Just one vote

Here is logical / illogical premise.

Only one person needs to vote in a UK parliamentary election to elect an MP. Democratic principle can be exercised by just one person.

Proof:

In any election there is essentially only a winner and a loser, in most election only two candidates are in serious running for the win. Therefore anybody that votes for the also runs need not bother voting.

Which leaves two candidates and their voters. Now if candidate X gets 20,000 votes and candidate y gets 23,200 voters then the net win is 3,200. So in fact the forty thousand votes than can be paired in the end don't matter so they can stay at home as well.

Now whether you win by 3,200 or 1 doesn't make any difference you don't get bonus points. So really 3,199 voters might as well save their legs as well.

Just one person needs to go out and vote to elect the new member of parliament.

The trick is identifying the one person.

Sun makes apology to police community support officers

There was a story about two PCSOs who allegedly stood by and did nothing while a lad tried to rescue his sister.

Here is the balanced BBC story of the inquest Police defend drowning death case.

I cant find the original sun story but would guess it wasn't that ethical.

Anyway the full Sun retraction is here and I am happy to reproduce it to ensure that it gets the widest possible audience. PCSOs come in for a lot of stick and such negative accusations are not positive for society in general.

"OUR reports on the inquest of Jordon Lyon who drowned trying to rescue his sister (September 2007) stated two Police Community Support Officers from Greater Manchester Police stood by and did nothing.

We wish to clarify the two PCSOs arrived after Jordon disappeared under the water and they summoned help and directed other emergency services to the scene.

We apologise for any distress our report may have caused."

-THE SUN

Maybe if we start publishing such retractions widely on blogs we can undermine the credibility of the gutter press and stop the culture of publish today, print a small retraction tomorrow.

The media should be held accountable for what they publish and encouraged to act with responsibility as we all know retractions afterwards mean nothing once somebodies reputation has been ruined.

Many thanks to "The Plastic Fuzz" for bringing the retraction to my attention. I shall be keeping an eye on this blogger.

Another House MD remix video

I started looking through videos on you tube some of the mixes are great, some world class directing going on.

This one is set to 'How to save a life" by The Fray, which is an excellent song. Watch out for the perfectly planned and executed piano sequence.

The Future is Bright, the Future is Nano (BBC)

Sometimes you read a news item and you get a feeling this could be the start of the next internet, the small piece of news that will change the world beyond all recognition in years to come.

This is one of those pieces, researchers have built the worlds smallest transistor just 1 atom thick and 10 atoms wide made of a new super material Graphene which is a single layer of graphite (the same stuff in your pencil). You really cant get much smaller than that.

Even better it is a UK research group doing the work from the University of Manchester.

Essentially Graphene will one day replace silicone and is anticipated to be even better than silicon especially in the nanometre range.

Dont expect to see the first Graphene products just yet. The researchers still have to find an efficient manufacturing process and scale it up. It will be at least another 10 years before we start seeing our first products but to be fair they only discovered it four years ago.

I shall leave the last words to Professor Bob Westervelt who was assessing the material and its future applications in the journal, "Science".

"The future should be very interesting"

The "Credit crunch"

The story of the "credit crunch" continues. Twelve months ago it wasn't even a phrase.

Here is my little diagram of the main players, it looks like the consumers are trapped in some dodgy little pyramid scheme and in some respects we are. In a blamestorm (a blame equivalent of a brainstorm) everyone would be found to be at least partly responsible. The other issue is trust, all of the players are closely connected and any exchange in money is based on trust.

To examine the credit crunch more closely we have to examine the concerns and motivations of each party:

Bank of England:

Main concerns: Inflation is now at 2.5%, over the government target and although the interbank credit markets lack fluidity the bank doesn't want to be seen as bailing out past poor financial decisions.

Options: Interest rates cannot be adjusted sufficiently to boost confidence, the risk of rampant inflation is too high. It is likely the Bank of England will have to offer longer term loans or take risk onto its books to increase confidence.

Lenders:

Main concerns: Avoid going bankrupt and reduce their risk dramatically. Spread the blame and get a bail-out from the government.

Options: Reduce risk, find compromise with Bank of England over longer term loans. Learn from their mistakes, leave risky mortgages to specialist companies.

Government:

Main concerns: Win the next election, give the consumer what they want without storing up problems for the next five years.

Options: Reduced since the Bank of England were made independent (A very good thing). Spread the blame to the banks and consumers suggest that their hands are tied while lobbying for other parties to sit round the table.

The government may be able to look at stronger regulation for the financial services or increase funding for home owner schemes to add buoyancy to the housing market.

Consumers:

Main concerns: running out of money fast with inflation, poor pay rises and being heavily extended on credit. If not on the housing ladder now, absolutely no chance. If on housing ladder fears of a market crash and negative equity.

Options: Re-finance debt and lobby for changes to the banking system. If they have over extended themselves learn that the economy can go down as well as up and that no one will come bail you out.

Summary

Somehow we need to regain confidence in the banking system I would expect the Bank of England to make more loan money available to lenders over longer terms. Hopefully, all lenders will learn not to take as many risks.

Consumers will loose out, credit that was available will not be extended to the same extent. Everyone now accepts that lenders made some dubious decision and took on too many high risk loans. This is partly the consumers fault for over extending themselves, just because a lender offers you money doesn't mean you should take it.

For the property market using simple demand / supply economics. Demand will fall especially at the lower end of the market as it is the first time buyers that prop up the market. This will then cascade up. However, supply may also fall which may lead to a stabilisation of the property market.

Best guess is the property market will go through a structural re-alignment, we may see a fall before it stabilises at just below or near inflation growth. Falls will be lower at the bottom end of the market, even with credit restrictions I would anticipate that demand for first houses will still outstrip supply.

When it comes down to it I feel blame lies with both the lenders and the consumers. No one thought that the economy would have a hiccup, we built our finances on a house of cards, when one fell so did all the others.

Surveillance and council spying (BBC)

There have been several interesting news stories this week. This one caught my eye because it is another example of a story that can be twisted depending on which media outlet is telling the story. In my opinion the BBC article is a fair balanced view, although some of their tv coverage has been more sensationalist.

The sensationalist version is that a local council has used terrorism surveillance laws to monitor whether a family were telling the truth about where the live.

The instant reaction is how much of an over reaction that is by the council, a misuse of legislation and yet another example of how the UK is turning into a police state. You can read or see all of the above in different parts of the media.

I even heard 'police state' mention by a commentator on BBC News 24. Which if you read many of my articles you realise that such a comment would be opinion passing itself off as news, which in itself is misleading and inaccurate. Especially if you don't know the political leaning, previous commentary on issues.

I digress slightly about commentary but what I am suggesting is if you have prior knowledge of the commentator you have an idea of how to treat their comments, if you like assign a credibility value. For instance hypothetically, Jeremy Clarkson and Sir Ian Blair make the comment that speed cameras are ineffective in reducing road deaths. If Jeremy Clarkson says it you know he is mouthing off as he always does, as he is a world renown speed enforcement hater. However if Sir Ian Blair says it you treat it with a bit more respect as presumably you trust his opinion more.

This of course assumes you are able to rationalise facts and don't hold the completely opposite view that Jeremy Clarkson is a genius and Sir Ian Blair is a fool. If you do, think of what you might think if Jeremy Clarkson said that you should keep to the speed limits at all times and Sir Ian Blair said the same.

Anyway, the point is if you don't know a bit about the commentator how can you make a judgement of credibility on an isolated comment. So John Brown comes out and says that speed cameras are ineffective. The question should be why is he saying that, what's his background? The danger with unknown commentators is we make a quick judgement, if they affirm our beliefs then they are right, if they don't they are clearluy biased or insane.

Surely we should be willing to explore whether they are right or wrong, but unfortunately the media don't always give us that opportunity.

I digress, we were talking about the use of RIPA laws and survelliance.

First we need to know what RIPA is supposed to be used for. According to the home office website RIPA is

"The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) legislates for using methods of surveillance and information gathering to help the prevention of crime, including terrorism."

Do not focus on the buzzword of terrorism, it is about preventing crime. Basically and I am not a legal expert it legislates the use of surveillance and information gathering when a criminal activity is suspected. My understanding is that you have to have reasonable suspicion of a criminal offence taking place to be granted rights to conduct surveillance.

If we take the surveillance that this article talks about, the council suspects that the family may be making a fraudulent claim and giving a false address. We don't know exactly what information they had but maybe they had two address on file, or the family had provided documents with a different address. Presumably the council must have had some evidence for the RIPA to be granted. Agencies are not allowed to conduct surveillance with out a RIPA application unless they have an immediate need which prevents them from submitting an application.

If you are interested you can look at the seven page application they would have had to submit. It includes questions on whether it is intrusive or proportionate to the need. It is also submitted from a senior officer, in the form the suggestion is senior department head which again suggests that internally to the council a number of people would have reviewed the request.

This application is then reviewed and approved I would assume in a similar way to the police applying for warrants to search premises.

In other words given that the RIPA was granted it should follow that the approach by the council was appropriate and responsible.

Although criminal activity was not proved the family openly admit they resided at the address within the catchment area and then moved out after the deadline had passed. Depending on how you look at things this could still be considered fraud or not in the spirit of fairness to other families.

The BBC article mentions similar surveillance by the council. In the three cases the council investigated two other families had their places withdrawn. This limited statistical evidence would suggest that the council applies the policy fairly, investigating only those where fraud is suspected.

Certain parts of the media may suggest that anything less than a 100% is unacceptable however if this were the case I would be more suspicious that the council is letting people getting away with it. If you were using a better known police comparison you would not suggest that a 100% of suspects arrested were guilty.

On a final note the final quote from a teaching union representative that if you ask people what there address is they will tell you the truth is a bit naive. If people really want something they will lie or in their eyes bend the truth, the families concerned probably don't consider what they are doing as wrong just playing the system and they would suggest that the end justifies the means.

In summary we should be celebrating that such cheaters are being investigated and glad that such regulation is in place to control surveillance. Instead of calling the UK a 'police state' given that this story suggests that minor fraud is endemic across the population then the UK could be said to be a 'nation of cheaters'.

Newsflash: Snow Falling

There is more snow in the air this evening, as of now snow is falling, no sign of settling yet.

One final blast of winter

I woke up this morning to find that winter had left one last blanket of snow to dampen spring's ardour.

Yes, just as spring had started Old Man winter blows down from the north once more.

This is the only significant snow fall of the season and although by the time I was out and about it was well on its way to melting I would estimate that almost an inch of snow fell last night.

Here are the only decent pictures of snowfall this Snow Watch 2008 season taken this afternoon in mid melt.



Snow hiding in the shadows of the mini standing stones.















Check out the interference on the roof tops, I think it is moire or something, the roofs were not wavy.







Some of the trees looked like they had been in a battle with a snow cannon and lost.

House MD

I think House is great, well written and compulsive viewing. House is your standard grumpy genius but you just cant help respecting and admiring him even if he would be hell to work with. However although he would be hell to work with you would go on to great things after leaving his team as you would have learnt so much. House challenges and inspires his team and although it may not seem obvious he is a great leader and mentor.

In HR terms House is difficult to manage as everyone around him knows. House is the loose cannon that doesn't play by the rules and thus can not be treated the same way as every other employee. To a certain extent I suspect that kind of person enjoys bending the rule in the name of doing what is right.

I am a bit House like, I don't toe the party line and I will challenge anything I don't agree with. Many will disagree but I am not in it to make friends and be nice to everyone I am in it to do what is right.

Anyway one episode of House started with a song called Desire by , someone on Youtube had put together a nice video of clips which I thought I would share with you.



I went looking for other remix videos to the same tune about House MD, here is another good one.



For the record the female doctor is lovely and I know in one episode they go on a date but I am not sure if it works out, I suspect not. However House definitely needs his head read on that subject because I would love to take her out to dinner.

Same song different show, this time it its Josh and Donna from the "West Wing", another couple that are great together. Whoever cut this video was a genius although to be fair the original script was also done by a genius.

Wait for the bit where she goes over and sits next to Josh, cross her legs. Josh says" Do you want another drink?" Donna say, "No" and gets up and walks off. Its hot, flirty seductive stuff. We are in bite lip sexy territory here.
Again I would have to say if Donna was available I would taker her to dinner too.



Which leads me to a Josh and Donna West Wing Quote

Josh: If you were in an accident I wouldn't stop for beer.

Donna: If you were in an accident I wouldn't stop for red lights.

What makes these videos good is the dynamic between the two characters and the long lingering looks and secret smiles.

Envelope Psychology: 'See you soon' or 'See you later'

Question:

What do you most often say, or which of the following phrases would you use?

"See you soon."

OR

"See you later."

Theory:

Which phrase you use or choose says something psychological about your personality. Well it might do, I am not sure but this is my notes from the back of the proverbial envelope.

See you soon.

You have a nurturing personality. Usage of this phrase suggests an emotional attachment to the subject and it acts as a reminder both to you and them that you care. This is predominantly but not exclusively use by females who tend to be more emotive in their language. It also suggests that you fully intend to see them and may already in your mind be making plans to do so.

See you later.

You have a more pragmatic, practical personality. Usage of this phrase is slightly dismissive in that the meeting is at an end but we will meet again later at some unspecified point which is not guaranteed. This is predominantly but not exclusively used by males who tend to be more pragmatic in their language. It does not suggest that a further meeting is expected and certainly no thought has been given to a future meeting but such a date may already have been arranged or will be in the future.

Disclaimer:

I base the above on limited anecdotal evidence but I am open to a debate of the issues. I myself use "See you later" and know at least two female friends who always use "See you soon". I realise this is not conclusive evidence but it did make me pose a theorem.