Speed dating goes gay in Edinburgh
The Edinburgh branch of upmarket store Harvey Nichols is to hold the first gay speed dating event in Scotland; it seems the event scheduled for 21st March is likely to be a huge success. It's good to see the 'pink pound' being recognised so positively.
Blogging from the Highlands of Scotland
'From fanaticism to barbarism is only one step' - Diderot
Friday, 6 February 2004
Is this man for real?
Geoff Hoon, UK Minister of Defence, testified yesterday, whilst giving giving evidence to the defence committee, that:
referring to the exact status of the Iraqi weapons to which the '45 minute' delivery label had been attached. It seems hardly credible.
As one who was strongly in favour of the action to remove the odious Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, and who remains firmly of that view, I am nevertheless nonplussed at the seeming lack of attention to details which really do matter, coupled with a meticulous attention to the minutiae when it serves only to cover one's own back. I think Hoon tests my credulity somewhat beyond previously tested limits!
Geoff Hoon, UK Minister of Defence, testified yesterday, whilst giving giving evidence to the defence committee, that:
| "Since it was not a big issue at the time, it was not a matter we discussed" |
referring to the exact status of the Iraqi weapons to which the '45 minute' delivery label had been attached. It seems hardly credible.
As one who was strongly in favour of the action to remove the odious Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, and who remains firmly of that view, I am nevertheless nonplussed at the seeming lack of attention to details which really do matter, coupled with a meticulous attention to the minutiae when it serves only to cover one's own back. I think Hoon tests my credulity somewhat beyond previously tested limits!
A 'pushy female' delivers some well-deserved chastisement
Neuroscientist Susan Greenfield, a professor of pharmacology at Oxford University and the first female director of the Royal Institution, has delivered some merited criticism to anonymous critics who have threatened to resign from the Royal Society is she is made a Fellow of that august body:
I can't get the feeling out of my mind that it is at least partly because she is a woman, and a clever and forthright one at that, which has particularly irked her cowardly detractors - 'cowardly' because they are unwilling to put their names to their criticisms. The final longer quote really says it all, I think.
Neuroscientist Susan Greenfield, a professor of pharmacology at Oxford University and the first female director of the Royal Institution, has delivered some merited criticism to anonymous critics who have threatened to resign from the Royal Society is she is made a Fellow of that august body:
| "I think it is a great pity that those who do not have the courage to identify themselves can make unsubstantiated criticisms both of my science and of my activities in public communication." and "When it comes to engaging with the public, many scientists would argue that they do not have the time, the experience or, indeed, the motivation to give talks to the great unwashed. After all, it is no small feat to take your life's work and passion and strip it of all technical terminology and jargon to make it accessible. It involves ignoring the peer-revered trees to reveal the entire wood to a general audience in a clear, accurate and appealing way. Small wonder that, until now, such endeavours have been left to a small minority of media-hungry, luvvie apostates who, in the eyes of many 'normal' members of the white-coat community, are marginalised as 'real' scientists." |
I can't get the feeling out of my mind that it is at least partly because she is a woman, and a clever and forthright one at that, which has particularly irked her cowardly detractors - 'cowardly' because they are unwilling to put their names to their criticisms. The final longer quote really says it all, I think.
Thursday, 5 February 2004
EU immigration in the wake of this year's expansion
There have been 'scare' stories running in the British media (this 'Guardian article is just one example) in the last few days that there is a danger of an influx later this year of 'benefit cheats' entering the UK from some of the 10 countries scheduled to join the EU in May. The subject was even addressed in the House of Commons during PMQs this week when the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, responded to a question from Michael Howard. Amazingly his response was reasonably clear and straightforward and signalled a general agreement with what Mr Howard was suggesting - this is not often the case in these two gentlemen's exchanges.
However, a worrying aspect of this matter is that it refers to 'Roma' from Slovakia and elsewhere (see at the very end of the 'Guardian' article). There is damning evidence that the human rights of 'Roma' in Slovakia have been routinely violated over many years and allegations that this has continued until very recently. See also here. It is crucial to Slovakia's plans to join the EU that its human rights record be 'clean' enough to satisfy EU standards in democracy and human rights, etc - whether this is genuinely the case is, in my view, still open to some considerable doubt.
The peculiarity of this particular debate, within the UK, is that the UK has chosen to permit immigration from accession countries immediately they join the EU whereas the other likely potential target countries for significant immigration (Germany, France, Holland) have taken advantage of clauses in the accession treaties for the joining countries which permit them to delay 'free movement of labour' rights for some years. I admit to some ambiguity of views myself about this matter, but I am troubled that a blind eye appears to be being turned toward the potential human rights abuses which may still be occurring in at least one of the accession countries in order not to slow down the EU expansion process, a process of which I am otherwise hugely in favour. But human rights are not trifling matters and the EU, if it is to remain true to its founding principles, must not gloss over such matters.
There have been 'scare' stories running in the British media (this 'Guardian article is just one example) in the last few days that there is a danger of an influx later this year of 'benefit cheats' entering the UK from some of the 10 countries scheduled to join the EU in May. The subject was even addressed in the House of Commons during PMQs this week when the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, responded to a question from Michael Howard. Amazingly his response was reasonably clear and straightforward and signalled a general agreement with what Mr Howard was suggesting - this is not often the case in these two gentlemen's exchanges.
However, a worrying aspect of this matter is that it refers to 'Roma' from Slovakia and elsewhere (see at the very end of the 'Guardian' article). There is damning evidence that the human rights of 'Roma' in Slovakia have been routinely violated over many years and allegations that this has continued until very recently. See also here. It is crucial to Slovakia's plans to join the EU that its human rights record be 'clean' enough to satisfy EU standards in democracy and human rights, etc - whether this is genuinely the case is, in my view, still open to some considerable doubt.
The peculiarity of this particular debate, within the UK, is that the UK has chosen to permit immigration from accession countries immediately they join the EU whereas the other likely potential target countries for significant immigration (Germany, France, Holland) have taken advantage of clauses in the accession treaties for the joining countries which permit them to delay 'free movement of labour' rights for some years. I admit to some ambiguity of views myself about this matter, but I am troubled that a blind eye appears to be being turned toward the potential human rights abuses which may still be occurring in at least one of the accession countries in order not to slow down the EU expansion process, a process of which I am otherwise hugely in favour. But human rights are not trifling matters and the EU, if it is to remain true to its founding principles, must not gloss over such matters.
Tuesday, 3 February 2004
UK teen 'hacker' gets 200 hours community sentence
Joseph James McElroy (18), a student at the University of Exeter, was today sentenced at Southwark Crown Court as punishment for "unauthorised modification of computer data and impairing the performance of a computer under section three of the 1990 Computer Misuse Act", after having been convicted at Bow Street Magistrates Court in December. He had hacked into US Department of Energy computers responsible for US energy supplies and for the integrity and safety of US nuclear weapons.
Joseph James McElroy (18), a student at the University of Exeter, was today sentenced at Southwark Crown Court as punishment for "unauthorised modification of computer data and impairing the performance of a computer under section three of the 1990 Computer Misuse Act", after having been convicted at Bow Street Magistrates Court in December. He had hacked into US Department of Energy computers responsible for US energy supplies and for the integrity and safety of US nuclear weapons.
Hit counter temporarily disabled
I use 'Bravenet' for hit counters, indeed for hosting my main website, too. 'Bravenet' seems to be having a problem today so I have temporarily disabled the hit counter here as it was preventing the page being loaded, at least on my browser. I'll restore it when things return to normal at 'Bravenet'.
UPDATE: 'Bravenet' seems to have come back to life so I have restored the hit counter here.
I use 'Bravenet' for hit counters, indeed for hosting my main website, too. 'Bravenet' seems to be having a problem today so I have temporarily disabled the hit counter here as it was preventing the page being loaded, at least on my browser. I'll restore it when things return to normal at 'Bravenet'.
UPDATE: 'Bravenet' seems to have come back to life so I have restored the hit counter here.
Atkins Low Carbohydrate Diet - Weeks 30, 31, 32 and 33
I continue on 'Pre-maintenance' (PRM), the 3rd stage of this 'way of eating' (WOE), since 10th December and am now probably only two or three weeks away from reaching my target weight. I have slowed down my weight loss slightly more than when I last wrote here about this subject (on 5th January) so that over the past 4 weeks I lost a further 1.4kg (3.1lb), and for direct comparison with the previous time, over the past 3 weeks the loss was 0.9kg (2.0lb). During one of the weeks I lost almost nothing (around 0.1kg so far as I could measure it) so I cut back my daily carb intake a little from 47g to 45g for a week and seem to have regained momentum thereby. I am now pretty certain that my final CCLM ('Critical Carbohydrate Level for Maintenance') will be 47g or 48g carb a day - although as I have begun to take more exercise in the past four months - mainly light jogging - I suspect I may be able to push this to aroung 50g carb a day longer term. My weight is now (as at Sunday 1st February) 65.6kg, a reduction of 32.4kg since I began (or 71.4lb) - I now have 0.6kg (1.4lb) to reach my target of 65kg. Measurement indicators for the 4 weeks:
- waist down a further 0.7 inches to 31.0 inches (total reduction so far 14.0 inches);
- hips down 0.5 inches to 38.3 inches (total reduction so far 10.2 inches);
- thighs down 0.4 inches to 21.9 inches (total reduction so far 6.6 inches).
As I noted above that I expect soon to reach my target, I will write here again one week after the Sunday 'reference date' on which this happens - my aim is to keep my weight more or less completely stable during the week following when I reach target, to help me confirm that I have correctly assessed my CCLM. After that I hope not to let my weight vary by more than 1kg plus or minus. A daily intake of somewhere from 47g to 52g carb allows for a fairly varied and enjoyable diet so at this stage I anticipate little difficulty in being able to maintain this regime indefinitely.
I continue on 'Pre-maintenance' (PRM), the 3rd stage of this 'way of eating' (WOE), since 10th December and am now probably only two or three weeks away from reaching my target weight. I have slowed down my weight loss slightly more than when I last wrote here about this subject (on 5th January) so that over the past 4 weeks I lost a further 1.4kg (3.1lb), and for direct comparison with the previous time, over the past 3 weeks the loss was 0.9kg (2.0lb). During one of the weeks I lost almost nothing (around 0.1kg so far as I could measure it) so I cut back my daily carb intake a little from 47g to 45g for a week and seem to have regained momentum thereby. I am now pretty certain that my final CCLM ('Critical Carbohydrate Level for Maintenance') will be 47g or 48g carb a day - although as I have begun to take more exercise in the past four months - mainly light jogging - I suspect I may be able to push this to aroung 50g carb a day longer term. My weight is now (as at Sunday 1st February) 65.6kg, a reduction of 32.4kg since I began (or 71.4lb) - I now have 0.6kg (1.4lb) to reach my target of 65kg. Measurement indicators for the 4 weeks:
- waist down a further 0.7 inches to 31.0 inches (total reduction so far 14.0 inches);
- hips down 0.5 inches to 38.3 inches (total reduction so far 10.2 inches);
- thighs down 0.4 inches to 21.9 inches (total reduction so far 6.6 inches).
As I noted above that I expect soon to reach my target, I will write here again one week after the Sunday 'reference date' on which this happens - my aim is to keep my weight more or less completely stable during the week following when I reach target, to help me confirm that I have correctly assessed my CCLM. After that I hope not to let my weight vary by more than 1kg plus or minus. A daily intake of somewhere from 47g to 52g carb allows for a fairly varied and enjoyable diet so at this stage I anticipate little difficulty in being able to maintain this regime indefinitely.
Monday, 2 February 2004
Blunkett's latest plan to erode British democracy
Every few weeks or months the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, proposes new legislation which he dares to call 'reforms' with the aim, he says, of improving life in Britain in some way. They usually have one thing in common - an increase in the power of the state to interfere with or curtail the rights of the individual. Often the justification is that the proposals, if implemented, would improve the effectiveness of the Police and/or the Judiciary or that the change is required in order to help fight 'terrorism'. Another thing these proposals have in common, mostly (but not unfortunately always), is that the public outrage created soon causes the latest 'sound-bite' crackpot idea to be abandoned.
His latest outrage did not even take place in this country, but during a visit to India. Incidentally I am at a loss to understand why our Home Secretary is travelling on official business outside the United Kingdom and why he has made such radical proposals during such an excursion, even if there is a valid reason for it. Surely foreign trips are the province of our Foreign Secretary, or perhaps a Trade or Defence minister?
Blunkett has proposed:
- a major change to the level of evidence which would be required to secure a conviction by reducing it from "beyond all reasonable doubt" to "on the balance of probabilities";
- the applcation of this legislation to British nationals and allowing trials using this new level of proof to be held in secret;
- judges in cases involving evidence deemed 'sensitive' to require security-vetting;
- the withholding of 'sensitive' evidence from defendants.
Under emergency legislation, "the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act", introduced soon after the World Trade Center outrage in September 2001, foreign nationals are permitted to be held indefinitely and without trial, but in at least some of the cases they have the opportunity to return to a country of origin. This affects, currently, 14 persons - who were here ostensibly to claim asylum status. Two of the 14 have elected to return to their home countries rather than remain in prison.
The new proposed legislation would effectively extend these draconian powers to British nationals and, unlike the 2001 Act is unlikely (even theoretically) to be a temporary measure to combat a specific threat, but to alter fundamentally the tenets of British justice which have evolved over the last 800 or so years to provide increasing levels of protection for the individual against the tyrannical exercise of power by the state.
Specially worrying are indications from the main Opposition Party leader, Mr Michael Howard, that his Party would back the proposals if a 'proper' balance could be achieved to give:
I have, to put it mildly, grave concern that putting such draconian power permanently in the hands of the state can result only, sooner or later, in the creation of what is effectively a police state. It must be resisted vociferously and continuously until abandoned.
Mr Blunkett has now made so many anti-democratic proposals as Home Secretary that his suitability to remain in government, far less in his current position, must be more than just seriously in doubt, for there is none. We need another Home Secretary, and quickly, for the sake of our democracy.
Every few weeks or months the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, proposes new legislation which he dares to call 'reforms' with the aim, he says, of improving life in Britain in some way. They usually have one thing in common - an increase in the power of the state to interfere with or curtail the rights of the individual. Often the justification is that the proposals, if implemented, would improve the effectiveness of the Police and/or the Judiciary or that the change is required in order to help fight 'terrorism'. Another thing these proposals have in common, mostly (but not unfortunately always), is that the public outrage created soon causes the latest 'sound-bite' crackpot idea to be abandoned.
His latest outrage did not even take place in this country, but during a visit to India. Incidentally I am at a loss to understand why our Home Secretary is travelling on official business outside the United Kingdom and why he has made such radical proposals during such an excursion, even if there is a valid reason for it. Surely foreign trips are the province of our Foreign Secretary, or perhaps a Trade or Defence minister?
Blunkett has proposed:
- a major change to the level of evidence which would be required to secure a conviction by reducing it from "beyond all reasonable doubt" to "on the balance of probabilities";
- the applcation of this legislation to British nationals and allowing trials using this new level of proof to be held in secret;
- judges in cases involving evidence deemed 'sensitive' to require security-vetting;
- the withholding of 'sensitive' evidence from defendants.
Under emergency legislation, "the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act", introduced soon after the World Trade Center outrage in September 2001, foreign nationals are permitted to be held indefinitely and without trial, but in at least some of the cases they have the opportunity to return to a country of origin. This affects, currently, 14 persons - who were here ostensibly to claim asylum status. Two of the 14 have elected to return to their home countries rather than remain in prison.
The new proposed legislation would effectively extend these draconian powers to British nationals and, unlike the 2001 Act is unlikely (even theoretically) to be a temporary measure to combat a specific threat, but to alter fundamentally the tenets of British justice which have evolved over the last 800 or so years to provide increasing levels of protection for the individual against the tyrannical exercise of power by the state.
Specially worrying are indications from the main Opposition Party leader, Mr Michael Howard, that his Party would back the proposals if a 'proper' balance could be achieved to give:
| "... the British people the proper protection against terrorism and not depriving innocent people of their liberty" |
I have, to put it mildly, grave concern that putting such draconian power permanently in the hands of the state can result only, sooner or later, in the creation of what is effectively a police state. It must be resisted vociferously and continuously until abandoned.
Mr Blunkett has now made so many anti-democratic proposals as Home Secretary that his suitability to remain in government, far less in his current position, must be more than just seriously in doubt, for there is none. We need another Home Secretary, and quickly, for the sake of our democracy.
The Ghan sets off
I just spotted this news from yesterday, but think it is a milestone so deserving of a mention here. Yesterday the first trans-Australia train south-north set off from Adelaide for Darwin, after the recent completion of the gaps in the line to the Northern Territory city. This fulfils a dream spanning the last century and should allow Darwin to play a bigger role in the Australian economy as trade grows with Asia to the north.
I just spotted this news from yesterday, but think it is a milestone so deserving of a mention here. Yesterday the first trans-Australia train south-north set off from Adelaide for Darwin, after the recent completion of the gaps in the line to the Northern Territory city. This fulfils a dream spanning the last century and should allow Darwin to play a bigger role in the Australian economy as trade grows with Asia to the north.
Sunday, 1 February 2004
Thank your lucky stars that you don't live in North Korea
I wrote (scroll down the page from this link to find the article) in early January last year about the real danger I suspect North Korea poses and why it is being treated more cautiously than it was being contemplated Iraq could be dealt with last year at the time.
This evening I have been watching a very interesting programme 'Access to Evil' about a visit to North Korea by journalist Olenka Frenkel, shown on BBC2. All visits to that country are by specific invitation from the authorities there. The invitation was, it seems, extended so that the 'truth' (as the North Korean government sees it) could be told.
Olenka Frankel also had an article today in the Sunday Telegraph in advance of this evening's broadcast. Read the article and prepare to be shocked. Half-way through it you will probably be wondering how the person she interviewed, formerly a North Korean intelligence agent and before that head of security at Prison Camp 22, could possibly be relating what he was revealing in so seemingly calm a way. Read the final paragraph for the explanation - it is both sad and chilling.
I wrote (scroll down the page from this link to find the article) in early January last year about the real danger I suspect North Korea poses and why it is being treated more cautiously than it was being contemplated Iraq could be dealt with last year at the time.
This evening I have been watching a very interesting programme 'Access to Evil' about a visit to North Korea by journalist Olenka Frenkel, shown on BBC2. All visits to that country are by specific invitation from the authorities there. The invitation was, it seems, extended so that the 'truth' (as the North Korean government sees it) could be told.
Olenka Frankel also had an article today in the Sunday Telegraph in advance of this evening's broadcast. Read the article and prepare to be shocked. Half-way through it you will probably be wondering how the person she interviewed, formerly a North Korean intelligence agent and before that head of security at Prison Camp 22, could possibly be relating what he was revealing in so seemingly calm a way. Read the final paragraph for the explanation - it is both sad and chilling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)