My take on Occupy and St Paul’s Cathedral

A quick thought as I read that Occupy have been evicted from St Paul’s Cathedral after their 4 month siege.

Just think of the money that could have been spared for essential services that was instead wasted defending the pointless legal challenges, ensuring human rights and social services were provided to the protestors, and policing the event.  Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of pounds wasted to allow a tiny fraction of a percentage of the population to claim they represented those who would foot the bill.

Update

The Telegraph website has quoted that:

The total cost to the City of London Corporation of policing the protest is believed to be less than £1 million, with taxpayers footing almost £600,000 of that cost.

So with legal costs, and other expenses not paid for by the City the sum funded by the taxpayer will easily be over £1 million

What happened to national pride?

I’m British, an expat, and I’m feeling disgusted with some aspects of my country today. For why? Just read the following:

War dead to be driven down side streets to avoid the public

The day after Armed Forces Day when Britain is meant to come together and show its respect to the men and women of our military this gets announced.  After the exemplary support shown by Royal Wootton Bassett, who have lined the streets to show their condolences and respect for those making the final journey home, they police and MOD decide it is better to hide their sacrifice from the general public.  Disgusting!

Swearing at police not an offence

Yet more ridiculous and dangerous restrictions put on the under equipped, under paid, and under valued men and women of Britain’s police forces.  Their own management suggests they will not be supported legally for taking any action because:

“The courts do not accept police officers are caused harassment, alarm or distress by words such as: f—, c—, b—–ks, w—–s.”

Then to add insult to injury they are advised:

It also informs officers that to place someone in handcuffs “for officer safety” is “not sufficient” and “we can handcuff anyone but we must be able to justify it”.

So the safety of the officers themselves is rated less important than the rights of the drunk and violent scum who want a fight.

This is a travesty, and empowers those who least deserve any respect to act how they like towards the police, putting both officers and the general public in danger.  If a police officer swears at a member of the public after being spat/punched/assaulted by them they are lambasted in the press, harassed by the courts, and potentially lose their jobs, it all seems stacked in the criminals favour.  I wonder what ‘the guv‘ will have to say!

Anger as Mohammed Fayed burns Harrods royal warrants

The film is a disgusting personal project to defame those who cannot defend themselves.  Even though his court cases have been found without grounds, and the fact that all evidence (including his own) points to the fact that the greater part of any culpability rests with him, his son, and his employees, Mr Fayed just doesn’t stop.

I wonder if he will return the millions of pounds worth of profits he made while trading with those royal warrants, since all his wealth is tainted by association with those he calls a “Nazi”?

I have to agree however, that however spiteful this public act was, I agree with Hugo Vickers, the Royal historian and author, when he said:

“It does seem vindictive and in very bad taste to burn the warrants but I suppose it’s up to him. He was the shopkeeper.”

Mr Fayed was just a shopkeeper, and he no longer owns the shop, or the warrants, his many attempts over the years to bribe and harass the authorities into granting him a British passport have failed, and so good riddance to him.

Ah, I feel better to have ranted a little now, but come on Britain, can we find common sense once more?

Welcome to the world William Robert Balchin

A young man entered the world today.

With love and best wishes to him, and his parents Pete and Anna!

 

Outdoor safety, avalanches and smartphones

Smartphones are everywhere these days, and they’re replacing our cameras, diaries, address books, maps, GPS, and many other things in an easy hand-held unit.  We take them everywhere, and wherever we may be we know communication is but a swipe of the finger away.

Listening to a podcast recently (on my phone) I learned how these devices might not be as helpful in an emergency as they at first seem.  The podcast was January 1sts special edition of the BBC Radio Scotland’s Out of Doors program, in which the show’s presenters went out on an avalanche rescue exercise in the Cairngorms with the Grampian Police Mountain Rescue Team and the Braemar Mountain Rescue Team.  During this fascinating show the rescue teams explained how although smartphones frequently included GPS functionality which could be helpful out on the mountains they also tended to consume battery power far faster than traditional phones, and in emergency situations this rapid loss of power could make maintaining communication with the rescue team extremely difficult if not impossible.

This set me thinking about my friends (both in the UK and the US) who enjoy skiing, hiking in the mountains and generally getting out and about outdoors, and how most of them are quite possibly permanently attached to their iPhones and other smart-devices.  I found myself wondering how many of them had thought about how that rapidly fading battery, which is usually just an annoyance requiring a charging cable at work and at home (and in the car if you’ve got an iPhone), could put them at greater risk in an emergency situation.

With that in mind I encouraged them, and you, to listen to the podcast if you head out off trail, or into the woods and wilderness, and to make sure you plan for the worst even though I hope you’ll never need it.  When global distress beacons (like the McMurdo Fast Find here) and avalanche transmitters (like the Backcountry Access Tracker here) cost less than a new smartphone it seems crazy not to take one with you!

You can download the podcast here, and please note that all title, ownership rights and intellectual property rights in and to the BBC Podcast remain the property of the BBC (alternatively it may still be available from the BBC Podcasts website here).

In addition you may want to check out the following links:

• BBC Radio Scotland Out of Doors podcast page
• Out of Doors page on Facebook
• Avalanche Safety equipment on the REI website
• Braemar Mountain Rescue Team website (and Just giving Donation link)

Protecting the guilty

Jon Venables looks to get away yet again.

The Telegraph – Lack of monitoring of Bulger killer allowed him to develop child porn interest

Even after being arrested for violence, cautioned for Class A drug possession, with his monitors aware of both these interactions with the police and his growing alcohol addiction they decided they’d let him stay free on licence whilst unbeknownst to them he amassed a collection of hardcore child pornography.

Venables also posed online as the mother of an eight-year-old girl offering to sell her daughter for sex, which persuaded other men to send him child pornography.

During all this time he should have been in prison for the muder he committed he was living under a new identity, provided at considerable expense by the British tax payer, just a short distance from where he committed his crime and also where the mother of his victim still lives.

He was able to swap dozens of images of child rape with other paedophiles, which he told police he regarded as “breaking the last taboo”.

To know that the courts have sentenced him to 2 years in prison for possession and distribution of child pornography, knowing that he can be released early for time on remand and good behaviour!

To know that on his release Venables will need a second new identity, which is likely to cost around £250,000. Even after he has shown contempt to the prison system and abused his first identity.

You have to ask why do we spend so much protecting the guilty when so little is spent on helping and protecting the innocent?

As an aside I watched the film “Scum” recently.  This gruesome film about life in a borstal for young offenders in 1970′s Britain brought home how different things are now.  No televisions in the cells, no molly-coddling, but we’ve not seen convictions or crime rates drop with the increase in “human rights”…