I really do not want my blogs to be limited mainly to the subject of policemen and their various (nefarious?) activities. However, here is another example of what can be described as cases of waywardness of thought among chiefs. An instance where the thought processes have gone completely awry - even awol. Intellectual idiots are to be found in abundance everywhere but when they get to work on our FREEDOMS, then all the alarm bells ring at the same time. Some clanging is that. Hard on the eardrums. It can make them bleed a little even.
There is a little Association of Chief Police Officers It has an acronym to suit: ACPO. You might think that that might be some sort of force (!) for good. Benefits might spring eternal from its symposiae. After all, these are the big white chiefs. Top dogs. They who have climbed to the top of their profession and are on top of their game. After the basics of policing in early years, I suppose that a copper can occasionally find that he gets quite comfortable with the bureaucratic processes. He begins to imagine that he could progress quite well. He might even look up that ladder and fancy himself much higher up. Might even try to see the top rungs. Almost, he can but it is shrouded in mist. But eventually, some do indeed reach the top of the ladder. But it is still shrouded in mist, and it is very insecure. He thinks that he can reach the stars, but it is only the light glinting on all those shiny buttons. There is a lot of swaying up there and very little support. Winds blow to and fro: from colleagues, from politicians and even from the public. Something to lean on would be good, but what? Their Assistants would be no use at all; they would have them down without proper use of the rungs. Ah! Other Chiefs. Yessss! There must be plenty of ideas to ponder, and then to develop to improve policing in this country.
After all their experience of plodding/case supervision/ inspecting etc. you might be tempted to believe that they might become a well of understanding,. In short, you would be wrong. Completely and utterly dead wrong. In truth, you will ‘not believe it’ if you were of a certain age. You definitely would not believe this one if you were one of those who were the subject of their latest effusion. I use ‘effusion’ loosely because this was a presentation by this august little body to members of parliament. Not to their own colleagues. Not to ordinary people. Indeed, not to any old ordinary members of parliament either. Instead this was a presentation to the Parliamentary Select Transport Committee. Now we would all like access to that one. We would have lots of useful suggestions to put to them, though you would not expect many of yours to get through. Still you would have a go. But ACPO could expect.
You would naturally foresee what they decided to present to the Transport Committee to be a well thought out range of measures. But neither you nor I would come up with this one, whatever you thought of the subject: The Chief Police Officers appeared before the Committee and suggested that there should be a complete ban on ........motorcycles: ‘Now....let’s see’, they pondered ‘Yes, no motorbikes! So no more motorcyclists. Yes. A complete ban. That would be good. No more of their accident statistics to worry about, thank you very much. A reduction in the total number of accidents, and accidents to motorcyclists down to zero, in fact. What an achievement!’
Yes really, no more motorcycles at all. Gone for good. They even came up with data which was a pack of lies about motorcycles. And this was presented ....... Yes, it was! Now, you may not be a fan of motorcycles. But others are not fans of baby prams or bicycles. Still others are not fans of staircases. All of these carry risks and all of them are involved in accidents - deaths, even. Could there be a ban on such things? And then, where would the line to be drawn? What else?.....’What next?’, they might ponder. But in the general scheme of things you would expect something less mind numbingly dictatorial - even in this day and age.
Spokespersons for this illustrious band (banned?) of Chiefs has not been a bit remorseful about the lies they presented to MPs. They just explained that they scraped together some information from Google. It was wrong and who cares? Well not themselves, it seems. Not a toss given.
But you might expect that the motorcycling fraternity in the form of those in a representative role would be blasting away at this. But they seem not to be. Why not? Are they too easy on their settees? ‘Not my job, mister. Now, where’s my coffee?’ Only Motorcycle News is having a real go. But this issue goes way beyond motorcycles and we should all be very afraid. Someone might take them seriously one day. Now that would be dangerous. Motorcycle News deserves all of our support in dealing with a serious point of principle. Our very freedoms are at risk.
We had better all watch for other silliness from this little band of brothers. They cannot be trusted. Who would have thought it: police not to be trusted. They were never like that when I was young.
There, I said you would not believe it........’Police state?........... Nah’, you would have said.
On top of this: the case of the arrested Opposition Shadow Minister - Damien Green. Don’t get me started on that one...... All I would say is: beware knocking on your neighbour’s door to ask to borrow a cup of sugar because you might find yourself arrested under anti-terrorist legislation (or alternatively be given an ASBO. Oh, yes.). In some ways we live on a slippery slope. Watch out.
Wednesday 10 December 2008
Thursday 13 November 2008
Sky News Weather - Watching the clock: the ‘m’ word
I no longer need to know the forecast weather as I might have done in times past. But it is a national fascination and also one of my own. Sometimes I do need to know. Plans have to be made occasionally, even if they are subsequently abandoned, establishing a welcome element of order into life. As an example, I will plan to roll the motorbike out and go for a spin. That needs good weather - well, it does for me. So, the weather at specific times of the day is then important to me.
I watch Sky News Weather because I like to see Sky’s News programme. The problem is that I am becoming fixated with the error of a key part of the report which is the time graphic. The issue here is: ‘meridiem’ - ante meridiem (am) is after midnight and before noon; and post meridiem(pm) is after noon and before midnight. Therefore, noon is neither before noon nor after noon; and likewise midnight is just that - midnight. Neither is "12am" nor "12pm". There is no denying that. It may be Latin, but the proper use of ‘am’ and ‘pm’ can, after all, be readily understood. None-the-less, you can see the Sky weather clock racing through, say, from seven in the morning; you watch the clouds racing too from the west, or the east, swirling systems grabbing the air as they go, dumping rain on poor old Ireland again, or whatever. You are watching that time graphic again and they ping one at you showing ‘pm’ or ‘am’ attached to the reading of 12. "What was that?", you ask yourself in near panic. You are lost. Will I be in bed at 12pm or will I be thinking about lunchtime sandwiches? Confusion. At the end of the forecast you do not know what weather was when; and you are left glaring at that "12pm" which sometimes just hangs there....as a smile does on the reporter’s face...(!) So, do I ride tomorrow or not? Cannot possibly say!
During our early years, each of us eventually learns to understand the clock. You would think that by the time we are old enough to understand weather forecasts we need nothing fresh on that. So, what is Sky trying to teach us? Is this New Sky News Weather Time (NSNWT)? No, no; they may be leaders in news gathering, but they are simply unable to cope with noon and midnight. They are at a loss. They seek some false conjunction with ‘am’ or ‘pm’ for those times and they imply that that is OK. Without a proper solution, anything will suffice. Sky have even decided which way round am and pm should be shown with ‘12’!
Why do they do this? Clocks have standards and there is no justification for any change. Sky should not be trying to teach us otherwise. Schoolchildren - beware! And no-one, please, go up to a policeman and ask him: " Is it 12pm yet?" (it would definitely confuse him).
Politicians and heads of organisations are very fond of telling us that ‘it is right to........’. Well, Sky, this is not right. Even The Good Old BBC eventually got it a couple of years ago and moved to the 24 hour clock (I am delighted, and somewhat surprised, to be writing). Good onit. You see, even (I say again) The Good Old BBC can show good sense at times (though it struggles desperately with all the ‘it is right to...’ issues).
Sky, your computers are able to tell the time properly. Has anyone there got the time (oooh!) to correct the graphic? It should not be too difficult. Or are you, Sky, like some others and standards, simply ‘not bovvered’?
I no longer need to know the forecast weather as I might have done in times past. But it is a national fascination and also one of my own. Sometimes I do need to know. Plans have to be made occasionally, even if they are subsequently abandoned, establishing a welcome element of order into life. As an example, I will plan to roll the motorbike out and go for a spin. That needs good weather - well, it does for me. So, the weather at specific times of the day is then important to me.
I watch Sky News Weather because I like to see Sky’s News programme. The problem is that I am becoming fixated with the error of a key part of the report which is the time graphic. The issue here is: ‘meridiem’ - ante meridiem (am) is after midnight and before noon; and post meridiem(pm) is after noon and before midnight. Therefore, noon is neither before noon nor after noon; and likewise midnight is just that - midnight. Neither is "12am" nor "12pm". There is no denying that. It may be Latin, but the proper use of ‘am’ and ‘pm’ can, after all, be readily understood. None-the-less, you can see the Sky weather clock racing through, say, from seven in the morning; you watch the clouds racing too from the west, or the east, swirling systems grabbing the air as they go, dumping rain on poor old Ireland again, or whatever. You are watching that time graphic again and they ping one at you showing ‘pm’ or ‘am’ attached to the reading of 12. "What was that?", you ask yourself in near panic. You are lost. Will I be in bed at 12pm or will I be thinking about lunchtime sandwiches? Confusion. At the end of the forecast you do not know what weather was when; and you are left glaring at that "12pm" which sometimes just hangs there....as a smile does on the reporter’s face...(!) So, do I ride tomorrow or not? Cannot possibly say!
During our early years, each of us eventually learns to understand the clock. You would think that by the time we are old enough to understand weather forecasts we need nothing fresh on that. So, what is Sky trying to teach us? Is this New Sky News Weather Time (NSNWT)? No, no; they may be leaders in news gathering, but they are simply unable to cope with noon and midnight. They are at a loss. They seek some false conjunction with ‘am’ or ‘pm’ for those times and they imply that that is OK. Without a proper solution, anything will suffice. Sky have even decided which way round am and pm should be shown with ‘12’!
Why do they do this? Clocks have standards and there is no justification for any change. Sky should not be trying to teach us otherwise. Schoolchildren - beware! And no-one, please, go up to a policeman and ask him: " Is it 12pm yet?" (it would definitely confuse him).
Politicians and heads of organisations are very fond of telling us that ‘it is right to........’. Well, Sky, this is not right. Even The Good Old BBC eventually got it a couple of years ago and moved to the 24 hour clock (I am delighted, and somewhat surprised, to be writing). Good onit. You see, even (I say again) The Good Old BBC can show good sense at times (though it struggles desperately with all the ‘it is right to...’ issues).
Sky, your computers are able to tell the time properly. Has anyone there got the time (oooh!) to correct the graphic? It should not be too difficult. Or are you, Sky, like some others and standards, simply ‘not bovvered’?
Tuesday 11 November 2008
Dear Sir
SPEED CAMERA - Feedback
"Fair cop, Gov.!". How often have I heard that in a TV ‘Cop’ series? Now, I am just the same as the criminals there portrayed - no different. However, I am guilty only by making a mistake (I know, we all say that, you’ll say); just a momentary lack of concentration on legal speed requirements - from traffic lights to camera, no distance; and not through a lack of safe driving, I assure you. The dead hand of the machine was waiting to clutch my shoulder and hurt me. It doesn’t want an explanation. That is its way. Flash and fine. Next please! Then, our insurance company gets all upset too. It’s a rolling downward spiral of a kind. Most unsettling, I assure you of that also. Hmm, most unsettling. Oh, Lapse! She has no heart, no thought, no forgiveness!
As I recall, it was quiet on the roads so no risk of a collision. No pedestrians around: no-one at risk from my "excess" speed. Your cameras stand just after a set of lights. Nice one. Silly situation to get myself into though. Must do better. But for the cohorts who lurk, another triumph. Snap, your done. "Criminal!" An alternative, far more effective and helpful, and far less offensive, is the flashing sign: "30 mph - reduce speed!" (No income then though and I nearly forgot that!).
I do not speed deliberately. And my car has cruise control which also serves to help keep me driving legally. It has been 30 years since my previous such ‘event’ (that one involved policemen). I am facing my eighth decade not too far away and I must hope that that is without fear and trepidation of a repeat. But what ever the effort, ‘tis a forlorn hope for everyone, I suspect.
‘Not Applicable’ of course to the 20% riding around with neither insurance nor tax. They are safe at least from a Camera Unit, and a lot else, I dare say. How ludicrous is that? I am proud to be in the 80%.
Please spend my £60 pounds on those road users who truly deserve your wrath - those referred to above who are ‘not bovvered’. Never should waste time replying to this. It is just that a goodly number of your ‘customers’ need your help somehow lest you lose us. A timely reminder is all we needed.
Yours faithfully
To: The Chief Constable
"Safety" Camera Unit
SPEED CAMERA - Feedback
"Fair cop, Gov.!". How often have I heard that in a TV ‘Cop’ series? Now, I am just the same as the criminals there portrayed - no different. However, I am guilty only by making a mistake (I know, we all say that, you’ll say); just a momentary lack of concentration on legal speed requirements - from traffic lights to camera, no distance; and not through a lack of safe driving, I assure you. The dead hand of the machine was waiting to clutch my shoulder and hurt me. It doesn’t want an explanation. That is its way. Flash and fine. Next please! Then, our insurance company gets all upset too. It’s a rolling downward spiral of a kind. Most unsettling, I assure you of that also. Hmm, most unsettling. Oh, Lapse! She has no heart, no thought, no forgiveness!
As I recall, it was quiet on the roads so no risk of a collision. No pedestrians around: no-one at risk from my "excess" speed. Your cameras stand just after a set of lights. Nice one. Silly situation to get myself into though. Must do better. But for the cohorts who lurk, another triumph. Snap, your done. "Criminal!" An alternative, far more effective and helpful, and far less offensive, is the flashing sign: "30 mph - reduce speed!" (No income then though and I nearly forgot that!).
I do not speed deliberately. And my car has cruise control which also serves to help keep me driving legally. It has been 30 years since my previous such ‘event’ (that one involved policemen). I am facing my eighth decade not too far away and I must hope that that is without fear and trepidation of a repeat. But what ever the effort, ‘tis a forlorn hope for everyone, I suspect.
‘Not Applicable’ of course to the 20% riding around with neither insurance nor tax. They are safe at least from a Camera Unit, and a lot else, I dare say. How ludicrous is that? I am proud to be in the 80%.
Please spend my £60 pounds on those road users who truly deserve your wrath - those referred to above who are ‘not bovvered’. Never should waste time replying to this. It is just that a goodly number of your ‘customers’ need your help somehow lest you lose us. A timely reminder is all we needed.
Yours faithfully
To: The Chief Constable
"Safety" Camera Unit
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)