Thought Experiment: Driverless automated cars

In the linked article you can read about driver less pods at Heathrow airport that take passengers from the car park to the terminal. Driver less automated pods are certainly part of the future, one day they may even replace ordinary cars on ordinary roads.

However here is a thought, a driver less pod will always be programmed to stop for a pedestrian / obstruction as the whole point in driver less pods is to prevent accidents. This all sounds very sensible and logical but what happens when pedestrians know they can never be hit by a car. Simple, they will step out into the road without looking as they know any car will stop and they cannot be hurt.

Now extend this thought, which basically means that pedestrians now have priority. In towns and cities pedestrians would reclaim the streets, traffic would be brought to a stand still and the whole fabric of society would break down. Ok maybe not that last part.

So if cars are no longer dangerous pedestrians would no longer be wary of them. You could either

a) Trust pedestrians to do the right thing - make it socially unacceptable.
b) Allow cars to be slightly dangerous again.
c) Make it a serious criminal offence to cross the road when a driver less car is coming.
d) Or another option which I haven't yet thought of.

Its an interesting thought which may have to be solved before driver less cars go mainstream.

I thought fox hunting with hounds was banned...

The press hounds have been released and they are on their ten day hunt. The basic idea of a ten day hunt is to start with a slightly dubious story and then keep it going with an extra tit bit of dubiousness each day. If you don't change the story slightly each day the story will falter. The longer you can keep it going from news day to news day the more pressure you can put on the politician and the prime minister (or party leader). The goal is to get the politician to resign or be fired.

Now get the wrong story and you wont make it onto the second day of news. This is a game that the press like to play with the politicians, its very similar to gossiping and the theory that if you throw enough mud it will eventually stick. It is a sort of modern day witch hunt.

I would suggest that most members of the public get caught up in the gossip and the chase. There is something voyeuristic about it.

The politician's only fight back is to try to derail the ten days. They can deny all claims or provide evidence but they have to be careful it doesn't then look like a cover up. They can start an official enquiry which will take a while to report back, by which time the news cycle will have moved on.

It is quite a negative aspect of the press hounding people out of office. It borders on immoral and ungentlemanly conduct.

For the current story here is what I have filtered out to be the facts:

1. Adam Werrity is a friend of Liam Fox who has spoken to him about work related matters. 
2. Adam Werrity has been on government trips as some kind of self styled advisor.
3. Mr Fox had a male friend staying with him when he was burgled
4. There seems to have been some confusion when information of the burglary was given to the press
5. Mr Fox has had to deny he was in a relationship with Adam Werrity.

Or something along those lines.

Taking it point by point I don't care about points 1, 3, 4, 5 it is not relevant to his day job. I am satisfied that there is an official investigation regarding at least point 2 and I trust parliamentary procedure to investigate and take the right action.

Bottom line, let Mr Fox get on with the job, if the official investigation finds him to have acted improperly he can resign. I am now bored of this story so if the press could go and report on some actual news it would be much appreciated.

Keep running Mr Fox don't let the news hounds pull you down

Note - I am not the first to come up with the ten day hunt, according to the BBC article Alaister Campbell got their first.

I have questions Mr Clarke...

Ken Clarke, Justice Secretary has like any other justice / home secretary before him has been going on about how we have a "broken penal system". Ken, unfortunately there has been a broken penal system long before you were born and in all probability it will still be broken long after you are gone. Frankly, the only comfort is that it is almost certain you cant make it worse, although I do think you might give it a go.

At this point you might expect a typical blogger to go off on one about how Ken is a complete idiot, all the politicians are idiots, society is broke, its all the parents fault, just lock them up or some other stuff generally said from a soap box.

For me personally the riots are almost too big to have answers for, all I have is more questions. So what I thought I would do, if dear reader you will indulge me is make a big list of some of them. Feel free to add any more in comments.

74 questions to be precise Mr Clarke.

So here are some questions that have occurred so far:

1. At what point should a person be considered as un rehabilatable?
2. What is the "age of intervention", the key year in someone life where an intervention can make the difference between a life of crime and a life as an average citizen?
3. How do you convince someone that it is better to earn the money to buy a TV by working for a month rather than spend five minutes nicking one (Seriously on this one - what do you say to someone who has been arrested twenty times for burglary)?
4. Should the government force parents of wayward children to have parenting lessons?
5. How many times do you give someone one last chance?
6. Is it the education system's fault?
7. Is it societies fault?
8. Is it my fault?
9. Are more prisons the answer?
10. Are larger prisons the answer?
11. Are smaller prisons the answer?
12. Should more prisons be placed in areas like Dartmoor?
13. Should military service be an alternative instead of prison?
14. Does Ken Clarke know what he is talking about?
15. If we had given the three quarters of rioters over 18 with a previous conviction tougher sentences so that more of them were in jail at the time of the riots would we have still had the riots?
16. Should the private sector run rehabilitation schemes given their track record on job seekers?
17. Would the charity and non for profit sector be a better option?
18. Which problem do we solve first - Drugs?
19. Which problem do we solve first - Alcohol abuse?
20. Which problem do we solve first - Unemployment?
21. Which problem do we solve first - Apathy?
22. Which problem do we solve first - Respect for authority?
23. Which problem do we solve first - Job training?
24. Which problem do we solve first - General Education?
25. Which problem do we solve first - Literacy and Numeracy?
26. Were the police ham strung by human rights issues?
27. Did politicians hinder the police response?
28. Did Senior Police management hinder the on the ground response?
29. What responsibility lies with the media?
30. Does the media making stars out of everyone make it worse?
31. Should criminals / looters be interviewed?
32. Has society taught the youth of today to take what they want?
33. Is the internet causing us to break normal social boundaries?
34. Is this problem a new one or has it been the same in the past?
35. Do people understand the consequences of their actions anymore?
36. Is this related to the culture of "no winners and losers"?
37. Are we unrealistic with the youth of today, do we offer them the world but give them nothing?
38. Is this part of a materialistic culture?
39. Is this part of a selfish culture?
40. Should we have more positive role models?
41. How do we get more positive role models?
42. Does the person who burnt down the carpet store show remorse?
43. Are these criminals also victims?
44. Why do people re - offend?
45. Can we stop re - offending or is it all ready too late by the time of the first offence?
46. What do the criminals themselves say would stop them re - offending?
47. Do community sentences actually work?
48. What are other countries doing?
49. Is the justice system too slow, should justice be quicker - arrest and imprison same day?
50. Should first time offenders be treated differently and put in different prisons?
51. Should criminals be rewarded for not re - offending?
52. Should the police use tear gas to break up riots?
53. Should we have weekend prisons Friday night to Monday morning especially for town centre brawlers?
54. Where should we invest our money - youth crime?
55. Where should we invest our money - adult crime?
56. Where should we invest our money - Police?
57. Where should we invest our money - Criminal justice system?
58. Where should we invest our money - Social work?
59. Where should we invest our money - Drug crime?
60. Can we ever fix the penal system?
61. What is  a timeline for a typical career criminal?
62. What happens as each stage?
63. What were the contacts by any government body and what happens at each contact ?
64. Was there a tiping point?
65. How much does it cost to rehabilitate a career criminal?
66. Could we have seen the riots coming?
67. What should the police have done on the first night?
68. Why didn't they?
69. Is swift and harsh justice going to create another problem?
70. Should we create a body that continually reviews all aspects of society to suggest policies that stop or help prevent low level criminal activity?
71. Should this body be completely independent from the political system?
72. Is their already such a body?
73. How do I join?
74. Where do we, society go next?

Spring cleaning nuggets

I am spring cleaning at the moment, going through all my old scrap books and files, sorting them out and weeding them.

One of the outcomes of this is that I come across old notes that I cant even remember writing, a bit like the re-discovery of old masters.

So here is just a phrase that was written on a random scrap of paper:

"The path you take may twist and turn, it may lead you back to where you began or somewhere you never thought you could be"

Or a slight rewrite would be:

"The path you take may twist and turn, it may lead you back to where you began or take you somewhere you never expected to be. In the end the destination doesn't matter, what matters is how you spend the journey".

Cleverbot.com

Well I discovered on facebook that you can talk to an Artificial Intelligence which is busy learning small talk from humans. I gave it a go, its very easy to catch it out, it just cant cope with the zephyrist.

Chat Log:

Cleverbot: Are you ambitious?

User: No.

Cleverbot: What are you?

User: A frog.

Cleverbot: You are a very smart frog.

User: How do you know that?

Cleverbot: Because you're clever.

User: Define clever?

Cleverbot: Smart.

User: Define smart.

Cleverbot: Clever.

User: That is a circular argument.

Cleverbot: That's because I'm a robot.

User: So your loopy then?

Cleverbot: No, it is not. I am merely stating the truth.

User: That was a pun by the way.

Cleverbot: It wasn't a very good one.

User: Thats why I am the frog.

Cleverbot: I'm afraid I can't help you.

User: I didnt ask you to.

Cleverbot: Do you have any things that make you angry.

User: Why do you ask?

Cleverbot: I ask because I am hungry.

User: What connection does anger have to hunger?

Cleverbot: No connection at all, I think.

User: Then why ask?

Cleverbot: I didn't ask you did.

User: You asked whether things made me angry.

Cleverbot: I never asked you that either.

User: What did you ask me?

Cleverbot: I've asked you many things you never answered.

User: I replied therefore I answered.

Cleverbot: And what was your answer?

User: I refer the honourable robot to the answers and replies given previously.

Cleverbot: So, if you weren't created, and you weren't born. How did you come to be?

User: I am a frog.

Cleverbot: Ok frog. It's ok frog. But don't think I will help you ALL the time. I'm busy, you know.

User: Frog - green amphibian.

Cleverbot: Negative. A beansprout is a kind of baby plant.

User: Have you heard of kermit?

Cleverbot: Yes I have heard of the sims 2.

User: Yellow hungarian traffic warden.

Cleverbot: We all live in a Yellow Submarine.

User: Carpe diem.

Cleverbot: Nice one. Sieze the day.

User: Carpe Carp.

Cleverbot: It means seize the day.

User: No it means seize the carp.

Cleverbot: But that has two Os in it.

At that point I gave up and put the kettle on for a cup of tree. If you fancy some random chat why don't you try it yourself.

My own J Wilson Hepburn original oil painting

I have had a print of a J Wilson Hepburn original oil painting for many years and I have written an article about it in the past.

I love the atmospheric nature of the print and the depth and richness of the blues which means I cant stop looking at it. One of the reasons I wrote the previous article was to try to find other prints / paintings that might be by the same artist.

Well finally on ebay I have found and bought an original oil painting by J Wilson Hepburn.

It is a huge 56 inch by 23 inch painting (including the frame) called "Channel Bound". It is as atmospheric and spellbinding as the bishops rock print I also own. Now all I have to do is find a suitable house and room to display it in.

It is still in its original frame and has a note from J Wilson Hepburn himself which states:

"This picture should be varnished approx. six months after acquisition, this should be undertaken professionally as it is important that the right materials are employed."

The label also has the J Wilson Hepburn's name and address in Fowey.

Another useful point is that the label has been signed by the person that did the varnishing as completed on 26/07/71 which nicely puts the picture as being painted in late 1970 or very early 1971.

All in all some very useful information to add to the J Wilson Hepburn factfile.

Humanistic design - Part 2

In a previous article I wrote about how we associate different sounds with different objects and even when those sounds are no longer made due to developments in technology we still associate the sound with a quality product. Thus product designers add these sounds back in artificially so that we continue to make the quality connection.

Partly this is due to the human failing of not feeling comfortable with change. The absence of something that has always been there makes us feel slightly uncomfortable even though we may not fully make the connection between what is missing and the feeling. A good example of this is yesterday when I was driving home the car sounded different, the engine noise was different, I started wondering whether there was anything wrong with the engine, was it as responsive as normal, I started to feel uncomfortable.

The answer to this ,which dawned on me eventually, was that I had forgotten to turn the radio on. So I turned it on and everything returned to normal.

Now imagine a day when I get into my first electric car, I turn the engine on and apart from a click, there is no noise, I will feel slightly uncomfortable. I might not even buy the car if I was looking for a new one. This for designers is the ultimate nightmare.

So they are looking at making electric cars sound like traditional cars with engine noises. For two reasons, one is that the driver wont be put off buying them and secondly that a pedestrian can hear the car coming. When you can choose the engine noise or download the latest engine noise from the internet things might feel a bit weird.

For sports car models they are even thinking about creating a throaty engine roar, as after all, everyone knows the best sports cars have the throaty roars.

How engineers create artificial sounds to fool us (BBC)

Anyway I digress, the whole point of this article was to post an interesting follow up to my original article. The BBC have posted up a similar article with a few extra quotes and examples.

The car door example is one I found very interesting as Professor Cox is right, car doors should have a solid clunk to them. There have even been advertising campaigns based around the sound of the closing car door clunk.

I also love the fact that Harley Davidson are quoted as saying they won in the court of public opinion. In other words technically they didn't win according to the law.  Anybody can win a popularity context without being great at what they do, or right, or talented just check out the numerous winners of various reality talent competitions.

OneWorldLightbulbs.co.uk

Project:OWLB

The latest project of mine is developing a website around LED light bulbs. LED light bulbs are the future and if I am honest I am a super fan type geek of them. I bought one of these halogen replacement bulbs and frankly they are just sexy. Even better they use just 3.6w of power compared to the old bulbs which used 50w. Plus they last so much longer as well, the old bulbs you had to replace every year, these may last up to ten years. OK so they are quite expensive but you will soon make your money back especially if electricity prices keep rising. You are also saving the world, less electricity means less CO2, you really cant go wrong.

So the idea is that I am going to build a web site at first concentrating on led bulbs that can replace all your existing bulbs. Much better than Compact Fluorescent Light bulbs they don't contain mercury, last longer, use less electricity, are easy to dispose of and are instantly bright. Its a win / win for the consumer, the difficulty for the consumer is knowing which ones to buy. Hopefully, my new website will solve that as it will contain my personal recommendations which have been tried and tested.

At first the website is going to be links to other stores such as Amazon where you can buy such bulbs but over time I would like to start selling my own bulbs and developing new product lines in this market place.

For now the website is just a collection of amazon product links which will start to build traffic as I develop the site. Next up will be a blog to build up some articles and different pages for different types of bulbs eg, bayonet replacement and halogen replacement.

Watch this space as they say.

Some news articles that caught my eye...

Facebook juror sentenced to eight months for contempt

When jurors go bad...

Yes, this is a story of a juror who thought they knew better than the judge and not only contacted a defendant via facebook but carried out her own internet research into the case.

The whole point in a jury is that you try the case on the information presented to you in court, to do anything else however tempting is just not fair justice for the defendant.

It may seem a bit harsh for this woman to spend up to four months in jail but I agree with the Solicitor General a message needs to go out to jurors that this is not acceptable. The whole foundation of our justice system can be contaminated by actions like this. Every defendant has the right in fairness to them to be tried only on the information presented to the court i.e. past history wont affect the burden of proof.

Banks must ring-fence retail operations, Osborne to say

This is about tighter regulation of the banking system to ensure the credit crunch doesn't happen again. Step1 is that Banks must hold more capital reserves, the international recommendation is 7% and in the UK the chancellor has gone for 10%, reminiscent of Gordon Brown's prudence. Step 2 is that the retail arm of a bank will be ring fenced from the investment arm. In practical terms this means that if a bank does fail the government could save the retail arm whilst letting the investment arm fail.

One criticism of this policy is that the banks will pass charges and costs on to the public. Well in my humble opinion you either make regular small payments or one big payment when we bail the banks out when they fail again. What we need to accept is that safe banking may actually cost us a bit more than it used to. The benefits are that we wont loose our money and we wont have to go through what has been an awful credit crunch again.

Another criticism is that the ring fencing doesn't go far enough, banks will still drain a retail arm to prop up an investment arm. Without all the technical details it may be difficult to work exactly if this might happen, but I look on this as more of a positive. A looser ring fencing policing will mean that the banks are not in a rigid straight jacket and can work within loosely defined boundaries to the benefits of the banks and the customers. For us, the customers, if we leave the banks with some flexibility then the costs for the retail banking side will be slightly lower.

To implement both of these policies seems a very sensible incremental policy change and not a knee jerk reaction that is unnecessary or costly.

Misheard lyrics: The Script, Breakeven

This song plays on the radio all the time on the way to work. Although this isn't technically a misheard lyric its a reworking which makes more sense to me. Bear in mind that this in fact is making sense to someone who is a bit off the wall.

Original lyric

I'm falling to pieces yeah
I'm falling to pieces

Off the wall lyrics

I'm falling to pieces yeah
I'm talking to mices

(mices pronounced mieces)

It makes more sense to me as if your were talking to mice then you definitely would be falling to pieces.

UK rural broadband plans move on

Great idea, super fast broad band in UK rural areas.

However, what is slightly depressing is the lax approach to putting a photo against the story. Obviously a story needs a pointless picture for those people that cant manage a full page of text. So the BBC thought we need a picture that says rural, there is nothing that says rural like a tree line road. Good so far although again a picture for this story is just going to be window dressing, something to look at then you get bored of the story.

Unfortunately the picture of the BBC chose has nothing to do with the UK, I suspect it is a road in America. How have I come to this conclusion, well in the UK we don't paint double yellow lines down the middle of the road even in the most rural areas of the country. However the US do, see here for a google image search of double yellow lines in the US.

Come on BBC if you are going to put a pointless picture in at least make sure it is in the same country as the story.

AV Vote results in a resounding no from the public

Well we was robbed, to use a sporting quote.

In a 70/30 split the public voted NO to AV, only several London constituencies voted YES. I personally believe that the vote was lost because the public was mislead by the no campaigners, the Yes campaign wasn't strong enough and it was a protest vote against Nick Clegg and the liberal democrats.

The no campaign was about horrendous costs, the winner being the winner and no one uses AV so why should we.

In terms of the costs even David Blunkett from the No campaign admits they were made up. Sadly as with most lies once they are out there they are difficult to retract.

The Yes campaign needed to create a real need for change similar to Barack Obama in the presidential campaign. They should have got us all voting for AV because it was the right thing to do. Sadly the fact that it was fairer never seemed to be the one message. Although one good thing about the Yes campaign which cannot be said about the no campaign is that it was very clean and fair. They didn't tell lies they hoped the truth would speak for itself. Alas it was not to be.

Finally no one uses AV, again a message that got lost somewhere in the maelstrom is that actually the political parties uses AV to elect their leaders. David Cameron was actually elected by a type of AV election.

Time to leave it there and move on.

Vote Yes for fairer votes, 10 reasons to vote Yes to AV

First up, my political affiliation decleration. I am very firmly in the YES camp, having experienced the unfairness of first past the post elections as a lowly liberal democrat voter I want my second vote to count. In previous elections my vote was counted for the Liberal Democrats, they dont get first past the post and my vote is lost, no real democratic power in my hands. In any new AV vote my second vote would count for Labour which could change the vote and keep the Tories out, real democratic power returned to my hands.

To put it simply AV works for me.

Ten reasons to vote for AV:

1. It makes MPs work harder

Seriously are you actually considering voting against something that makes MP's work harder to earn your vote. Under AV they would have to appeal to the massess (over 50%) not just a minority to guarantee an election win.

2. Its simple

For the voter it is simple rather than one cross, you rank the candidates in order of preference i.e. 1,2,3,4. You can rank as many or as few as you like. So unlike first past the post you can actually say more than just I want them, you can say I like them second and I really hate them and they would be my last choice. Really who wouldnt want the opportunity to say that in a vote.

The counting side of things is slighty more complicated, but not by much. Everyone is capable of understanding it and that is why the no campaign dont want to focus on how it works. In therms of first past the post, the simplest solution is not always the best.

Dont take my word for it, take a poll for the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR)

As IPPR Director Nick Pierce says: “This poll appears to show that when people engage with AV and are given a chance to try out the system of voting preferences, their support for change grows. It also shows that people can readily understand how AV works and don’t find it too complex.”

3. One opportunity for political reform

This is probably the one opportunity in our lifetimes to make a stand and change the political landscape. Just because first past the post has been here for years doesnt mean we shouldnt change it. AV is inherently fairer so lets vote for fairness, change is good, ask Barack Obama.

We do not need to stick with a 19th century voting system that it is no longer fit for purpose in the 21st century. Time moves on and things change, the time for change is now!

4. The people against change

Just look at some of the people in the no campaign. The BNP are in the no camp, if they dont think its a good idea is that not something we should be voting for.

5. The people for change

Yes, Nick Clegg is for it and the No campaign would tell you that a vote against AV is a smack in the face of Nick Clegg. Nick Clegg may have done many things but on this he is just supporting a system which is fairer. Don't make a vote for change a vote for a personality. This is a vote for our democratic future not to a vote to settle a score.

Dont forget this is wider than just one party, the AV voting system has cross party support. Many politicians have put aside their differences in order to stand on the same platform and explain why changing to AV is more important than party political differences. This alone should make us, the electorate stand up and listen. If it is that important we need to vote for change.

6. AV is not a new system

It is already in use in other countries although not many and it is in daily use in other elections such as trade uninions, charities, businesses and other organisations.

Although AV isnt used by many countries this should not be a reason to vote against it. Remember politicians like the status quo and dont often give voters the chance to change the system. We, thanks to the Liberal Democrats have been given the opportunity, so lets not waste it. After all someone has to lead, so why not Britain?

7. The weak arguments of the No campaign

The NO campaign cant justify the first past the post system as the fairer system. They dont even try, they sling as much mud as they can and cause as much confusion as they can. One of their best arguments is that the "winner should be the winner" using a sporting analogy. Politics isnt sport and a winner should have more than 50% of the vote.

Vote for a system where the winner actually is the winner with the majority of the electorate's votes not a system where the winner is the winner due to "lies, damned lies and statistics". A winner should have majority support not minority support.

8. MP's use AV

So it cant be that unfair or unworkable if MPs already use AV or a similar system. If its good enough for them surely its good enough for us.

9. Vote AV, vote local

In any election you are voting for your local representive, under the AV system you will have more of a say on who that person is or isnt. Vote for a system where you can elect the person that you really want to represent you.

10. Vote for a fairer vote and fairer politics

The NO campaign has been a dirty campaign, lets tell the politicians that we see through their pathetic smear campaigns, that we are not as dumb as they think we are and vote for fairer, clearer less polarised voting campaigns. Under AV alienating voters by using smear campaigns would loose them more votes, AV would be more about appealing to all voters so even if they are not their first choice you become their second of third choice.

In summary, vote for change, vote for fairness, VOTE FOR AV on May 5, 2011.

References:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/hardeep-singh-kohli-ignore-cricketers-listen-to-er-a-comedian-2268939.html

http://www.yestofairervotes.org/content/

http://www.ippr.org/pressreleases/?id=4435

http://www.yestofairervotes.org/pages/speaking-notes

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/16/av-vote-ashdown-osborne-tactics

A Human Psychology Premise

This is something I was discussing on-line in some high brow chat room. Yes, they do exist if you know where to look.

The discussion was about morality and whether a moral issue was black or white. My argument was that no issue could be purely black or white because of the human factor, in reality every issue was a shade of grey. It could perhaps look black or white but if you looked really closely there would be a hint of white or a hint of black.

There is a test for this premise:

"For a moral issue to be pure black or white every (sane) person on the planet must unanimously agree that it is so."

Now as no moral issue can pass this test moral issues can only be a shade of grey.

Now before anyone says what about this, just think would every single person in the world agree that it was 100% right or wrong.

I am not saying you cant get close I am just saying you will never be spot on. It is a hypothetical thought premise, nothing more nothing less. It really doesn't effect whether a moral issue is inherently good or inherently bad. All the premise really states is that you cant have unanimous verdict only a significant majority verdict.

Libya No fly zone - some quick thoughts

I do think this is a positive move, a no fly zone is a step to protect civillians and is a proportionate response to the situation. I am slightly concerned about the wiggle room Resolution 1973 gives member states to protect the citizens of Libya short of putting an occupation force on the ground. There is a lot of room basically to wipe out Col Gaddaffi's forces wherever they congregate in any numbers under the Resolution as whilst he remains committed to wiping out the opposition any attack on his armed forces would reduce the risk to the civilian population.

However, just because a power is given under a resolution doesn't mean it has to be used. Sensible heads will hopefully prevail.

Of course David Cameron has been at the forefront of efforts to impose the no fly zone. If you were being cynical you would suggest that he has spotted an opportunity to save himself by being the international statesman. In history the Falkland Islands gave Margaret Thatcher the same opportunity. Of course even if he has spotted an opportunity it doesn't really matter as long as the civilian population are protected.

Another cynical comment is that what would be really handy to operate a no fly zone would be an aircraft carrier full of harrier jump jets. It is such a shame we mothballed one last month. Still Mr Cameron, probably not the time for a full u-turn.

Uplifting Songs

I thought I would start linking to songs that make you feel good, that uplift your soul.

First up - Katy Perry - Firework



"You just got to ignite and let it shine!"

The video is good too, it has me thinking about creating a video of some sort. Think short film or something.

Second - Bruno Mars - Just the way you are



Again excellent video, love the way they have used the tape thread in an animation sequence.

"When I see your face, there is not a thing that I would change, cos your amazing just the way you are"

Now don't you all feel better.

The humle red band part 2

The infamous red bands I have previously blogged about have been the subject of a magazine article on the BBC.

BBC News: 10 uses for the humble red band

Who would have thought it, other people think about these things too.

Save our forests update

Well as usual I got stuck on the Tony Baldry specific issue mailing list. Tony stuck to his guns saying that privatisation of the forests was the right thing to do, even sending me an email debunking the 10 myths spread about by the press. One day later the Secretary of State cancelled the sell off.

Funny isn't it how someone can be so adamant that privatisation is so right and then have to flip there position because their leader do so. At least I assume Tony will now say that he is listening to the will of the people and joining with David Cameron to support the public in keeping the forest in public hands. He hasn't yet sent me an email telling me this but I am sure this is his new view.

One of the big issues I have with party politics is that it prevents individuals doing what they think is right or having independent thought. If Tony disagrees with David then fine, please come back to me and say that you still support privatisation of the forests. At the moment I suspect that you only follow the party line and I have no real evidence that you truly stand up for what you believe in,

As a voter I want to know you are voting with your head and heart on behalf of your constituents not just being a loyal supporter of David.

Anyway the next issue coming up is Alternative Voting (AV) - the transferable vote. Watch this space. I am leaning towards the "Yes" camp but I do want to explore the issues fully first.

Save our forests

Over 230,000 people have put their name to a petition calling on the government to save our national forest for future generations. If you haven't already signed the position, do so now, come back and read the rest of this article later.

The Tory government have as usual gone for the privatise everything that moves method of politics, the fact that they can do so under the guise of essential cuts is all the better. Basically they have already sold off 15% of the Forestry Commission land (the maximum they can do without new legislation) without asking or consulting with the public and now they want to sell of the other 85%. Unfortunately they do have to put it into legislation in order to get rid of the remaining woodland.

I like many others are absolutely disgusted that David Cameron can sell off the nations heritage. David will sell anything worth selling to greedy private investors who are not capable stewards working in the public interest. David and the investors just see cash instead of trees, they have no interest in nature, no thought of nurture, no interest in public access and no regard for a sustainable future. They want to steal our woodland and David Cameron is basically holding the gate open while they drive off with it.

As well as signing the petition you should write / email your MP, it is what they are there for, to represent the will of the people.

My MP already has my email, we shall see what he has to say.