Frowning Street

Water water everywhere...

2008-07-25T11:58:31+02:00

Should we or should we not be drinking more water.

Should we or should we not eat salt?

If you read the popular press, it would appear that we need to do all of these things, and you can also sue various people for the effects of drinking, or not drinking...

The real message is MODERATION.

Almost everything (even toxic alcohol, arsenic and polonium) is good in moderate amounts. Just don't overdo it.

Moderation in everything, INCLUDING MODERATION !

Thanks Adam.

Comments

The Flying Circus

2008-06-26T07:34:17+02:00

Some dirty filthy rumours circling suddenly that some geeks might try to crash the Internet on friday.

Quite funny really, as rather than try a DOS attack on a single computer, the idea is to go for the bandwith jugular (sort of like the body politic) and just send too many cotton-picking darn emails.

If anyone is trying to keep up with reading the emails, they will have to read increasingly fast as otherwise mailboxes might start backing up, backing off and going offline.

And if the Internet crashes, what happens next? My guess is that it's time to go home, put the kettle on (using gas as the mains electricty might be off), and have a cup of tea.

We all know that deliberately trying to bandwidth overload someone else's server is jolly naughty -- so my message to the worldly geeks is quite simple : Don't do anything illegal. Keep it clean, funny, simple and so far within the law, the crazy French have no truck or bone to fry.

Maybe just zip up some Monty Python sketches and send those to your friends.

No, No, not THE comfy chair !

Zip it up, stick it in, and put it in the email...

But the best dear reader is kept for last. Allegedly (according to Greenmantle Pursuivant and Roooooge Dragononoinone), the "day The Internet Stops" begins as the New York Stock Exchange opens -- ie 1430 British Summertime, 0930 New York Time.

Maybe just as the Nasdaq folk ring the bell and start the fun!!!

I've also wondered about the ethical issues here. IF the internet crashes -- it's only a short thing. It'll be back after the break.

But there will of course be the nay-sayers...

"how irresponsibble, putting peoples lives at risk"

"we should have laws against it"

"how would he/she like it if someone shut their car down on the M4?"

"this is quite simply terrorism under another guise"

"this is why we need a new Cyber-Police force to allow the USA to control the Internet with an Iron-Fist"

Hmmmm. The internet is free, easy and owned by everyone. Thanks to Tim.

It is not an American invention.

Anyone who uses it for any mission critical purpose, MUST bear in mind that it may be slow/unavailable from time to time.

If you don't understand this, you need to understand the difference between IP, TCP , and TCP/IP. And for that matter, UDP.

From unreliability, we create reliability. But without ERROR, we are not humans. And certainly not civilised.

Ride yer bike. Fall off. Hurt yourself a little.

Pick yourself up.

Dust yourself off.

And START ALL OVER AGAIN !!!!

That's all folks!

Good Old Fred !!!!

Comments

Guards Guards!

2008-06-24T10:35:32+02:00

It looks like we're getting a new police force : The UK Border Patrol.

ITN - Monday, June 23 11:14 pm

Senior police officers have drawn up plans for a new border police force.

(Advertisement)

if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object(); window.yzq_d['PMUSD9kMBek-']='&U=13obk5nms%2fN%3dPMUSD9kMBek-%2fC%3d200101456.201663715.202894854.200222684%2fD%3dLREC%2fB%3d200784479%2fV%3d1'; ___##12##___

The Government has disclosed that senior officers have proposed a single force with about 3,000 staff including uniformed officers and the Special Branch.

Of course we don't have anyone doing that already -- so we're not just creating a new constabulary to give someone a job.

So given that we are an island, and we have a Royal Navy, who looks after what part of the coastline ?

UK Border Patrol
British Transport Police
Royal Navy
Fleet Air Arm
The Coastguard
The Royal National Lifeboats
Gosport and Fareham Inshore Rescue Service
Customs and Excise
Inland Revenue
VAT Office
Mr Weasel in the Tower of London
Mrs Miggins Pie Shop

If anyone thinks that the new border patrol might be a waste of money -- then tell your local police station, as they are spending your hard earnt tax dollars...

Comments

One finger on the button

2008-05-28T08:27:17+02:00

Of course the American's have a nuclear weapon double-key launch system. Which means that no weapon can be launched without two people agreeing.

Except that (if you watch Dr Strangelove) someone one was concerned that it was possible for a retaliotory strike not to be made under certain conditions, and then it's too late to reply (United Nations won't allow a premed strike, only reasonable retaliation).

So "Plan R" provides for a total short-circuit and allows one individual the right to launch without warning.

Now whom might that be?

And as the sands-of-time tick away, the desire to launch grows. Imagine if Hilary got in, then she would have this god-given right. Obviously being a woman she would probably go shopping for candles instead.

McCain's a good man. He would understand what "Plan R" is for.

We need a man who can launch.

And then obviously we expect him to simply sit back and have a cup of tea.

Comments

Choppers and Back gardens

2008-05-27T12:37:55+02:00

Oh dear. If you must land your chopper in your girlfriend's back garden you must expect it to ruffle a few feathers. How rude !

Basically bill, if you don't want to be a liability (an accounting joke!), then try parking your chopper in her front garden. Unless she likes it the other way. But frankly, we don't really want to know now do we?

Hope to see you at Raffles this thursday?

Comments

Blair Switch Project

2008-04-27T16:13:46+02:00

Someone's not telling the truth.

"Levy said Blair had told him Brown could not win a general election, a statement rejected by Blair's office"

http://www.gordonisamoron.co.uk/ I've been going out with a girl Her name is Julie But last night she said to me when we were watching telly (this is what she said) She said listen John I love you But there's this bloke I fancy I dont want to two time you So its the end for you and me Who's this bloke I asked her goooooordon she replied Not THAT poof I said in dismay yes but he's no poof she cried - he's more a man than you'll ever be Here we go, two three four I was so upset that I cried all the way to the chip shop When I came out there was Gordon standing at the bus stop And guess who was with him Yeah Julie- and they were both laughing at me oh, she is cruel and heartless to pack me for Gordan Just cos he's better looking than me just cos he's cool and trendy but I know hes a moron, Gordon is a moron Gordon is a moron, gordon is a moron

Comments

Low security

2008-04-26T16:06:02+02:00

What hope do we have? Look at camera

Comments

The Prince is a Pauper

2008-04-24T07:26:25+02:00

Poor old Mr William Wales.

He uses service equipment just like loads of other people and gets into trouble...

"It's disgraceful, abusing his power like that"

"we've been crying out for more Chinooks for the war"

Or is it?

There's a lot going on here. William himself should certainly know that an A-list celebrity like himself has to behave much better than the average joe. He (or his advisers) should know better for starters.

The RAF should not have allowed it. William certainly didn't order it. He was given his orders and he obeyed.

But there's far worse.

The Daily Mail reported that Royal Air Force Chief Marshal Glenn Torpy "erupted with rage" after finding out that Prince William landed the Chinook helicopter assigned to him during a training flight on his girlfriend's yard.

So Mr Torpy didn't even know what the 2nd most important man in the country -- entrusted to his care -- was doing. And now argues that it wasn't his fault. Admitting this in public is frankly admitting he doesn't know what the R in the RAF stands for. Step forward Mr Reid, "Not fit for purpose" I believe is the appropriate phrase.

Oh yes, and the next time you fly a Chinook over central London, try and do it at a normal height, and without having the airspace around you cleared. From the south bank there was an obvious shot and an easy target for a well heeled terrorist -- who are everywhere aren't they? But whatever you do -- do show some leadership, and fly the flag. Britain needs to be Great again.

Comments

Bomb ?

2008-02-12T22:58:01+01:00

This is what happens when we remove rubbish bins from public places. Things that might be bombs get put in plastic bags and left out anyway.

And nobody gives a damn.

This charming picture from a mainline tube station. Loads of police up top looking for people to stop-and-search.

Comments

Bugging MPs ...

2008-02-03T19:16:50+01:00

This is disturbing. Not because we do. Of course we do! But the fact that the press seem to amazed that it has actually happened, and also the ludicrous idea the the Prime Minister himself should have a)known about it and b)authorised it.

There seems to be (at least) two questions here :

1.Why should MPs be bugged ?

And

2.Should there be special control and authorisation ?

Regarding (1), we should remember that MPs are public servants of high importance and position, paid for by the tax-payer. They are often privy to quite confidential information, and have a great deal of influence in general affairs. We may be concerned that they are abusing their power , or we may be concerned that they may be susceptible to blackmail. Performing these two roles is bread-and-butter work for our security agencies. Should we bug them all, all the time, probably not , that's not terribly efficient, but we should be prepared to move quickly if we think that National Security is at stake. That's what it's about.

(2) is somewhat trickier. The two more visible agencies in the UK are MI5 and MI6. In fact these aren't even their real names, just the media-labels for the "Security Service" and the "Secret Service". Of these two, MI5 has no direct executive authority, and reports to the Prime Minister. MI6 can act in its own interest.

So the answer to (2) is Yes and No! If the bugging was an MI6 operation, then it's quite possible that the PM would never hear about it. If it was MI5 then he ought to be in the loop. Somewhere.

Is it sensible having MI6 able to act with such freedom ? Well that's another issue. But it seems to be working rather well, and managing its power pretty well.

As a final thing to think about, it's highly likely that other nations are already bugging our MPs. It would silly to imagine that the CIA et al are not already doing it. We won't get PM authorisation over this either, so live with it.

Comments

All hands to the dollar...

2007-02-05T12:56:16+01:00

I wonder how the Saudis enjoy watching their wealth flow down the toilet as the dollar devalues.

It's all very well oil prices going up, but if you convert them back to sterling, it's not so bad.

Maybe, the dollar is pegged by the price of oil?

Which makes one wonder what would happen if the dollar was knocked off its perch as the oil currency.

What if oil was traded in Swiss Francs ?

Now there's an idea.

Not good if you are Uncle Sam though.

var sc_project=2985464; var sc_invisible=0; var sc_partition=32; var sc_security="9cd8e77c";

Comments

Who works for whom?

2007-01-23T18:12:04+01:00

I have this office.

Which has a lovely waste-paper basket.

Sadly, the cleaners keep putting a disgusting plastic liner in it.

When I ask them not to do this, they tell me:

'The plastic bag makes it easier to empty you see'

But when I tell them :

'I don't care how hard it is to empty. I am your employer, and I have to look at the bin all day long. It is a nice bin.'

They simply walk away, laughing that I simply don't understand.

We've sacked quite a few of them recently.

But all the new ones are the same.

Can someone tell me what is going on here?

Or do I need Jane Goody to explain it to me?

Comments

Great Britain is on Brown Alert

2007-01-19T13:45:09+01:00

I personally pay Gordon Brown to do a job.

I pay Tax in this country, so that our leading politicians can run the place.

Not so that they can tell me HOW TO VOTE on big brother.

And what happened to democracy ? Can't people make their own minds up?

Get back in your bloody counting house Mr Brown, and do your job.

If you don't sort out the budget soon, we'll need more than a few polish plumbers to clean up afterwards.

Comments

Russian News told 2 different ways.

2007-01-17T12:48:22+01:00

The following is an extract

Yesterday at 04:00 p.m., while hunting in Kharkov Region (Ukraine), Yevgeny Kushnaryov was shot in his stomach. There have been no official comments on details of the accident, however, media inform that the incident occurred in a car, while it was moving: the car jammed and the rifle accidentally shot into the MP’s stomach.

Under the second version released by media, Kushnaryov with his friends saw a wolf on their way back home, left the car and started shooting. An accidental bullet hit Kushnaryov.

Comments

Let's ban Office Jargon...

2007-01-04T10:05:10+01:00

It's official. Office jargon is to be banned.

http://journals.aol.co.uk/newsbloguk/blog/entries/2006/11/06/office-jargon-makes-working-life-a-misery/1229

And of course we have the standard lengthy and hugely one-sided discussion board la
menting the misery that office jargon has caused.

This highlights two interesting things :

a) Discussion boards on the net tend to be one-sided (people are too afraid to be flamed by posting an alternative point of view)

b) The role that language plays in driving our culture.

(a) is an interesting, but deep topic for another posting.

So I am going to rabbit-on about (b).

I think the main point is that the English language is NOT DEAD. ( or moribund for the pedants amongst us). Shakespeare himself used to make up words when he felt that something new was required.

New usage enters the language, and if it finds a strong foothold, then it is added to the language.

SMS-Texting is a fine example of the English language being extended.

Just because it is different, doesn't mean that it is wrong.

However, some of the Office-Jargon phrases are not all that useful. And some actually contribute to a degeneration of our feelings.

For instance, 'Have a nice day'.

Seems to imply that whilst today might (and should) be nice, the remainder of your life will likely be worse. That's pretty depressing.

Unfortuntately, 'Have a nice life' might be translated by some Americans as
'Get a Nice Life' or the more insulting form 'Get a life'.

Putting one's 'ducks in a row' is a nice phrase. It communicates having things (objects/projects/people etc) lined up in space/time/configurations so that something can be done efficiently.

Obviously, if you were from the duck-protectorate-league, and against duck-shooting (even at the local fun-fair) then you might find this phrase distasteful.

How about the shameful 'proactive' ?

When I was at school, I learnt about Isaac Newton's 3 laws of motion. One of which was 'Action and Reaction are always equal and opposite'.

So where does proaction fit in ? Is it a mysterious third force ? Does it explain the dark-matter miss-match in the universe ?

No, proaction is now an official word, which has wormed its way into our dictionaries as a result of over a decade of common usage. It means taking action before action is critically needed.

The saddest thing here though is that pro-action always existed, using the stem 'pro' , the hyphen glyph "-" , and the good old Newtonian "action" word.

But languages evolve. Some phrases come and go.

Some change a little before they stay. (for instance, consider 'a parting shot' which came from 'a Parthian shot' (the Parthians could shoot backwards from their horses)).

The 'moral of the story' is that , if you have a complaint to make about the world around you, offer a solution. Don't just whinge that it should be elimanted.

Otherwise you might remove language altogether from our culture.

Almost all of our language comes from the little phrases, cobbled together over time.

in next week's installment of 'the culture contribution of languages' we will examine the role of childrens' nursery rhymes in recording key events in our past, and lament the paucity of such rhymes celebrating recent events in our geo-socio-politico-multi-economico driven history.

God help us.

Comments

Quick, we must replace Trident.

2006-12-13T18:30:32+01:00

It's just like owning a copy of Microsoft Windows. Every once in a while, you have to update or replace the equipment.

And so it goes with the UK nuclear deterrent.

We need to replace Trident. And of course that means buying some new stuff from our childish friends, the Americans.

Trident is currently deployed on 4 nuclear submarines. One is deployed, one is in maintenance, one is on standby, and one is held in reserve.

It's quite a robust and effective system.

The deployed submarine cruises around, cloaked in secrecy, ready to launch the nukes if the word is given.

Stranger still is why we need to replace it. After all, the "Star Wars Defence System" built by the USA is incapable of stopping a Trident ICBM strike anyway.

So it's still quite effective.

Come to think of it, the same applies to its predecessor, Polaris.

So why did we replace that ?

To buy some new equipment (subs and missiles) of our friends again.

But now we are really thinking.

The Avro Vulcan was a strategic nuclear bomber. That could deliver a nuke pretty effectively. After all, we flew one non-stop from Ascencion Island to the Falklands and back.

And doesn't the Vulcan look and feel like Concorde ?

Ogive Delta wing, large unshrouded Olympus engines.

Hmmm... maybe that's why old Richard Branson wasn't allowed to buy one. Perhaps the upside-down periscope (check the Concorde at Yeovilton) was WW2 bomb-sight instead of something to check ice on the wings.

A concorde loaded with a nuke, travelling at Mach 2+ at 50,000 feet is probably totally unstoppable.

Maybe we don't need Trident , Polaris or whatever we buy to replace it anyway.

And then maybe we wouldn't have to sell the London Stock Exchange.

Just a little thought.

Comments

Oh my good gawd ...

2006-12-13T18:20:20+01:00

Are we barking mad in Britain these days ?

I mean, are we really offering to sell the London Stock Exchange ?

We may as well toss in Buckingham Palace and switch the lights off afterwards.

You won't own the FTSE100 companies, but you will certainly control them ; set their accounting policies ; their regulatory guidelines ; their takeover codes.

Hey, that just about amounts to control.

While we are on the subject, we may as well sell our armed forces at the same time on a sort of lease-purchase to the Russians / Chinese.

"
Tired Battalion for sale.
Much used.
One heartless owner.
Buyer collects from Afghanistan
Country of origin uninvaded since 1066
Offers please to Gordon Brownski , 11 Downing Street
"

Just because Gordon needs the money, doesn't mean we should sell the Crown Jewels.

Comments

Prawn to LA688

2006-11-30T13:49:38+01:00

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.

Comments

Joey 90 or Jerk 90 ?

2006-11-30T11:52:52+01:00

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.

Comments

When the wind blows

2006-11-29T02:14:59+01:00

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.

Comments

Animal Farm

2006-11-23T08:37:26+01:00

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.

Comments

Whenbley or Wenbley or Wembley ?

2006-11-21T14:00:57+01:00

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.

Comments

Prisoners Escaping Again

2006-11-21T12:13:07+01:00

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.

Comments

Veiling the Veil

2006-11-18T10:47:22+01:00

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.

Comments

title-1331778

2006-11-15T09:33:06+01:00

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.

Comments

Victory-victory at all costs

2006-11-11T10:34:36+01:00

Winston Churchill : House of Commons, 13th May 1940

Victory
Victory at all costs
Victory in spite of all terror
Victory however long and hard the road may be

For without victory, there is no survival.

And so spoke one of our great leaders. A wonderful orator, a man who could produce tremendous rhetoric, and with his charismatic projection, inspire Great Britain once again to pluck victory from the jaws of defeat.

But although inspiring his words are not perfect. They are not supposed to be. They are designed to impress themselves upon the common man, and to press him forward with energy, motivation, and the conservative, concealed pride that is Britain.

There is a lesson here that the modern world can find, but we must look closely at Churchill's words to find it.

'Victory at all costs'

Well this is a little extreme. There is always a cost beyond which something is too expensive. But alllied with

'For without victory there is no survival'

We get a glimpse of the underlying principle : If we lose, we will have nothing. So in the final hour, cost is no object.

But before the final hour, we must be mindful of cost. To see this is more clarity, we must travel back in time , like Doctor Who to 1215, somewhere near Windsor.

It's a muddy field, and King John is being harried by his Barons. He has been waging a war abroad for too long, and to keep the pressure on , has raised taxes again and again.

It is finally too much, and the Barons have told the King that he has gone too far. A new deal is signed, the Magna Carta. This will outline the rights of the people, as well as the landed gentry, set out the concepts of freedom and liberty, and become the cornerstone of today's westernised free world.

In particular these protections were cited in many founding documents of America, and in particular, the Constitution of the United States.

But waging unpopular wars abroad, paid for by the abuse of taxes (without full consent of the people), and freedoms being eroded -- it sounds a little like 2006 is worse (in some sense) than pre 1215.

Two clauses were particularly important in the Magna Carta:

Clause 40:
To no man will we sell, or deny ,or delay, right or justice.

Clause 39:
No free man shall be taken or imprisoned or diposssessed, or outlawed or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him , nor will we send against him except by lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land.

Gosh.

I'll close with a quote from one of the (Great) Presidents of the United States , Benjamin Franklin :

" Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. "

It looks like the terrorists have won then. And we've scored an own goal.

It is time go forward with our united strength, and be a set of united states against terror, not a monarchistic propaganda inducing federation which combats terror with civil restriction, taxation and confusion.

Borat is correct. We win wars with humour, wit, wine, women and song. Not bombs , bullets and bureaucracy.

Comments

Interest Rates...

2006-11-09T09:20:52+01:00

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.

Comments

Interest Rates...

2006-11-09T09:19:50+01:00

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.

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 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 :

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 :

Comments

Top Tips for Terrorists

2006-11-07T10:39:33+01:00

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 ?

Comments

Top Tips for Terrorists

2006-11-07T10:37:57+01:00

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)

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 ?

Comments