Someone Hates TBF

Rummaging around the internet (occasionally) I searched for the term Boiling Frog - as you do - this meant I stumbled upon this site.

The author, Tod Kelly, is really really angry about the Boiling Frog metaphor. No really he is...

I really, really hate this metaphor

He continues...

Can we collectively, as a society, take its amphibious body, throw it in a pot, and crank up the fire until it explodes?

Charming, I'm sure...

It’s constantly thrown into political discussions and presented as either a reasoned argument for action or evidence that proves a supposition, despite the fact that it is clearly neither.  Rather, the boiling frog is just a lazy excuse not to have to bother thinking critically about whatever ludicrously hyperbolic comment one can dream up.

But...but even worse he asserts the analogy is not even true...

And if that’s not enough reason to retire the metaphor, there’s also this: it isn’t actually true.  In fact, it’s literally the opposite of true.  As Professor Douglas Melton of Harvard Biology points out, “If you put a frog in boiling water, it won’t jump out. It will die. If you put it in cold water, it will jump before it gets hot—they don’t sit still for you.”

As a rather warm frog myself it’s tempting to get angry at his lack of understanding and compassion for my current predicament, but one must consider that he doesn't live in the European Union so his experience is somewhat lacking. One must never get angry at a chap's lack of awareness, even if one is sitting in a saucepan of water being gently warmed up.

Instead I merely chuckled at his article, like EU Commissioner Barroso did when asked if Cameron could repatriate powers back for the UK.

Not that any of this bothers me of course; my blog title is not a reference to the metaphor it merely reflects the fact I'm an angry Frenchman who lives in the Sahara Desert.

Happiness Is A Warm Gun

As inevitable and predictable as the sun rising in the east, each time new technology emerges what subsequently follows is "moral panic". An irrational fear of the unknown. Naturally such scares sell newspapers – it promotes the idea that essentially we are all desperate to be serial killers, but the only thing that prevents us is the lack of technology. It’s similar to the phenomenon detailed in the book “Scared to Death".

This has been a common theme that exposed itself with massive clarity with the advent of cinema, home videos and computer games.

A classic example was the issue over the content of videos in the 1980s. Campaigner Mary Whitehouse notoriously gave a presentation to MPs in 1983; showed a compilation of highlights of so-called video nasties where many of the scenes of films, she objected to, were taken out of context and edited in such a manner as to create maximum impact. The result of her campaign was the 1984 Video Recordings Act.

It was an example of moral panic, one which culminated in this infamous Sun headline ten years later (pictured below), just after the conclusion of the trial regarding the tragic murder of Jamie Bulger, despite that no evidence existed that the film "Child's Play 3" had any relevance in case whatsoever. The judge had simply made it up:

Another example has been computer games. I always remember that the Daily Mail once had a full page spread complaining about the computer game Goldeneye, a best selling game on the Nintendo 64, inspired by the James Bond film of the same name.

“Die, die, die” was the headline, as it reported that a two year old boy said those words as he played the game. A headline that was shocking I’m sure...until we realised that his hands weren’t big enough to grasp the controller and so play the game properly and that the article was describing level four. Which meant that the 2 year old boy had to know terms like; “install covert modem” and “find data allocation tape” in order to progress through the game to get to level four. Less a problem in society, more an example of a boy genius.

With this mind we come on to new technology such as 3D printers and their potential ability to produce guns, as noted by this headline in Telegraph:

Sir Peter Fahey, Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, told Sky News that the weapons were a “new phenomenon”, but said his officers were determined to prevent them making it onto the streets.

Earlier this year concerns were raised that the printers – which construct everyday solid items using very thin layers of plastic – could be used to make a gun containing no metal parts.

One can see a future "moral panic" in the making. I'm sure that 3D printers can make guns, but to complain is to assume that weapons cannot be made out of other relatively innocuous items.

For example a rocket launcher can be made out of a drainpipe and a model rocket, a weapon can be made out of very hot coffee laced with ridiculous amounts of sugar, a very effective crossbow can be made out of a wooden coat hanger, some wood, a couple of clothes pegs and an elastic band.

As the 1970’s film Scum (3:33 mins) clearly shows, a sock and a couple of snooker balls can also be very effective. It always amuses me that despite extremely strict security clearances and checks in UK airports they give out free newspapers as you board the plane – which can then be turned into a Millwall Brick.

Thus with 3D printers we can clearly envisage and predict another "moral panic" and a Daily Mail front page outlining the dangers of people...having such technology at home.

Nothing ever changes...

China In Your Hand?

As Richard North notes the forthcoming announcement of the construction of a giant new nuclear plant at Hinkley represents a staggering escalation in costs. However leaving aside the continuing folly of the UK’s energy policy it’s intriguing that much comment has been made about the fact that it is Chinese, not UK, investment that is involved, as indicated by this Telegraph piece (pictured above):

But others were less sanguine about China possibly coming to dominate Britain’s nuclear industry. “It’s troubling how far the Government is bending over backwards to allow this,” said Paul Dorfman, research associate at the energy institute of University College London.

Que much teeth-nashing - sorrowful that a country which was once at the forefront of nuclear power is now having to rely on Chinese investment to "kick start" our nuclear industry. But as is typical of our increasingly isolationist and "Little Englander" media, it ignores the wider picture. And it misses the insidious, and in this case the subtle, nature of our membership of the EU.

The UK and China have been forging a closer relationship for some time now; and crucially it has been doing so in the process of an increasingly close relationship between China and the UK government to support internationalization of the Chinese currency – Renminbi (RMB).

China is seeking to replace the US dollar, with the RMB, as the major world reserve currency. To help fulfil the criteria it is doing so with increasing co-operation of the Hong Kong and London financial markets, as noted by the South China Morning Post:

With Hong Kong’s support, London has become the leading offshore RMB centre in terms of payments with Hong Kong and China.  According to the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT), London now accounts for 28 per cent of offshore RMB settled transactions.

Thus China has an enormous vested interest in the health of the UK financial sector. One can imagine therefore that it won't be best pleased to see the increasing efforts of the EU to impose ever draconian rules deliberately designed to damage one of the UK’s most important parts of its economy:

George Osborne has launched an unprecedented legal challenge against European plans for a financial transactions tax.

The move, which will be seen as a further sign of fraying relations between the UK and the rest of the continent, is designed to force the European Commission to reconsider the levy on Europe-related financial activity.

And:

Chancellor George Osborne stood isolated after European Union finance ministers vowed to press on with proposals to curb bankers' bonuses.

He told a meeting of EU finance ministers that he could not back the plans, which he fears could damage London's financial centre.

By cosying up to the Chinese - which is not to everyone's liking - Osborne has a big player on our side when defending the City from EU laws. A big player that is effectively helping to prop up the Euro. A bigger game is being played here.

If one is to be generous we could argue that George Osborne has played a bit of a blinder, however a more realistic criticism would question whether the heavy reliance on the Chinese been so necessary if we weren't members of the EU?

Hot Wired

In light of Autonomous' Mind's excellent post on the stupidity of the media's reporting of our current energy crisis, I had a quick gander at this Hansard account from Thursday 17 October 2013. What's intriguing is the openness of MPs in mentioning the EU when discussing our energy policy in contrast to most media reports.

That is not say though that all of the discussion had a degree of sense. This from Alex Cunningham - Labour MP for Stockton North - in particular struck me (my emphasis):

I think that just 25 people have benefited from the green deal in my constituency so far, but thousands of people across Stockton-on-Tees could have warmer homes thanks to a tremendous project to externally clad their homes run by the borough council and deliverer partner, Go Warm. This has attracted £20 million of investment and 300 jobs. Sadly, a legal judgment means that BT is the only company that can remove the eyelets that support the wires in the houses that are benefiting from the scheme. This is slowing the programme down because of insufficient resources to do the work in a reasonable time. Will the Minister please intervene, tell BT to get its act together, get the work done more quickly and give my constituents the warmth they deserve?

Having dealt with BT for over 10 years in my previous job I can accuse them of many things, but that they are somehow culpable of failing to provide "constituents with warmth" is a new one on me.

Honest Intentions?

For many reasons the President of the European Council, Mr Van Rompuy, is worth mocking not least due to his lack of democratic mandate, which has led to this slightly amusing twitter exchange following Van Rompuy's original tweet.

But if one is to mock him it's probably best to have a fair idea of his official position within the EU. It would demonstrate an understanding of our supreme government if nothing else which is surely 'bread and butter' territory for supposedly "one of Britain's leading political blogsites".

Yet blogger Guido Fawkes – as screen printed above (I generally don’t link to him for reasons outlined here) - describes him as “the EU President”. It seems Fawkes can't even be bothered to make a simple Google search. A pernickety point perhaps but an essential element to fighting an enemy is know what you're up against. As the "Art of War" notes:

So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss.

If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose.

If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself.

And it is not for the first time that Fawkes has been less than forthcoming about the EU. He began a referendum campaign to try to re-introduce capital punishment, whilst not acknowledging the fact that to reintroduce hanging would be in breach of our EU membership, even though it was pointed out to him at the time.

These details become important when we consider that Fawkes is taken seriously by the legacy media, such as the Spectator, the Guardian and the Telegraph. Should we have an 'in or out' referendum on EU membership, Fawkes' opinion will be sought even though he clearly demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge about the subject. A true member of the Westminster Village indeed.

As Richard North notes we are dealing with children. Although the crucial difference is that children often blurt out brutal honesty in all innocence - sometimes loudly- much to their parents' embarrassment.

Fawkes describes his blog as "written from the perspective of the only man to enter Parliament with honest intentions". That maybe true of the original Guido Fawkes but his 21st century namesake is as dishonest as they come.

A Running Sore

The BBC reports on a temporary victory for those against prisoners’ having the right to vote.

The Supreme Court has dismissed appeals from two prisoners over the right to vote under European Union rules. Convicted murderers Peter Chester and George McGeoch had argued that EU law gave them a right to vote - even though they cannot under British law.

Quoting Mr Europhile himself:

Prime Minister David Cameron told the Commons that the ruling was "a great victory for common sense".

But the BBC rightly acknowledges that:

…[that the concept] is now pretty well established that the UK's blanket ban on prisoners voting is in breach of European human rights law.

Therefore the issue is far from over yet. It matters not how long the UK Parliament drags this issue out, nor how many times it votes against its implementation, it is in breach of the law of our land.

It remains a running sore and a perfect example of the duplicity of our politicians who try to pretend otherwise.

Free As A Bird?

Some maybe aware that blogger Old Holborn was under investigation for posting offensive tweets about the Hillsborough disaster and Denise Bulger the mother of 2 year old James Bulger who was tragically murdered. It now seems that he will not be prosecuted for offensive tweets after the Criminal Prosecution Service said "there is no case to answer".

In some ways one appreciates that common sense has prevailed - Twitter is only a medium with which to express views and opinions which largely should be unhindered by prosecution expect for obvious cases like incitement to violence.

But there for me any sympathy ends for the predicament Old Holborn found himself in. With freedom comes responsibility.  He complained bitterly that his tweets led to death threats against his work colleagues and family. While one doesn’t condone such threats, the only person who put his family and his work colleagues in that position was the man himself.

He wrote those tweets knowing full well they would provoke a reaction. Writing jokes about tragedies where people, particularly young people who have perished, will provoke a reaction. To pretend it won't is dishonest. For example walk into a pub on a Friday night and randomly insult the nearest bloke you can find then you can expect to leave with your nose smeared across your face. Free speech eh? Simply to say “just ignore me” as Old Holborn tries to argue is either woefully naïve or at worst deceptive.

And it is with some irony that Old Holborn who so dislikes authority and the establishment so much mocks a city that has been royally screwed by those very same institutions.

I still have the right to upset a few grief city victim whores 

It makes me wonder which side he truly is on.

Of course he "still has the right to upset" but it's revealing that he does so behind a mask of internet anonymity. It's the equivalent of ‘smoking behind bike sheds’ at school, daring to challenge authority but not quite being brave enough to smoke openingly in front of teachers.

One is reminded of the time that opposition football fans used to, not long after the Bradford fire in 1985, set light to tissue paper and wave it at Bradford fans to mock them - to provoke them. That was its purpose. Offensive it was, free speech it was, but crucially it was only done with "safety in numbers" and anonymity by virtue of being in a crowd. Making such a gesture while being on your own, for obvious reasons, was not going to happen.

Thus if Old Holborn truly cared about testing the limits of free speech then he could take his views about "a city of grief victim whores" to the city itself. Appear on their local radio making his case or even stand along Scotland Road and make his case in public. He won't of course and we all know why.

Rather like Iain Dale he's a coward. Hiding behind a mask of anonymity and egged on by supporters also hiding behind anonymity it's much easier to make these points on the internet.

It's about time the man grew up.

A Day In The Life...

Three police officers whose "honesty and integrity" have been questioned by the police watchdog will not face disciplinary action over allegations that they lied to try and discredit Andrew Mitchell at the height of the plebgate affair.

So reports the Guardian. It was pretty clear at the time that the policeman's account was somewhat inconsistent, not that means anyone will be disciplined. Interestingly though the former Tory whip states:

"It is a decision which will undermine confidence in the ability of the police to investigate misconduct when the reputation of the police service as a whole is at stake.

Well yes but it's hardly anything new, but the only reason it makes the news in this instance is precisely for the reason he is a former Tory whip. Mitchell continues:

"My family and I have waited nearly a year for these police officers to be held to account and for an apology from the police forces involved. It seems we have waited in vain."

At this point one might consider that those of Liverpool have waited nearly 25 years for police officers to be held to account in one of the biggest police corruption scandals in UK history. A cover up that went right to the top of the political tree and remained so for years. Mr Mitchell's concerns are not police corruption per se but those that affect him directly

As someone who has been stopped and searched under a Section 60 (a policy introduced incidentally by the Tories) more than once and had £20 notes ‘confiscated’ from my wallet because “they could potentially be used as weapons” the disclosure that policemen have; “honesty and integrity” issues comes as no surprise whatsoever.

Sort It Out!

Like much of the country my refuse collections have changed to copious wheelie bins which are collected on different weeks according to type. I currently have five bins in which to sort different items. The reasons for this change have been well-documented; the local council’s priority is to appease the EU rather than their own electorate. This is something acknowleged by my own council (page 10 - my emphasis):

8. Landfill Tax

8.1.1. Landfill tax is to have a ceiling level of £80 per tonne by 2014/15 – although no further measures were added to this existing commitment by the national waste review. Landfill tax is now the main fiscal instrument encouraging the diversion of waste from landfill. In 2011/12 landfill tax, set at £56 per tonne, cost Oxfordshire County Council over £6 million, an increase of around £3 million since 2006/7.

8.1.2. Total expenditure on landfill tax has increased despite overall waste arisings within Oxfordshire having dropped since 2007. Added to this, increased recycling and composting levels have meant that there has been a sharp decrease in the amount of household waste sent to landfill. This has helped reduce the financial impact of the escalating landfill tax rate, but it still remains a significant proportion of the costs of waste management.

I don't disagree with the concept of recycling per se, but personal objections to the undemocratic reasons for the current system has led me to ignore the council's intentions. I don't sort out rubbish - it all goes in whatever bin is due for collection that week. Thus de facto I still have weekly bin collections. In addition I also microwaved the 'chips' that are inserted underneath into the bin's lip.

As insignificant as these actions may seem costing the council money by disregarding recycling targets, thus adding to landfill, forces them to raise extra revenue. The more they have to do this the trickier it is for them to get away with it. One person ignoring recycling demands is an irritation; many ignoring them is a crisis. It's a pretty damning indictment of a country's affairs where political rebellion is conducted via its bin collections.

For around three years the indications were that the council were relatively relaxed about this compared to some, however this week stickers (pictured above) have now started to appear on non-recycling bins, including mine.

A quick perusal of neighbours' bins show that some have stickers and some don't. Those that don't are empty and those that do are only partially empty. Clearly the conclusion must be made that binmen are now manually sorting out the rubbish before emptying the bin into the cart. It's a strong indication that South Oxfordshire Council are now seeking to become tougher on their recycling policies as it "remains a significant proportion of the costs of waste management". One senses a battle in the not-too-distant future.

And it is with some irony that the plastic sticker the council have used telling me to "sort it out" is very likely to be non-recyclable.

Hating Britain?

Apparently Ed Miliband and the Daily Mail have got into a right spat about the former father's political views. The Mail rather bluntly accuses Ed Miliband's father as; ‘The Man Who Hated Britain’. Mr Miliband objects to the attack on his father's legacy.

I have no wish to make a comment on the current dispute other than to suggest if you accuse others of hating your own country, democracy and the attack on British traditions, it's best not to publish stuff like this:

Let the Mail lay all its cards on the table. This paper has no desire for Britain to pull out of Europe [EU]...