Another Idea Gets Approved

Just got this:

Congratulations: the idea 'Carbon Legacy: inheritance tax substitute' has been approved and added to the ideas bank.

You can view (and vote on) this idea below:

Why not promote this idea by by sending it to your friends? You can do this by following this link

Well, somebody liked it!

There, but for the grace of God...

Poor man's floating home turns Rio recycling model

I have the trash.

And the River Wye looks set to oblige.

DO what?!!!!!

Council tax valuers recruit a spy in sky 'snooping on households'

If it's true, of course.

Yummy... mummy!

Re-cycle of Life

Sorry. Don't feel sorry for Dave the Wave.. er.. Save at all. So as ye preach, so shall ye have your nethers rummaged, n' all. Comes with the territory.

I have to say I was more surprised the Turquoise (that's blue/green right?) hype & spinmeisters had missed this one as a possibility, being that it has been done before, to great effect, to such as Mr. Bradshaw, etc. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Regrading you experiment, if your council does not collect then anything is better than nothing, and shame on them for not helping your area's residents to do so.

I have to wonder how good it is as an enviROI to not have a council truck collect and crush tonnages of material from each person in the street, and instead deliver it by Personal Fedex to a high volume, low weight skip.

Me, I keep a lot of it and make stuff (have done for years) . That doesn't cost money. It saves it. And can even make it.

At least we still have the vote. For now.

Council salaries revealed under the FoI act

One presumes this information freel... er... grudgingly shared also extends to the numbers of officers there are in total, their functions, salaries and pension consequences.

Where it might fall down is actually finding out what gets done for the money, to assess the ROI per person for this investment by the local taxpayers. But it's better than nothing (the information, I mean).

But such data is only worth having if it can be used.

And with luck the local taxpayers of Hackney will make very good use of it.

It must be true. I read it in the paper.

High hopes

'...the agreement's dirty little secret: it will do next to no good, and again at very high cost'

Oo-er. Careful with that. I rather suspect this will be the next flames begin!

I recently decided to have no more to do with the arguments over climate change, and concentrate instead on doing what I can personally and to encourage others - via objective information, entertainment and reward - to simply cut back on unnecessary waste and reduce consumption wherever reasonably possible.

Addendum to a reply:

'With so little making sense in this arena, at least even I could grasp your explanation.

It may even help assess what's being said by the various merry crews a tad better for validity.

As a mere graduate in Civil Engineering (BSc, but only on the strict promise I would not try and build anything, so I went into advertising. At least I can still figure out dodgy numbers), but with a Brigadier Generality in BS, hype & spin (field commissions), I know what I know, and I know what I don't know.

And I also know when others are in the same boat. It's a shame they can't admit it.

We'd get more DONE that way:)





Guardian - The water of discontent

Nice vest. Is it Semtex?

Recycling taxes - what a load of rubbish

When you fail to tackle advancing issues in good time and good order, the number of 'targets' can end up on your doorstep very quickly.

At this point the solution seems to be to move from rifle to shotgun to dropping a hand grenade at your feet, and hoping that it doesn't wipe out more who are 'innocent' in the hope of being seen to deal with the 'guilty'.

Nice vest. Is it Semtex?

Pathetic.

Suffer little children. It's good business.

I just saw an ad man and a charity lady discuss a kid's ad that has been pulled for 'being distressing'. And justified as necessary to secure money, most of which goes on the next campaign.

I was sickened. But not by the ad.

Here's what I wrote.

These 'tactics' can lead in only one direction. Loads of awards for the ad agencies. Bubbly corks popping in the media agencies. Nice salaries for the expanding charity marketing departments. And how much going to what that tangibly helps kids... exactly?

I would wish this question had been answered, despite being posed more than once.

The rich are different to you and I. They can better afford to cope with (knee) jerks.

I suspect that I will be adding links from elsewhere to these, not to mention a whole raft of emotive comment, Just what the media loves.

Pressure group urges higher air taxes to penalise 'rich' flyers

Brown tackles 'Chelsea tractors' in final Budget

As with road pricing I simply fear potentially necessary measures to manage personal travel emissions will get snarled up by woeful knee jerk legalisation that has little to do with the environment and more to do with hype. Not all who fly or use 4x4s are rich or doing so simply for fun.

Let's see how the BBC mangle that one.

ps: The banner ads at time of writing were... ironic. One for short haul flights. And the other for a dirty great Beemer.

BBC - Budget 'to hit gas guzzlers hard'
Guardian - Budget to give tax breaks for green homes

Sir,

As a strong advocate of incentive based measures, this is, on the surface, hard to fault. I just worry about the practice. And how fair it can be made without more legions of civil servants draining the public purse simply to assess measure, approve and/or fine.

Not all are in a position to whack up a wind turbine to order. At least the payback is being claimed as on energy created and sent back tot he grid.

What I am not keen on is greenwashing measures, that may be acceptable if it leaves the financial ROI to the wallet and conscience of the consumer, but not if the ultimate enviROI is actually worse for not being done at all. That would not be helping my kids' futures.

The question then arises whose shorter term interests are being served.

Title Fight

Titles matter.

Does an Ace beat a King? A King a Queen, etc.

Of course, there is the small matter of the Jester.

Because when it comes to climate science, this has become key.

I am guessing a Professor beats a Doctor, but maybe not.

Then there are qualifiers.

Does 'eminent' mean more than 'noted'. And in what combination?

And is the quiet guy, who knows his/her stuff and gets on with it, better to explain than the one with a slick sound bite and speed dial to the media?

Frankly, I do not know what to believe any more, because I do not know who to believe.

Pity.

And that... is all we have time for

This, from the BBC website, sums up a major chunk of what I think is going wrong.

If you can't get it in two minutes, or one headline, you are not going to get it, no matter how complex or what context it is in.

Pump it up. Pump it out. Shoot it down. Next!

ADDENDUM (Mon 19/3/07):

It was only a piece on cooking, but I thought it was telling.

Some guy who had won something was in a kitchen and was being asked to demo. I think he was allowed ten seconds before the reporter said ''Throw it in". When he hesitated, perhaps as a consequence of it not working , at least as it should like that, she turned to camera and said "We're running out of time' and proceeded to hog the screen saying sod all of interest to a 'celebrity' chef who is on screen too often at the drop of a white stovepipe hat.

Sir, Madam. How would you like to be cooked?

When I lived in Singapore there were many phrases in Singlish (the local patois) that could cause delight, but one I always recall were variants on the way you'd prefer your steak. Perhaps my favourite was: 'What done you want?'.

Quite. The degree of 'done', as in being so or simply having had enough and giving up with it is very topical.

I have here announced I no longer intend to blog on 'Global warming' more times than bands announce final concerts, and will doubtless be seduced to the pointless side again when something truly egregious strikes. But I have decided enough is enough. It really is getting me nowhere. And the amount of time I am wasting reading all this guff, writing about it all, and not doing what I do better is not a good investment in helping improve the planet.

To grasp why here are two recent pieces that typify the situation of, it seems to me, wanting to be 100% right rather than getting on and doing an even better % of the right thing.

Bad Science - Credit where it’s due - You gotta graph!

EDITED extra bits:

When I lived ..

I'm afraid I came to this conclusion as this latest set on the topic of 'who's 100% righter' came into my in-box along with one from the BBC - Caution urged on climate 'risks' -

I don't know what my body may be like in a decade, but my brain is already drowning in such 'information' and fried by trying to square the spirals.

...they will eat you instead.

Time for new, less self-interested, and more genuinely motivated and engaging brooms.
BBC - Caution urged on climate 'risks' - And they are not even real... well, they seem to be, but they're not the right kind (ie: our kind) of climate scientist)

Here's a newsflash. If I no longer feel like keeping up, I rather doubt most others can be bothered either. That may mean the 'deniers' (too broad, but will suffice for here) have succeeded.

But it also means that those who would claim to wish, and have the ways, to rectify matters... have failed.

When you rely on Chicken Little for your science, and then rush with his findings to the Boy Who Cried Wolf to handle the PR, and do it too often, then, like Little Red Riding Hood, it doesn't matter what you take to Big Bad Media. If it isn't palatable enough for their audiences, or spoiled by being rushed, they will eat you instead.

Time for new, less self-interested, and more genuinely motivated and engaging brooms.

Observer - Don't exaggerate climate dangers, scientists warn

It's not just the question. These days it's who is asking it.

DO YOU WANT GREEN SNOOPERS IN YOUR HOME?

No. But how do I know any more that they will be as described here?

They are inheriting it. Maybe we should let them save it as well.

Caption:

Me presenting the prizes donated by the local Warhammer shop to the winners, along with a special award from Junkk.com to the young initiative initiator, an antique brass caliper.




Today is Comic Relief day.

So far, so media frenzied.

Frankly, I can take or leave scores of 'celebrities' - some of whom are doubtless sincere, but most of whom have either been told to do it by their bosses or agents, or need to do it to boost flagging careers - mugging to the camera to get the sofa-set to part with cash by phone. I'm sure after the last few weeks it's is all crystal clear and above board, but I'm prepared to bet there are still some admin and handling charges in there.

Meanwhile, in sleepy Ross on Wye, a few days ago a small boy had an idea. And frankly I reckon he has put the whole adult population, from self-centred celebs to sparring pols, to shame.

Because he set up a simple little competition between his mates.

They are all mad for Warhammer, which seems to be a brilliant way to get parents to pay for a 1" character what we used to get in the entire Airfix D-Day recreation set.

Lots and lots of plastic doo-dads which get snapped off and stuck together and painted and played with in strategy games.

And young Dexter's idea was to see who could make the most, and whackiest, creations out of the bits that are left behind in the moulding process (best name heard to date: sprue. But in may be spurl, or Trevor for all I know). One hour, at £1 a character.

My boys made nine. Each. So thanks to this little boy I am now shy £18. Worth every darn penny.

I got wind of it in advance, and for obvious reasons also got quite excited about the notion that kids were doing something a) productive, b) creative, c) worthy and d) fun with reuse. So I flashed around and got the local Warhammer store to sponsor some prizes, which were judged by a panel of proud Dads (not knowing what creation was made by which son).

I'm presenting them tonight. And then I am going to see what I can do to let the Warhammer guys know about it, the media and anyone else who will listen. Because this is worth building upon.

While others talk, these kids just got on and acted for themselves. And had a ball doing it.

Save the children. Save the planet. By and for the children. No adult egos or agendas to be found.

And that... is what it's all about.

Guardian - Last night's TV: Comic Relief does the Apprentice
Telegraph - Priceless gains from spending nothing
Guardian - Comic Relief/The Bits That Aren't Fame Academy: Live
BBC - Comic Relief appeal raises £40.2m

Where there's a... where is that will again?

The price of protection

One of my favourite words... 'SHOULD'. Closely followed by 'COULD'.

Thing is, it is pretty much meaningless without 'WILL' to back it up.

When bad deeds make good copy

To the grievance community, it's always someone else's fault

Fine words.

So, what can you... we... do about it?

Or is this just another talking shop industry within an industry with all sides having a vested interest in maintaining the status quo?

Bin. And Gone.

Green light given to empty bins every 2 weeks

When there is no trust left, the comments here show the value of ' A Whitehall-funded study...' to convince anyone of anything.

Especially when it is unclear how ever higher rates can be justified in leading to ever fewer services. Unless local authority pensions count as a 'service'.

Yet...'Council chiefs say local taxpayers will have to foot the bill if the targets are missed and fines are applied.'

That's just an attitude that stinks.

Its a shame to waste

Money 'is wasted'

At least a third of the £555m spent each year on business support by the Regional Development Agencies is claimed to be wasted on administration...

Only a third?

First, build your lead balloon. Then see if it flies.

Watchdog tells BBC to drop learning website

Joined. Up. Government.

Not.

Links! Rechts?

A visit from the BBC

Without meaning to suck up too much, I tend to have slightly more faith with those who operate the online 'arm' of a medium. Maybe because there is less chance of establishing a side career simply by being recognisable, those who create online as opposed to onscreen seem, IMHO, to be a bit more concerned with doing their jobs, doing them professionally... and ethically.

However, I must disagree with this: "What we call moderation, readers call censorship."

As with all things, the devil is in the definitions. Trying to be as brief in analysing a pretty complex issue, I'd have to say that if the rules are clearly stated, the moderation should be accepted, if applied... as stated.

The problems arise where you have subjective interpretation. Most blog rules allow you to simply have an opinion and post it up there on screen, so long as it is not 'bad' or 'nasty'. And I think the vast majority can handle that.

Censorship is when a poster follows the rules, but has their post either deleted or edited, it seems, often to suit an agenda held by the guys holding the ball and owning the pitch. And if your remit is to be balanced and objective, if you do that once to often for no good reason, and without explanation, then you deserve to reap the harvest you have sown.

With all the talk of citizen journalism and the financial attraction of free reader vox pops, it is hard to feel too sympathetic to read this: 'The more successful you are at attracting reader responses... the bigger the problem gets', when such responses are being solicited sixteen to the dozen via every outlet.

Especially when the ethics go out the window and the trust is blown.

On BBC Breakfast TV this morning, my opinion was read out, having been sent as requested by the presenters.

Thing is, they took only one phrase out of 3 sentences that as read was the total opposite of what I said.

So in setting out 'some principles for working on the web', I'd recommend not following their broadcast brothers and sisters.

And if they are trying to encourage user participation and comments on their sites, the BBC questioning the need to host those conversations sounds interesting, but almost as if they like the benefits of the content streams, but don't want to worry about the consequences of carrying them.

Which is a total abrogation of accountability and responsibility, and not what 'we' would wish from our public, and publicly-funded broadcaster, surely?