Cars

I read an online column by a motoring correspondent/agony uncle who rejoices under the moniker 'Honest John'. He makes for a worthwhile read, especially as, like me, he delights in the odd punning headline and a rather light-hearted if barbed and eyebrow-twitchy style of commentary. ButI'm not sure if I have quite forgiven him yet for accusing me of being tiddly once when i wrote to him (at least he wrote back).

Here's a typical exchange that I do trust shows why I include him in my weekly reads for this blog and Junkk.com's growing store of objective viewpoints:

Two drags Prescot

Six months ago, I paid £2,000 to convert my Land Rover Discovery V8 to liquefied petroleum gas, which then cost about 30p per litre. Since then, two things have happened to make me despair. First, LPG has shot up to 44p per litre. Second, Tesco has taken over two of my local forecourts and withdrawn LPG. I tackled Tesco about this, but it dismissed my concerns and waffled on about its green, bio-fuel credentials. It will soon be impossible to purchase LPG in some towns.

D.K., Prescot 

The price has gone up because, due to favourable tax treatment, the base fuel represents a higher proportion of the cost. Whenever LPG becomes popular, the price seems to go up. Funny, that. 

'Let me tell you a story 'bout a guy called Said...

... who stuck to his guns, and without meaning to be rude, said '!@$£ off' to pumping out crude. Oil, that is, black gold...

(with apologies to the Beverly Hillbillies).

I always wondered what I do, taking pot shots down from the bedroom window with the BB gun, if up bubbled the UK's only inland oil field.

Would I stick a cork in it and keep Mum? Or would I take the money and run (or become a hedge fund manager and screw everyone over. Why do these guys exist again?).

Anyway, it was inspiring to read in the following: Eco-friendly Belize wary of oil fever, that PM Said Musa has said: "We have to make sure not to skew the whole economy of the country by becoming dependent on oil," adding, "In everything we do, environmental conservation and protection is a central concern. We can't sacrifice that for short-term gain," 

But there are reasons for less optimism, if you listen to the head of the Belize Alliance of Conservation NGOs, who has said: "The country will close its eyes to environmental degradation when the dollar is flashed." 

Here's hoping he's wrong and Mr. Said sticks to his guns.

Black holes generate ‘green’ energy

No sooner do I/we get a bit of a boost about the quality of our blogging than I find myself caught with my 'blog pro' knickers round my ankles.

Because I've come across something I feel worth blogging about, but have no clue how best to credit it for alll sorts of 'ethico-legaloid-copyrighty-'it's the right thing tado-ist' reasons.

I first read about it in a nifty science summary newsletter called 'Science in the News', but the link was a tiny thingy that got me to an MSN site, but they in turn seem to have lifted it off a site called Space.com (which I do also subscribe to and read... usually, but missed this effort) who they link to but I can't see it anywhere.

Anways, as the only URL is from the mighty Bill & Co, here it is so you can figure out who to credit http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12465712/

Me, I just blog here.

And all I know is that I caught the headline Black holes generate ‘green’ energy. Apparently new study reckons these jobbies are the most fuel-efficient engines in the universe, and if you could make a car engine that was as efficient as one of these black holes, you could get about a billion miles out of a gallon.

There is also the small matter of getting to the filling station. Is it just me, but is the word 'green' being bandied about an awful lot lately? I don't mind reading such fun stuff, but let's not forget that energy, in any form, is only of value if you can acquire it for less (and that covers many parameters) than it generates. Which is a yardstick to apply to some closer to home.

I'm doing my bit!

Vindication! If from a slightly odd quarter.

Boys' toys are all very well, but a second-hand Volvo is better

'Producing a car accounts for more than 10 per cent of its environmental impact, so second-hand is better. By chance, I own the perfect second-hand blue Volvo if they want to buy it, but that wouldn't be as much fun as showing off their new high-tech gadgets.'

Me, I own a perfect-ish R-reg Volvo. What's more, it's as green as grass. I'm thinking of having a sign made up: 'The green, mean Junkk machine', and if anyone asks how its' green simply pint at the colour. The mpg is woeful, but I can't afford to swap.... yet.

It's funny, but most of the useful commentary (not to mention compelling environmentally beneficial information) seems to be from those in the media not directly associated with the environment. Which is, perhaps, why they better reflect what most of us are feeling.

MAD. And a little bit bonkers.

We're getting ready for our next batch of shows, and it's amazing the paperwork one has to wade through.

Oddly, now we are fast becoming 'veterans', and in the case of the next two they are at the same venue (Earl's Court 2, just like Ideal Home), what we are asked to do is seldom the same.

But we had to chuckle a bit with one fun piece of paper that has been uncovered for the forthcoming MAD show.

And that's the 'Telephone Bomb Warning Checklist'.

Not to be flippant about a deadly subject, but we were wondering if they were serious when it says to 'complete this form as you go along', or 'follow up your call [to the Control Centre] with a copy of this completed form', which has a list of questions such as 'What kind of bomb is it (type of explosive)?'.

I have read it. It will be somewhere on the stand. But even if we did have a phone I'm afraid I'd ask a few pithy, pertinent questions and possibly offer a few opinions to the caller before legging it to the nearest exit to tell someone.

But at least I now have my very own boxes to tick. And can only imagine what resources went into creating this form which, if I am any judge, will never be used by anyone, even if circumstances dictate, which of course one prays it will not. I'm just surprised there is not a fine for not complying.

The Blog God has smiled a wry smile

Nice to share a bit of good news...

A wee while ago, in one of my tangential trawls off e-Broadway, I stumbled across a site 'Does what it says on the tin'-styly entitled, in confident fashion, 'Best of the Web Blog'.

Anyways, I had a gander at the environment section, and it certainly had a fine selection, including several I am happy to subscribe to already.

It's interesting to note that 'blog' spans a fair spectrum, as a few are more what I'd deem online magazines, rather than my preferred personal definition of a personal journal, but all are very good company to be in.

"What's this," you cry, "...in!!!!!?"

Well, yesiree. Because nothing ventured, nothing gained 'n all, I rather immodestly put Junkk Male RE:View up for, er, review, and have just been kindly informed as follows:

Congratulations!

Best of the Web is pleased to inform you that the blog you submitted http://junkk.blogspot.com/ has been approved and added to the following category within the Best of the Web Blog Directory:

http://blogs.botw.org/Science/Environment/

Your blog will appear in the directory after our next update, typically within the next 24 hours.

Thank you for helping to grow the BOTW Blog Directory. We are happy to list your blog amongst the best.

Cordially,

Best of the Web Blogs

Not sure who I thank, but if you're reading this: 'ta muchly!'. And to any who have passed this way as a consequence 'Welcome!'.

I think it is also time we had a little look at how we up our game 'feed' and promo-wise.

Not to mention getting on that 'Best of the Web' with Junkk.com. When you're on a roll...

Back-scratching #101

It's nice when it works. And it's even nicer to help those who help us... help everyone.

So I am pleased to say that we have had our first 'mass upload' of data  from a major fmcg brand, and it is frankly quite a milestone for us.

Better yet, they have decided to gild that lily and attach ideas as well, with some really neat ones in the mix.

So a big 'thank you' to ecover, who now pretty much 'own' the 'E's' of the Ideas section for now.

I'm sure they won't mind us hoping that they soon find a few more joining them.

And we'll be doing all we can to keep spreading the word about them and their lovely products.

Paying To Promote The Piper, Who Still Calls Their Own Tune

I have figured out that it is pretty pointless (other than a bit of venting, which can be therapeutic) writing in to most media forums (though the Telegraph blogs do seem a notable exception), as the anonymity imposed makes the value of such effort altruistic at best. And the sheer volume of these things, and numbers contributing to them, has fast diluted any value I can assess in moving a view or cause forward. It simply serves to add to the media owners archive of nifty facts and quotes.

But I still can't resist writing to someone who at least has the grace to put a contact address on their work (mine is info@junkk.com), even though there is scant chance of them replying.

At least, thanks to this blog, the words need not be lost, and can be preserved in a relevant environment. 

So here's a little something I just sent to Sunday Times Columnist Rod Liddle:

Re: 'Brown's African squanderlust' & 'Bin the rubbish bag police'

I have not long returned (if not recovered) from a month exhibiting at the Ideal Home Show (supposed theme: Recycling & Sustainable Living. Not.) to catch up on a few back issues of the Sunday Times and, naturally, your columns. It gave me the chance to read two in sequence, and though you may wonder how (or why), link them together. 

A real frustration, to this householder/consumer-as-source-of-funds at least, is the sheer amount of money being wasted in the name of cutting back on... er... waste. We are seeing millions of pounds poured into meeting targets at the expense of real environmental benefits, with quangos, and even commercial businesses being funded to duplicate each other and set up massive administrative systems, ad campaigns, etc, before much money actually goes where it could do some good. 

I'd prefer investment to be made in making it impossible for people not to be able to behave responsibly, and better yet see the value in doing so. Sadly this seems an less favoured approach, with predictable consequences -  News story. 

Before we start forcing anything or finding countless ways to fine, we must get the mechanisms, infrastructures and incentives in place first... and efficiently. The trouble is there is little being done to hold anyone accountable, much less take those responsible to task for so woefully failing to do so.

The problem is that we now live in a culture that values being seen to do something more than actually doing anything. And which rewards success but fails to penalise failure. It happens because 'they' know they can get away with it. Just like Mr. Brown.

Sure it makes a lovely photo. And for that, and not following up, relentlessly, is where most of the media must share in some of the blame. And while any copy highlighting an abuse may score a temporary rating point, then letting it pass simply makes one part of the problem.

You say in your piece Mr. Brown flew some hacks for this photo op. You mean the taxpayer paid (on top of the planet, unless they planted over Belgium to compensate carbonally - another story) for this???! 

There seems to be an addiction to squandering cash on hype over substance, unsurprisingly with those who do not bear the consequences of the commitments made to boost their status. ROI is often used in business as a fair measure of a project's value. And, simplistically, the checks and balances of someone paying for it and seeking to be paid back are fairly effective. When the return is not viewed as a financial gain against a financial commitment, the waters muddy. And it must be accepted that there is undoubted value in many worthwhile social enterprises. But what we are seeing more and more is the return being much more in favor of the commissioning individuals, or at least their empires (which is pretty much the same thing). 

And it doesn't really matter much whether we're talking rich western waste or third world poverty, one thing above all matters most, and that's overpopulation. Stick several thousand more homes on a flood plain in Surrey, and where their extra rubbish ends up (in a hole or up in smoke) is not going to be counterbalanced by savings elsewhere, no matter how many Priuses get made for them to drive. Equally, pumping money at any group that have little else to do other than that which comes naturally is unlikely to reduce their impact on the immediate environment's ability to sustain them.

Like you, I am no mathematician, but it doesn't seem too hard to imagine the closing gap between finite resources and an ever-expanding global consuming society. Especially as we now have a new component to the equation, in the form of the negative impact our consumption is having on the resource-production side, which serves only to speed the process up.

Malthus had a point. And it's looking like Mother Nature may be gearing up a few tricks to rectify the imbalance. 

We can't stop it, but we can reduce it. But not when it's being guided by politicians who view their legacy no further than the day they retire on gold-plated pensions, idealists who would prefer to be loved now than share in hard decisions (the benefits of which will only kick in when they're long gone), and populations who are easily seduced by a media that seeks the instant gratification of big ratings hits rather than the ongoing, campaigning effort that goes into shaping futures.

Truth & Consequences

Like most of us, I feel I was made to make things. Some do so more
than most, and more tangibly, and I guess I fall somewhere in the
middle ground of those who 'create' concepts, or words (or websites),
etc, as opposed to actually constructing a 'thing'.

And so it has been since the start of time. But now a rather odd fly
that has always lurked in the ointment has started to really make its
rotting presence felt, and that is the consequence of making
something, and especially in terms of its global impact.

For sure, it was only sensible to be concerned how one's new
invention would perform across all sorts of criteria, from safety to
economics, but there really was no question to the value of trying to
make it.

But now I wonder. As populations ever-expand, the potential for
people to dream up and then wish to see through their ideas will
surely keep pace. Which inevitably means the consumption of
additional resources to meet new demand, should it be generated, when
a successful product comes on line. And though I have no clue on
economics, I suspect that it is the only way for things to proceed
without falling into chaos.

I recall the dilemma of my ad agency's success, which I saw as being
like a shark (a fair analogy in other ways, too): to survive we had
to swim, and in swimming we consumed, which in turn made us grow. So
we had to swim and consume a little faster to grow a little bit more,
ad infinitum.

I know where I am going with this, and I don't think I want to make
the journey. But the sad fact is, thanks to the situation we find
oursleves in, I feel cursed by worrying about the consequences of
creating, which is a heavy burden to bear.

For most, ignorance (or at least blissful unconcern) is profitable
bliss, but I am not sure how long the system can sustain it as an
excuse.

Or......

...further to my last blog: what will happen is that the whole thing
will sort itslef out, and by posting this, the others now appear.

I guess this is the equivalent of either Ctrl+Alt+Delete or, if all
else fails, janking the power out and having a coffee.

Oh (all's well that ends) well. Fingers crossed.

Out of Control

These are testing times. No, really. As many will know, much as I
admire anything that is useful, powerful and above all FREE, it can
be frustrating when it all goes pear-shaped and you have little
control over finding out why, putting it right or getting in touch
with someone who will help.

This latter is important. I am proud that we at Junkk.com are there
to help, and will get back as soon as we can when (not if, as
gremlins are inevitable) a cock-up occurs.

Sadly, this is not so true of Blogger.com, who I use for my Junkk
Male RE:View blog. I've just noticed that while the latest posts are
on the admin section of the site, they are not viewable.

I know from experience that there is no point asking anyone why (it
has to be admitted that they do run a slightly larger operation) or
what to do about it, so I am now working through the bowels of the
FAQs and Forums. Not the best use of my time.

I really wish I could get this under my control, as this is happening
too often. And unlike Junkk.com, if they don't care enough to make it
work or at least help me, then it's not really worth it. Sadly, for
now, money keeps me loyal, if critical.

Anyway, this is a test to see what happens. If this appears then it
will be a glitch and I'll just resend those that didn't make it
before, which will therefore out of sequence or get duplicated. Sorry.

Every big bit helps

I don't know if it says anything that I still can't recall if this actually Tesco's strapline.

Anyway, just saw a little snippet in the Sunday papers (in this case, The Express) that Tesco is going to invest £100 million in sustainable technologies.

The size and tone of the piece seems to suggest a slight eyebrow-twitch of their own, but to me it's a £100 million BTN (better than nothing) until proven otherwise.

Now, I wonder if they will still be getting public funds via WRAP, or might this generous organisation be persuaded to support efforts being conducted by those who don't already make billions in profit?

Because I have just read it a few days later and it would slot in a treat here, let me add this not disimilar set of thoughts on the matter from FOE.

And with another day, another viewpoint, this time from the business section of The Independent (answering my first question, and adding weight to my subsequent musings)...

"To counter the negative publicity being drummed up by lobby groups, there is to be £100m for environmental initiatives - everyone is clambering aboard this bandwagon, it seems - and some sort of "multi-pronged" community plan is about to be hatched in an attempt to make Tesco seem even more warm and cuddly than it already likes to think it is. In so doing the company plans to go beyond the rampant consumerism of its message to date of "every little helps"."

...and The Telegraph:

"With yesterday's annual result came details of a £100m investment in wind turbines, solar energy and geothermal power for its new stores. If this were a vacuous political statement to buy off the "green lobby" it would be a very expensive mistake. In fact it is simply the latest investment, and there will be more to come, in what in Terry Tesco's judgment will be the next big thing for supermarkets."

I'm kinda hoping they are on the money, as this means that at last business may be seeing doing the right green thing to be an opportunity. Breath is being held as we speak.

Cutting emissions

Just back from a long weekend break with the family visiting friends and relatives in bonny Scotland.

As it has a 2L engine, alarm, electric gizmos and lots safety features the Golf doesn't, we opted for the Volvo. And a very good job it did, too. Trouble was, ignoring wear and tear, etc, in fuel alone it cost us over £100. Because, ignoring the trip computer (which claims a potential 450 miles range at every fill-up, when I'm lucky to score 300), I just found it's doing 30mpg. And that's pants.

Trouble is, I think we're stuck with it. The small matter of the purchase price of a new one cuts out that option, and the trade-in for a more economical model puts us in very dodgy territory. At least we know what we have lavished on it in terms of servicing, etc. Which puts us between a rock and a hard place.

The nation's pols, however, do not have to trouble themselves with such concerns. But this of course does not render them immune from some dilemmas: Cameron pledges to cut car emissions

Just back from, one presumes, flying scag-loads of minions and journos for a photo-op in the snowy north of somewhere, the Tory leader 'will unveil ambitious plans today for a range of incentives to make hybrid or "dual-fuel" vehicles the norm on Britain's roads'. Great, unless of course you are popping up and down to Scotland, when they confer no value to man, bank balance or Mother Nature.

Trouble is, he has turned down the Government's offer of a petrol-electric Toyota Prius, which has of course got us into a flurry of ridiculous finger-pointing which gets us nowhere. Daft and divisive. And they wonder why we have given up voting.

Your World. Your (Well, the Independent's selection from its readership) Verdict. And mine.

Took me a bit of getting round to, but here I am at last at the positive, proactive manifesto following the Indy's big enviro splash.

Frustratingly, while the the previous editions are online, this one (dated April 3) does not seem to be, so I am reduced to copy-typing the ideas mooted, but fortunately (for my carpal tunnel if not the planet) there were not that many. I don't propose to go into the 'Fors' and Againsts' they listed, but rather will add my own, with comment, if they agree or differ.

Fit new buildings with solar panels or wind turbines

Sure, why not? And why not encourage the same on old ones? But let's just remember that there are 'issues', such as the article below this very suggestion in their very own paper, which reports 'the solar power industry has warned that it is on the brink of crisis as a result of governemnt incompetence in the awarding of grants for householders'. For guys like me looking at this as an option, not most encouraging. Plus for those in a whirl for a turbines, well, just make sure the house can handle it.

Label products according to their effect on climate

How twee. Why not? But given the choice I'd prefer the space be used to make the thing useful.

Force passengers to pay environmental cost of flying

More like forcing the world's governments to multilaterally force the world's airlines to cover that cost, which would then get passed on as a consequence to the passengers. Frankly I'm feeling more radical, as this smacks of just making the whole thing into a great big income generator like the congestion charge, with little end-benefit to the global environment, and a massive cost in socio-economic inequality. If these things are screwing up the planet as we think they are, and risking the ire of the travel industry, we just have to stop traveling as much. So I'd advocate trading in the right to fly, based on the individual.  How commy is that???! It's a zoo. It's not going to happen. We're stuffed.

Make energy-efficient light bulbs compulsory

Sure. Build in tax breaks and make their purchase a no-brainer. There are now designer models and even halogen spots, but they are pricey! By the same token we should be yanking baths and power showers out of bathrooms, too. Ironic, having scooted a few pages along to read an Indy correspondent ponder health and safety from the security of his bath. Just mentioning, is all:)

Encourage people to work from home

Sure. I am holding my breath. As I write, from home.

Use the law to encourage recycling

See many previous blogs. First get the ways to recycle sorted. Build in incentive-based systems. Next prioritise they real offenders vs. the accidental ones and prosecute on actual abuse and environmental impact and not the ease of prosecution and getting paid. Then worry about forcing.

Ban 4x4 cars from cities

And, while you're at it, anyone from the country, with bad back, the rich, etc. Daft & divisive. If it's a safety issue, prevent them from being built. If it's about emissions, then address fuel consumption through pricing. Same problem as flying. Daft and divisive.

Reduce packaging on products

Yayyyyyyy! Mind you, it may help to encourage products and packaging with a 2nd use. Whadyathink?

Ban patio heaters

I agree these things don't make any sense, but again it seems more damaging by being socially divisive than having any significant environmental benefit to warrant being one of the top 10 best ideas to help save the planet. For this reason it will doubtless have the greatest energy expended on it. Another war I will watch from the sidelines with distainful eyebrow raised .

And one that did not make it from the front page:

Make Public Transport cheaper to stop people driving

Well, ok. But in a relatively affluent country I'd say it would be better to make it really convenient first. A car is a mighty expensive thing, yet we still use it. Why?

Apparently all these ideas are being forwarded to the All Party Climate Change Group, led by Colin Challen MP, who I seem to recall felt his greatest cause a while ago was to have Jeremy Clarkson 'dealt with'. Ken Livingston is obviously on the bandwagon, accusing JC, and him alone, for global warming. Who pays these guys' salaries?I'm encouraged at how this discussion will pan out already.

So out of the ten I see the following:

Positive - Solar/wind on new builds - Cheaper Public Transport - reduce unnecessary packaging

Economic (dis)incentive - Flying

Advisory - Labelling products

Er, how? - More homeworkers

Ban! - 4x4s in cities - Compulsory energy efficient bulbs (ie: getting rid of those existing, and their fittings) - Force recycling - Patio heaters 

No mention of insulation, which I understand is a massive issue as we're talking domestics, Along with electr(on)ics with standbys, etc...

About the only thing I had much time for in the whole paper was much later on, with some chap called Miles Irving foraging the country for edible plants and then selling them to top chefs (ref given: www.forager.org.uk). I can't probably can't afford to eat at the restaurants in question, but it isn't hurting me, and is at least an example of actual doing.

Reality Hijacked

When I were a lad, your allegiance to a DJ was based on him (or her)
acting as a proxy for your tastes, haunting places you could not get
to and bringing you what was new, fresh and great.

Nowadays, massively overpaid talking celebrities are given a playlist
generated by a committee, the access to whom is limited by a murky
world of gatekeepers and those with the tools to gain access. Hence,
even in the supposedly egalitarian world of the internet, a back-
bedroom overnight sensation more often than not turns out to have a
label, a PR or at worst a brother who works in the BBC.

So I was touched today to get a an email from one of my new-found
Stalag Luft Ideal Home chums, pointing me at the paper-clip story
(which I had coincidentally already picked up on) and suggesting that
we need a similar 'gimmick'.

Sadly, while I can only agree, I had to opine that the problem is not
so much the gimmick, but rather the mechanism to get it circulated
virally in sufficient numbers, and within a short enough time, that
the next level of hired, connected fixer could persuade the media to
report it.

Little, if anything these days gets in the major print or broadcast
organs without a shove. And if you have enough money, you can make
even the most despicable of entities look innocent and part of the
'people's voice'. It's why we long ago gave up on music contests.

This was brought to mind by a piece in the Mail on Sunday a few weeks
ago (yes, I'm still catching up on my reading, along with my blog)
about advertisers who pose as young girls on chatrooms. Apparently
agents working for multinationals are using these avenues to pop in a
covert message or two hundred thousand.

So... what's new? It's sad, but inevitable. And the only real scandal
is the way so many play along, with unchecked quotes, gushingly
endorsed awards ceremonies and the like, based on such rigged nonsense.

Which is why we are not above asking a few loyal Junkketeers to
mention our name when they're on their forums.

When you're right you're RIGHT! When you're WRONG you're wrong

I need a filing system for my blogs. And a search function. I'm sure
it exists. And equally sure I can't afford one.

So I'll just have to allude vaguely to a blog or two 'a while ago',
inspired by a piece by MRW editor Paul, citing a major national
paper's policy of never admitting they were wrong. I was not in
favour of this approach.

So it was interesting to stumble across a small section in this
Sunday's Times, entitled 'Red Letter Days Limited', when it should
have been 'How we totally cocked up a story big time a hurt a bunch
of innocent folk by being sloppy and now arrogant'.

I couldn't find it on the online section (surprise) to quote, but
basically they have admitted that when they wrote the week previously
that said company's sales 'had collapsed' and it was failing, it is
in fact 'performing well'.

No I remember reading that original piece and thinking 'give that a
miss, then'. I'm not sure the correction I saw comes close to
repairing the damage done.

There is another way to throwaway

A nice little story about a nice little idea that became.... bigger: I've swapped my paper clip for a house...

Basically this chap just kept swapping stuff and gaining a little at each stage (gaining a lot latterly as the inevitable media interest and involvement pushed it to a new, and less genuine level. But I guess we wouldn't have known about it otherwise).

I really only mention it because of the comment by the reporter at the end of his piece: 

'I am somewhat distracted. My attention has been caught by a small blue plastic object on my desk. It is the lid of an old ballpoint pen. Once I might have thrown it in the bin but now I pick it up and turn it thoughtfully in my fingers. Today, a plastic pen top... tomorrow a villa in Tuscany.'

Quite.

Too good to fail

UK plastics recycling scheme quickly ends in less than half a year, because it  'was too popular, council says.'

http://www.prw.com/main/newsdetails.asp?id=5422

Hmn. Wonder when we'll be asked to take the green glass out of the kerbside bin?  

Recycle, the possibilities... for making money are really all that count.

Now.. what if we could find ways to reuse all those caps, pots, etc. Now that would be an idea!

Things that make you go... do what?!!!!

OK, this one (from the Guardian) seems pretty clear cut: UK scientists attack oil firms' role in huge Arctic project 

Because it seems "The US Geological Survey is lining up a project with BP and Statoil to find oil and gas in the Arctic Ocean, under the auspices of a flagship scientific initiative intended to tackle global warming."

Er, no. 

"But the head of the British Antarctic Survey, which coordinates UK activity at the poles, has said he is "very uncomfortable" with the idea and has questioned its ethical and scientific justification."

To blooming right!!!! We should not be looking for more of the stuff to dig up and burn. And not using weasel ways. Next thing they'll be coming up with under the guise of research  is hunting whales to eat.

Credibility Gap

One of the reasons I'd figured on our having a disappointing level of visitors at the Ideal Home show was the near lack of coverage. It dawned on us that with a name like the Daily Mail Ideal Home show, the rest of the media may not be too interested in promoting the event, and especially not any credible environmental journalists who may have been suckered in, like us, by the theme, to at least check it out, if not make any foolish mention.

So imagine my surprise to at last get to the Independent of April 3 (the day after the close of the show, which I'd purchased because it had the defeinitive 'Your World. Your verdict' manifesto of reader opinion on how to fight global warming - of which more, another time), and find nestling in its pages a small piece by their 'Green Goddess'.

I almost skipped it, starting as it did with something about her going for a spin with her eco coach, but my eye did catch mention of the show.

Seems she and he decided to visit. Though not mentioned, I can only presume this was not "press day', but somehow she felt it 'good to see [it] reflect the public's growing interest in green issues' which seemed straight out of the press release. Perhaps more accurately, it was interesting to note the cynical way any greedy business will slap green on anything to seduce an gullible public, who will have paid for entry before they becoming any the wiser, seduced by glowing reports from a compliant media.

They did at least notice and comment on the fact that the eco-areas were completely deserted, which probably would have included ours had they stopped by, but for some reason this was yet another journalist who missed us. It did however dawn on them that endless patio heaters and jacuzzis might not empitomise the best examples of enviromental good practice. Oddly, the majority of the half dozen eco-exhibits were plonked in the same area as these.

And, er, that was it.

Then she was off home to watch 'It's not easy being green', pitching for an urban version where a newspaper columnist is filmed going green in London. I'm not sure, but maybe Penney Poyzer has already cornered that, with the slight twist of using real folk. And at least she did not seem to assume that the rest of us would share in the notion of an eco-coach as the de rigeur accessory for the Chelsea. 

Even if this piece was satire, it passed me by. 

I will need to compose myself a tad before getting back to reading what the rest of the Indy readership have to say, which hopefully will be a bit more in keeping the the real world the rest of us live in.

No wonder we can't seem to get coverage. We don't move in (or is it disappear up) the right circles.

Super Campbell

Today seemed like a bit of an enviro-fest on the BBC brekky news, so
I was disappointed to only catch the tail end of a live interview
with Sir 'Ming' Campbell, leader of the Lib Dems.

But what I caught seemed vintage. Basically, Auntie's morning honey
vanilla of the day and he were trading blows on who did what to save
the planet, mostly revolving around his V8 Jag.

Anyway, it seems that, conveniently, yesterday he stopped using it.
Yesterday. Today he's on the news telling us that we must do
something about climate change.

I guess it is better than nothing, but had he not noticed there was a
small problem before now? And to lump him and Thandie Newton together
(no small feat), I did catch that he was not retiring it, but rather
selling it to the highest bidder. So it looks like he pockets the
cash for a 2nd hand motor, someone else may (or may not) get a bit of
a deal, and a gas guzzler continues its merry way.

I even heard the word 'Prius' being bandied about. I just hope that
it is not dug out only to pop up the motorway to a press call.

Rubbish needn't be a dirty word. But it can be.

I awake to another glorious day (at least in Ross-on-Wye) here at Junkk Towers. That is doubtless bad for the water utility guys, and hence us, down the the pipeline - though I have managed to really stir it up with the council by asking what it would take to reintroduce the water wheel our property used to sport when it was a mill in the 17th century. Only this time the bread being made would be money, in the form of reduced energy, from the brook flowing alongside.

Anyway, it has been hard to resist being outside from dawn to dusk, and I have attacked the garden with enthusiasm. And it has attacked me back, as I now sport a few thousand bramble cuts.

But it has enabled to me to successfully test my latest creation, which is a device to get such high-volume, low(ish) weight material from the house to the local dump. And it worked a treat (see pix of Mk#1MP (for Manpower) trolley)! I must also commend the facility in question (I'll leave you to decide on the value of the trolley - which in addition to its (car, if not me) energy sparing features, also saved the vehicle interior fabric from being shredded), as the various skips were many, varied, and well laid out to maximise the recycled goods.

I just hope that having commited all this effort, it did all go where they said it would, which in the case of the garden waste was advised to be shredded and turned into compost.

If you watched Ch4's 'Britain's Rubbish' you may have reason to question, and simply wait 'til post 5pm for a nice little bonfire.

But these days I find myself also questioning the questioners, looking for a ratings-based agenda that may outweigh the news value. Though at a massive 4 posts on the forum attached to the site above, I don't think they'll be too excited by the response. I'll probably add this to spice it up!

This was another, near mirror copy, of the BBC expose that rocked the recycling world a few months back, and on which I blogged quite extensively at the time. I think then that what excised me most was that I doubted that much would happen subsequently, from any quarter, media or authority.

Well, one out of two ain't bad. The media have had another crack, and if anything this one was more grotesque.

Quite simply, a major Northern Irish recycler was investigated by a covert, secret-camera-toting reporter, and they were pretty much not recycling, rather just saying they were and sticking it in the landfill. Worse, they were importing stuff from over the border and doing the same, all at massive profit.

And yet again we had a few authority talking heads going 'oh gosh, we'll look into it'. My only eyebrow twitch was that, considering the programme title, this was only one incidence. Hardly 'Britain', and I don't mean to offend our fellow Brits in Northern Ireland by saying that. I just think to justify itself it could have benefitted from a bit more scope, perhaps referring to the previous Beeb effort and a few more, if they exist.

Where the programme did score was the area it dealt with more extensively, which was fly-tipping. With the reason, if not excuse, that it's getting worse due to some serious costs for legitimate disposal, this really was a fright. Really nasty guys doing nasty things to us all. And all because, it seems, they can.

This is where I think a good point was being made. There have been many regulations put in place, and mostly good ones, but it seems little in the way of trying to police them effectively. So we have the full force of the law being thrown at a guy who puts the wrong litter in the bin, and no one wants to deal with the thug who is committing vast offences to property and person.

And that, while more and more typical, is where Britain, my Britain of fair play and justice, IS now rubbish.

3C, or not 3C, that is the question

It's all a matter of degree.

With no allusions as to left/right balance, we have this from the BBC and this from the Telegraph 'Too late' to stop 3C rise in temperature

Whew!

I just hope that with all the inevitable hot air flying about that will continue, doubtless in more heated form following this, there may be a few that still see the value in avoiding unnecessary waste by doing our best to reduce, reuse, repair & recycle.

And, with luck, there will be some money to spare from the vast amounts that are getting thrown around thinking about it all, to actually educate and motivate the average person in a way they can, and would want to get to grips with.

But why do I suspect 'they' will still be dicking about arguing whether it's 2 or 3 degrees even when the cows have come home... with melanomas, only to drown in the barns built on floodplains. Serves 'em right for all the methane they produced, I suppose. 

We all have our ratings to bear

OK, that didn't take long: back to normal (though the brevity thing seems attractive as the sun peaks through this Saturday morn).

I was taken by the following: Crucify me? Sorry, I've changed my mind, which is about a 'Scottish DJ, presenter and tabloid columnist, who had travelled with a television crew in tow to the Philippines village of San Pedro Cutud to take part in the bloody annual re-enactment of Christ's crucifixion.'

You'll have to trust me that I have not edited out anything that makes much difference, but let me simply include the following, in sequence from the rest of the piece in question:

 "He is just after publicity," proclaimed Conrado Diamse, a local villager who has been crucified before.

Diamond said before setting off on his quest: "I'm in my mid-30s, I've got three kids and it's about time I did something that didn't involve cheap gags."

After his experience, however, he was less forthcoming. "He is doing it as a spiritual journey," said a Channel Five spokesman. "He doesn't want to talk to the press until closer to the transmission date."

I think that last one pretty much nails it for what it is, if you forgive the pun.

MAD* if you don't

It must be all this Easter talk of fluffy bunnies, chicks, lambs and chocolate, but here I am a) writing yet another upbeat blog, b) in succession and c) of short duration.

After the nightmare that was the Ideal Home, I am happy to say that things are shaping up much more promisingly for our coming participation at the MAD* show, at Earls Court, in June.

They seem much more 'our style', including the way they do things, on top of what they're trying to do. With a name like 'Make A Difference' and a quick zoom round their site, we are reassured that their theme will actually match the claims being made.

Here's the exhibitor listing.

One man's trash...

As a light-hearted piece for the holidays I rather liked this one:

Police return small fortune thrown out with trash. 

Seems a Japanese couple narrowly avoided a domestic after the wife threw out £24k in notes hidden in a refuse bag. 

In the UK, that may have just about covered the fine for not recycling.

Egging us on at Easter

With us currently struggling to cope after a few setbacks (or rather some 'investments' that did not pan out as well as planned), I am glad to report one very nice thing that we learned late last night, that puts a slight spring in our step for the Easter break.

The lovely Janey Lee Grace, of Radio 2 fame, has written to advise that we are mentioned in her personal newsletter, which obviously goes to a highly worthwhile audience.

Thanks to her book, Imperfectly Natural Woman, which we were pleased to review having met her here in Ross at a book signing visit a while ago (and which subsequently went to the top of the Amazon best-seller list, which shows we know a hit when we see one!), she is fast becoming an influential force in the world of the (and I hope she will be happy with this description, which I take, and mean, to be a real accolade) 'light greens'. 

These are folk who are just trying to do their best whilst juggling a lot of commitments and family pressures, and who can often be alienated by the rather 'intense' pressure that can be brought to bear by those of a more target-driven or passionate bent. As our review noted, she very much embraces our 'style', which is more based on sharing practical, affordable ideas for inspirational 'doing'.

Here's hoping that we may soon welcome some new friends as a consequence of her endorsement.

It can often seem we're trying to save different planets

We subscribe to Materials Recycling Week, and having submitted it as an article, were pleasantly surprised to find my recent blog republished by them just now:

By Peter from Junkk.com

Latest: What. Where. How....er....When?

Peter, Junkk.com, 12/04/2006: I carry a powerful memory (scroll down at bit for full text)... 

What was not so great was to see a related earlier blog by one of their journalists, dated March 9, where she found herself '... pleasantly surprised by just how much emphasis has been put on recycling and sustainability in the home', in obvious awe of the celebrities she met, and whose stands (which, unlike ours, we rather suspect may not have been charged for, despite being very commercial, and well-promoted, high-end enterprises) she was obviously introduced to (two, ironically, just a corridor away from our own). 

Reason being that we are taking the organisers well and truly to task over the avowed theme, and this really is not going to be helpful. But it also highlights the disconnect that can obviously occur between what some organisations say and what they share (in PR, press packs, guided tours, etc) and what gets written, perhaps with the best of intentions, by journalists on tight deadlines. 

We know the lady in question, and she is passionate about the environment. Sadly, we do not recognise the show emphasis she described. I know it can be tricky to repay an invitation to a press launch with some constructive criticism (check out my review of the Dead Ringers story to see how I tried to balance my views whilst still saying what I genuinely felt, which was that it was an awful lot of money on something that didn’t really get to grips with all the issues it should have, doubtless making grumpy the show PR and all associated Gov, Local Gov and NGO types who get to play with the huge amounts involved).

There is a heady cocktail at work here, involving a lot of folk, and delicately balanced relationships between those who need, and those they’d like to be needed by. I'd include in this, big time, WRAP (who sponsored the Recycle Now alley, and whose cited participation in the marketing by the show sales guys was highly instrumental in our taking part). 

But perhaps most important is what the general public who visited thought of it all. 

I was there every day, and from those who came to the show and visited our stand (it is... interesting... that we were not one an environmental journalist was told about, came to (at least announced), or felt worth mentioning, despite being only one of a half-dozen scattered about in several hundred) it split into two distinct groups: those who had no clue the show was anything to do with environmental issues, and those who came because they had heard, found our little oasis, and shared our views that it was nothing like it had been billed, for exhibitor or interested visitor.

As a courtesy to the MRW editor (with whom we truly value our good relationship) I have called to tell him of our views and my intention to write this, and we have in a most civilised fashion agreed that it is all about freedom of speech. So here's hoping I can still articulate my views beyond these pages.

As part of our follow-up we will be continue to seek those of others who took part and visited, and it will be interesting to see the picture that emerges.

Two down, four hundred and eighty-odd to go

My adventures in IT disposal have proven a mixed bag so far, and while most of what I have written previously has been borne out, at least in terms of letting 'us' know what to do, I'm happy to report that, in our neck of the woods (Ross-on-Wye, Herefordshire), that it is possible to get rid of an old PC. But by golly, it took a bit of doing in the finding, with the doing yet to be confirmed.

 My first port of call was a website we have in the past found to be quite reliable, wastepoint (heard of it?). Sadly, despite using a very clear process, we ended up with a less than helpful result: take it to London, Luton or Leeds.

Next up, I headed for the local authority site, and after a bit of drilling down got where I needed to be, which was as far as I could go on this site, which then sent me off elsewhere (actually it gave me a choice of two, one of which is now defunct, but at least defaulted back to the other) to Turn the world around/Welcome to our future/recycle. This in turn sent me off to a seemingly promising section, which listed a few phone numbers. Sadly the companies mentioned were either no longer operating, not interested in my volumes (nothing less than a skipful got them excited) or too far away.

So I headed back to the council site and emailed directly to the contact offered.

I must say I was quite impressed to be called back within the day, by a most helpful lady who offered a few suggestions. These all were local and could help, but as I pointed out to her it was interesting that none were actually listed on the site.

One was a private company that would take my PC, but at a price (£1.50 for a CPU; £2.50 for a monitor). One was a not-for-profit, which would be happy to take them, but it was only once I called the boss (who I knew) and he told me where to go and to tell them 'he’d sent me'. Finally I was given the mobile number of the private contractor running the public sites. He happily told me they'd take the stuff, but only if I was a private individual.

So, without actually going out there to test it, it looks like it may work, at least in our neck of the woods.

 

But I rather suspect most folk would have given up well before the point of actually making such progress. Now, where next? We've also tried it (having been asked by a Junkk.com user) about Wokingham, but sadly, despite our best efforts and a series of exchanges with the council waste officer, come up with nothing there. Which leaves just a few more left on the list... about 480.

 

Thing is, we're just a little outfit with no real resource. Isn't his something worth doing and supporting at much higher levels?

What. Where. How... er... When?

Post the Ideal Home show we have decided to pursue some issues that were thrown up by visitors to our stand, which inspired me to write the following. As it stands an awful lot of folk are employed and being paid an awful lot of money with an awful lot of resources to have either been unable to help, or come up with an awful lot of reasons why they cannot.

I carry a powerful memory from our recent participation at the Daily Mail Ideal Home show. It is of the lone ‘All Waste Paper' recycling bin that eventually appeared outside the entrance of the recycle now stand, beneath an endlessly looping Eddie Izzard commercial exhorting us to 'recycle - the possibilities are endless’.

I was there to do so, but the thin slot was well and truly blocked by a plastic bottle crammed into it.

As a metaphor for the show (theme: Recycling and Sustainable Living, though one would have been hard-pressed to guess, let alone experience or practice any such things) it seemed appropriate. But also symbolic of a greater disconnect I believe exists across the land.

While there was a small fortune being spent telling people what is good to do, there was little in evidence to point people in the right direction, or facilities in place to actually do it. Hence small motivation to try very hard to comply. 

My 'business', Junkk.com, is primarily about reuse, but we are more than keen to encourage proper recycling should those 're's’ higher up the enviro-chain not be possible. But I do wonder why it is still so hard for the poor old consumer to know what to do... or where.

If there were two things that we were challenged on mostly at our stand, from people attracted by the fateful words 'Ask us!' on one of our posters, they were a) what to do with endless ISP CD-ROMs, and b) what to do with a loft full of old IT stuff.

On the reuse front we were coming up a bit shy. There are only so many allotment bird scarers required, and other than turning an old iMac into a aquarium, we were pretty stumped there too. So if anyone has a good idea... tell us! We’ll all make a fortune.

Hence on to disposal, and we have started to try and find out. Because we are happy to admit to our users that while we may not have an immediate answer, we probably have a slightly better chance of knowing a 'man who can' or 'a lady who is savvy'.

So far, it is not proving too encouraging. Especially as the enquiries pour in from around the country.

Cans, no problem. Bottles, cinch (though where is that green glass mountain?). Paper, surely (however, perhaps not in Earls Court). Cardboard, mostly. Plastic... er... erratic but getting there (and there is always a paper bin in Earls Court). TetraPaks? Well, best if you live up North. Waaaaay up North. Batteries? Used to be France, but now there are a few collection points around, though I'm betting most don't know where and lob them in the bin.

But for a lot of other stuff that people do seem to be pretty concerned about, it still seems a barren plot. Take our very own nifty IT 'grey-yard': dead printers, slow CPUs and lifeless mobiles (yes, I know that there are many 'schemes' out there, but we are also interested in provenance chains with our disposal options, which is worthy of another story on behalf of poorly-informed consumers).

Junkk.com is a journey of discovery, so I am happy to admit I... we... are learning all the time. And so far, in our attempts to help folk (we're not being altruistic as every such enquiry and, with luck, result adds to the knowledge base we can share on our pages), it has been pretty discouraging. And let's not forget, we do know a tad more about where to try than most of the general public.

Websites; local authority and otherwise. Actual exchanges with endless officers. Industry bodies. NGOs. Businesses. Not much to show, from the vast logistical investment that has been made so far, that gets us any where near dealing with the item(s) we're interested in deposing of at all, let alone responsibly. There's a lot of 'stuff' out there. But outside of the kerbside-friendly 'goodies' endlessly solicited, when push comes to shove not much at all that translates into actually helping an individual get rid of something , either easily, practically or cost-effectively.

To dispose of my CPU, so far no organisation listed on local official sites wants to know, and as an individual the closest I have come is an invitation to visit Leeds, London or Luton.

I just hope that it is not going to prove to be because there's no money to be made, or the targets are not sexy enough. 

Now that would be a real waste.

Flights of Fancy

It's worth repeating our dictum that in matters green, things are seldom black and white. Hence I read with interest an article about an aspect of governmental internal behaviour, namely the use (and abuse) of air travel: Ministers use the Queen's Flight 'like private taxis'

I actually have some sympathy, as many criticisms do not reflect the realities of modern life. Can't very well have the PM unable or not present to make a decision on some new global excitement because he's waiting for the No 37 bus. Or for that matter, have the leader of our country standing around in the open at all, lest a Father for Jihad in a funny outfit decide to go for the front page of the Sun.

However, as with all things, we get to matters of degree. And it all gets complicated when one weighs 'efficiency' (of time, etc), with economy and, latterly, security issues and the environment. 

So we have that: "The Prime Minister has used the aircraft on 677 occasions since 1997 and spent about £140,000 on five trips abroad, mainly devoted to family holidays." While "senior ministers, including Gordon Brown, the Chancellor, have regularly used the Queen's Flight to ferry them from London to Brussels rather than take the train." And my personal eyebrow-twitching favourite: "Margaret Beckett, the Environment Secretary and the minister in charge of Labour's response to global warming, is also under fire for regularly ordering the aircraft, based at Northolt, near London, to fly to East Midlands airport, near her home in Derby, to pick her up for Government trips."

I can go along with the security issue. And, in the national interest, the time efficiency one, but this does of course start to drift into whose time is more important when we are told to do something that is patently not done by those telling us to do it. Especially when the disconnect is so grotesque: "In a statement on behalf of Mrs Beckett, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said it was entirely reasonable for aircraft to pick her up near her constituency home, especially if it were a Monday morning.' I still recall her on a radio show during the election justifying helicopter tips because she was 'very busy', like the rest of us are not. Sorry, this is not the right person to lecture us on how to be green.

And it seems a spokesman for the fiscally prudent Mr Brown has said that using the Queen's Flight to Brussels was cheaper than even standard class in Eurostar. That seems a pretty damning indictment on the attractiveness of train travel. But imagine the fiscal and environmental gains all round if they'd opted for a few seats with the masses on what I imagine to be a not-dissimilar levels-of-exhaust-venting aircraft operated by such as EasyJet? 

And finally, I must sigh when I read the now inevitable: 'It said that, "conscious of the environmental impact of aviation", all ministerial flights during Britain's presidency of the European Union last year were "carbon offset", partly by paying for environmental projects overseas.'

For a start, 'It is said that..' seems pretty blooming vague. Were they? Yes or no? And why only during Britain's Presidency? And what projects exactly? It would surely be no great effort to get taxpayers to fund the environmental consequences of all the jollies as well as those that are valid, but I for one would certainly like to know where the money is going and and why. 

Money talks and politicians should, on occasion, be made to walk. 

Putting your foot in it

I will take some convincing on the claim being made here:

Disposable Shoes - The New Nike MayFly Source: [letsrun]

'You can even ship it back to Nike when your done if you want to help save the environment.'

Is it just me, or is it starting to look like you whack '...plus it's good for the environment' on any new marketing product/wheeze just in case someone salutes?

Pity, because we had thought Nike were pretty well ahead of the curve, but this looks like a hurdle too far (enough running metaphors, already!)

Newtons' Laws

One of Sir Isaac's is, of course, that 'to any action there is an equal an opposite reaction', which in the literal sense this could be deemed to be... sort of.

But here I do of course refer to another Newton, as in Thandie quits her 4x4 to be a green goddess, which has enabled me to add a new law to the pot, namely that 'no matter what the story, the odds of uncritical sycophantic coverage by the media - even supposedly informed, objective ones - are near infinitely expanded to 'dead cert' by the amount of A-list totty attached to it, especially with a flash of flesh bolted on'. 

Now I have no problem that 'the British star of Crash, the Hollywood hit film, has become a crusader against gas-guzzling cars after a Greenpeace activist slapped stickers on her 4x4 accusing her of adding to global warming'. Or that 'she will make her support for the anti-emissions campaign public' (Sweet.. and so noble. How rare). Apparently she had been in her aircon-trailer for about a decade, because until this moment she didn't know 4x4s were a tad thirsty, and not really necessary around London. Bless.

Because I am sure that she has appreciated that a vast chunk of the emissions a car is responsible for arise in the making, so by buying a Prius and ditching the 4x4 she was by no means simply making a gesture. Especially as I'm sure she made sure a perfectly good 4x4 was either a) turned into a chicken coop, or at least b) sold to a person who may use it off road. Plus I'm sure she will no longer be flying around the globe in seats that could carry several normal folk, and working only on films whose explosions and stuff are all carbon neutralised, preferably not by companies owned by the the producer's hairdresser's vineyard manager.

Certainly these are facts glossed over by her PR guys, who did manage to cram in a lot of stuff about her forthcoming films, and also happily trotted out by the copy-typist, sorry, environmental journalists at the papers just round the corner in London, who must get a bit bored with pictures of activists in their wholly hats.

Other than a bit of hail to go with the sunshine yesterday (?), the weather seems to be getting better, so I'm slipping on my Peter Stringfellow thong and off for a photo shoot down in the Volvo. Hey, it's worth a go.

Oh the irony, redux

I dunno, but it appealed to me.

From the top piece: 'It launched Land Rover into a new area of the
4x4 leisure market and expanded the brand's appeal well beyond
traditional 4x4 buyers'.

Closely followed by this in the one below: '"Further confirming the
'head in the sand' attitude, less than a fifth of drivers saw it as
their own responsibility to lessen the environmental impact of their
vehicles"

And it is certainly not for the media to lessen the impact of their
ad revenue by not writing car company puff pieces, especially when
they do it next to worthy puff pieces with no sense of irony.

:)

Bad taste

Irony is possibly in short supply at the BBC these days.

A few short segments after a collection of po-faced prompt-readers
and earnest social commentators discuss the news of Mr. Brown's
rehash of the G8 poverty commitments, we have a piece about an £85
sandwich. I wait in vain for any inference as to the contradictions
inherent in this, but no, things smugly move on to the stock exchange
for the CEO of a sandwich company to have his free commercial
opportunity on the tax payers' money.

It left such a bad taste I decided to forgo any more of this trivial
drivel. So I probably missed the daily token environmental story -
doubtless involving a celeb - about what 'we' should be doing to make
a difference, which doubtless will not refer back to the flying in of
Chilean beef daily to make a snack for them in the green room.

Bouncing Back

A full working week and I am still drowning in 'catch-up'. Oh well.
One of the first casualties has been my daily reading of all the
newspapers, magazines and online newsletters. And without subject
matter to get blogged up about, I think my blogging will be sparse
for a while.

Anyway, by way of an interim upbeat note to tide us over, let me
share this lovely cartoon I have just had from one of my many fellow
'Less Than Ideal' Home exhibitors, who found my adventures quite
amusing, obviously. She was one of the wonderful few who actually
tried to make my experiment with cap collection work. Unsurprisingly,
she was also a source of continual inspiration throughout the show
with her good humour and bounding energy. No wonder her nickname is
Tigger!

I won't include the inside, but it's a lovely play on the Ideal Home
'strapline' of 'For me it's all about shopping', where all of us had
our own versions of 'For me its...'

Don't try this at home

While there was much that was frustrating about the Ideal Home show,
one thing that was wonderful was the sheer number of lovely folk I
met, especially fellow stand mates. Most were 'vets', and seemed to
do this for a living. I have to admire them, as the experience was
enough to put me off for ever (bar the next two we are doing,
ironically, at the same location. At least they are only a few days
each).

In addition to morale-boosting exchanges of drinks and snacks, I was
touched at the number of little gifts that came my way.

One such was a craft book that I was given by Joy, a wholly
remarkable lady who was presenting 10-8, every day, pretty much 7/7
for the entire month... at 76 years of age (pix above)!

Having had a chance to read it, we were very amused at the first
entry: Fun things to do with Asbestos! What was remarkable was the
date of printing: 1969. Amazing to think that this was still deemed a
craft material as recently as that! Good job we invested a lot in our
disclaimers and T&Cs. Who knows what next will turn out to be a no-no
to use at home