Why not fish for prawns near where a nuclear submarine might hang out?

They are filter feeders, they keep the trace elements found in seawater in their little crusty shells.

I mean look at mother-of-pearl. Such a beautiful shiny metallic sort of shell.

Harvest the shells, grind em up. Pulverise them.

Then incinerate them into a hot gas, something a really fast centrifuge can handle.

Bish bosch. job done.

Heavy metal extracted from seawater.

But the seawater near where nukey subs hangout is even richer in the heavy elements.

So where do you find them?

Easy.

Look for potential deep water entrances on naval hydrology maps. The British Library has 'em all.

Quite a few choices around the world.

Tokeeyoyo harbour ? Slangtone Harbour ?

If you don't want to sleep with the little fishes, DONT EAT THE FISH.

Recipe 2:

Collect Radon 222 in your basement. The Govt. publish a radon-report quaterely , so you know where to look.

Then, sit back and wait for the Radon to turn into Lead 214.

Which itself is harmless.

But suddenly, something happens.

It turns into Polonium 210.

Sleeping in a basement can give you a real nasty cold.

knock knock.

Who's there.

Dr.

Dr who ?

Dr 10370186

Dr No!

That's No Dr.

and when the music stopped the TV was off.

Thank gawd for that.

Sold another goldfish last night -- see dick whittington.

It's really picking up outside.

But it's inside where things are starting to blow hard.

The force flows young Luke.

Rather the farce is flowing ever more powerfully.

Feel the farce Luke.

It flows and pervades the universe

It flows ever more powerfully.

And suddenly I saw the DARK SIDE OF THE FARCE.

Which actually wasn't all that bad.

Not bad at all for a total beginner and jerk like myself.

Oh goody, more taxes, and later retirement.

I think people should read Animal Farm by George Orwell.

The animals are promised an easy retirement, no work, and plentiful food and apples.

Instead, the grand project of "The Windmill" to provide hot water is continually setback, and there is no retirement, just more work...

Sound familiar?

Subsitute 'Wembley' for 'Windmill'.
I really don't need to remind you all about the taxes.

Bread today and jam tommorrow.

Tommorrow Never Comes.

Orwell worked for the Government. A sort of James-Bond author. Licenced to chill by words if you like.

Our guardians have warned us. And we have taken no notice.

But the prodigal son may still return and be welcomed with open arms.

Why is it late ?

The clue is in the name.

How do you find out more ?

Follow the money.

Someone is getting rich at the expense of others.

So once again, we have convicted criminals, who are still serving their sentence, escaping (absconding for the pedantic).

hmmm.

When our little boys-in-blue grabbed the Heathrow water-bombers , our esteemed leaders were alleged to have said something like :

Paul Stephenson (Police Chief) : ' unimaginable '

John Reid (Home Secretary) : ' unprecedented '

Now I really don't think that the water-bombing plot was unimaginable OR unprecedented. And it certainly worries the living daylights out of me that our leaders cannot a) comprehend these things and b) are silly enough to tell us.

Not fit for purpose ? Maybe they aren't up to the job ?

I hope they can imagine prisoners escaping from prisons and what that might mean.

Otherwise we need someone who can.

So the Dutch are making the burqa illegal in public ?

It is hard to imagine a more inflammatory move. What has happened to gentle diplomacy? Do the Dutch really want to have their country bombed, burnt and bastardised?

The problem is not so much whether you should or should not wear the item.

The problem is that we have no rational answer to the question. It's an unfair question. In the society we have today, it has no answer. Both sides can make excellent justification within our legal system to both wear, and not to wear the veil.

That's the problem.

Fix our society.

But what the Dutch are doing is a demonstration of stupidity. And if you think that the Muslim religion is a threat, banning such clothing will only make them stronger.

Much stronger.

From the Security Service (or MI5)

Security Service (MI5)

Current threat level

The current threat level is assessed as SEVERE (as of 14th August 2006).

This means that an attack is highly likely and indicates a continuing high level of threat to the UK.

So, the current threat level is 'SEVERE', and an 'attack' is 'highly likely'.

Whatever that means.

Well, at first blush, it would look like the meaning is obvious. After all, thats-what-it-says-on-the-tin ( TWISONT). So let's look at our tin a little...

Dr John Reid has designed the system.

THREAT LEVELS: THE SYSTEM TO ASSESS THE THREAT FROM INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM
Aha, it's for International Terrorism.

It's designed so 'so that people can go about their business freely and with confidence'.

So, how can the 'common man' find out what is the current threat level ? Well, MI5 reccomend you look at :

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/

It's not immediately clear where on the site it is (not on the top-page), so try searching for 'threat level' in the 'quick search' panel. This eventually gives you a nice list of alternatives.

The first one that looks appropriate is :

Threat levels now on Home Office website The new threat level system has come into force, and can be found on the Home Office website.

This tells us to check the Home Office website regularly (new window) to find out the current threat level.

This tells us :

The current terrorism threat level is Severe .

What are threat levels? A new system has been created to keep the public informed about the level of threat to the UK from terrorism.

The system also helps the police and other law enforcement agencies determine how they should respond to, and prepare for a terrorist incident.

The threat levels are:

critical - an attack is expected imminently
severe - an attack is highly likely
substantial - an attack is a strong possibility
moderate - an attack is possible but not likely
low - an attack is unlikely

Now, it looks like it is about just a 'terrorist attack' rather than 'international terrorism'.

Is there a difference ? Probably not, so why not just refer to 'terrorism' , why make people confused ?

One thing is for sure : Confusion increases Fear.

Let's try to understand the 5-level scheme a little.

The system appears to tells us that an 'attack' may happen with increasing probability over some timeframe. But what are the probabilities and timeframes ?

I think it's reasonably to assume that 'highly likely' means at least 50%. If it meant any less, then 'no attack' would be 'more likely' than 'highly likely'. This wouldn't seem right. So lets call it 50%.

Now, step up to 'CRITICAL' , from 'SEVERE' and we get the phrase 'expected imminently'. Suddenly we have a 'timeframe' as well. What could this be ? Well certainly less than 5 years, as it would be another government's problem. But a day ? a week ? a month ?

It probably means something like >90% over 3 months, >80% over a month >70% over a week, and >50% over a day.
But it's so confusing. Ask a policeman to explain it to you. And if he cannot explain it clearly and succintly, then you should be worried.

Why mix probabilities and timeframes inconsistently in the system? It's confusing.

Three into Five
But it gets better, the 5 level threat system is tied to a 3 level response system -- and this tells us WHAT us done to respond to the threat level.

Levels 1 & 2 --- > Response NORMAL.

Level 3 & 4 ----> Response HEIGHTENED.

Level 5 ----> Response : EXCEPTIONAL

So to summarise : "Low and moderate means normal, Substantial and severe means heightened, and Critical means Exceptional"

Confusing isn't it ? And we still have little idea about what it really means.

Confusion increase FEAR.

The more you think about it, the more confusing it becomes.

For instance, given that the highest level is 'LEVEL 5: Critical : Attack imminent : Response Exceptional' , what do we say when we are UNDER ATTACK ?

Maybe the super-secret LEVEL 6 will be wheeled out.

Any offers anyone ?

Frankly, the reactions of our esteemed leaders ( when the 'liquid explosive' threat was unconvered ) seems to say it all :

Level 5 : 'Unimaginable' and 'Unprecedented'. ( Allegedly how Sir Ian Blair and Dr Reid described things).

Gosh. So our leaders cannot imagine what might have happened, and don't believe that anything like this has happened before ? 911 anyone ? World War II ? The recent Tsunami ?

But at least we know how the government feels.

Let's fill in the rest of the 5-level scale for us mere mortals :

Level 4 : 'Barely imaginable (but you can if you try) ' , 'Very rarely seen on TV'
Level 3: 'Easily imaginable' , 'Only seen after 9pm'
Level 2: 'Quite Normal' , 'As seen on TV'
Level 1:'Dull' , 'As seen on Childrens TV'

So there we have it. But don't forget that the role of terrorism is to 'create terror' and fear. Confusion increases fear. The best way is the traditional British way : Life carries on as normal. Don't let the b*ggers get you.

In next week's edition of 'Happily Married,Military Intelligence, and other Oxymorons', we will be looking at the difference between MI5 and MI6 entitled : 'Water under the bridge'.

Anyone (the first person) who knows WHICH bridge I am referring to wins an expenses paid holiday to Bombay.

Winston Churchill : House of Commons, 13th May 1940

Oh no, not another laboured decision by our interest rate committee.

One moment house prices are too high, next they are threatening to fall (apparently). The rate of Inflation is also rising.

And the Bank of England committee (cleverly delegated by Labour) have the unenviable task of deciding where to move the base rate.

Now, it is certainly true that raising and lowering interest rates will make a difference, but please remember that we are part of a national economy with around 70 million (60 + 10 million unknown) folk, which is part of vast global economy.

Changing interest rates takes time to feed through the system. It's like switching on the heating in a cold house -- it can take half a day to have any effect. For interest rates in our economy, read "half a year" not "half a day".

Furthermore, step-changes in rates are sudden shocks to our economy, AND our international neighbours.

If the government is keen to 'shock' the economy into shape, by knocking rates about like a boxer who has been told to go easy and hard in successive rounds, then that is fine.

But please explain to the public that this is the desire. I have spoken to various economists, and they are all keen to value the 'shock effect' of sudden interest rate changes. It might also sell less newspapers.

But there is a better way.

Why not SMOOTHLY change interest rates. Say 0.01-0.02% a week. (That means between 0.5% and 1.0% per annum).

Now we achieve four things :

a) Firstly, once the committee decide on a progamme of tightening (rates rising) or easing (rates falling), they don't have to deliberate on each successive shock. They just sit back, light their pipes and wonder about when to move to a neutral stance. Much easier. Far less confrontational.

b) This sends a very clear message to the lenders (ie mortgage companies, banks) about the future of interest rates. Now they can make better informed predictions about customers abilities to pay, and also peer into the future a little.

c) From a technical banking perspective, this has the effect of not just shifting the yield curve upwards, but in fact tilting it upwards. Shorter term borrowing becomes more accurate. To date, governments have only fiddled with the short end of the curve. This tool allows them to play with the whole thing.

d) Another huge problem is interest-rate management is managing the differentials between international rates. For us, that means closely monitoring the difference between US and EURO rates agasinst sterling. Rate setting is highly political and diplomatic. You really don't want to surprise your neighbours too often, and furthermore, you want to try to predict their changes. If you adopt this smooth transition approach, then managing these spreads becomes much easier.

But we might need less politicians and diplomats to lobby, ascertain and feed information back to the interest rate committee.

International interest rate management is still in the dark ages of the early 20-th century. It's high time we got some decent tools out and used them.

Then we might drive our economic car with the deft touch of a racing driver, rather than the club-foot approach we currently use.

Just an Idea.

Drawbacks :

1.No-one's done this before.
2.It would make the calculation of interest rate derivatives go out of date overnight.
3.No-one's done this before.
4.It removes the 'shock value' potential.
5.No-one's done this before.

Oh no, not another laboured decision by our interest rate committee.

One moment house prices are too high, next they are threatening to fall (apparently). The rate of Inflation is also rising.

And the Bank of England committee (cleverly delegated by Labour) have the unenviable task of deciding where to move the base rate.

Now, it is certainly true that raising and lowering interest rates will make a difference, but please remember that we are part of a national economy with around 70 million (60 + 10 million unknown) folk, which is part of vast global economy.

Changing interest rates takes time to feed through the system. It's like switching on the heating in a cold house -- it can take half a day to have any effect. For interest rates in our economy, read "half a year" not "half a day".

Furthermore, step-changes in rates are sudden shocks to our economy, AND our international neighbours.

If the government is keen to 'shock' the economy into shape, by knocking rates about like a boxer who has been told to go easy and hard in successive rounds, then that is fine.

But please explain to the public that this is the desire. I have spoken to various economists, and they are all keen to value the 'shock effect' of sudden interest rate changes. It might also sell less newspapers.

But there is a better way.

Why not SMOOTHLY change interest rates. Say 0.01-0.02% a week. (That means between 0.5% and 1.0% per annum).

Now we achieve four things :

a) Firstly, once the committee decide on a progamme of tightening (rates rising) or easing (rates falling), they don't have to deliberate on each successive shock. They just sit back, light their pipes and wonder about when to move to a neutral stance. Much easier. Far less confrontational.

b) This sends a very clear message to the lenders (ie mortgage companies, banks) about the future of interest rates. Now they can make better informed predictions about customers abilities to pay, and also peer into the future a little.

c) From a technical banking perspective, this has the effect of not just shifting the yield curve upwards, but in fact tilting it upwards. Shorter term borrowing becomes more accurate. To date, governments have only fiddled with the short end of the curve. This tool allows them to play with the whole thing.

d) Another huge problem is interest-rate management is managing the differentials between international rates. For us, that means closely monitoring the difference between US and EURO rates agasinst sterling. Rate setting is highly political and diplomatic. You really don't want to surprise your neighbours too often, and furthermore, you want to try to predict their changes. If you adopt this smooth transition approach, then managing these spreads becomes much easier.

But we might need less politicians and diplomats to lobby, ascertain and feed information back to the interest rate committee.

International interest rate management is still in the dark ages of the early 20-th century. It's high time we got some decent tools out and used them.

Then we might drive our economic car with the deft touch of a racing driver, rather than the club-foot approach we currently use.

Just an Idea.

Drawbacks :

1.No-one's done this before.
2.It would make the calculation of interest rate derivatives go out of date overnight.
3.No-one's done this before.
4.It removes the 'shock value' potential.
5.No-one's done this before.

It's illegal to keep fireworks more than 14 days in the UK.

It's illegal to keep fireworks more than 14 days in the UK.

But you can keep 10kg of Gunpowder for as long as you like with no licence.

Don't fool about with fertiliser in your Indian Restaurant, just keep the real thing.

Borat would approve of this marvellous law...

(This law was confirmed this morning by the friendly and helpful staff at Holborn Nick)

Keeping explosives for private use
10.(1) No person shall keep any explosive for private use except explosive of one or more of the following descriptions-
(a) gunpowder;
(b) smokeless powder;
(c) any propellant made or adapted and also, in either case, intended exclusively for small arms ammunition;
(d) an explosive listed in Schedule 1.

(2) No person shall keep any explosive in any premises for private use except one or more of the following-
(a) any quantity of fireworks which are kept for less than 14 days before being used and are kept in a safe and suitable place with all due precautions for public safety;
(b) any quantity of fog signals kept by any railway operator for use on the railway if packaged so as to be in Division 1.4 and Compatibility Group S for the purposes of the 1983 Regulations;
(c) such quantity of percussion caps or small arms ammunition or a mixture of them as will ensure that the quantity of explosives kept in the premises under this sub-paragraph, including any explosives kept by other persons, does not exceed 15 kilograms;
(d) such quantity of gunpowder as will ensure that the quantity of explosives kept in the premises under this sub-paragraph, including any explosives kept by other persons, does not exceed 10 kilograms; and
(e) such quantity of any explosive mentioned in paragraph (1) as will ensure that the quantity of explosives kept in the premises under this sub-paragraph, including any explosives kept by other persons, does not exceed 5 kilograms.

Ref :
Kenneth Baker

One of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State
Home Office

5th July 1991

In next weeks exciting edition of 'Top Tips for Terrorists' we will explain how to move your gunpowder safely over the public highway with full police and government approval.

Why bother with rucksacks and trains when you can drive ?

It's illegal to keep fireworks more than 14 days in the UK.

It's illegal to keep fireworks more than 14 days in the UK.

But you can keep 10kg of Gunpowder for as long as you like with no licence.

Don't fool about with fertiliser in your Indian Restaurant, just keep the real thing.

Borat would approve of this marvellous law...

(This law was confirmed this morning by the friendly and helpful staff at Holborn Nick)

Keeping explosives for private use
10.(1) No person shall keep any explosive for private use except explosive of one or more of the following descriptions-
(a) gunpowder;
(b) smokeless powder;
(c) any propellant made or adapted and also, in either case, intended exclusively for small arms ammunition;
(d) an explosive listed in Schedule 1.

(2) No person shall keep any explosive in any premises for private use except one or more of the following-
(a) any quantity of fireworks which are kept for less than 14 days before being used and are kept in a safe and suitable place with all due precautions for public safety;
(b) any quantity of fog signals kept by any railway operator for use on the railway if packaged so as to be in Division 1.4 and Compatibility Group S for the purposes of the 1983 Regulations;
(c) such quantity of percussion caps or small arms ammunition or a mixture of them as will ensure that the quantity of explosives kept in the premises under this sub-paragraph, including any explosives kept by other persons, does not exceed 15 kilograms;
(d) such quantity of gunpowder as will ensure that the quantity of explosives kept in the premises under this sub-paragraph, including any explosives kept by other persons, does not exceed 10 kilograms; and
(e) such quantity of any explosive mentioned in paragraph (1) as will ensure that the quantity of explosives kept in the premises under this sub-paragraph, including any explosives kept by other persons, does not exceed 5 kilograms.

In next weeks exciting edition of 'Top Tips for Terrorists' we will explain how to move your gunpowder safely over the public highway with full police and government approval.

Why bother with rucksacks and trains when you can drive ?

1. If you have good stolen from you, it is illegal to ask for them back if you offer to pay for them , or ask no questions ...

   Theft Act 1968 Section 23
   
   It is an offence for any person to make a public advertisement of a reward for the return of goods stolen or lost if such advertisement uses any words to the effect:
   
   1) That no questions will be asked

   Or

   2) That the person producing the goods will be safe from apprehension or injury

   Or

   3) That any monies paid for the purchase of the goods , or advanced by way of loan on them will then be repaid.

Will it ever end ? All this back and forth to do with what we should teach in our schools ? It strikes me that the real problem is that we no longer teach real science in schools.

Maybe we should just give up and let the 7-day creationists win.

But more constructively, it is important to remember that science does not deal in absolute truths, but merely 'likely models of what we have observed'. Today's theory may well be outdated tommorrow. But for today it is the best we have.

Even more significantly, a scientific theory needs to have (at least one) a competing theory. The evidence is laid out and analysed. Theories are created, and then tested, in a rigorous scientific way. We favour a winning theory over a defeated theory because it fits our data better.

But we must have a defeated theory , as otherwise the winning theory is going to win without trying or achieving any measure of 'goodness of fit'.

So Creationism DOES have a role. It is a theory to compare (scientifically) to Evolution in the science lesson. It has tremendous value, as students will quickly see that within the framework of modern science, it cannot compete with evolution.  There is simply very little real evidence (if any).

At its most basic level, creationism is not even a theory, and cannot be tested.

How do you learn to ride a bike ? By falling off. Science needs failure as well as success to move fowards. Science students need to appreciate why Creationism fails under the scrutiny of the scientific method. And this means it is rejected in favour of evolution (or whatever theory is the theory du-jour).

Conversely, in the religous classroom, evolution will falter under the scrutiny of faith in some of the various religions. Indeed here, it will often be rejected in favour of Creationism.

Learning that religion often deals in absolute truths which must be accepted on faith, and science deals in statistical likelihood based upon the scientific method is a critical part of a student's education about both science and religion.

Of course the Creationists will argue that Creationism is not being given a fair trial in the laboratory -- and this is a healthy argument. Let's have it.

Let's not ignore what is at stake here : An opportunity to teach real science.

Don't ignore Creationism, it's damn useful!

It's been a long time. I've been away.

But el Governmento has not been idle.

We have loads of wonderful new laws and taxes to amuse ourselves with!

I think we really don't pay enough tax! Tax should be like medieval blood-letting. It should really hurt. You should know it's good for you because it seems wrong.

A bit like 'healthy' foods -- that taste disgusting, but you know it makes sense.

Tax is supposed to be about the 'redistribution of wealth', and laws are supposed to help us live in a civilised society.

Neither of the above do we really achieve. But what we end up with is something that means that we use laws to enforce the payment of our taxes, and taxes to enforce laws that we don't really need / want / understand (delete as appropriate).

There is this heroic assumption we make that creating laws and taxes will make the world a better place.

Sometimes the opposite is achieved.

ASBOS are seen as a badge of honour, some folk actively seek to collect them.

Creating new taxes simply means that people will find ways to avoid them.

According to the government,' TAX DOESN'T HAVE TO BE TAXING '.

Yet it is.