Untitled

My bowels are like a Wagnerian opera.

Full of movement.

Euro 2004

McDonald's are the official provider of player escorts to Euro 2004. Is it just me, or does that make McDonald's sound even more of a dodgy organisation than ever before. A badly chosen phrase which conveys the view that they have moved into child trafficking and racketeering.

The Daily Telegraph

I read the Telegraph on a daily basis. I do this for several reasons, mostly as I like to read a paper in the mornings before heading off to work. The Telegraph also has the best sports section of any UK national newspaper in the absence of a specialist sports newspaper (as in various European countries). I also tend to agree with most of the right wing leanings, especially over individual's freedom, reducing the level of state interference in daily lives, and a healthy dose of Euroscepticism. However, I suspect that I am not the Telegraph's target readership: the Sunday supplements and more personal columns in it always amuse me as they assume that all readers are all of the following:

• they live in a city (specifically London as no others exist)
  
• they work in the City earning at least £75k plus bonuses
  
• they own considerable land in the countryside which they visit occasionally to watch their hoses race
  
• they employ domestic help (who assumedly read the Sun)
  
• they vote, have always voted and will always vote for the Conservatives
  
• their wives are interested in tweed fashions

The weekend supplements are the worst for this. I can cope with the political bias as its sometimes so blatant as to be laughable. In a similar way to the Socialist Worker, you know what you are getting. The Times tries a bit too hard to disguise the fact that its the same as the Sun (i.e., Murdoch's mouthpiece).

Still, the Telegraph is far better than the Times (never seems to have anything in it), the Guardian (so woolly it may as well be farmed), the Independent (best of the rest but too careful to be neutral), the Mail (aimed at Tory wife and too opinionated), the Express (er - see the Mail but less in it), the Mirror (no comment), the Sun (sometimes unintentionally amusing) and the other fish and chip wrappers.

Health and Safety - public perception

I am the Health and Safety Officer for a pharmaceutical services company. I have a Diploma in Health and Safety in addition to a PhD in Chemistry - I say that not to impress but to make the following points. Whenever anyone mentions Health and Safety these days, the immediate impression is of an over-regulated, bureaucratic area populated by extremely boring and anally retentive individuals. The perception of Health and Safety to business people or managers is of an unnecessary burden put upon them by both Westminster and Brussels, which involves too many rules and regulations, procedures and cost, without any immediate benefit to the business. In some areas (especially the railways), the perception is that the bosses pay only lip service to safety commitments so just going to work is risky. Another perception is that safety rules are there to be flouted until someone wants to make a claim for damages following an accident. That would make the only winners the legal profession.

Unfortunately, most of the above views have some basis in reality. The safety profession does not assist in changing these views: safety professionals persist in using legal arguments to persuade managers to act (i.e., it is the law so you've got to do it) and banning activities on safety grounds where there is no great reason.

For example, the HSE were being criticised recently for extending the EU Work at Heights Directive (aimed at protecting scaffolders, roof workers, window cleaners) to include rock climbing as a leisure activity. The media used this as an excuse to ridicule the HSE and the profession, saying that rock faces would need signage, all climbers would need two ropes (physically impossible for climbers trying to reach inaccessible places), and essentially that the same rules would apply on scaffolding as on rock faces. All of this flew in the face of the remarkably good safety record held by, and self regulatory climate operated by climbers and their organisations. Common sense and communication to the media and interested groups were sorely lacking.

Another problem is the general age and demeanour of Health and Safety professionals. Judging by the professional meetings that I attend, the image of the Safety Officer as a grey haired anal retentive out of touch with reality and with knowledge only of the safety areas, not of the industry in which they work, is sadly close to accurate. Unfortunately, I can suggest no real ways to improve matters, apart form to hope that I never fall into the trap of becoming like the above caricature.

Health related adverts

Some adverts cause offence to a few or many people. The ASA and ITS take complaints about these and use their judgement on whether the adverts are allowable or not. I will make no comment on their decisions in specific cases, except to draw attention to the adverts which I personally find most offensive. These are the government- or charity- sponsored adverts, encouraging citizens to give up smoking, drinking, drink-driving or worse. There was evidence throughout the 1970s and 1980s that accidents related to drink driving decreased with increasing awareness campaigns run by the government or police - essentially showing that education works. Likewise, anti-smoking adverts and education have decreased the number of smokers to such a point that smoking is almost seen as a scourge on society (but see an earlier post). However, there is apparently a hardcore of people who ignore these messages. Thus, adverts have become more graphic over time until recent adverts from the NHS on smoking (the iron lung advert or the family devastated by smoking) and from the British Heart Foundation (I think) where fat came out of cigarettes have, in my opinion, crossed the lines of taste and decency. It appears that these adverts are immune from the normal standards imposed on advertisers as they are meant to be 'hard hitting". I do not smoke. I do not drink. I am completely aware of the dangers of drink driving and of smoking. Why should I be subjected to these images when I am eating or watching television to relax? I am offended and I wish to complain. I do not want to change channels, as will certainly be in the middle of watching another programme. The adverts are not aimed at me, yet I still have to be subjected to them.

Flags

St David's Flag is a gold cross on a black background (same general design as the flag of St George). There is an interesting flag recently designed for the north of England - St George's flag with the vertical bar offset to the left. This symbolises the links with Scandinavia where the national flags are of this general design.

Fireworks

The last few years has seen a vast increase in the availability and use of fireworks. Once, these were restricted to organised displays on or around 5th November, New Years Eve, and to mark other special occasions. Impressive firework displays in parks were worth seeing. Since deregulation of the industry and availability of fireworks, they are used more or less every week throughout the summer, and almost constantly between late October and early January. Where they are let off privately, usually in back gardens, displays last only a few minutes and must give very poor value for money.
Before I give my opinion, I must declare three facts which cloud my judgement:

• First, I own a dog, and he loathes fireworks to such an extent that every time he hears them, he is so scared that he becomes catatonic, bolts, seems on the verge of a heart attack, and will defecate in the house as he literally does not know what he is doing. While he may have had some trauma in early life (he reacts in a similar way to loud bangs and gunfire), this is not an unusual reaction among dogs.
  
• Second, I live on a new, modern estate, where there are a lot of houses (and thus back gardens) within a small area. Residents are generally reasonably affluent and can thus afford fireworks, which can be let off at any time between dusk and past midnight. I frequently find firework wrappings in my garden. There are a lot of dog owners on the estate.
  
• Third, I am a Health and Safety Officer and as such look at the dangers of fireworks in a professional manner. This makes me more inclined to try and control (but not simply ban) hazardous events.

My point is this. I do not believe that fireworks should be readily available to the general public, and I believe that their use should be limited to organised events. This is for several reasons:

• One, small firework displays cause a nuisance to neighbouring properties (often up to a mile away), are used at any time of evening or night, with no warning.
  
• Two, displays put the health and well-being of animals at risk, and curtail their freedoms, For example, in the winter I work until after dark. I have frequently arrived home with fireworks already being let off, making it impossible to properly exercise my dog, and he is upset for the whole night.
  
• Three, fireworks are inherently dangerous, and are frequently used irresponsibly. I have no figures to back up this argument, but I would be very surprised if hospital admissions from firework-related injuries have not increased since deregulation.
  
• Four, the type of display available to the average birthday party is frankly pathetic. Often, displays will only last for a few minutes at most.

Were I in any position to act, I would propose the following:

• sale of fireworks to be restricted to licensed people only;
  
• warning signs erected for a week beforehand around the display area;
  
• firework displays to be restricted to non-residential areas.

Smoking in Pubs

The administrations in Dublin and New York have recently moved to ban smoking in all public areas. This, allied to considerable pressure from within the health lobby, could soon be the same fate in Britain. As I have mentioned before, I am a health and Safety professional, so it would seem natural for me to support such a ban "for the good of the people". However, where does this leave the rights of the "people" (see a previous entry) themselves. The health profession and the government (Westminster and increasingly Brussels) are increasingly interfering in our daily lives, seemingly hell-bent on engineering society to their image of what is expected.
Opinions will change over time: after a long period of education, the paying public is less likely to accept foods which are high in fat or salt, and demands more choice and healthier options. The same should be true of smoking. There can be very few people in the country who do not realise that smoking is bad for them and for those around them. Despite some research carried out on behalf of the tobacco companies which found no links to some cancers, I believe that passive smoking is likely to be unhealthy. Even if it is not unhealthy, it is unpleasant: I have never smoked anything (legal or not) in my life. I do not like the smell of stale smoke in my hair and clothes after an evening in in a smoky atmosphere. However, this does not give me a right to ban smoking altogether except in the privacy of smokers' homes.
Regulation and interference is not an answer (unlike the regulation of fireworks covered in another entry), otherwise we would move towards a Singapore-like regime where large numbers of innocuous activities become crimes and our lives would be dictated by the state. I accept that while everyone has a choice whether or not to enter a smoky pub or restaurant, this does limit personal freedoms. Banning smoking would be far more destructive of public freedoms. A lot of people enjoy smoking, despite the health risks (of which smokers are very aware). Why should they be limited as to what they can do in public?
The better solution is surely to improve air cleaning technologies, improve the segregation of smokers as in restaurants and allow individual pubs to decide if they want to ban smoking. That way, choice remains for smokers and non-smokers, and the environment becomes healthier for all without curtailing essential freedoms.

Three Lions

Heraldically speaking, the royal and national symbol of "Three Lions" actually represents three leopards.

Grammar

I appreciate that I have mentioned grammar before in these pages. The reason for grammar being poor among today's populace at large appears to reside with the schools. Outside private schools (of which I have no experience but more later), English grammar is simply not formally taught. The only grammar rules I know come from learning foreign languages (French, German) rather than English. Recently, I have been taking courses in Italian and Greek, and there was a clear source of frustration to the teachers of both subjects that they were having to explain basic English grammar (subject and object of sentences, the difference between the nominative and accusative, concepts of verb tenses and participles, and even the difference between the first, second and third persons of verbs, and the second person singular and plural) before they could explain the foreign grammar. In past times, much grammar was taught through learning the rigid rules of Latin. However, I know of only one person who took Latin at my school, and that was extra-curricular.

Weblogs

There is an assumption that everyone has something interesting to say. Certainly, it is becoming easier for people to get messages to the rest of the world, whether via website, weblog, newsgroup or spam e-mail. These are unchecked, unregulated and can be dangerous, as the printed or written word holds a lot of authority. It has a semi-magical quality which gives it authority and gravitas. Hopefully, the net result will be that readers of such electronic information will become more discerning and learn to sort the wheat from the chaff. My worry is that our global civilisation, which has evolved communication skills to deal with a few people and a few pieces of information, is not capable of dealing with the larger scale of gossip, rumour-mongering and mischief-making that are prevalent.

This brings me to my second point: very few people have anything genuinely new or interesting to say. They can have their 15 minutes of fame, but for most people that is as much as they can handle, need or as long as they can contribute anything worthwhile to society as a whole. Genuinely interesting people are few and far between. It follows that genuinely interesting weblogs will also be few and far between. Weblogs are by their very nature self-publicising, egotistical and opinionated (and I include this very log in that criticism). However, they give a voice to everyone, with the ultimate democratic right of free speech, and allow a great catharsis of the soul. For those very reasons, long may they prosper.

Oh, and for interest (or not), the spell-checker wanted to replace "weblogs" with "obelisk".

"The People" and "They"

It is difficult to hold a conversation without the participants referring in detail to "the people" or "they", where the views of authority or the views of the great mass of society are distilled to a single simple phrase, idea, standing or viewpoint. "They" can refer to councils, governments, the police or authorities, a nation, scientists. It has always struck me as arrogant that participants feel they know the views of others so well that they can quote them or reduce them to simple insights so easily.

West Hendred

The following description is taken from the Bradford and Bingley/Adkin description of a house for sale in West Hendred (the village from which I originate): "A really rather nice cottage in a really rather nice village." What on earth is that supposed to mean?

The full description is currently at http://www.rightmove.co.uk (search for houses in West Hendred between £170,000 and £180,000).
*A really rather nice cottage in a really rather nice village *Entrance porch, large sitting/dining room *Kitchen, two bedrooms and a bathroom *Gas central heating, double glazing *Enclosed garden

Welcome

Hello. I'm not sure how this is all going to go. A bit of a random mixture of deep and meaningless philosophy, worries about the world, stuff about my general interests, and general life. Oh, and lots of rants (hence the url!!).

The three promises I make are as follows:
- I will try to regularly update this weblog;
- I will try to make sure that all postings are grammatically correct;
- The postings will be of the least possible interest to anyone.

Whether it all happens or not is a different matter! I have to go now, the dog won't behave himself.

Warning: views expressed in this weblog may be ill-informed, opinionated, inflammatory, nonsensical, plagiarised or just plain wrong. As far as possible, they will be grammatically correct. No journalistic ability or integrity on behalf of the author or reader is assumed.

Jonathan