Aviation security hysteria

Fucking security hysteria. Where is the cost/benefit analysis, where is the risk assessment? What is the likelihood of a flight to Niue causing havoc compared to one to Dunedin? Of course, has anyone told security people about how liquids are not the only way to make a bomb? Planes have alcohol on board, and glasses (these can break and be used as weapons) and crockery... there is no end to the risks of flying - and of course it wouldn't take much for half a dozen likely men to simultaneously open a couple of doors midflight.

^

Remember when New Zealand had absolutely no domestic air security? It still does, whenever you fly on an Air NZ turboprop plane (i.e. all Air NZ link flights) there is no check as to whether or not you have a machete, caustic soda or something metallic in your underwear - so you see Al Qaeda can plan its attack on the Beehive using an Air NZ ATR-72 - which of course it wont.

^

So now New Zealand is joining the US, EU and Australia in implementing what are, for NZ, hysterical limits on what you can take on board international flights.

^

You see, this is because apparently the 6am flight from Wellington to Sydney is a risk, and the Aussies wont let us fly planes there unless we screen them all. Sydney, Perth and Norfolk Island are all the same risk.

^

So whether you are flying to LA, Norfolk Island, Adelaide, Papeete, Niue or Osaka, you will face the following:

^

"From 31 March, all international air travellers leaving New Zealand will only be able to carry onto an aircraft liquids, gels and aerosols in containers of 100ml or less, and only as many containers as fit into a single resealable plastic bag of one litre volume. Flysmart is designed to inform those travelling overseas how they can comply with the new standards without causing any disruption to their travel plans or to the plans of other passengers. There will be exemptions for medicines, baby food and essential dietary supplies, but these items will be subject to additional checking by security staff".

^

Some little anally retentive wanker thought that up didn't he? "one litre volume" like some self righteous little wannabe school prefect who likes telling people what to do, who enjoys confiscating some elderly woman's perfume because she didn't know any better and goes off at lunchtime bragging about the people he has harassed before going to the loo to have a wank of his pencil dick. Security and safety fascists must be the worst parents ever, with either the most rebellious or most militaristic kids, and with a secret BDSM fetish demanding that they are in turn told what to do by someone else.

^

Now I know the EU and US have this, but there are no non-stop flights from NZ to Europe, and only flights to Honolulu, LA and San Francisco to the US - all of which already have secondary security at Auckland airport, so it isn't Europe and the US. The hysteria is because Australia is doing the same.

^

This is completely disastrous for all sorts of reasons. It will mean:

- No deodorant for many travellers;

- Dehydration (so damned well demand water from airlines, ask flight attendant for water more often - damn them if they wont respond to security mania). I used to buy a large bottle of water to carry on board flights between NZ and Europe to cover what is around 30 hours of travelling, now you'll have to deal with whatever is available airside at the terminal - which wont be cheap;

- Medications without prescriptions. So if you have a cold before you fly, nothing. If you are an asthmatic, you probably don't keep prescriptions with your Ventolin.

^

Presumably efforts to negotiate with Australia an exemption for New Zealand have failed miserably (I hope there have been efforts).

^

Of course this will be a windfall for airside shopping in all international airports - not so bad in Auckland, rather dire in Wellington and Christchurch and disastrous in the likes of Hamilton and Palmerston North. So airport companies have NO incentives to oppose this. Neither with no frills airlines like Jetstar and Freedom Air, who sell you food on board. Of course it makes it even more advantageous to fly first, business and premium economy classes where it is easy to get more to drink (and especially as airlines make most of their revenue from these).

^

In typical New Labour style, the campaign has a "kool" catchy name "Flysmart". This is so it seems like new restrictions on your travel are GOOD for you, or you could call it "Slyfart" instead.

^

Well I am going to have to:

- Spend money airside on things I can buy landside cheaper ande better;

- Waste time taking little plastic bags to carry objects more inert than many other things on planes, and waste time thinking about it;

- Stand in queues behind people who don't know any better.

I wish people would fly smart, I wish they would do the following things:

- Fill out your frigging departure car/arrival card before entering the queue;

- Get your ticket/passport out before you checkin, and have your boarding pass ready for the gate and when you get on the plane, idiots;

- Don't take children under the age of 8, they are a nuisance and it is beyond me why it is cheaper for them to fly than adults, they take up the same space, use the toilet as often, need their own meals and get more cabin attendant attention;

- Don't hang around the gate waiting to board - you don't board first, I do, along with all the other frequent flyers who keep the airline business afloat;

- Don't rush up to get out of the plane the moment the seatbelt sign is off, the gangway/steps aren't ready yet, the plane isn't going to leave the airport with you on board and don't push forward if you sit in the back, you don't leave first, I do, along with all the other frequent flyers... because you see, our luggage comes off first too. You can leave first when you pay for the privilege of sitting up front or become Prime Minister;

- Don't keep coins in your pockets, wear large metal jewellery etc before security - you slow it up for everyone else you fool;

- Don't negotiate for an upgrade, you will fail. Upgrades are granted spontaneously or to those who pay for them through points/frequent flyer status etc;

- Turn your cellphone off before you get on board, keep it off until you leave. It has little to do with safety, but you can wait less than half an hour before talking. Please stare disapprovingly at anyone doing this too, it ought to be socially unacceptable;

- Seriously obese people should lose weight, sit in a higher class or buy two seats - sorry you're not entitled to both armrests and other people's sitting space;

- don't stand to pee unless you're very very good at it (in other words competent) and clean up afterwards if you ignore it;

- Don't carry so much luggage that you don't know what to do with it at your seat, what were you planning on doing, camping out?

- Don't sneeze or cough without fully covering your mouth and nose.

^

There is NO good reason for this to be universal (saving money is not a reason, what value time and convenience and freedom? We could all save money if the government approved all our private spending according to whether it was good for us). There does NOT need to be insane security flying to the Pacific Islands, Asia or South America - and given the majority of people flying to Europe fly through Asia, at least give them 12 or so hours without this nonsense on their final leg to Europe. You see I can fly Hong Kong or Singapore to Auckland with my water but not the other way.

^

Security is important, but the least secure place in New Zealand is not travelling on a Boeing 737 flying to Norfolk Island - it is the streets and houses in certain parts of the country. People involved with security will always err on the side of restricting freedom - like the Police. Every single proposal I ever read from the Police involved having more powers, more laws and more ability to intervene in peoples' lives - for their own good.

^

It would be nice if the government had said it reluctantly has decided to proceed with this for flights to Australia only, but will seek an annual review of the security arrangements with Australia and will not unnecessarily inconvenience or delay travellers to other destinations (except the US) when there is no reason to do so.

^

However, that's too hard. By the way, I wonder if this security also applies to Ministers and to Broomsticks 1 and 2 when they fly overseas to any destination? I wonder how long it is before all cutlery are banned on board, belts too, alcohol, glasses, or indeed you're never allowed to leave your seat unless accompanied to the toilet by a flight attendant (!). After all, it's for your own good!

^

However most of you are such sheeple, you'll just baaah and say "musn't grumble". You see your fear about security catching flights to Australia makes me laugh, when I can catch a main line train in the UK into any major London station with absolutely no security checks whatsoever - into Kings Cross, Euston, Victoria, Paddington, Liverpool Street. I can catch the tube without such checks.... so how many NZ-Singapore flights have been targeted by terrorists compared to the tube? Go on.... explain that away petty NZ security advisors please?

Surrendering to blackmail

According to the Daily Telegraph a deal has been struck whereby North Korea will shut down its main nuclear reactor within 60 days and then irreversibly disable it - in exchange for this, the regime will get 50,000 tons of heavy fuel oil and then 950,000 tons of aid. It appears the trade sanctions on luxury goods (and not least Japan's courageous termination of all financial transfers and trade between the countries) has hurt.

Well that will keep Kim Jong Il and his murderous cronies cozy wont it? 200,000 people in the political prison system including children related to political prisoners. Children doesn't mean 17 year olds, it means ALL children. It tests chemical weapons on prisoners. You might want to read Aquariums of Pyongyang for more about this.

So it's nice to help prop up this regime

Hopefully it will be verifiable, hopefully North Korea will allow spontaneous unscheduled inspections, hopefully it will allow inspections of all of its suspected facilities.

It wont. Official access into North Korea comes through 2 flights a week from Beijing, the occasional flight from Russia and a daily train from Beijing, and presumably the ferries from Japan will resume shortly. In a totalitarian police state you can hardly do anything spontaneous.

Unless it can be verified, this deal is nothing more than a way to prop up a slave state, a slave state that gets little criticism or protests from those who claim to give a damn about human rights.

Who owns YOUR life?

The book launched by Lindsay Perigo is timely, given the case of Kelly Taylor of Bristol in the UK. This case saddens and enrages me. Quite simply, how fucking DARE anyone of you tell this woman that she should endure what she must go through, when she is sane and certain that she wants her own suffering to end. The so called compassion showed by those opposing this is completely empty, and frankly NO ONE has the right to say she should not end her life voluntarily.

You see, Kelly Taylor has the heart and lung condition Eisenmenger's syndrome, and the spinal condition Klippel-Feil syndrome. She is in constant pain because doctors have been unable to find a combination of drugs suitable given her allergies. Her condition is terminal and degenerative, she wants to die with a high dose of morphine. Let her. Her life is NOT yours, you do not experience her suffering, and should not prolong it by interfering.

She has already tried to starve herself to death, but was in some much pain she stopped.

She has said:

“I have made the decision because enough is enough. I don’t want to suffer any more ...My consultant has told me that he does not expect me to live for another year. In that time I will deteriorate and that deterioration will become quite undignified. I want to avoid that.”

She told the BBC:

"I don't want to be looked after any more. I want to assert my own independence....I don't really understand why I'm here. I go from day to day just making it through the day. I don't want to be here."

She is too frail to fly easily and wants to die at home, so refuses to attempt to travel to a more enlightened jurisdiction like Switzerland. "I am in constant pain, suffer from breathlessness and have bed sores. I do not want to have to leave the UK in order to die".

Hear hear.

Try defending it, try worming your way out of allowing this sane adult woman to end her own suffering, try defending why YOU know best for her, and if you think you do - try arguing why I can't know best for you about any aspect of your life? After all, if you can't decide when and how to end your own life -do you really own your life and your body? If not, who does and why are they better equipped to know what is best for you? Who knows best for them?

Don't mention God - religion isn't compulsory - let your ghost worshipping determine your own life, not anyone elses.

Sorting out sprawl

PC and Tom Beard have been engaging in an interesting debate about sprawl and land use regulation. Interesting to me because I have been on both sides of the debate in my career, and now I largely share PC's view.

Tom’s view is that people are not very good at making decisions about things that have long term consequences, which of course raises the question as to whether those with his perspective are any better.

Private sector provision of infrastructure for greenfields developments already exists, it happens for telecommunications and electricity. If water was operated commercially (as it is in Auckland), that can be dealt with also. Roads for these developments are also already paid for. The key question is paying for the extra demand on existing infrastructure. That should be a matter between the utility provider and the property owner.

Tom’s comment that “More homes further away means more cars coming into the city, which means more space taken up by motorways, "bypasses" and carparks, thus impacting on the quality of life of those who've chosen to live close to the city.”

Well hold on. If highways were privatised, these motorways wouldn’t be collectively funded by all motorists, but paid for by those using them. Such tolls would limit sprawl and also make public transport more competitive. In addition, any savvy operator of toll roads would charge a premium at peak times to reduce congestion and make more money – with less congestion, and motorists paying the true costs of road expansion and use at peak times, there will be a limit to what Tom is concerned about. By contrast, almost all of the US has taxpayer (i.e. not road user) subsidised highways which have effectively subsidised motoring to many suburbs. He might look here as to why railways and bus companies (the latter mostly run by local authorities with little interest in service quality) found this so hard to compete with.

Tom also claims that in Wellington, the well off use public transport as much as or more than those on lower incomes. He is correct and there is a very good reason for that. The higher income jobs are concentrated in downtown Wellington and the public transport system was designed so that state servants and council employees could easily get to work. Lower income jobs are in the Hutt, Porirua and the suburbs. It is far more difficult to get to these jobs by public transport, so public transport subsidies in Wellington are about subsidising the middle class and high income earners to get to work in downtown Wellington from their homes in Karori, Khandallah and Kapiti. The Wellington Regional Council trialled subsidising a direct bus from Porirua to Hutt City for commuters, and it was a dismal failure because workers and their jobs were too dispersed for a public transport option to be viable. The target case for mode share in Wellington by the regional council is for public transport to hold its own against growth in total trips for both car and public transport – for commutes. Off peak car traffic continues to grow much faster than public transport, because public transport cannot meet the demand for diverse spontaneous trips with multiple destinations within a reasonable timeframe. Public transport mode share has changed because the costs of motoring have gone up exponentially compared to public transport. The key problem is that too many people want to travel at once, using infrastructure that would remain unused most of the day – like trains and buses. The solution is that all modes should be priced commercially, roads, trains and buses – this can help spread demand more evenly (and raise money to finance more infrastructure if it is financially viable). Note that about two-thirds of Wellington's rail rolling stock sits around depreciating doing nothing for about 20 hours a day, five days a week (24 hours the other two). Efficient? You might argue people do the same with their cars, but the difference is that they pay for that - they are paying for the option of convenience. You pay for the trains whether you use them or not.

Changing the pricing of transport would, in my view, make an enormous difference to how cities function and grow. There are different ways of doing this, but in essence it would involve:

- Replacing fuel taxes and ratepayer funding of roads with tolls that vary according to roads by time and location, so that roads are priced high during congested periods and next to nothing off peak. The money raised would be for maintenance and construction when the construction would generate a return. New roads would be justified financially, not politically (Transmission Gully is the latter), and existing roads would be far better managed. Yes this is congestion charging to put it bluntly, but not as bluntly as Ken Livingstone does it and not to pay for everything but roads.

- The Public Works Act and RMA would be gone, as enablers and inhibitors of transport infrastructure construction. Road building would be easier in some places, harder in others – in cities it might mean more tunnelling.

- Public transport subsidies would cease, and operators would charge what the market could bear. At peak times as tolls would be high, there would be high demand for the alternatives. The road operator would charge for bus stop use (and for bus companies to use roads, including if they wanted to pay for exclusive bus lanes), and may even finance some bus operations if it sees fit. At peak times, it would cost far more to commute than at present, off peak bus and rail companies would charge far less as there would be excess capacity.

- Employers would be allowed to time shift employment, encourage employees to work at home or off site where appropriate in order to reduce transport costs. With transport now charged efficiently, there would be significant incentives to avoid peak tolls/fares.

The result would be less peak time commuting, perhaps less sprawl for those working in congested areas, but with more employment diversifying to more outlying places (where commuting was cheaper/closer to housing). In other words, it may actually deliver what Tom wants – by using economics rather than regulation. It doesn’t talk about underground railways or light rail or any of the other transport fetishes of the left, or indeed big motorways which are the fetish of some on the right – it is about remaining completely neutral and letting users pay for what they use. I happen to be agnostic about transport modes - I used to regularly walk to work (when I could have taken the bus in half the time), I like driving and I like taking some trains. I've also used good bus services, and experienced many bad bus and rail services. You see, I supported the Wellington inner city bypass because it made good sound economic sense, but oppose Transmission Gully because it does the exact opposite.

Tom is right to suggest that there is plenty of potential for different forms of housing, including higher density to be attractive. The fundamental point is whether the market should be skewed by planning restrictions to coerce development to being in that direction - the so called nodes proposed by Auckland planning authorities with the fantasy idea that people would want to live in high rise developments around suburban railway stations. Some people want to live downtown in apartments - good for them - but if you want a house on a quarter acre section why is it anyone else's business, as long as you pay for it and the associated infrastructure?

Imagine that – users pay.

Top Gear, David Cameron and City bonuses

Top Gear is back, has been for three weeks. With Richard Hammond back fighting fit, the series is better than ever. This is truly one of the best series ever produced by the BBC, and ought to be on commercial television because it would make the BBC a bomb in advertising.

The first show included the video of Hammond’s accident, enough said. In fact it outrated the final of Celebrity Big Brother, showing that there is still reason to have faith in Britain (imagine the single TV households with teenagers fighting with dad about what to watch).

Since then there has been the Bugatti Veyron taken to its limits on a track in Germany by James May – the perfect car for bullying the average anally retentive ecologist, and at £800k the perfect car for one of the 4000 or so city traders who earned their £1 million bonuses. Finally, last night Clarkson, May and Hammond did a road trip from Miami to New Orleans, which was a hilarious hour watching them face challenges – the most threatening being to paint each others clapped out American vehicle in the most provocative way for driving through Alabama.

Clarkson’s car said “Country Western is rubbish and I hate Nascar”. May’s said “Hilary for President and I’m bi” and Hammond’s said “Man Love Rules”. The three of them, plus the camera man were being chased by a service station owners’ “boys” who threw rocks and wanted the queers to be run out of town. Don’t mess with redneck inbred troglodyte Americans!.

Needless to say, the show is absolutely brilliant, a breath of fresh air and fumes, of good humour, a sense of life and adventure and fun. Now who would you rather spend an evening with, naysayer humourless do-gooders or this lot?

Secondly, David Cameron actually has become more interesting. It has been hilarious seeing the newspapers and television get hysterical about revelations he smoked cannabis at 15 at Eton – when his colleagues and even politicians from other parties have been doing a “so what?”. What absolute wankers the media are? You could hardly find an industry more filled with drug takers than the media – no doubt some were hoping it would be a huge national scandal. Thank the British public for being sensible on this.

Cameron also has made some sensible statements about citizenship and immigrants signing up to the values of British society. He said that Muslim extremists are a mirror image of the pro-white supremacist British National Party. Good! He said “Those who seek a sharia state, or special treatment and a separate law for British Muslims are, in many ways, the mirror image of the BNP.” Indeed, and if you come to Britain wanting to turn it into an Islamic state expect a robust rebuttal of it. The right to free speech does not include a right to not be offended.

Finally, Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Hain is calling on those earning huge city bonuses to hand them over to those who didn’t earn it. He said two-thirds should be compulsorily paid to charity – which is code for tax surely. City bonuses are already taxed of course, but more importantly they reflect London as the leading financial centre of the world – attracting the best and brightest to work extraordinary hours for pay which is almost unrivalled outside personal entrepreneurship or the entertainment industry.

Simple point Mr Hain – the people earning it already benefit London by spending much of it on goods and services here, many already contribute to charities by their own choice, and frankly without London being such a financial centre it, and the UK would be far far worse off than it is at present. Mr Hain, you live off of other people’s compulsorily confiscated income – fuck off and get a real job before you start telling others what to do with theirs!

Census prosecution

Nik Haden, Wellington economist, is being charged by the Statistics Department, because of his alleged behaviour in relation to protests last year against the compulsion around filling out census forms. This protest was about one simple point – that the state should not require you, by threat of force, to fill out a form just because you happen to be in the country at a certain time. There would be nothing wrong with it being voluntary, but the concept of people actually being able to choose themselves is alien to statists. Like I said at the time, I never filled out the two before it and nothing happened, and well I was in London for the last one.

Most of the economy seems to work on the basis of surveys, such as the entire broadcasting sector. Imagine if you were legally required to fill in a TV survey form every year, or a radio one and if you did it incorrectly, you would be prosecuted? No, seriously. It IS like that.

It is a crime in Clarkistan, though it also was in Bolgeria and Shipleyvakia. When Katrina Bach was a Deputy Secretary at MED, a contractor had his contract summarily terminated for sending round the joke email about entering your religion as a Jedi – the sense of humour bypass clearly was a roaring success. By contrast, the UK Office for National Statistics was relaxed about it for the 2001 UK census, because more people filled it out because they enjoyed putting their religion as Jedi.

If you want to know who supports this sort of prosecution then you might ask one David Farrar. He said of this issue:

“as the census is used to in construction of electoral rolls etc, then my view would be that if you refuse to fill in a census, then you lose the right to vote.
AFter all if you want to be a non-person, then you can't demand rights.”

So filling in a census grants you rights!! So is the anonymous census actually used to match people to houses? Hmmm… What gets me is that yes, to many people this seems simple – fill in a form, what’s the big deal?

The point is principle, something that most people associated with a major political party sell like a whore, it is that I have the right to remain silent. The same should also apply to entering the country, given that many countries have virtually open borders (I crossed between Denmark and Sweden four times in two days and didn't have to show a passport, and as a UK resident (not citizen) I do not need to fill in any damned form when I arrive from anywhere in the world).

If I peacefully go about my day to day business, I have the right to not be forced to fill out a damned form because the state wants to assist itself with planning etc. Yes, if I want to vote I should go on the electoral roll and then let electoral boundaries be determined by who is on the roll, not the entire population.

I am quite agnostic about there being a census, but it should be voluntary. It is telling that the state can charge Nik Haden so swiftly, whereas if you are burgled or your car is stolen, you’ll probably never hear of it again. The efficient by which the state prosecutes those who threaten its taxes and statistics far outranks its efficiency in protecting the population.

Go Nik, defend this on principle. There is a right to protest against the census law, a right that few are interested in, but which does go to the heart of what a liberal democracy is. You shouldn't be prosecuted for protesting against a bureaucratic law.

absence and food miles ticks on

Well I've been to Scandinavia where people are friendly, beautiful and most things are clean, safe, there aren't CCTV cameras and cops everywhere to deter braindead "youf" from causing havoc.... and I've been very busy working.... and my damned new internet service provider with 2 weeks notice hasn't even managed to get the line sorted out so has to come back next week... and the old one's billing agent keeps trying to extract money out of me for services I cancelled weeks ago (and the contract HAS ended).

^

but meanwhile food miles keep being repeated....

^

The Times on Saturday in its lifestyle feature (not online) talked of why buying New Zealand lamb might be risky because apparently it isn't as inspected as British lamb - no doubt spread by the EU tit sucking British farmers, which I help pay for without even buying their high carbon footprint product. Nevertheless, hundreds of thousands of people have read this now - and the forces of UK Green delusions and old fashioned protectionism continue to wage war against the efficient and environmentally friendly New Zealand farmer.

^

On top of this a so-called think tank the International Institute for Environment and Development is harping on about food miles according to Reuters, but only gives respite when considering developing countries. Well sorry, the highly subsidised, environmentally unfriendly European farmer deserves all of the approbrium directed at them. Perhaps IIED should do more thinking before promoting food miles like a bunch of sheep.

^

According to Belfast Today Northern Ireland farmers want supermarkets to label beef and lamb food miles, as a direct attack against efficient farmers in New Zealand, Australia and Argentina. This is part of a campaign from Fairness for Farmers in Europe.

^

Fairness? Fuck them!! Fairness means:

- Being the most heavily subsidised farmers in the world, bar none;

- Not even having the new EU member state farmers subsidised the same, because Polish and Hungarian farmers are more efficient than French and British ones;

- Having one of the most protected markets for food in the world, with high tariffs, quotas and prohibitions on imported food all to protect the poor little bleeting farmers from facing real market prices and compete with farmers from countries where it is their backbone;

- Being subsidised even further to undercut local unsubsidised farmers or other less subsidised farmers from other countries outside Europe.

^

The only thing that will be fair will be to end all of this nonsense and let rural Europe be farmed efficiently or return to untilled empty land.

^

and here Tesco and Sainsburys have pledged to cut food miles..... great

^

By the way I've tried to deal with this on the BBC website with limited success, but you can try here too.

^

Helen Clark apparently mentioned this to Tony Blair when she met him recently, but you wouldn't know anything of that in the UK. Clark and John Howard should meet and discuss how to deal with this...

^

but still the mainstream NZ media says nothing, maybe the handful of real journalists will wake up and do a story on it, particularly if TVNZ or a newspaper flies one of the plucky young hopefuls to London for a free trip to report on it.

We're twats known as

… the Parliamentary Labour Party.
^
THIS is what your taxes help pay for. Little twerps to click repeatedly on a stuff poll about John Key. 17,104 out of 33,600 votes cast (nearly 51%) came from Parliament. Let’s assume that some should have been in favour of Key (should have been around 40% perhaps?) then a few little smart arses in the Labour (and maybe other pro government parties) have been clicking their tiny mice as if they had been wanking online as 80% of votes from Parliament were anti-Key. It still means there have been a lot of votes from the Nat side of course, but really... they thought they were SO clever.

Harry Potter is never nude

Some eye candy for the female readers who aim a bit below 20 (and the male ones too, including at least one MP, it's hardly academic who that is).
^
Daniel Radcliffe may be nude, but not Harry Potter.

Good on him, hell he's pursuing a dream of millions. Be a much loved role model and object of the affection of millions of girls, and now he's on the West End and worth a fortune at 17. The Daily Mail has the photo here (larger) to squeeze the juices from his fans. The Sun has more photos of Radcliffe almost naked (google likes these words)

^

His nudity will no doubt mean that hundreds of thousands of girls (and a few thousand boys) will be trying to get into the play, and a smaller number of pervy men (and women) will also pursue him (such is life). Hey he's 17, let him enjoy it, he clearly looks after himself and his reputation is far from tarnished. His main problem are the gold-digging tarts looking to whore their way into his substantial fortune. In the UK they are as common as rats. I presume he is having fun screening the 0.1% who will meet his esteemed standards (being hot, smart enough to not blab and not be an excessive leech, having an equally discreet hot friend so he can watch them together). I'm sure Emma Watson can advise on some suitable companions from her Oxford private school. According to Stuff some parents are apparently upset about his nudity, because their "9yo son is a fan", well don't take the boy to the play and maybe explain why you make your son self conscious about his nudity when he showers. Another asked why his parents thought it was ok to do it, well maybe at 17 being legal age and all, he can decide? Remember the average Brit loses their virginity several years before that, appearing nude on stage is a lot less risky than that! May he continue to enjoy his career, money, life and most of all be happy, and for people to get over nudity!

^

Now all that is needed is for Emma Watson to do the same (though if she does some of the press will probably be quite cruel, for women who expose are treated differently from men), as she is 17 in April (on Kim Il Sung's birthday go figure - you read it first), but she has to finish school first (don't go there). She shouldn't and wont do the "glamour model" thing, because she is smarter than that - so better to perform a serious role in a film or play that involves her being passionate and sexy. Her fluency in French should help this. So so few young female British stars can do that without simply looking cheap. She, of course, doesn't need a 45 year old sugar daddy from the City, or the money from doing doggerrell in the UK tabloid press. Don't forget Rupert Grint, he is older and may well be the most popular ginga in the UK - good on them all!

Fight foodmiles now

Phil Goff has missed the point. Tesco's plan wont hurt New Zealand exporters in itself, but the philosophical mantra behind food miles does, and it is almost universally unquestioned. I have yet to see a single item on British TV questioning food miles, and the items in the newspapers are rare indeed. You see, the food miles myth is as good as fact in the minds of many many consumers in the UK.

If you are a NZ farmer, read very very carefully, your livelihood is at stake. Whether or not you believe global warming is occurring, and regardless of your political philosophy, you need to take an initiative, together to fight the propaganda coming from the European farming sector, many European politicians and the mass media about "food miles". Why? It is becoming also quasi-religious to "avoid food miles and save the planet", when you and I both know things are far from that simple.

^

You could embark on a campaign denying global warming, but frankly that is a bigger battle and one you are poorly equipped to fight. However, what you can fight is the "food miles" faith, based on evidence.

^

The entire NZ agricultural export sector needs to take out full page ads in the Guardian, the Independent, the Times and the Daily Telegraph (not cheap) for starters (and then work on the rest of Europe) explaining the carbon footprint for NZ lamb vs UK lamb, NZ butter and cheese vs UK butter and cheese. You might also explain how much you might sell these products to the UK market if the EU didn't impose quotas and tariffs, let alone the effect of subsidising your competitors.

^

You need to do it this year, and if you can use television as well, then the better. This campaign will cost multiple tens of millions of dollars, but you need to do it.

^

The food miles fad isn't just followed by a minority of environmentalists in the UK, it is accepted mainstream mantra. You want proof? Well see these reports in the past few weeks in ALL major UK media outlets:

- Daily Telegraph;

- The Times and again;

- The Independent (French rather than NZ wine) and again;

- Guardian and again;

- BBC and again and again and again.

^

I live in the UK, I hear "food miles" nearly every day from somewhere and it is frustrating, but it has caught on. Naive reporters on television urge people at every turn to think about food miles, and New Zealand is mentioned rather frequently. No Right Turn is spot on that it is time to wake up and realise what a threat this is. While I don't agree with Sue Kedgley that some farmers should target markets closer to home, and that the sector should buy into carbon footprints as the be all and end all, sacrificing other factors for competitiveness, she is right that this is changing consumer behaviour.

^

On a side note, I haven't heard that the British Greens have written back to the NZ Greens about food miles, after Russel Norman wrote to correct misinformation about food miles. I guess this says a lot about how committed British Greens are to the environment rather than protectionism.

^

By the way, these two reports remain the main evidence i know of to date about why food miles are a bad proxy for environmental impact. You can't publicise these enough.

A different approach to global warming

Now there are three approaches you can take to the notion of human induced global warming:
^
1. Accept the evidence of those who think there is insufficient evidence;
2. Acknowledge it could be happening or may not be, but taking a precautionary approach to responding to it (government removes interventions that encourage more energy use, while enhancing freedom and prosperity, while people can choose to do whatever they wish);
3. Proclaim it is happening, we are all doomed and the government must intervene on a scale and in a manner akin to a war footing (the Green Party approach).
^
In all cases it is wise to reappraise your response according to evidence as it accumulates.
^
There are risks in each approach. The risk in the first approach is that it IS happening and has serious negative effects, and it becomes more costly to respond in the longer term. Presumably the more evidence appears of this, the less appropriate it is to take this stance.
^
The risk in the third approach is that you throw away your standard of living, and risk people’s health and lives by wasting money on measures that have little effect. Indeed, as long as there is little response from countries such as China, India and the USA, then the efforts of smaller countries are effectively to impose costs with little return. Another enormous risk is that the benefits of “taking steps” to address climate change may be outweighed by the costs. Bjorn Lomborg best described it in his book “The Skeptical Environmentalist”, which is slammed by many ecologists, when he explained that net human welfare could be improved far more significantly by paying for all people to have access to clean drinking water, than by responding to climate change. Of course this involves economics – the study of tradeoffs, and many ecologists have a parsimonious understanding of economics at best.
^
So I take the second approach. I don’t believe there is sufficient evidence to justify a worldwide panic, but most importantly the policy agenda for responding to it has been hijacked by a left wing statist approach that carries all the risks of the third approach. Certainly some in the left and the ecologist movement see global warming as manna from heaven, because it is a convenient justification for widescale government intervention and for the religion of ecologists to be followed against the deadly sins of energy and transport. The hatred of some ecologists towards the private car is well known and quite visceral. However, there is plenty that can be done that would reduce “greenhouse gas emissions” while increasing personal freedom and not having a negative long term effect on the economy. Here are some:

^
- Cease any subsidies for energy production, consumption or exploration for energy resources;
- Privatise all energy producers (Solid Energy, 3 power generators/retailers and Transpower) so they are all profit maximising, which means they will more relentlessly pursue efficiency and charging what users can bear. This may mean some prices drop and others increase. Meanwhile a core of consumers are likely to pay a premium for renewable energy, let the market respond to that demand;
- Commercialise and privatise all highways and major roads, allowing the new owners to toll them and particularly charge a premium at congested times. Even the crude London congestion charging scheme reduced CO2 emissions by 16%, while also reducing congestion and improving overall air quality. Profit maximising road companies would price congestion off the roads, making all traffic flow more freely and efficiently. It would also improve the viability of public transport and even railways and sea freight;
- End subsidies to public transport and all other transport modes. Once roads are commercially priced then public transport can stand on its own merits and will cost more. This means people will walk and cycle more, and are more likely to shop, work and live closer together, WITHOUT new urbanist central planning. At the moment governments subsidise transport in many different ways, ending this would be painful, but might make a huge difference;
- End welfare payments for having children. Forget the car or a flight to London, having kids is the single most carbon intensive thing you can ever do. The state should have nothing to do with encouraging this, it is time to abolish Working for Families, tax credits for families and declare an end to claiming for additional children on welfare, and start phasing out the DPB;
- Privatise all refuse collection. Councils already subsidise this in some cases (not others). If everyone had to pay for rubbish collection it may mean you think more about what you accumulate. The problem of “fly tippers” (as they are called in the UK) is a matter of law enforcement, privately owned highway owners wont tolerate it and it is a gross example of pollution that the state seems unconcerned about, because it isn’t as sexy as “carbon footprints”.

^
There will be more examples, but essentially it is about the state no longer giving preference to measures that are energy intensive, while reducing its role and the distortions it imposes on individual choice. However, I can’t see the Greens buying it, because they worship public transport, and can’t stand the idea that, fundamentally, all people might pay for what they use. On top of that, there is nothing to stop people taking their own steps, wise or foolish though they may be. However it should be evidence based, not the faith based initiative it currently is.

Genius Kedgley is anti cloned meat because...

animals die making it. Unlike all that other meat right....?

^

In addition, she lists absolutely no health risks whatsoever from eating it, but demands it is regulated. Yes, so she cares about lots of animals dying, but is she right about what she is saying? What farmer would rationally undertake a practice that will see more animals die than be sold? oops i forgot the Greens aren't too good on economic rationalism...

^

So here we go:

^

- Name one independently verifiable example of a person harmed by cloned food.

while we're at it...

- Name one independently verifiable example of a person harmed by food containing genetically modified ingredients.

John Key and the speech few disagree with

Not PC has pithily blogged about this rather non-event. Since I had quite a bit of coffee this morning, I thought I’d read the speech and I’m underwhelmed. How many of you get excited by this pablum? PC is right that if Jordan Carter agrees with most of it, what the hell is going on? I’ll tell you – the Nats have, once again, reverted to the ugly, whorish behaviour of outdoing the left. The speech is all very nice indeed, the Greens don't like it because they think welfare funded through threat of violence is a Gaia given right which no one should question (demanding beneficiaries work is "bashing" them, but demanding that people who work pay for them is a "social obligation").

^

The last time the Nats tried to outdo the left was in 1975 when, despite the dancing Cossacks commercials, Rob Muldoon completely socialised and inflated pensions with National Superannuation, a massive drag upon the economy and disincentive to saving – he then proceeded to embark on an economic policy that, with few exceptions, was about Soviet style central planning. Now John Key goes on about “The Kiwi Way” (notice the caps, rather Leninist really) to tug at heart strings about nationalism and identity, or rather largely meaningless platitudes. I shouldn';t be so negative though. Helen Clark is, after all, a statist controller of the left, so NZ badly needs an alternative, so I thought I’d identify the key points Key made:

1. “the solution doesn't lie in just throwing more money at the problem” (not JUST, so he believes in throwing more of your money at the problem. I am sure Labour doesn’t believe it is just throwing money at the problem either. The Greens do, since they support increases in welfare with no accountability for it. Next!) “I'm interested in what works and what makes a difference” (yes because Labour isn’t. What rot!) So he will throw more money at the problem, your money remember, and he wants it to make a difference. Shall we give him a last chance to prove whether this can work or not??
2. “Under any government I lead there will be no parole for repeat violent offenders” (Good, something substantial, but not new. Brash already said that, it's not dead yet, but the Nats love speaking tough on crime).
3. “We have to ensure that Kiwis, even those with relatively low skills, are always better off working than being on a benefit. We have to insist that healthy people receiving assistance from the State have obligations, whether that be looking for work, acquiring new skills for work, or working in their community.” (This means either benefits get cut, abatement rates are cut drastically, taxes are cut drastically, or jobs are subsidised. It also means working for the dole. Nothing bad about this, but it is very modest, and no actual policy, just words).
4. “A National government will challenge the business community to work with us in backing a programme of providing food in low-decile schools for kids in need.” (Are these the same kids who are obese? How about making welfare a carrot and stick for their families? How about simply cutting taxes so businesses and people can do this? Cutting GST to 10% would help reduce the costs of food. What evidence is there of serious malnutrition and if there is, why aren't the families involved being hauled up by CYFS for it?)
5. “A National government will work with schools, sports clubs, businesses and community groups to ensure that more kids from deprived backgrounds get to play sport.” (“Work with” means spend your money. Kids from deprived backgrounds largely need to learn to “reed rite n spul” first, but hey throw them a rugby ball and they’ll be happy for years, until they can’t get a job. I remember playing all sorts of games without real equipment as a kid, all you needed was a park, some sort of ball and a stick. This needs little organising and no money. You improvise, but that isn’t cool anymore).

So how is that substantially different from Labour, other than maybe shifting the bureaucracy and being slightly tougher on welfare? Without much more on policy it is hard to tell, and I'm unsure why. How many beneficiaries vote National?

^

Not PC’s link to the latest Roy Morgan poll shows a drop in support for National, to the same level as Labour, which is telling - the "me too" politics of Key/English inspires little compared to what Brash did, and Labour knows it. After all, it is far easier to fight on your own philosophical battle ground that on someone elses.

^

Working a charm this strategy isn’t it?

^

So what can we call it? It is:

a) The Third Way of Blair, with a new slogan “The Kiwi Way”. The British Labour Party New Zealand Branch in other words. Given that NZ Labour is somewhat to the left of Blair it would fit nicely, and matches the same sort of vapidity that passes for policy in the UK Tory Party today;

b) Socialism is inevitable. This is the unofficial strategy of the UK Conservative Party (and the NZ National Party) until 1979 (1987) respectively. In essence it declares that the state is ever destined to continue to grow, that the role of the state will grow, that the left is the intellectual strength behind government in modern liberal democracies and that all the National/Conservative Parties can do is tinker with it and stop it getting worse while in power. This means the Nats believe that less government simply isn't popular and people don't want it. Thatcher and Richardson smashed those legacies for a generation, but were stabbed in the back by colleagues who are part of …

c) Born to rule. Many National/Conservative Party politicians believe they are part of a ruling class, best positioned to “manage” the country and look after the broad masses. The philosophy behind this is largely to tinker, to tell people off (and pass laws to ban things) when they are not behaving “appropriately”, give people a few alms (tax cuts, subsidies, extra funds here and there) to keep them happy and generally do very little other than frighten people about Labour. There is a disdain for those on the left who they instinctively despise, and those on the meritorious free market right, who don’t have a sense of “social responsibility” (patronising towards those who are poor).

As Tony Milne welcomes it, and his excellent “tagcrowd” shows what little meaning there is in Key’s speech, then you have to ask yourself – what is the point of the National Party other than being a club for people from a non-union, teacher, lecturer background to run for government?

^

Well I can be optimistic about one thing. Key seems to understand that welfare dependency is bad and something needs to be done about it. What he doesn’t understand is that it is cultural, it is about an overwhelming culture amongst too many people that it is ok to bludge off the back of other people if you can get away with it, and those who are successful in making a go of it should be sneered at and expected to pay for everyone else.

^

If Key can communicate that, then he may be onto a winner – meanwhile he talks mother and apple pie, if many of you are seduced by it then it proves the point that it's far more important to be the new face and say nice things, than to have some serious thoughts and proposals. Mind you, isn't that the basis upon which almost all local body politicians are elected?

Working for other peoples' money unfair

Sue Bradford opposes working for the dole - because, you see, the Greens believe that if you can't find a job you like, everyone else should be forced to pay for you. You are "entitled" to have your existence paid for by other people working and surrendering between a quarter and half of their earnings under threat (taxes), but shouldn't be required to do anything for it. Notice what a winning formula that has been for certain generations of no-hopers.

^

Personally I'd start reform of the dole by putting a one-year limit on it, and you wouldn't be able to claim more than three years in your life. I'd also stop inflation indexing it, so that it gradually became less and less attractive as people's backstop. This would encourage people to save or take out income insurance. Beneficiary bashing? Well, it would be nice if beneficiaries were grateful for those giving them money for nothing extracted by force, or maybe they want to ask for support next time. Imagine that - asking instead of demanding help. That starting reform would be in the context of a coalition government, serious reform would put a one-year time limit on the dole, after which it would be abolished.

Green fascism

Don't think it exists? Well Tunbridge Wells Borough Council is a clear example of it.

^

According to The Independent the council fined a 12 year old girl £50 for placing a piece of cardboard next to a full council recycling bin. On top of that it sent a letter to the girl threatening her with 6 months in prison and a £50,000 fine. The council nazi was going through the boxes by the overflowing bin and found one with her name and address on it, so smiling with glee he used this information to slap a penalty on her, shouting Zeig Heil (well he/she may as well have).

^

The girl is keen on recycling, but has been frightened off it because of the fascist bullies at the council. Gary Stevenson, Head of environment and street scene services said "Tunbridge Wells borough residents are the second-best recyclers in Kent" - of course, this is part of the mass British religion called recycling, whereby taxpayers pay to subsidise the sourcing of raw materials for manufacturers, and fund the bullying of those who don't do it. The council is reconsidering it, no doubt embarrassed for bullying a young girl about it, but they wouldn't think twice about threatening you if you didn't put the cardboard in the overflowing bin (the council denies it was overflowing of course).

^

I've yet to see an independent cost/benefit analysis of the value of recycling in the UK - but you can see how this faith based initiative is making councils bully. Central government also threatens to fine councils that don't pursue more recycling, and the EU is also obsessed with it. It is about time someone fisked this in the mainstream UK media.... isn't it?

When feminists are blindly bigoted

Read the following quote and replace “men” with “Jew” “Serb” “Maori” “Catholic” and women with “Aryan” “Croat” “European” “Protestant”.
^
“I think all men do have the capacity to rape given certain situations, conditions, but many never would or will. What is significant is, the same can’t be said about women, I don’t believe. I don’t think that’s about differences between men and women. I don’t think men are “naturally” more violent or are born with a rape mentality. I think, as I’ve said before, that men have been corrupted by power in a way that women have not been so far.”
^
The warm loving embrace of radical feminism covering up a fist of bigotry and subjectivist evasion of moral responsibility
^
All men would rape under certain circumstances, but not all women. Excluding the physiological matter (rape doesn't need to have a penis involved), presumably they would pile insults upon one who claimed that all women could be violent under certain circumstances. This is of course absolute nonsense, it is simply an assertion that cannot be proved or disproved, it is a political assertion. You may as well say that all Maori would steal under certain circumstances, it is as valid as that. However, if you did make a similar claim based upon race, hair colour or whether someone had a beard or not then people would decry or laugh at you – it is, in fact, exactly the same.
^
Of course this is different from claiming that there can be a culture which endorses, excuses or ignores rape, which means that those so inclined can get away with it or be goaded into it – but the same can apply to any act. Following the crowd is a universal human condition, it is one based on personal security, but it is not necessarily moral. Think of how many people do stupid things because they were trying to impress others, or do what others do, or they were encouraged to do it. Bullying is a perfect example, and women are as good at it as men. Certainly there are cultures where rape is at best trivialised, such as Pakistan, and indeed Western countries until not too long ago.
^
However, you can see how little value there is in collectivising people. Collectivising is the currency of all those who wish to use force to tell others what to do, all those on the left including Marxists, fascists, religious fundamentalists, Nazis, socialists and ecologists. Nazis on the left? Well yes, tell me how much of national socialism has little to do with the left. Don’t try to explain the left as being anti-discrimination, when it seeks the state to discriminate explicitly on the basis of property ownership and ability, while collectivising every “victim” group it identifies.
^
The irony that those who wish to be non-discriminatory talk incessantly about sex, race and class. They are completely unable to treat people on their merit and will attribute strength and weakness according to characteristics you can do nothing about. It is the world of subjectivism – when nothing is objectively true. The only moral approach is to treat all as individuals, and behaviour as that of individuals - the greater you try to explain behaviour on the basis of people belonging to self selecting groups, the greater you absolve them from individual responsibility.

The news you've all been waiting for

The winner of Celebrity Big Brother UK is …. Shilpa Shetty (Bollywood actress). No doubt helped enormously by the huge South Asian (and other) sympathy vote after brainless harpie Jade Goody bullied her. Shetty conducted herself with distinction, declaring that she didn’t think the comments were racist and “I really don't want to leave England putting anyone in trouble. This country has given me so much. I just want to thank all of Great Britain for giving me this fantastic opportunity to make my country proud." She had been booed somewhat as she left the Big Brother household, which was quite repulsive behaviour, but nevertheless she won UK Celebrity Big Brother, good for her.
^
Her graciousness shows what a star she is. Also notable was that the second and third place getters were also not British. Second was Jermaine Jackson, who is a Muslim (though this would not have been obvious to most) and lives in Dubai. He came across as a peacemaker and a quiet thoughtful figure. Third was Dirk Benedict ex. “Faceman” from the A Team, who was often grumpy but entertaining.
^
Perhaps most telling from all of this is that on the follow up show immediately following the opening of the Big Brother household – Celebrity Big Brother’s Big Mouth (hosted by probably the sexiest and funniest man in Britain – Russell Brand), all of the previous Big Brother contestants EXCEPT Jade Goody, her vile mother Jackiey Budden, Jo O’Meara and Danielle Lloyd (all the participants bar one in the bullying of Shilpa) did not turn up. Jo O’Meara was seriously booed when evicted two days before, whereas Danielle Lloyd somewhat redeemed herself by apologising to Shilpa and getting on very well with her after the harpie was evicted. Danielle’s boyfriend footballer Teddy Sheringham (West Ham United) apparently dumped her while she was in the Big Brother house because of her participation in the bullying. Given he is 40 and she is 23 and pretty, and Shilpa let her off for being “so young” and being rather stupid. Her prettiness and childlike demeanour may see her through, because unlike Jade she is not worth millions. Her final comment about what she learnt was “not to be such a bitch”.
^
However, Jade’s absolutely vapid boyfriend Jack Tweed did turn up, and couldn’t respond when asked whether “he had learnt a lesson in the house”, as he called Shilpa a “fucking ****” behind her back (not clear what word this actually was). Jack hasn’t heard of the word embryo (he is a dad), and only qualities are that he is a male model. Given he didn’t flee the studio to comfort Jade, he may well have activated his single neuron to figure out that Jade may hinder his career as a himbo.
^
So that circus is now over, the other circus called “Shipwrecked”, where stupid posh student Lucy Buchanan described black people as being really bad and that slavery should be reintroduced. However, you haven’t heard much of that because, you see, Buchanan is posh, she didn’t actually direct this at anyone, and she isn’t as well known as Goody. However, it reaffirms once again that claims by Channel 4 that it needs to remain state owned and indirectly subsidised are nonsense. So watch the final here, if you care.

The ticking timebomb of Bailey Kurariki

We can all breathe a sigh of relief that this little bastard has been denied parole a second time, and he ought to remain through to his release date of 16 September 2008. A release date that is roughly 22 years too early.

^

Bailey murdered Michael Choy the pizza delivery man, as part of a gang of "really cool youfs" who not doubt are proud of what they did. Who can forget the smiling Kurariki who liked all the attention he got, we can only hope that everyone who crosses him after he gets out gets off lightly.

^

So here's a challenge. Who is willing to lay a bet that Kurariki will NEVER assault anyone ever again? Think about how many other people get sentences heavier than he for doing less. Of course he was 12, and the excuse is that he didn't know better. I don't recall ever thinking it was ok to bash someone to death, kids aren't stupid and too many adults assume they are innocent and vulnerable. It raises questions about the purpose of the criminal justice system. If it is to punish the offender, protect the public from the offender or rehabilitate the offender. It is meant to be all three.

^

Presumably given the denial of parole, Kurariki hasn't been rehabilitated. If he hasn't been rehabilitated then there is a question about protecting the public from him, and his seven year sentence isn't much of a punishment for denying a man 30 years of his life. Kurariki doesn't deserve to spend any of youth in freedom. The message given by this sentence and his pending release is that when you're 12, you can murder and be out for your 18th and go party having learnt a lot of useful stuff.

^

It is wrong to sentence someone twice, but politicians are quick to consider sexual offenders' registers or requiring sex offenders to notify where they live - there may be some merit in this for particular offenders, but shouldn't the same apply to Kurariki? Wouldn't you want to know if he was moving in over the road? Wouldn't every pizza delivery store in the country want to know too, unless he has demonstrated on the balance of probabilities that he is reformed?

British bureaucracy either mad or negligent

and this is just today.

Reported in The Times today...

#1 According to The Times, Ofcom, the regulator of telecommunications and broadcasting (think of the Broadcasting Standards Authority, Telecommunications Commissioner, NZ On Air, Ministry of Culture and the Arts all rolled into one) has called for UK taxpayers to compulsorily fund a rival to Youtube to “make up for a shortfall in quality television”. It is calling for £100 million to be spent annually, presumably making web videos to rival the BBC. Hello??? (whacks heads of Ofcom with cricket back) anybody home? You already make the public pay for the BBC’s seven TV channels, you already give Channel 4 a free ride with broadcasting frequencies, you already regulate free to air commercial broadcasting heavily. Maybe the formula of compulsory pay TV and bureaucrat driven commercial TV has failed and that bureaucrat driven Internet content will too? Maybe given that the Internet, including Youtube, is a roaring success is because people put the content on it that others like and if they don’t like it it fails?
^
So here is a formula. The UK has one of the most competitive Pay TV markets in the world, with up to five options available (Sky, cable, Homechoice, Topup TV and BT Vision), let that be free, people pay for what they want, and set commercial free to air TV free as well to compete. That means privatising Channel 4 (yes I know I repeat this) and then focus your activities on the BBC – alone. A nice pathway for the BBC would be to make the digital channels a subscription based service, so when analogue BBC gets switched off people can choose whether they want it. Then the test of quality will be in the hands of consumers, not bureaucrats and politicians.
^
(I wonder if Sue Kedgley thinks this is a fine idea – compulsory funded internet content)
^
2# The time to commit relatively minor criminal offences in Britain is now. Why? Because there is a prison shortage, a chronic one. For those on the left, and this starts with the Tories, this is a scandalous failure to deliver on one of the state’s core functions – law and order. The prison population in the UK is 80,070, and some are now being kept in police cells to cope with the overcrowding. Prisons previously condemned as unacceptable are now being recommissioned. There are a couple of prisons under construction, but they still have some time to go, so what options are being considered? You guessed it, judges and magistrates are being urged to jail FEWER people, to make greater use of bail, more use of open jails (which begs the question as to what the hell is a jail – for many people work is an open jail!) greater use of home detention (essentially being a slob) and releasing low risk prisoners. In other words, making it all easier. While bureaucrats are wasting money on nonsense like whether 4 competing supermarkets are a monopoly (!) or whether there should be a state funded Youtube, the core business of protecting the public from criminals and punishing criminals for doing harm to others slips. There are some useful suggestions, like buying prison ships (which sound like the stuff movies are made of, you don’t want mutiny!), releasing immigration detainees (how about processes them more efficiently to deport or let them in), release the 1000 foreign nationals who are still in jail despite having served their sentences (!), start converting disused army barracks and hospitals. I have more, how about paying to deport foreign nationals to serve their sentences in the prisons of their countries (assuming they are countries that can be trusted for this), how about planning the release of those convicted of victimless crimes, starting with those near the end of their sentences. A victimless crime is a crime when you cannot identify a victim or a likely direct victim of the criminal’s actions. However, it is far easier to let thieves roam the streets and publish to the citizens of the 26 EU member states that Britain is soft on crime – Bulgarian and Romanian criminal gangs especially (now both countries are members) will be thrilled.
^
3# Fat kids. The British government has long been concerned with the growing problem of obese children, a situation caused mainly by the standard British diet of loving anything in fried or pastry form, adding cheese to most things (broccoli and cheese soup on Virgin Trains!), loving soft drinks, beer, sweets and snacks (I’ve lost count of the number of corporate lunches where bowls of “potato crisps” are considered a legitimate lunch food). The fatty UK diet has been exacerbated by laziness (as ready meals are often laden with oils, fats and sugars), the evaporation of many physically oriented jobs and the proliferation of sedentary leisure activities. Add to that a propensity to not walk or cycle to schools (unless they are VERY close, which many are), cities that are pedestrian unfriendly (plenty of intersections without pedestrian cross phases in London alone), bus stops that seem to be far closer together than in Aus or NZ, ridiculous transport policies such as Ken Livingstone’s “free buses” for under 16yos (which simply means they don’t walk) and, let’s face it, crap weather for around a third of the year – then you can see the problem. What is amusing is the bureaucratic and political response.
^
The fundamental concern is the cost of health care. Given the NHS is free at most points of use, and never reflects peoples’ risk factors then you can see that the problem is being attacked in the wrong direction. Imagine if National Insurance contributions included a factor for smoking, weight (both obese and well underweight), cholesterol and easy to identify lifestyle factors. Of course I’d rather privatise the damned lot and have people get health insurance, but if the Tories even started to suggest that taxpayer funded healthcare would cost more or less based on your risk there would be outcries galore from those who want to regulate food advertising, food kids can take to school or buy at school and those who want to embark on more intrusive schemes.
^
So what do the bureaucrats suggest?
^
One idea has been to weigh all kids at school. However, this would be voluntary and parents wouldn’t be told of the results if the kids are overweight because it would upset them. When this idea was trialled, less than half of the kids turned up and it was almost always those who were not overweight, so the idea proved as pointless in practice as it is in theory. There are also proposals on advertising that, while pushing leftwing buttons to blame the food industry, will also do little. In fact, surely the biggest incentive to lose weight is social – fat kids get harassed because they are fat. Girls find it particularly hard, although ironically this can simply exacerbate the problem. Another exacerbating factor is overweight parents, not just because of the genes but given the kids are hardly likely to eat well if dad likes his fish and chips with a fried egg on the side.
^
New Labour is sensitive to being called “Nanny State” (just) so it doesn’t want to actually tell overweight kids that they are overweight and they should take responsibility for eating better and exercising more. However, it doesn’t want to make people take responsibility for their healthcare either, and doesn’t understand that it being concerned about obese children in itself, IS being nanny state. Meanwhile it gets upset because large supermarket chains put pressure on farmers (often supplying fruit and vegetables) to sell at low prices (which they pass on to consumers) even though this must surely be a positive in this area?
^
So here’s my four point plan:
1. Make people more responsible for their healthcare costs;
2. End interference in the food industry, both through regulating retailers, subsidising producers and restricting imports from outside the EU;
3. Give schools autonomy to develop their own plans to improve the health of children. They are likely to be far more effective than London based bureaucrats;
4. End all centrally driven measures to deal with obesity and promote an ethic of personal responsibility and self esteem, that praises those who succeed and achieve and work hard, and which emphasises the importance of being yourself, being true to yourself and respecting the right of others to do the same.
^
4# The UK government is to require adoption agencies to not discriminate against gay couples seeking to adopt children. This is because of anti-discrimination legislation. Part of the problem is that many agencies are state funded as well. This has outraged Catholic adoption agencies which, understandably given the religion, don’t want to comply. The solution is simple. Let any privately provided agency offer adoption on its terms, without state funding. As long as there is state funding then let it be on a contractual basis, and if the state wants to fund gay adoptions then fair enough. For my part I think the matter should be between the birth parents and the adoptive parents, with prohibitions on serious criminals (anyone convicted of a serious violent or sexual offence) adopting. I don’t have a problem with birth parents refusing to adopt to gay couples or individuals, after all it is their choice and there are good reasons why people may prefer a male-female couple as first preference (role models for each sex are generally a good idea regardless of the child’s sex). It goes without saying that there are many many gay couples or individuals much more competent than many straight couples or individuals to raise children, but this fundamentally should be the decision of the birth parents who can weigh up all of the factors. Gay lobbyists need to acknowledge that people cannot and should not be forced to choose gay people if they don’t want to. Similarly, if a lesbian mother wanted to give up her child for adoption, there is no reason why she cannot specify a gay couple as the adoptive parents. By the way I know a fair bit about adoption, but that’s for another time.

You can't make this stuff up

According to Yahoo News, a 29 year old convicted sex offender posed as a 12yo boy to enrol in two schools in the US. He attended classes and even handed in homework regularly and there were no discipline issues. It would be easy to conclude he wanted to have sex with other pupils, but given that there appears to be no evidence of this he may simply be socially regressive (and clearly has a level of physical immaturity that he can fool people - his photo is here)
^
He attended one school for 50 days until being kicked out for poor attendance, after all school is rather boring if you’re an adult and don’t actually have to go!
^
Now there is no indication he actually committed a sexual offence on this occasion, he has been charged with assault, conspiracy to commit fraud, forgery, failing to register as a sex offender (some past conviction) and possession of a forgery device. He forged his birth certificate and some other documents.
^
However, that isn’t the weirdest part.
^
He shaved his body hair and wore make up to look like a boy, and met two men online (aged 61 and 45) who thought he was 12!! They had a sexual relationship with him, which actually means under Arizona law that they have been charged with attempted child molestation and attempted sexual contact with a minor. This is because they THOUGHT they were having sex with a 12 year old, when he actually is 29.
^
Now there should be a decent post-grad law thesis on this one. There is no actual victim in this (besides the school system being defrauded, and the assault victim (which appears unrelated to the weird events). Yes all the men are pervs, but that in itself isn’t an offence. How can they have attempted sexual contact with a minor when there was no minor? Yes, police officers all the time pose as kids online to trap pervs, so it is the same – but isn’t something serious awry when this isn’t a sting operation but a case of some somewhat disturbed guy who can pose as a child for presumably his own pleasure? This is most certainly a thought crime without an actual or potential real victim, rather hypothetical future ones. Is this what the criminal law is meant to be capturing? Sounds to me like a couple of appeals will be part of this case!

Save small shops by shopping there

One of the major largely unchallenged themes in the UK media at the moment is the “plight of small shops”. You see apparently it is bad that 75% of shopping is undertaken at four large supermarket chains (this is called a monopoly? Has anyone read the definition), with the rest at small independently owned stores.
^
A rather peculiar middle class concern is that these big chains, such as Tesco are soulless, offer less variety and “do harm” to shops that people no longer use because they prefer Tesco. A weirder concern is that these big chains have substantial buying power from food producers, so demand ever lower prices from them – because, apparently, consumers don’t matter in this. Another accusation is that they buy tracts of land suitable for shops and don’t use them, to shut out the competition. Follow it so far? Well it is like this:
^
- Most of the time people choose to shop at big supermarkets, presumably because they are convenient, have the varieties people want and are cheap (one family asked by the BBC to try shopping at local independent stores instead of supermarkets/mega stores described how it took far longer to go to the independent stores, how the variety was often inferior and the prices far higher). So in essence people are voting with their feet and wallets, most of the time they don’t want to spend their money at independent stores:
- Independent store owners don’t like this, so they pull at the nostalgia strings of peoples’ hearts accusing big stores of being ugly (sometimes true), and how “important it is” (to the shop owners) to have high streets with lots of varieties of stores, and that it is “a pity” (to the shop owners) for these shops to close down;
- Independent store owners which cannot attract enough business accuse big stores than can attract enough business of acting “unfairly” somehow. These accusations largely focus on being “too cheap” (for the competing shops) and by teaming up with suppliers who undoubtedly prefer being paid more by many small shop owners (because the supplier can be the price setter rather than the buyer);
- Small minded politicians of all political creeds jump on this bandwagon on nostalgia grounds, demanding something be done.
^
The answer is simple. If you like small shops in your area, ask yourself when was the last time you actually bought something there and how much was it? If you don’t support the shop, it wont remain and don’t expect everyone else who doesn’t see value in spending THEIR money at the shop to pay for it. After all, why should a family pay more for food and clothes at small stores just because you like the store existing?

^

There is a competition body investigation into this, remember we are talking about four major chains shutting out competition - not one, and there is still plenty of choice. Within 15 minutes of my flat I can choose between three supermarkets (one independent) and umpteen convenience stores.
^
David Cameron supports this stupid campaign – don’t be surprised, it appeals to the upper class conservative who thinks that working class people shopping in malls is “vulgar” and doesn’t care that people on low incomes demand convenience and low prices over boutique stores with personal service. It also appeals to the socialist who hates businesses being so successful that they become franchises and more and more people use them. After all, we can't simply let businesses rise or fall on the basis of what consumers want can we??

Jenny Gibbs can't get broadband?

*heart wails with agony* Who gives a flying f***?

^

As a friend of Tame Iti, and someone who hardly share the enthusiasm for the free-market and entrepreneurism of her ex.husband, why should Telecom give a damn? After all it has to offer its property to competitors, so why invest in more capacity so the competition can use it?

^

Gibbs said "When I see the amount of money they are spending on advertising without putting it into infrastructure I do think it is a bit outrageous"

^

Raise it at the AGM Jenny if you still have shares, if that fails then frankly when I see the amount of money YOU spend on tasteless art and travel without putting it into free market publications and media, I do think it is a bit outrageous.

^

Set up your own little network, you can afford it after all - stop telling others what to do with their property.

Kerry for Mayor of Wellington?

I can’t get too enthused, although she’s better than some it would be nicer if she could campaign on at least capping the overall rates take. So I’m looking for another mayoral candidate, one committed to less council and lower rates (especially for commercial properties, to attract business to the capital rather than relying on the state sector). It would be nice to see the council sell its minority share in Wellington Airport too, to help ease the debt burden (and consequently the rates burden).
^
Prendergast is almost certainly a shoo in, although there will almost certainly be some leftie luddite candidate wanting everyone else to pay for a whole host of schemes nobody would voluntarily fund – and the Greens will probably give that person covert support (surely not!!! Surely the left is transparent in all of the organisations it backs and with all of its members, like than honest Marxist Nicky Hagar). The Nats and ACT will quietly back Kerry of course, and she is enough to the centre that Labour wont waste its time opposing her. What is more important is the council, which is currently stuck in a 50/50 left/right balance.
^
So who could stand for Mayor? Maybe a young man who took the Prime Minister to court might have a shot?

PS: Blogging is erratic at the moment while I await 10 days for broadband to be installed at home, having waited 10 days for the phone line to be fixed. Of course there has been local loop unbundling here for years, so this first class service will be the norm in NZ shortly!!!

Well that's over

The wholly predictable expulsion of Jade Goody from the Celebrity Big Brother household has happened, and the drama of it is fading away. She was expelled, did not face booing crowds for security reasons, has been bawling her eyes out on TV a couple of times, and has now disappeared.

^

Now Celebrity Big Brother if it is lucky will last its final week as the almost entirely boring crowd deliver next to nothing in entertainment for viewers. Hopefully the truly braindead Jack Tweed (apparently male model, training to be a footballer's agent, though frankly I'm surprised if he can do up his shoelace) will be gone next, with Jo from S Club 7 and Danielle Lloyd (pretty girl apparently has lost her footballing boyfriend for her racist remarks). Then we have the quiet sweet but thoroughly uninteresting Jermaine Jackson, Dirk Benedict who flirts with women but can't stand them flirting back, Ian from Steps (yeah I know), Cleo Rocos (who was one in love with Kenny Everett, who was of course gay, and who has sufficient personality for her real job as TV and radio personality). There is Shilpa of course who will probably win anyway.

^

Seriously the issue now is Channel 4's future. The papers in the weekend reported on the indirect subsidy it gets because unlike the other commercial channels, it doesn't have to pay for its broadcast frequencies (ITV and Five do), and as it does pay for its digital channels there are questions about how it will survive longer term to meet its public service obligations.

^

Given that the BBC exists, I think it should simply be privatised. Channel 4's main public service endeavours tend to consist of shows about sexually explicit topics. Partial as I am to some of these, it doesn't justify keeping it state owned. It is a commercial channel, it acts like a commercial channels, looks like a commercial channel - it should be sold.