Posts by peter

New Law?

Don't worry. If it not the Law at the moment, it soon will be!

Look at all the other 'is not a law against that' that inconvenienced the police who thought there was a law..

1. Taking photos of the police is the first to spring to mind. Many people got threatened because police thought it was against the law....and now it is.

2. Stopping motorists for no reason used to be a big no-no, which of course the police tred to get around, but now the police can stop you for any reason, or for that matter for no reason at all.

3. Right to silence was a absolute right and annoyed the police no end, but now it can be 'inferred' that if you do keep silent you are as guilty as hell.

Lets us not forget the vote wining stance of our Home Office minister who will push through any law just as long as it can garner some votes from our more gullable electorate.

Chainsaw Sir?...........Please carry on.

And yet a chansaw is not an item on the banned list, and is therefore allowed.

http://www.stupidsecurity.com/article.pl?sid=08/11/12/2353229&mode=thread

Re: Am i missing something?

It is well know amongst the criminal community that if you are going to a 'do', search around for a pile of used cigarette butts and scatter them around at the scene of the crime. There is a very good chance that one of them is on the DNA database and does not have a better alibi than 'I was sat in front of the telly with my wife'. Even if none of them are on the database, a good lawyer can still raise considerable doubt in court by pointing out to the jury that the police has evidence of 'untraceable' persons at the scene of the crime.

Of course if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.......................

well other than being dragged out of your house, detained for several days, and possibly even being charged and sent to court because your DNA has been found at the scene of a crime and you have no alibi. Don't know about you, but my workplace frowns very heavily on any hint that I have been involved in a criminal activity - convicted or not. (and if you think that is not possible, think of the teachers who have lost their jobs because of an unsubstantiated accusation - same sort of thing)

So I do have something to fear - loss of my job and loss of my house for a start.

Are we all feeling safe yet???

Er...Em...Ah...Ahem....Cough

"We will not release documentation" (Pound Fist on Table)

"Er.....on how the Americans tortured suspects" (Said in a sightly less beligerant tone)

"Em......to obtain inteligence" (Did I just say the American tortured suspects?)

"Ah........because they might not release inteligence vital to our security" (Safe ground here. Nothing is more important to my Vote than mentioning safety.)

"Ahem.....and we all know how reliable inteligence obtained from torture is" (who wrote this briefing?)

Cough.....gained by torturing suspects (red face, pauses, stamering)

An 'embarrassed silence' following that statement would be about the only truthful thing coming out of his mouth. And they cannot seem to understand why we do not trust a single thing they say.

Yes...Yes...But why French on an ID card

@ Neoc

Grand hisory lesson.....but not a word as to why French on a UK ID card.

French may well be the language of diplomats....but it is an UK ID card

French may well be included on a passport....but it is a UK ID card

French may well be an official EU language.....but it is a UK ID card

The UK ID card is not a passport.

The UK ID card is not an EU ID card.

It is a UK ID card, for UK citizens, for use in the UK........so why French?

<Tinfoil Hat on>

Unless of course that it is intended to be a EU ID card, and we will be forced to carry it whenever we travel through Europe. Why cannot we just use our passport as we do now? Well you don't need to use a passport when traveling within your own country do you........also known as the United Stated of Europe.

<Tinfoil Hat off>

Total over-reaction

"As a community, we are already quite firm: we do not and will not accept images of child pornography. So then the question becomes: does this image fit the definition under (especially) US law, or the law of any particularly relevant countries (UK). That is a question of judgment of fact that I do not think has been looked at sufficiently."

Translation.........

"Oops. Instead of a knee-jerk_ban_everything_just_in_case_on_the_basis_that_one_picture_'might'_be_illegal, we really should have done our jobs properly by determining if it was actually an illegal image and acting appropriately and proportionally. Otherwise we might look like complete twonks instead of a responsible organisation doing good work to protect children."

Twonks.

Cutting off your nose..........

All parties are hard at work sweating every detail, and maximising return, squeezing every drop of the $multi-millions visions floating before their eyes..... Meanwhile in the real world anyone who wanted the Beetles on their Ipod (other players and music formats are available) has already ripped them or downloaded them.

Revenue stream if they had pulled their heads out of their own fundimentals....$millions. Success!

Revenue stream now it is all too late.... $zero. Fail!

Still, not all bad news. The Lawyers will have got paid (pity it will be at the expense of actually paying the artists - but hey - they are only the ones who actually earnt the money in the first place with their talent so no great loss there then.)

Prediction of costs

There are 'estimated' costs at the moment - which the government will probably keep to so as not to look complete umptys. That will probably require some governments money - so the taxpayer pays.

Then the cost will be increased 'to make it cost neutral'. (i.e. to make sure it it will be profitable for private contractors)

Then the cost will increased again to make it revenue earning. Probably of the back of some Green excuse.

Anti-complaint

Where do I go to register an anti-complaint on the BBC website? I wast to offset one of the complaints from those who don't have a sense of humour.

I would be convinced if........

A road near me was unrestricted, but an old man was killed where a public footpath crosses it.. Action was taken, the speed limit was reduced to 40 and cameras were erected.

Of course I would be a bit more convinced if:

a. It was not a dead straight road with proper pavements, surrounded by fields with no houses anywhere in sight.

b. I did not know that the old man was killed 'cos he stepped out in front of a bicycle.

c. the cameras were actually erected somewhere near where the old man was killed i.e. where the footpath crosses.

More odd was the pavement with no houses anywhere near. However the council made full use of it to further improve safety and painted a road down the middle of the pavement converting it into an instant cycle path.

Think about that one. The only death on this road was when a bicycle came into contact with a pedestrian, and the council 'improved safety' by letting byicycles ride on the pavement.

Accurate Database?

We have always paid the licence in one hit, but this year decided to pay by direct debit. We now have three letters from the licencing authority. One letter thanking us for paying by direct debit, another containing the licence, and the final threatening us with prosecution if we dont get a licence.

I can only asume a 'database' error.....and am praying that no-one corrects it. I want the pleasure of being door-stepped and and telling them to take a hike, and then being taken to court. I really really want to see their faces as I present my licence as evidence.

Paris..cos one can dream

'random and incorrect' ....Huh?

"...About two minutes after the initial fault, the [ADIRS] generated very high, random and incorrect values for the aircraft's angle of attack...."

I have worked on safety critical and flight control systems before and this sounds completly off the wall.

Firstly, there should be software filtering which can detect 'random and incorrect' values outside of normal flight parameters, discount them and mark a fault condition. Secondly, there should be multiple sources of data, so that the failure of one can be discounted by comparison to the other sources.

So what what went wrong here?

Predicition come to pass

I am in the armed services and it has long been a topic of conversation when (not if) this was going to happen.

What is really scary is the sheer volume of information that we have to give the MoD/Government. If you go through the full security clearance, it includes all bank accounts, addresses for the last 10 years, mothers maiden name, all relative's names DOB & address, employees over the last 10 years, passport copy, driving licence copy and so on. About the only thing they don't have is my pet's name. This information is sufficient for total and complete identity theft.

We have said that it was only a matter of time before some or all of this information is 'lost', and our lives would be totally screwed. And what could we do about it? Nothing. Leaving the services is not even an option as the information is still there and ready to loose.

Still we can always rely on the Governmnt to recognise the problem and help us out if the worst happens can't we?

@ By The Other Steve

Physical segregation. Too right, but from the other perspective....

There are divided pedestrial/cycle tracks near me, but narrow because all teh council did was paint a line down the middle. I have been verbally abused and even been deliberatly hit by bikes as they brush past because you are an inch on 'their' side of the path. I have stopped going to those parts of the park, because I cannot have my kids running around into the path of some 20mph "I stop for nothing 'cos its my right of way" idiot on a bike. I could 'not' take them to the park to 'not' run around, but what is a park for?

(and yes I write this as a cyclist as well as a pedestrian, but I do not think I own the road just because there is a picture of a cycle painted on it)

@ Martin G. Helmer

"Back in the old days (the 1990's), there was "no conclusive evidence that smoking causes lung cancer"."

The 1990s are the old days? Just how old are you? Obviously not old enough to remember the universal recognition then by all health professionals that smoking killed and the thousands of studies dating back to the 1950s that showed that there was a direct measurable link to cancer (and other illnesses).

The only thing which is 'new' is the recognition of how much risk there was by passive smoking. (It was recognised even back in the 50s that there was a risk, but only recently has it been able to be quantified).

So smoking was a real risk to health, multiple studies proved it and the risk was measurable. The only people denying it was the cigarette manufacturers looking at $Billions in losses if they admitted it.

Somewhat different to the 'death rays from mobiles' stores we are subjected to then and well worth putting in proportion.

Just some logic and consistency please

I still don't understand the logic of taking and keeping all of this DNA.

The main argument seems to be 'think of all those 20 year old rapes we solved because we pulled someone over for not having a numberplate light'. To which my response is 'Why are we waiting for someone to offend again before we can catch them. Logically, we should DNA test everyone. Think of all those unsolved cases we could solve now, and all of those cases that could be solved instantly in the future! '

Of course that runs straight into the eroded freedoms argument. So we cannot do it fro everyone, but only some people. So why take the DNA of someone with a blown numberplate? It is likely to solve a 20 year old spate of unsolved blown bulb crimes? Do all rapists have blown numberplate lights?

There is only two logical and consistent arguments for taking and keeping DNA.

1. Take everyone's DNA, irrespective of their personal freedoms

2. If you want to limit the taking of DNA to keep personal freedoms, take only DNA for the purposed of solving a crime and only keep that DNA on conviction for serious crimes for which there is a risk of reoffending.

We are stuck is this strange illogical position where the police seem to be thinking up any excuse to take as much DNA of the UK population as possible (and I do mean 'excuse', not 'reason').

Blocking software rule bites back

I worked for a defence company who decided to instigate blocking software for any words like 'confidential' or 'secret'. At the same time they instigated a legal disclaimer that was automatically appended to be bottom of every email, which contained the phrase 'This email may contain information which is confidential to this company'.

We spend days in happy ignorance that every single email from the whole company was being trashed.

And another in the long list of 'carbon/cost saving' ideas

Anyone else in the British Army last year remember the brilliant scheme for saving carbon emissions / electricity costs. And the brilliant idea was...

wait for it.......

Take out every other fluorescent light bulb.

And this was during winter, so we sat there in the gloom with our single fluorescent bulb. Where I was there was a fault with the heating and we were heating the place up with fan heaters over most of last winter, so any cost savings (miniscule at best) were lost with the extra costs of running fan heaters.

That is the Civil Service for you. "Spend a pound to save a penny" should be their motto.

<icon) Nice warm glow of a fire to tost my toes

Resolved within 24 hours. Where do I sign up?

1. Someone actually answered the phone

2. No-one said 'Of course it is correct 'cos the computer sez so'

3. The operator was able to pass the problem to managers

4. Managers were available after 5.00pm

5. A promised callback actually happened

6. By the following morning the problem was resolved.

7. There was an immediate offer to cancel that month's bill.

Considering the number of times I have had phone calls that go unanswered for over 1/2 hour (and then get cut off), totally impossible bills which will not be corrected because the numpty on the help desk cannot do simple maths, promised callbacks that never happen and an offer of £10 after failing to resolve mistake afer mistake over a 9 month period, this is a shining beacon of customer service. Vodaphone here I come.

Innocent till proven guilty....unless it is inconvenient

"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," English jurist William Blackstone.

Or did I get that quote the wrong way round?

Attorney General Thomas Chisholm Anstley "Better hang the wrong men than confess that British sagacity and activity have failed to discover the real criminals."

Its most about peak loading

There seems to be a lot of concentration about how much energy everyones needs and how much renewables can contribute to that. However the big big issue is peak load. If your system cannot cope with that you are busted.

It is all very well having micro turbines, photovoltaic panels, etc etc, but if they cannot deliver the peak loading when everyone gets up from Eastenders to make a cup of tea, your problem is not solved.

All the renewables suffer from the same major problem, you just cannot just wind them up instantly to produce more power. You could have massive over production capacity to cope with the peak loads, but it would mean covering a fair proportion of the whole of the UK with wind farms for example. Then there is the tricky problem of when there is no wind - and the same goes for most renewables.

A mix of renewable sources plus huge power 'instant on' power storage to cope with lack of renewable energy avilable when the demand peaks is the only way to make it work.

The only sensible renewable technology I have ever seen proposed that could beat both the huge demand and the 'instant on' power problem, was to build a whole series of tidal power generators around the UK, with a large mix of wind turbines / Solar panels / renewables to feed power into them. Building tidal generators around the UK would alleviate the 'only twice a day' problem with tides, and the additional power feeds would assist by pumping water higher (or lower), when excess power is available. Basically use tidal as both power generation and power store.

Of course you have got to build enough of them spread around the coastline (£Billions?) and build the huge number of renewables needed (£Billions?). You will probably still need nuclear/fossil fuel generators because no renewable mix will supply enough for everyone all the time everywhere.

Then there is getting over the objections of the 'save the lesser spotted warbling ground worm for future generations to enjoy' brigade. I visited one guy who proudly show me his brand new solar heating panel and then listened to how he was applying to the council for a reduction in his council tax because the nearby wind generator has ruined the value of his house. There is a motorway between him and the generator and is built on an industrial estate. I told him that I could not hear it over the sound of the cars and thought it looked quite nice compared to the industrial buildings and could not see how it had affected the value of his house - let alone ruined it.. I must have upset him or something because he has not spoken to me since. Ho hum.

and do what with it?

Are they going to put it in the post or what? Probably keep it as evidence 'just in case'.

Don't be surprised in 10 years time to see some Super sporting the fancy item he recovered when they were reviewing the contents of the evidence locker.

Unsafe Baiting

I have a mate at work who is.....shall we say more susceptable to tanning than me. About 3 weeks after the tube shooting he went on a tourist visit to London and found himself outside the Ministry of Defence. As he was wearing his rucksack over the top of his heavy coat (he feels the cold more than me for some reason!), he decided this would be a good time to take a photo of the security cameras stuck to the building.

No reaction from the plods (by which I mean he is still alive and not dressed in orange overalls), but braver than me - thats for sure.

"We have systems to ensure these errors are not made."

If only there was some truth to that obvious lie.

After about 3 years of being with them, I got an quarterly estimated bill that was a bit high. In fact it was more that I had spent in the last three years. I would have ignored it except for the bit that said that they were going to increase my Direct Debit to about £500 per month. Eeeek.

I tried to explain to Tracy ("I got a GCSE in Domestic Science") at the call centre that their computer is a bit crook and that I was not going to allow them to take £500/month, but the only response was that the "Computer must be right" and that "people use more energy during winter you know". No amount of explaining that the estimate was about 10x bigger that I had ever spent in any quarter in the last three years would convince her that the computer was wrong. I gave a real reading which showed I was actually in credit and her response...... "you must have used less this quarter than you normally do." Sigh.

Paris......Money.....Maths. You know how to join the dots.