, surprise, the production of bio-diesel is not presently sustainable because of the destruction of rain forest or diversion of land from food production in order to grow the crops from which it is produced. The second is very interesting - converting delivery fleets to cleaner EURO IV and V standard engines by 2012. This is very easy to achieve as follows: All large transport fleets regularly replace their vehicles - typically a three or four year life. They will replace their vehicles with new ones from manufacturers. Legally new vehicles MUST comply with this legislation. Ergo the fleet will automatically be upgraded to these standards anyway.
Finally for now, a couple more amusing objectives:
The objective was to label all airfreighted food. This objective has been achieved. They proudly announce that sales have not been affected - hence no benefit to anyone or the environment - pointless.
A plan has been stated to install electric charging points at stores to enable people to use so called 'environmentally friendly' electric cars. They have over seven hundred stores in the UK so how many will get charging points? Five. Again pointless, but at least when they find that no one uses them there will have been little impact on the environment installing them.
More posts on this topic to come, if I can't get the company themselves to listen to me perhaps a larger audience looking at these claims can have more impact.
Which company? If you hadn't yet guessed, they claim there is no Plan B and all the documents from which I have derived their claims are freely available from their website.
I have downloaded a policy document from one such supermarket and would like here to address a number of the points. Don't get me wrong, some of their actions do benefit others more than themselves, but these are mixed in with many that are far from altruistic.
I have written to various people within the organisation concerned but they typically respond either by re-stating the policy document or by claiming I don't understand it correctly (making no attempt to explain it!)
An amusing starting point however is their target of reducing CO2 emissions from business travel. So far they have INCREASED emissions by 33%!
There are a number of items related to energy production, the first of which suggests generating their own electricity from anaerobic digestion plants - they now find it won't work for them so are rewriting the objective - sounds like politicians to me. Secondly they talk about on site renewables to generate power - again too hard so the objective is to be revised.
Let's move on to transport, with a couple of interesting ones here. The first relates to increasing use of bio-diesel. This has been suspended as, surprise, the production of bio-diesel is not presently sustainable because of the destruction of rain forest or diversion of land from food production in order to grow the crops from which it is produced. The second is very interesting - converting delivery fleets to cleaner EURO IV and V standard engines by 2012. This is very easy to achieve as follows: All large transport fleets regularly replace their vehicles - typically a three or four year life. They will replace their vehicles with new ones from manufacturers. Legally new vehicles MUST comply with this legislation. Ergo the fleet will automatically be upgraded to these standards anyway.
Finally for now, a couple more amusing objectives:
The objective was to label all airfreighted food. This objective has been achieved. They proudly announce that sales have not been affected - hence no benefit to anyone or the environment - pointless.
A plan has been stated to install electric charging points at stores to enable people to use so called 'environmentally friendly' electric cars. They have over seven hundred stores in the UK so how many will get charging points? Five. Again pointless, but at least when they find that no one uses them there will have been little impact on the environment installing them.
More posts on this topic to come, if I can't get the company themselves to listen to me perhaps a larger audience looking at these claims can have more impact.
Which company? If you hadn't yet guessed, they claim there is no Plan B and all the documents from which I have derived their claims are freely available from their website.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Brussels Bureaucracy
From reading an article in the paper yesterday I get the feeling we are likely to be put under the Brussels thumb again. There are two caveats of course - first that you should never believe all you read in the paper, and secondly that this is currently not enacted in law.
The key issue is that Brussels wants to make users of transport pay the whole cost and for there to be no subsidies by the government and have issued a White Paper to this effect.
The article was focussed on rail travel, with the concern that some fares could rise by up to fifty percent. The White Paper also calls for an increase in road charges (as if they aren't high enough already). No mention is made of other transport options such as bus and tram but they may well also get caught up in this. Indeed the increased road charges are likely to hit the cost of bus travel.
What on earth are they trying to achieve. If rail charges went up without increased road charges it would reverse the government's desire to get people on to public transport for so called environmental reasons, but if road costs go up also then it is likely that some of the population will be unable to afford to even get to work in order to pay these costs.
In the days when many people worked in the local mill or factory then travel to work was often a short journey which was frequently walked. That however was the 19th and early 20th centuries. We are now in the 21st century and the world works differently.
It is not practical to change our requirement for travel significantly, the world has evolved.
Not only do we have the issues for individuals travelling to work, what about all the additional costs for businesses. Firms will encounter increased transport costs for goods or overheads on necessary staff travel. Some meetings may become video conferences but the day of the salesman who travels to showcase the company's products are not over yet.
Apparently a spokesman for the European Commission stated 'These are just proposals and any measures would have to be agreed by national governments' We have seen that before and it is probable that a few powerful governments (of which ours is not one) would steamroller the proposals through and ensure all countries complied with the EC Big Brother.
The key issue is that Brussels wants to make users of transport pay the whole cost and for there to be no subsidies by the government and have issued a White Paper to this effect.
The article was focussed on rail travel, with the concern that some fares could rise by up to fifty percent. The White Paper also calls for an increase in road charges (as if they aren't high enough already). No mention is made of other transport options such as bus and tram but they may well also get caught up in this. Indeed the increased road charges are likely to hit the cost of bus travel.
What on earth are they trying to achieve. If rail charges went up without increased road charges it would reverse the government's desire to get people on to public transport for so called environmental reasons, but if road costs go up also then it is likely that some of the population will be unable to afford to even get to work in order to pay these costs.
In the days when many people worked in the local mill or factory then travel to work was often a short journey which was frequently walked. That however was the 19th and early 20th centuries. We are now in the 21st century and the world works differently.
It is not practical to change our requirement for travel significantly, the world has evolved.
Not only do we have the issues for individuals travelling to work, what about all the additional costs for businesses. Firms will encounter increased transport costs for goods or overheads on necessary staff travel. Some meetings may become video conferences but the day of the salesman who travels to showcase the company's products are not over yet.
Apparently a spokesman for the European Commission stated 'These are just proposals and any measures would have to be agreed by national governments' We have seen that before and it is probable that a few powerful governments (of which ours is not one) would steamroller the proposals through and ensure all countries complied with the EC Big Brother.
Christian Values?
The Bishop of Manchester has blamed the 'me-first' culture for the recent riots in England. He goes on to explain that in his opinion the problems were down to the 'relentless erosion of Christian values' and a moral deficit in private and public life which had spawned 'acquiitiveness and dishonesty'.
I have to take him to task on two key issues here.
Firstly he is rather suggesting that only Christians have values and morals which is totally inaccurate. The majority of the people in this country have good values, ethics and moral standards regardless of which religion they support, and of course those who have no religion. It is totally wrong to say that Christians have the monopoly on this.
Secondly, we regularly hear cases of those in the church who one would expect to demonstrate these so called 'Christian values' demonstrating anything but. To take just two examples we have the child abuse within the Catholic church, and the number of church ministers who seem to ignore the sanctity of marriage in their dealings with their parishioners and have extra-marital affairs, ruining lives. I seem to remember a saying about people in glass houses and stones.
Perhaps the church lives by the maxim of 'Do what I say, not what I do'
I have to take him to task on two key issues here.
Firstly he is rather suggesting that only Christians have values and morals which is totally inaccurate. The majority of the people in this country have good values, ethics and moral standards regardless of which religion they support, and of course those who have no religion. It is totally wrong to say that Christians have the monopoly on this.
Secondly, we regularly hear cases of those in the church who one would expect to demonstrate these so called 'Christian values' demonstrating anything but. To take just two examples we have the child abuse within the Catholic church, and the number of church ministers who seem to ignore the sanctity of marriage in their dealings with their parishioners and have extra-marital affairs, ruining lives. I seem to remember a saying about people in glass houses and stones.
Perhaps the church lives by the maxim of 'Do what I say, not what I do'
Monday, August 15, 2011
Religious Discrimination
We often hear of cases where an individual feels they have been the victim of unfair discrimination because of their religion, whatever it may be. This makes news headlines and has the leaders of the appropriate church up in arms.
Less reported are the cases where someone has been discriminated against because they are not religious. This despite the fact that people with no religion are far from being a tiny minority. The cause for this lack of reporting is more likely to be the religious views held by some of the more influential figures in the media.
A case in point is a letter I was reading in a recent publication. It has been reported that the Scouting movement is in need of more adult volunteers. The writer of the letter, a father of two and also a parent governor, tried to volunteer. He was turned down as being unsuitable merely because he is an atheist.
This is unacceptable discrimination, yet I am sure the press would consider it not worthy even of a couple of lines somewhere. A man is prevented from displaying his palm cross in his company van and it makes the papers and the TV news.
What is the difference? Each case is one individual being discriminated against by an organisation on the grounds of what they believe or don't believe.
There are two issues here. First of all the chap volunteering for the Scouts was rejected for no valid reason, secondly the media are clearly biased in terms of what they report which is another form of discrimination.
I will be interested to see the figures from the 2011 census to show the breakdown of religious beliefs and those with no religion. I am sure that it will show that a large percentage of the UK hold no religious beliefs. If this is the case then the media should ensure they represent this fairly.
Less reported are the cases where someone has been discriminated against because they are not religious. This despite the fact that people with no religion are far from being a tiny minority. The cause for this lack of reporting is more likely to be the religious views held by some of the more influential figures in the media.
A case in point is a letter I was reading in a recent publication. It has been reported that the Scouting movement is in need of more adult volunteers. The writer of the letter, a father of two and also a parent governor, tried to volunteer. He was turned down as being unsuitable merely because he is an atheist.
This is unacceptable discrimination, yet I am sure the press would consider it not worthy even of a couple of lines somewhere. A man is prevented from displaying his palm cross in his company van and it makes the papers and the TV news.
What is the difference? Each case is one individual being discriminated against by an organisation on the grounds of what they believe or don't believe.
There are two issues here. First of all the chap volunteering for the Scouts was rejected for no valid reason, secondly the media are clearly biased in terms of what they report which is another form of discrimination.
I will be interested to see the figures from the 2011 census to show the breakdown of religious beliefs and those with no religion. I am sure that it will show that a large percentage of the UK hold no religious beliefs. If this is the case then the media should ensure they represent this fairly.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
The Death Penalty
Recent proposals have me somewhat concerned. This is the concept that the House of Commons could be asked to debate the reinstatement of the death penalty. I think this is wrong on a number of counts:
Given the number of miscarriages of justice, corruption in the police and other involved parties I could never be confident that the right person was being put to death. Evidence of crimes may also be inconclusive or misleading.
Violence never solved anything, and this could not be considered to be acting in defence of the victim(s) of the crime. If indeed the crime was murder, no punishment will bring the victim back.
A life sentence gives more time, if less focus, for the perpetrator to consider the wrong they committed. However I am very much of the view that for the more serious crimes then life should mean just that. In prison until their natural end of life.
Some religious texts however do seem to suggest the concept of an eye for an eye.
As far as I am aware, Jesus went back on the word of God in that the Old Testament promotes this punishment in Leviticus but the Sermon on the Mount later on waters it down to turn the other cheek.
What are we as a country to do? I can see that the death penalty may be a deterrent to some but, as the recent riots have demonstrated, there are those who seem to have no concern for any of the consequences of their actions or compassion for their victims.
I think that until we can address these issues, and I doubt we ever will, we cannot bring back the death penalty. I wholeheartedly believe however that life sentences should be issued for murder and should mean life.
Given the number of miscarriages of justice, corruption in the police and other involved parties I could never be confident that the right person was being put to death. Evidence of crimes may also be inconclusive or misleading.
Violence never solved anything, and this could not be considered to be acting in defence of the victim(s) of the crime. If indeed the crime was murder, no punishment will bring the victim back.
A life sentence gives more time, if less focus, for the perpetrator to consider the wrong they committed. However I am very much of the view that for the more serious crimes then life should mean just that. In prison until their natural end of life.
Some religious texts however do seem to suggest the concept of an eye for an eye.
As far as I am aware, Jesus went back on the word of God in that the Old Testament promotes this punishment in Leviticus but the Sermon on the Mount later on waters it down to turn the other cheek.
What are we as a country to do? I can see that the death penalty may be a deterrent to some but, as the recent riots have demonstrated, there are those who seem to have no concern for any of the consequences of their actions or compassion for their victims.
I think that until we can address these issues, and I doubt we ever will, we cannot bring back the death penalty. I wholeheartedly believe however that life sentences should be issued for murder and should mean life.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Misleading Advertising
Once again I am drawn to comment on what I would describe as misleading advertising to dupe the unsuspecting public.
In the paper I saw an advert for a shower gel product, with the European Eco-Label displayed. They show on the label of the product that it contains no Parabens, Colourants, Phthalates, or Phenoxyethanol.
All very good and we are to presume these are bad for the environment so it is laudable that the product does not contain them.
It all goes wrong however when I look at my standard supermarket own brand shower gel, and guess what? Despite making no bold environmental claims, it too has none of these ingredients in the product.
What is more, it is probably between one third and one sixth of the price of the 'Eco-Label' product depending upon the offers in force and by being supplied in larger bottles it is more economical on packaging.
Beware Eco claims, they may not be all they seem!
In the paper I saw an advert for a shower gel product, with the European Eco-Label displayed. They show on the label of the product that it contains no Parabens, Colourants, Phthalates, or Phenoxyethanol.
All very good and we are to presume these are bad for the environment so it is laudable that the product does not contain them.
It all goes wrong however when I look at my standard supermarket own brand shower gel, and guess what? Despite making no bold environmental claims, it too has none of these ingredients in the product.
What is more, it is probably between one third and one sixth of the price of the 'Eco-Label' product depending upon the offers in force and by being supplied in larger bottles it is more economical on packaging.
Beware Eco claims, they may not be all they seem!
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Chinese Lanterns
More and more these days we are seeing these pesky chinese lanterns. They are launched at weddings, parties, in fact any time when someone has got them without any particular reason.
I think they should be banned on a number of grounds, and this is just from personal knowledge - there may be other reasons that I haven't thought of.
Firstly, it seems that they never burn out completely, so even those with 'biodegradable' frames rather than metal wires will still come to earth in some form. The metal frames are litter that is dangerous to animals and children that come across them, but even the new biodegradable frames are potentially hazardous and can remain around for a long time.
Secondly, the fire risk. I have seen a chinese lantern, still burining, land on the roof of a nearby house. This was likely to be the result of a downdraft which exceeded the lantern's ability to rise. Fortunately it sat on the tiles and burned out without causing any damage- how different that could have been if it had landed on say a plastic gutter, thatched roof, or perhaps a dry crop in a farmer's field? There could have been massive and expensive fire damage.
Then of course we have the calls to the emergency services after people are convinced they have seen distress flares, aircraft going down in flames or in some cases, they are convinced these are aliens flying over.
Finally for now, as a pilot I have never had the misfortune to encounter one whilst airborne, but there are clearly two concerns. Firstly there is the possible damage, though unlikely, if one or more lanterns are ingested by an aircraft engine - the metal framed ones will be worse here. Secondly, the potential distraction caused to the crew if one suddenly comes into their field of view and they have to quickly identify it. Here I speak from experience of flying around bonfire night, with around 500 litres of high octane fuel in tanks either side of me, and questioning how high fireworks can get! The simple answer is that I climbed another 1,000 feet just to be sure but these lanterns can get very high depending on the weather conditions. I wouldn't want to experience that!
I think they should be banned on a number of grounds, and this is just from personal knowledge - there may be other reasons that I haven't thought of.
Firstly, it seems that they never burn out completely, so even those with 'biodegradable' frames rather than metal wires will still come to earth in some form. The metal frames are litter that is dangerous to animals and children that come across them, but even the new biodegradable frames are potentially hazardous and can remain around for a long time.
Secondly, the fire risk. I have seen a chinese lantern, still burining, land on the roof of a nearby house. This was likely to be the result of a downdraft which exceeded the lantern's ability to rise. Fortunately it sat on the tiles and burned out without causing any damage- how different that could have been if it had landed on say a plastic gutter, thatched roof, or perhaps a dry crop in a farmer's field? There could have been massive and expensive fire damage.
Then of course we have the calls to the emergency services after people are convinced they have seen distress flares, aircraft going down in flames or in some cases, they are convinced these are aliens flying over.
Finally for now, as a pilot I have never had the misfortune to encounter one whilst airborne, but there are clearly two concerns. Firstly there is the possible damage, though unlikely, if one or more lanterns are ingested by an aircraft engine - the metal framed ones will be worse here. Secondly, the potential distraction caused to the crew if one suddenly comes into their field of view and they have to quickly identify it. Here I speak from experience of flying around bonfire night, with around 500 litres of high octane fuel in tanks either side of me, and questioning how high fireworks can get! The simple answer is that I climbed another 1,000 feet just to be sure but these lanterns can get very high depending on the weather conditions. I wouldn't want to experience that!
Friday, August 5, 2011
Government Petitions
Has anyone noticed that the present government is following in the footsteps of their predecessors with the idea of e-petitions on the internet.
Anyone can propose a petition and if it is accepted by the moderator (first opportunity to ignore the public) it is published and members of the public can sign the petition.
If a government set target of number of signatures is received (second opportunity to ignore us) then the petition is moved forward for consideration by a committee.
If approved by the committee (third opportunity - is a pattern emerging here) then it is given time in the House of Commons.
The House of Commons can then discuss the proposed issue and have the final opportunity to reject it.
How much influence therefore do we really have?
I signed a number of e-petitions under the previous government. Only one reached its close date before the scheme was quietly dropped. From the one that did survive I received an email from the Prime Minister's office effectively saying 'thank you for your interest but you are wrong and we are right' No further debate or action was implemented. Doubtless my name was added to a list of troublemakers somewhere!
I think the other issue is one of representation - unless you keep an eye on all the e-petitions presented, and I am sure there are many, a petition may go through, say supported by 150,000 people. This is a small proportion of the voting adults in this country. If there is a strong feeling against the petition the only way to express this is to launch a counter petition at about the same time so that when both close it is possible for the powers that be to balance both sides of the equation.
Perhaps a better idea would be an e-referendum whereby anyone can sign for OR against the topic proposed.
All in all I think this is flawed and does not allow the public to properly make their feelings known to the government of the day. It is just another crumb to make us think that we are being listened to.
Anyone can propose a petition and if it is accepted by the moderator (first opportunity to ignore the public) it is published and members of the public can sign the petition.
If a government set target of number of signatures is received (second opportunity to ignore us) then the petition is moved forward for consideration by a committee.
If approved by the committee (third opportunity - is a pattern emerging here) then it is given time in the House of Commons.
The House of Commons can then discuss the proposed issue and have the final opportunity to reject it.
How much influence therefore do we really have?
I signed a number of e-petitions under the previous government. Only one reached its close date before the scheme was quietly dropped. From the one that did survive I received an email from the Prime Minister's office effectively saying 'thank you for your interest but you are wrong and we are right' No further debate or action was implemented. Doubtless my name was added to a list of troublemakers somewhere!
I think the other issue is one of representation - unless you keep an eye on all the e-petitions presented, and I am sure there are many, a petition may go through, say supported by 150,000 people. This is a small proportion of the voting adults in this country. If there is a strong feeling against the petition the only way to express this is to launch a counter petition at about the same time so that when both close it is possible for the powers that be to balance both sides of the equation.
Perhaps a better idea would be an e-referendum whereby anyone can sign for OR against the topic proposed.
All in all I think this is flawed and does not allow the public to properly make their feelings known to the government of the day. It is just another crumb to make us think that we are being listened to.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Integrated Public Transport
One of my problems with public transport is the method of payment. It is inconvenient to carry around large amounts of change and assorted bank notes just to cover the various fares we have to pay.
In many parts of the country there are smartcard systems, all seemingly discrete and incompatible.
What we need is a national travel card. My thinking is that the Oyster Card model works well. When I am in London I can use my Oyster to pay for train, tube, bus, tram and boat journeys - all with a simple tap on a reader, sometimes just on boarding, say for buses, other times on entry and exit, like the tube.
This charges the journey to your card. The basic card can operate either as a stand alone prepaid card that you manually add credit to when it runs out, or for those who make more journeys you can set an auto top up feature that links to your preferred payment method. The former is better for those who are concerned about providing payment details as they can top up in shops with cash.
Extending the model, the card can also be loaded with season tickets for those who have them and the correct ticket or charge will be recognised by the system.
Why do we not have this across the whole of the UK?
Many buses already have the smartcard readers and it therefore would seem only to be a software issue to add a national card into this. The driver already has to determine the fare so why not state your destination, be told the fare and then just tap your payment card.
Trams could either adopt the model used in London whereby you tap in at the point of boarding as all fares are fixed, or as used on the riverboats in London, where the conductor has a portable reader.
Even if we just implement this on buses and trams this would save a lot of grief. Depending upon financial limits we could potentially roll it out to taxis as well.
Imagine the benefits if you are away from home on holiday or business, you don't know the local fares so may have no idea how much money you need. A travel card like this will be ideal and will also speed up boarding of buses and reduce the amount of cash that both the passenger and the bus have to carry.
Prior to the last election I asked this question of both Labour and Conservative transport departments. Labour failed to answer the question (despite three letters repeating it) and the Conservatives said it was planned. I would have asked the Liberal Democrats but had no idea they would get anywhere near government!
I will update this post when (if) I get an answer from the present government, watch this space.
In many parts of the country there are smartcard systems, all seemingly discrete and incompatible.
What we need is a national travel card. My thinking is that the Oyster Card model works well. When I am in London I can use my Oyster to pay for train, tube, bus, tram and boat journeys - all with a simple tap on a reader, sometimes just on boarding, say for buses, other times on entry and exit, like the tube.
This charges the journey to your card. The basic card can operate either as a stand alone prepaid card that you manually add credit to when it runs out, or for those who make more journeys you can set an auto top up feature that links to your preferred payment method. The former is better for those who are concerned about providing payment details as they can top up in shops with cash.
Extending the model, the card can also be loaded with season tickets for those who have them and the correct ticket or charge will be recognised by the system.
Why do we not have this across the whole of the UK?
Many buses already have the smartcard readers and it therefore would seem only to be a software issue to add a national card into this. The driver already has to determine the fare so why not state your destination, be told the fare and then just tap your payment card.
Trams could either adopt the model used in London whereby you tap in at the point of boarding as all fares are fixed, or as used on the riverboats in London, where the conductor has a portable reader.
Even if we just implement this on buses and trams this would save a lot of grief. Depending upon financial limits we could potentially roll it out to taxis as well.
Imagine the benefits if you are away from home on holiday or business, you don't know the local fares so may have no idea how much money you need. A travel card like this will be ideal and will also speed up boarding of buses and reduce the amount of cash that both the passenger and the bus have to carry.
Prior to the last election I asked this question of both Labour and Conservative transport departments. Labour failed to answer the question (despite three letters repeating it) and the Conservatives said it was planned. I would have asked the Liberal Democrats but had no idea they would get anywhere near government!
I will update this post when (if) I get an answer from the present government, watch this space.
Monday, August 1, 2011
Dual Standard Church
I see from the paper today that the Church is once more meddling where it is not wanted.
This time it is over plans to charge for parking on Sundays. Their case is that this is another sign of the commercialisation of Sundays.
If they wish to object over this then they should first of all put their own house in order.
As an example consider York Minster. On Sundays, as on all other days when the Minster is open to visitors a charge of £9.00 is made per adult, with an additional £5.50 charge if you wish to climb the tower. The church will of course claim that this is to contribute to upkeep costs.
How does this differ from charging for car parking, where the revenue is to pay for upkeep of the car park?
Furthermore, within the Minster there is a shop, trading on Sundays. Again this is commercialisation and I would have thought this went against the teaching of the church that Sunday should be a day of rest with no work.
Of course this is repeated in many religious buildings across the whole country. This is pure hypocrisy. If the church wishes to abolish working on Sunday and the commercialisation of their day of rest they should start by setting an example.
This time it is over plans to charge for parking on Sundays. Their case is that this is another sign of the commercialisation of Sundays.
If they wish to object over this then they should first of all put their own house in order.
As an example consider York Minster. On Sundays, as on all other days when the Minster is open to visitors a charge of £9.00 is made per adult, with an additional £5.50 charge if you wish to climb the tower. The church will of course claim that this is to contribute to upkeep costs.
How does this differ from charging for car parking, where the revenue is to pay for upkeep of the car park?
Furthermore, within the Minster there is a shop, trading on Sundays. Again this is commercialisation and I would have thought this went against the teaching of the church that Sunday should be a day of rest with no work.
Of course this is repeated in many religious buildings across the whole country. This is pure hypocrisy. If the church wishes to abolish working on Sunday and the commercialisation of their day of rest they should start by setting an example.
Nottingham Transport System
Some years ago Nottingham started developing what seemed like a good transport system. There was to be a new tram system providing links from outside the city direct to the centre. You would be able to leave your car at one of the car parks on the outskirts of the city and travel quickly and easily to the heart of it.
That was the idea at least.
We now have Phase 1 in operation and it has been so for a while now therefore I think any initial issues should have been ironed out. Phase 2 is repeatedly on/off depending upon political wills and the method of funding.
Let's start with the issues with what we have.
First and foremost the trams are frequently overcrowded. The capacity was seemingly underestimated, either that or the system was sized to the budget and not the actual requirement. Given the frequency of the trams I think there is no scope to run extra trams and the infrastructure was built around the size of the existing trams so adding an extra car to the trams, even if possible, would not work without major rebuilding. This means that there is no spare capacity for growth in population or popularity.
Secondly, the payment system is antiquated. London has the Oyster Card which allows very quick payment of fares, tap and go as they would say. The tram system has a smart card but it is very slow in operation. It is also limited in that you purchase a one month card say and if for some reason you don't make many trips you lose out. The Oyster Card is simply a payment card which doesn't have these constraints but still offers discounted rates for using it. Or you can just use cash but be warned, bank notes above £10 are not accepted on the trams so a family of four, whose ticket price would exceed the limit cannot use a £20 note to pay!
Then we have the issue of access to the city centre. If there are protests or marches in the city for whatever reason then the trams stop some way before their destination (ultimately the main rail station) without even getting as far as the Old Market Square in the heart where most people seem to go. Is there a discounted ticket on these days? No. Do they consider keeping the march away from the tram? No.
Finally, and one which I have experienced only once fortunately, the provision for breakdown. I was using the tram to attend an exhibition in the city centre. All went well with my journey in but when it came to return there was a loud bang from the tram shortly before one of the tram stops. We continued and stopped in the tram stop to be told by the driver there was a small technical problem and we would continue shortly. Quite why he said this I don't know because he and the conductor had already inspected the problem (pantograph broken) and as the tram has only one then we were going nowhere - of course we we were on the tram and hadn't seen this.
After some considerable time the driver told us the tram was going no further and we might as well get off and continue our journey by other means. For a considerable time we we were told nothing and when we used the platform intercom to contact the central control they could tell us nothing either.
Eventually we were told that a replacement bus service was being laid on but from a previous stop. Trams were running on the other line to get passengers there but by then the bus service was already swamped as all trams coming out of the city were emptying passengers on to the platform. Compare the capacity and frequency of the bus compared with the tram and you realise this will only get worse. I was forced to do the same as many others, go back to the city centre and take a taxi out to my car.
There were two possible solutions I could see yet when I suggested then to the company after the event I was told they were not possible.
The trams were equipped with towing links designed to enable one to tow another - the engineer who was sent out set this up on our tram and the one pulled in behind but never actually linked them or moved the broken down tram. Had they done this the broken down tram could have been towed the short distance to the depot (remember no trams running on this part of the line at all now).
Alternatively as there are two lines at this point it should have been possible to implement single line working on the remaining section (which does go down to single line later anyway) and provide a reduced service but still a service. Had this requirement been thought about when the line was designed it should be possible to make allowances for such a contingency.
The outcome was a tram service that only covered a fraction of the service for many hours. Amusingly the 'Next Tram' indicators confidently counted down to the next tram even though none were moving!
And now for Phase 2 - well there isn't much to say apart from the fact that I am not sure we will ever get it and if we do it may have limited use.
Remember the car parks for Park and Ride? Well for one of the lines it is quite a way towards Nottingham down a heavily congested single carriageway A road. The opportunity was there to run the line a little bit further out to join up with East Midlands Parkway rail station which means better rail links and access to the huge and underutilised car park there. That also has a shorter stretch of A road to get to it so this could be made dual carriageway at a lesser cost. Apparently though this is not to be done as there are few intermediate stations to be served along this route.
There you go then, a semi tick in an environmental box without solving too many problems.
That was the idea at least.
We now have Phase 1 in operation and it has been so for a while now therefore I think any initial issues should have been ironed out. Phase 2 is repeatedly on/off depending upon political wills and the method of funding.
Let's start with the issues with what we have.
First and foremost the trams are frequently overcrowded. The capacity was seemingly underestimated, either that or the system was sized to the budget and not the actual requirement. Given the frequency of the trams I think there is no scope to run extra trams and the infrastructure was built around the size of the existing trams so adding an extra car to the trams, even if possible, would not work without major rebuilding. This means that there is no spare capacity for growth in population or popularity.
Secondly, the payment system is antiquated. London has the Oyster Card which allows very quick payment of fares, tap and go as they would say. The tram system has a smart card but it is very slow in operation. It is also limited in that you purchase a one month card say and if for some reason you don't make many trips you lose out. The Oyster Card is simply a payment card which doesn't have these constraints but still offers discounted rates for using it. Or you can just use cash but be warned, bank notes above £10 are not accepted on the trams so a family of four, whose ticket price would exceed the limit cannot use a £20 note to pay!
Then we have the issue of access to the city centre. If there are protests or marches in the city for whatever reason then the trams stop some way before their destination (ultimately the main rail station) without even getting as far as the Old Market Square in the heart where most people seem to go. Is there a discounted ticket on these days? No. Do they consider keeping the march away from the tram? No.
Finally, and one which I have experienced only once fortunately, the provision for breakdown. I was using the tram to attend an exhibition in the city centre. All went well with my journey in but when it came to return there was a loud bang from the tram shortly before one of the tram stops. We continued and stopped in the tram stop to be told by the driver there was a small technical problem and we would continue shortly. Quite why he said this I don't know because he and the conductor had already inspected the problem (pantograph broken) and as the tram has only one then we were going nowhere - of course we we were on the tram and hadn't seen this.
After some considerable time the driver told us the tram was going no further and we might as well get off and continue our journey by other means. For a considerable time we we were told nothing and when we used the platform intercom to contact the central control they could tell us nothing either.
Eventually we were told that a replacement bus service was being laid on but from a previous stop. Trams were running on the other line to get passengers there but by then the bus service was already swamped as all trams coming out of the city were emptying passengers on to the platform. Compare the capacity and frequency of the bus compared with the tram and you realise this will only get worse. I was forced to do the same as many others, go back to the city centre and take a taxi out to my car.
There were two possible solutions I could see yet when I suggested then to the company after the event I was told they were not possible.
The trams were equipped with towing links designed to enable one to tow another - the engineer who was sent out set this up on our tram and the one pulled in behind but never actually linked them or moved the broken down tram. Had they done this the broken down tram could have been towed the short distance to the depot (remember no trams running on this part of the line at all now).
Alternatively as there are two lines at this point it should have been possible to implement single line working on the remaining section (which does go down to single line later anyway) and provide a reduced service but still a service. Had this requirement been thought about when the line was designed it should be possible to make allowances for such a contingency.
The outcome was a tram service that only covered a fraction of the service for many hours. Amusingly the 'Next Tram' indicators confidently counted down to the next tram even though none were moving!
And now for Phase 2 - well there isn't much to say apart from the fact that I am not sure we will ever get it and if we do it may have limited use.
Remember the car parks for Park and Ride? Well for one of the lines it is quite a way towards Nottingham down a heavily congested single carriageway A road. The opportunity was there to run the line a little bit further out to join up with East Midlands Parkway rail station which means better rail links and access to the huge and underutilised car park there. That also has a shorter stretch of A road to get to it so this could be made dual carriageway at a lesser cost. Apparently though this is not to be done as there are few intermediate stations to be served along this route.
There you go then, a semi tick in an environmental box without solving too many problems.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Public Sector Waste
At a time of economic hardship for all, why is the Public Sector wasting so much money?
A recent report by MP's suggests that IT spending is far higher than it need be. True, the figure quoted of an average £3,500 per desktop PC which could be bought in the high street for £250 is like comparing apples with chalk - the higher figure allegedly includes sofware and support and infrastructure but even so I think the figure is excessive, and I speak from experience in an IT department supporting a large number of users with a wide variety of specialised hardware and software requirements..
Moving on to supplies, it appears that paper can be bought far more expensively than I buy it - how can anyone spend £73 on a box of paper, even if they take the ministerial Jaguar for a spin to go and buy it?
We then see a report of the websites that Whitehall civil servants like to visit - it seems that whilst we pay them to work they do a bit of online gaming, shopping, gambling and sometimes visit government websites.
I know from friends and relatives that this is not simply a London issue, outside the capital there are many reports of wasted spending. Organisations like the government and local and county councils ought to have the buying power to negotiate very good deals with supplier in view of the volume of business they represent - yet we still hear of items being purchased at a higher price than the high street because 'that is our approved supplier'
Recently there was a report of a council which purchased iPads for all the councillors despite the fact that many did not want them or subsequently use them. Supposedly this was to increase efficiency but if left unsused they cannot achieve this. Perhaps we should all be issued with a tablet/laptop of our choosing so we can be more efficient - makes just as much sense because it will ensure we can communicate with all the official bodies electronically!
In the private sector, buyers and managers who negotiated or approved these deals would at least be reprimanded, and if repeated it is likely they would find themselves looking for new employment. In the public sector it seems that this is not the case.
Some of these may seem like minor issues or slight overspend, but considering the size of the departments and councils involved it soon adds up. We are in massive defecit as a country - why not start by catching up on issues such as this and paring down the debt.
A recent report by MP's suggests that IT spending is far higher than it need be. True, the figure quoted of an average £3,500 per desktop PC which could be bought in the high street for £250 is like comparing apples with chalk - the higher figure allegedly includes sofware and support and infrastructure but even so I think the figure is excessive, and I speak from experience in an IT department supporting a large number of users with a wide variety of specialised hardware and software requirements..
Moving on to supplies, it appears that paper can be bought far more expensively than I buy it - how can anyone spend £73 on a box of paper, even if they take the ministerial Jaguar for a spin to go and buy it?
We then see a report of the websites that Whitehall civil servants like to visit - it seems that whilst we pay them to work they do a bit of online gaming, shopping, gambling and sometimes visit government websites.
I know from friends and relatives that this is not simply a London issue, outside the capital there are many reports of wasted spending. Organisations like the government and local and county councils ought to have the buying power to negotiate very good deals with supplier in view of the volume of business they represent - yet we still hear of items being purchased at a higher price than the high street because 'that is our approved supplier'
Recently there was a report of a council which purchased iPads for all the councillors despite the fact that many did not want them or subsequently use them. Supposedly this was to increase efficiency but if left unsused they cannot achieve this. Perhaps we should all be issued with a tablet/laptop of our choosing so we can be more efficient - makes just as much sense because it will ensure we can communicate with all the official bodies electronically!
In the private sector, buyers and managers who negotiated or approved these deals would at least be reprimanded, and if repeated it is likely they would find themselves looking for new employment. In the public sector it seems that this is not the case.
Some of these may seem like minor issues or slight overspend, but considering the size of the departments and councils involved it soon adds up. We are in massive defecit as a country - why not start by catching up on issues such as this and paring down the debt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)