Quick quote from a BBC article that analysises the issues:
"Better off out: It would be a major shot in the arm for
British democracy as the Westminster parliament regained its
sovereignty and reconnected with voters...."
LOL.
Actually it is some politicians ideological obsessions with the EU that has disenfranchised many voters. On top of that, wealth and the pursuit of personal gratification (something the Conservatives push as a good trait) has resulted in a complete lack of interest in voting and politics. I know for a fact that my colleagues think the latest computer games are more important to talk about than anything else on the planet.
The referendum is primarily a battle within the Conservative party and it's fringes (UKIP, the national press) and a single political party does not represent Britain.
The EU issue in the UK is all about attention seeking. Another reason why people don't vote, is because life is relatively stable and settled. Many Conservatives want to manufacture problems in order to make themselves and parliament more relevant. They want the state to be smaller and do less, but at the same time they want more personal influence and power.
This is all about them, far more than it is about us, other political parties or the nation. Yet we are being sucked into their personal battles. The fact is parliament can only gain relevancy by changing itself and using technology to include more direct democracy. That has nothing to do with the EU, which is a red herring as far as reconnecting with voters is concerned.
Sunday, February 21
Saturday, February 20
Channel 5 - the politically biased TV channel of the year
Is Channel 5 just a mouth piece for right wing and Conservative policies and ideology?
Well it seems it is.
Apart from the endless 'Benefits' TV shows that I assume are there to support cuts in state spending, the Gadget show seems to be the latest TV regular on the channel that is there just to sell us junk and serves along with the Channels other output as a support mouth piece for Conservative ideas and policies.
I have always had a love/hate relationship with The Gadget Show, unlike the poorly informed presenters, I worked as a technology design engineer (microprocessor and microcontroller software). The fact is the show is there to sell products, it is a glorified advertising platform which is why companies flock to it to have their products mentioned.
This week they managed to give an appallingly bad account of electric cars, implying that you can't travel long distances in todays models, motorways are apparently an issue. But of course no one on the show mentioned the fact that all motorway service stations have FREE quick electric vehicle charging points provided by Ecotricity.
One of the amateur vehicle testers mentioned that she was surprised that the vehicle she had been given was quite fast and expected it to be slow like a 'donkey'. Which sums up the lack of engineering input the show has. These vehicles do not have lead acid batteries and most electric cars are capable of outperforming all ICE vehicles on the road when it comes to acceleration.
Yep the idiots on this show are so incompetent at journalism (or more accurately, politically biased like our newspaper media) that they forget that they are supposed to do some research and provide an whole view of the situation. Plus of course they failed to mention tax breaks and vehicle low carbon emissions.
Channel 5 certainly beats them all when it comes to biased broadcasting. Although when it comes to bullshit journalism about cars, the Top Gear is up there with the Gadget Show.
http://www.ecotricity.co.uk/for-the-road
Well it seems it is.
Apart from the endless 'Benefits' TV shows that I assume are there to support cuts in state spending, the Gadget show seems to be the latest TV regular on the channel that is there just to sell us junk and serves along with the Channels other output as a support mouth piece for Conservative ideas and policies.
I have always had a love/hate relationship with The Gadget Show, unlike the poorly informed presenters, I worked as a technology design engineer (microprocessor and microcontroller software). The fact is the show is there to sell products, it is a glorified advertising platform which is why companies flock to it to have their products mentioned.
This week they managed to give an appallingly bad account of electric cars, implying that you can't travel long distances in todays models, motorways are apparently an issue. But of course no one on the show mentioned the fact that all motorway service stations have FREE quick electric vehicle charging points provided by Ecotricity.
One of the amateur vehicle testers mentioned that she was surprised that the vehicle she had been given was quite fast and expected it to be slow like a 'donkey'. Which sums up the lack of engineering input the show has. These vehicles do not have lead acid batteries and most electric cars are capable of outperforming all ICE vehicles on the road when it comes to acceleration.
Yep the idiots on this show are so incompetent at journalism (or more accurately, politically biased like our newspaper media) that they forget that they are supposed to do some research and provide an whole view of the situation. Plus of course they failed to mention tax breaks and vehicle low carbon emissions.
Channel 5 certainly beats them all when it comes to biased broadcasting. Although when it comes to bullshit journalism about cars, the Top Gear is up there with the Gadget Show.
http://www.ecotricity.co.uk/for-the-road
Saturday, February 13
Conservative anti-democracy and anti-British plans - part 1
I'll start off by saying that I have witnessed personally the arrogance of Conservative opinions at Havant Borough Council, so current anti-British or anti-English policies from the Conservatives do not surprise me.
Plan 1 - Ban charities and other organisations using grant money for lobbying government.
This is allegedly justified by suggesting that charities shouldn't be paid to lobby government.
But what does it really mean?
Well governments pay consultants, businesses and civil servants to advise them. Also that advice does not always agree with the governments current ideology. So effectively the government already freely pays for lobbying (advice), there is no point at all in paying advisors and other professionals to only give you advice that just confirms your beliefs and ideology, if you do you are wasting your money.
So basically it is normal and democratic for charities to lobby government and even use government money to tell that government that the got it wrong. I often tell my bosses they are wrong and need to change policy or processes, they still pay me.
Curent Conservative policy is dictatorial and shows they do not want to listen to the public or non-profit organisations. Maybe the next plan is to remove votes from those on benefits, or those that use the NHS.
Plan 2 -Cut off some Labour financial support via Union legislation and policy.
I'm not a great fan of Labour but I am reluctantly being driven in that direction by the extremism in politics today. If you are a political party in power and you know your policy is going to weaken your main opposition, you are behaving in an anti-democratic and dictatorial way.
These anti-patriotic and anti-democratic moves could be avoided through a complete overhaul with the way political parties are funded.
There do seem to be more plans, just two are mentioned here.
Some words from MI5:
Maybe Conservatives should read that carefully. Parliamentary democracy is only maintained if there is an effective opposition, IMO some Conservative policies could be deemed to be undermining our democracy.
Plan 1 - Ban charities and other organisations using grant money for lobbying government.
This is allegedly justified by suggesting that charities shouldn't be paid to lobby government.
But what does it really mean?
Well governments pay consultants, businesses and civil servants to advise them. Also that advice does not always agree with the governments current ideology. So effectively the government already freely pays for lobbying (advice), there is no point at all in paying advisors and other professionals to only give you advice that just confirms your beliefs and ideology, if you do you are wasting your money.
So basically it is normal and democratic for charities to lobby government and even use government money to tell that government that the got it wrong. I often tell my bosses they are wrong and need to change policy or processes, they still pay me.
Curent Conservative policy is dictatorial and shows they do not want to listen to the public or non-profit organisations. Maybe the next plan is to remove votes from those on benefits, or those that use the NHS.
Plan 2 -Cut off some Labour financial support via Union legislation and policy.
I'm not a great fan of Labour but I am reluctantly being driven in that direction by the extremism in politics today. If you are a political party in power and you know your policy is going to weaken your main opposition, you are behaving in an anti-democratic and dictatorial way.
These anti-patriotic and anti-democratic moves could be avoided through a complete overhaul with the way political parties are funded.
There do seem to be more plans, just two are mentioned here.
Some words from MI5:
The Act (Security Service Act 1989) refers to actions that are "intended to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means"https://www.mi5.gov.uk/home/about-us/what-we-do/the-threats/other-issues-former-threats/subversion.html
Maybe Conservatives should read that carefully. Parliamentary democracy is only maintained if there is an effective opposition, IMO some Conservative policies could be deemed to be undermining our democracy.
Sunday, January 31
A great and historic British invention is about to be destroyed
Some time ago I visited the Hovercraft museum at Lee On Solent:
lovelywaterlooville.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/eclipse-bus-ride-to-hovercraft-museum.html
BBC has reported that the two iconic cross-channel SRN4 Mountbatten class hovercraft kept at the museum are to be destroyed.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-35445419
So why is it that these locally (Cowes, Isle of Wight) built machines that are one of a kind are being destroyed? This is a British invention and nothing like the SRN4 has been built anywhere else in the world, yet politicians, councillors and nutters can only complain about immigrants and the EU!
No immigrant or the EU can be blamed for this appalling disrespect for British invention, creativity and intellectual knowledge. How many of the political moaners and nutters have bothered to visit the museum or offered financial support?
Latest news is that the government own the site and hovercraft:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-35449474
lovelywaterlooville.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/eclipse-bus-ride-to-hovercraft-museum.html
BBC has reported that the two iconic cross-channel SRN4 Mountbatten class hovercraft kept at the museum are to be destroyed.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-35445419
So why is it that these locally (Cowes, Isle of Wight) built machines that are one of a kind are being destroyed? This is a British invention and nothing like the SRN4 has been built anywhere else in the world, yet politicians, councillors and nutters can only complain about immigrants and the EU!
No immigrant or the EU can be blamed for this appalling disrespect for British invention, creativity and intellectual knowledge. How many of the political moaners and nutters have bothered to visit the museum or offered financial support?
Latest news is that the government own the site and hovercraft:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-35449474
Saturday, January 30
We should stay in the EU
Thought I would post my opinion regarding the EU.
My perspective is one of seeking facts, rather than one based on political ideology.
My personal experience has been that EU law was beneficial to the companies I have worked for. My first job was as a design engineer for a global electronic equipment design, development and manufacturing company. I use those three terms, because I think the single term 'manufacturing' doesn't express reality. Before you can make anything you need educated people to design and develop it.
The company in question indeed had market share outside the EU, but that wasn't where it's main competition was. Also the global market was for lower grade equipment whilst the EU was a market for higher grade and hence higher value equipment along with higher volumes of such equipment.
So what was it like within Europe before the EU, dealing with individual national laws and regulations?
The company spent a lot of money and time developing special versions of their product to satisfy an individual European nations rules and regulations. Germany in particular regularly changed the goal posts and made sure their own industry were well informed of any change a long time before the British company I worked for. The end result was that although our technology was superior (yes it really was better than the German equivalent), the German company always got a bigger market share within their native country. There were armies of civil servants across Europe checking that imported equipment satisfied the nations regulations, this of course was very expensive for the individual nations.
What was it like after EU law and regulation?
The change had a MASSIVE positive impact, it really can not be underestimated.
The British company designed and developed products in which a single version could be sold all over Europe. There was less bureaucracy to deal with in each nation. The company was so successful that it bought that German competitor. It also took over a number of other EU companies. Company costs were reduced.
The fact is we shouldn't be having a referendum. If we come out we will have just as many 'problems' as we allegedly have staying in. Plus of course if we have a referendum now, we will have to have another one in 5 or 10 years time because we will want to be back in.
I was listening to an individual calling into a radio talk show about the referendum, the caller said they were fed up with EU laws. The presenter then asked for a specific example of a EU law.
After a lot of thinking, the caller could only come up with one alleged law.
Apparently the EU insists all our cucumbers are straight!
What are the facts?
The mythical bent banana rule never banned bent bananas. The EU rules graded bananas into classes, any banning was done by supermarkets who refused to sell lower class fruit and veg. The fact is that if we were outside the EU, the big corporate supermarkets would still be banning mis-shaped fruit, plus there have been many TV campaigns and programmes that clearly show that it is these corporate companies (Supermarkets being in the news recently about rejecting food and failing to pay their suppliers) that ban food not the EU.
Finally the EU regulation that graded bananas was replaced in 2012.
My perspective is one of seeking facts, rather than one based on political ideology.
My personal experience has been that EU law was beneficial to the companies I have worked for. My first job was as a design engineer for a global electronic equipment design, development and manufacturing company. I use those three terms, because I think the single term 'manufacturing' doesn't express reality. Before you can make anything you need educated people to design and develop it.
The company in question indeed had market share outside the EU, but that wasn't where it's main competition was. Also the global market was for lower grade equipment whilst the EU was a market for higher grade and hence higher value equipment along with higher volumes of such equipment.
So what was it like within Europe before the EU, dealing with individual national laws and regulations?
The company spent a lot of money and time developing special versions of their product to satisfy an individual European nations rules and regulations. Germany in particular regularly changed the goal posts and made sure their own industry were well informed of any change a long time before the British company I worked for. The end result was that although our technology was superior (yes it really was better than the German equivalent), the German company always got a bigger market share within their native country. There were armies of civil servants across Europe checking that imported equipment satisfied the nations regulations, this of course was very expensive for the individual nations.
What was it like after EU law and regulation?
The change had a MASSIVE positive impact, it really can not be underestimated.
The British company designed and developed products in which a single version could be sold all over Europe. There was less bureaucracy to deal with in each nation. The company was so successful that it bought that German competitor. It also took over a number of other EU companies. Company costs were reduced.
The fact is we shouldn't be having a referendum. If we come out we will have just as many 'problems' as we allegedly have staying in. Plus of course if we have a referendum now, we will have to have another one in 5 or 10 years time because we will want to be back in.
I was listening to an individual calling into a radio talk show about the referendum, the caller said they were fed up with EU laws. The presenter then asked for a specific example of a EU law.
After a lot of thinking, the caller could only come up with one alleged law.
Apparently the EU insists all our cucumbers are straight!
What are the facts?
The mythical bent banana rule never banned bent bananas. The EU rules graded bananas into classes, any banning was done by supermarkets who refused to sell lower class fruit and veg. The fact is that if we were outside the EU, the big corporate supermarkets would still be banning mis-shaped fruit, plus there have been many TV campaigns and programmes that clearly show that it is these corporate companies (Supermarkets being in the news recently about rejecting food and failing to pay their suppliers) that ban food not the EU.
Finally the EU regulation that graded bananas was replaced in 2012.
Friday, January 29
Some cyclists abuse the Eclipse priority bus lane
Sadly some selfish cyclists abuse the facilities that are provided for public use and this is the case I witnessed recently on the Eclipse bus route.
I posted about this service before:
http://lovelywaterlooville.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/eclipse-bus-ride-to-hovercraft-museum.html
There are some cyclists that are using the long straight section of the Eclipse route as a cycle race/training track. I witnessed two cyclists on racing bikes and (yes you guessed it) lycra basically racing up and down the stretch of special road at least 3 times whilst I was waiting for a bus.
I witnessed them reaching the end of the road (Hutfield Link) and turning around to head back towards Fareham for another circuit.
On top of that they broke the highway code by overtaking the bus parked at the bus stop and forced an oncoming bus to slow to a stop, something the highway code specifically warns against because it is dangerous. The bus driver in the oncoming bus threw his arms up in the air in despair.
Imagine if two car drivers decided to use a stretch of road to charge up and down in preparation for a motor race?
The fact is it would be an illegal use of the road and the police would at least give both the drivers fines. Isn't this cyclist behaviour just as bad?
There are a lot of cyclists that use the Eclipse route to transport them to work and shops, they use it for the purpose it was designed for. Cyclists that want to race on a track (because that is what these cyclists were using the road for, they didn't have a destination) should find a dedicated track just like motor racing enthusiasts do.
I don't think it would be unreasonable to ban this type of use on this special road. There are already restrictions on vehicle types, it wouldn't be unfair to ban these fanatics and make sure other cyclists that use the road are protected.
Wednesday, January 20
10 Cloverfield Lane movie trailer - my two pence worth
OK the trailer for this future movie release has caused some buzz, so here is my opinion:
It takes place at the same time as the original Cloverfield film.
It is a different POV of the same events. The 3 in the nuclear bomb shelter bought the shelter just in case humanity decided to destroy themselves, they watch the news about the monster or see it and immediately go down below to wait out the mayhem above to finish.
Well, we will have to see when it is released or someone spills the beans.
20/03/16 - Well I haven't seen this film yet, but it looks like my guess was wrong. Seems like the only thing common between this and the original is the use of the name 'Cloverfield'.
It takes place at the same time as the original Cloverfield film.
It is a different POV of the same events. The 3 in the nuclear bomb shelter bought the shelter just in case humanity decided to destroy themselves, they watch the news about the monster or see it and immediately go down below to wait out the mayhem above to finish.
Well, we will have to see when it is released or someone spills the beans.
20/03/16 - Well I haven't seen this film yet, but it looks like my guess was wrong. Seems like the only thing common between this and the original is the use of the name 'Cloverfield'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)