I saw the programme on BBC2 last year about fasting and how it could boost your health and help you lose weight. I thought it sounded interesting but couldn't really factor in one day with no food, because on such days you need to do little physical activity.
Being married with 2 boys and running a business, and I decided that it wasn't going to happen. But, as the programme progressed it was explained that you could get the same benefits simply by restricting your calorie intake for a couple of days a week.
Fast-forward to today and I have decided to give this regime a go. The so-called 5:2 diet (5 days of normal eating and 2 days of 600 calories for men or 500 for women) has to be one of the easiet to get your head around. Provided you are accurate in how you calculate your calorific intake you will improve many areas of your life.
If anyone is in doubt about this diet they should always seek medical opinion and it is not suitable for pregnant women or people with underlying health conditions.
At 5'11'' and weighing 15.5 stones, I am overweight (on some charts almost 'obese', which is a scary thought because I don't think I look that bad, at least in my opinion) and I know that as I am about to turn 48 something has to be done.
Previously, I have tried Weight Watchers and Slimming World, and I just got bored with the regimentation of these diets and also didn't have time for the 'weigh ins', which were just like scenes out of Little Britain's Fat Fighers: the weekly embarrassment of having only 'lost' half a pound or even worse: gaining weight.
So, the fasting diet is (comparatively) easy. Yes, I did feel hungry during the fasting day, but having only done one day so far I think that the hunger pange will diminish as your stomach reduces in size (and in expectation).
My next limited calorie intake day is this Thursday and I hope that I can stick to this regime.
I'll report back in due course, but so far, so good.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
You can't beat paper
The other day I happened to find myself with the rare opportunity to go to the pub for an hour or so, with no strings or any guilt attached.
My boys were being looked after by my mother-in-law and my wife was out having a treat at a locl health spa, which is why it was suggested that I might like to go out for a drink.
Off I went to a find bar in Buxton, where my mother-in-law resides, in which I could settle down with a paper and a pint... or two. I found a suitable venue, La Brasserie de la Cour, (literally: The Court Brewery) which is not a very imaginative name given that it is located in Buxton's old courthouse, but it is a suitable name for what customers can expect: French-inspired cuisine (with the inevitable 'twist").
To reinforce its French credentials there is the obligatory memorabilia (French road signs, black and white photos of Paris, old tins, and so on), which I have yet to encounter in any restaurant in France. However, the owners have managed to avoid an over-themed pastiche and I think what they have done with the interior does work.
I went through the main restaurant area and into the bar. I order a pint of '1664', turned my phone to silent and opened my newspaper, now comfortably perched at the bar.
Despite the availability of tablet computers, e-readers and other portable devices on which you can surf the internet and read the news, I still prefer the interaction with something tangible, which you don't mind if it's dropped, gets wet or ripped. Looking over a double-page spread means that you can scan a lot of information very quickly and you can soon settle on an article that catches your eye.
I am sure that e-readers and tablets have their place in the world, especially for academics, lawyers and anyone who once needed to carry tons of books around with them in order to do their job. In this respect tablets make a lot of sense, just as I have been using computers for my business, rather than typewriters and faxes.
But it still makes me smile when I see the advert for a certain e-reader that features a womon at a swimming pool lying on her li-lo floating whilst holding her device. Of all the possible places to use an e-reader I can't think of anywhere less suitable. I would certainly like to see the spoof version, where she drops the e-reader, and I would also like to see how she actually gets on and off the li-lo on her own without getting the device wet!
My boys were being looked after by my mother-in-law and my wife was out having a treat at a locl health spa, which is why it was suggested that I might like to go out for a drink.
Off I went to a find bar in Buxton, where my mother-in-law resides, in which I could settle down with a paper and a pint... or two. I found a suitable venue, La Brasserie de la Cour, (literally: The Court Brewery) which is not a very imaginative name given that it is located in Buxton's old courthouse, but it is a suitable name for what customers can expect: French-inspired cuisine (with the inevitable 'twist").
To reinforce its French credentials there is the obligatory memorabilia (French road signs, black and white photos of Paris, old tins, and so on), which I have yet to encounter in any restaurant in France. However, the owners have managed to avoid an over-themed pastiche and I think what they have done with the interior does work.
I went through the main restaurant area and into the bar. I order a pint of '1664', turned my phone to silent and opened my newspaper, now comfortably perched at the bar.
Despite the availability of tablet computers, e-readers and other portable devices on which you can surf the internet and read the news, I still prefer the interaction with something tangible, which you don't mind if it's dropped, gets wet or ripped. Looking over a double-page spread means that you can scan a lot of information very quickly and you can soon settle on an article that catches your eye.
I am sure that e-readers and tablets have their place in the world, especially for academics, lawyers and anyone who once needed to carry tons of books around with them in order to do their job. In this respect tablets make a lot of sense, just as I have been using computers for my business, rather than typewriters and faxes.
But it still makes me smile when I see the advert for a certain e-reader that features a womon at a swimming pool lying on her li-lo floating whilst holding her device. Of all the possible places to use an e-reader I can't think of anywhere less suitable. I would certainly like to see the spoof version, where she drops the e-reader, and I would also like to see how she actually gets on and off the li-lo on her own without getting the device wet!
Tuesday, November 06, 2012
LEARNING BY NUMBERS
I often wondered why our French teacher had us repeatedly chanting tables of possessive adjectives, but I can still remember them after more than 30 years: mon, ma, mes, ton, ta, tes, son, sa, ses, notre, notre, nos, votre, votre, vos, leur, leur, leurs! At the time I had little interest in French (mainly because I didn't like the teacher) and couldn't see the point. Now, I am learning French and looking back she was a very good teacher (and the possessive adjectives finally have a use).
I also still know my times tables up to 12 (today, my children learn up to 12 at home but they only need to learn up to 10) because they were chanted in class until we knew them by heart.
So, one thing is for sure: learning by rote does work.
Recently, I had the chance to travel back in time. No, not like Dr Who, but me and my wife took our boys (8 & 9 years) to Blists Hill (one of 10 museums in Ironbridge), which is a very authentic recreation of a Victorian town set in the year 1900. The majority of the industrial installations are original, but most of the homes and shops -- whilst being built in Victorian times -- have been rebuilt on-site at the museum. That said, you would never know that they have been relocated and you genuinely feel as though you have been transported back to a time when things were much tougher than today.
The homes, shops and factories were all manned by people in authentic Victorian dress, and they talked to you as though they were still living in that time. However, one person who stood out above all was the school teacher, which brings me full circle to the subject of learning by rote.
In the classroom, which comprised rows of slightly-angled wooden desks all facing the front, around 50 adults and children were seated. At midday, the time when the 'lesson' was due to start a rather stern woman, with a long black dress, pristine long-sleeved blouse, round spectacles and a straw boater, walked to the front of the classroom and very loudly ordered everyone to be silent and to stand up (who had given us permission to sit, she demanded).
We started by bidding her a 'good morning' and then after a rendition of 'All things bright and beautiful' we were allowed to sit down. The lesson had started.
During the lesson we were subjected to about 15-20 minutes of what our great-grandparents and grandparents (it wasn't that long ago) would have experienced until the age of around 12 or 13. We had to chant our times tables and we were asked facts about the Iron Bridge that we had only been told during our time this 'lesson'. There was no real threat of punishment, but I remembered the 3 facts about the bridge for fear of being humiliated amongst strangers: the bridge was built in 1779, it cost over £6,000 and used 378 and a half tons of iron. They are three facts that I did not know prior to this 'lesson' and I am sure I will remember those facts for some time to come.
What was clear from this experience was this: there was no messing around in class; there was absolute respect for the teacher and you would be punished with more than detention or being removed from the class if you misbehaved or failed to learn.
Whilst we have moved on, in all senses, since the times when we had to know our place (the teacher made us all repeat a number of sentences that were designed to keep the poor down). you can't help think that we should not have thrown the baby out with the Victorian bath water. Getting children to repeat their tables is nothing but a good thing so that they automatically know an answer without thinking. As far as I am concerned, primary schools should be concerned only with providing the foundations for learning; children can start to understand why and what they know when they're at senior school.
If my children can read, write and do maths well by the time they leave their primary school they will be well-equipped to cope with what comes next. And, if any evidence was needed that the current education system isn't working, in this country we have increasing levels of innumeracy and illiteracy.
I also still know my times tables up to 12 (today, my children learn up to 12 at home but they only need to learn up to 10) because they were chanted in class until we knew them by heart.
So, one thing is for sure: learning by rote does work.
Recently, I had the chance to travel back in time. No, not like Dr Who, but me and my wife took our boys (8 & 9 years) to Blists Hill (one of 10 museums in Ironbridge), which is a very authentic recreation of a Victorian town set in the year 1900. The majority of the industrial installations are original, but most of the homes and shops -- whilst being built in Victorian times -- have been rebuilt on-site at the museum. That said, you would never know that they have been relocated and you genuinely feel as though you have been transported back to a time when things were much tougher than today.
The homes, shops and factories were all manned by people in authentic Victorian dress, and they talked to you as though they were still living in that time. However, one person who stood out above all was the school teacher, which brings me full circle to the subject of learning by rote.
In the classroom, which comprised rows of slightly-angled wooden desks all facing the front, around 50 adults and children were seated. At midday, the time when the 'lesson' was due to start a rather stern woman, with a long black dress, pristine long-sleeved blouse, round spectacles and a straw boater, walked to the front of the classroom and very loudly ordered everyone to be silent and to stand up (who had given us permission to sit, she demanded).
We started by bidding her a 'good morning' and then after a rendition of 'All things bright and beautiful' we were allowed to sit down. The lesson had started.
During the lesson we were subjected to about 15-20 minutes of what our great-grandparents and grandparents (it wasn't that long ago) would have experienced until the age of around 12 or 13. We had to chant our times tables and we were asked facts about the Iron Bridge that we had only been told during our time this 'lesson'. There was no real threat of punishment, but I remembered the 3 facts about the bridge for fear of being humiliated amongst strangers: the bridge was built in 1779, it cost over £6,000 and used 378 and a half tons of iron. They are three facts that I did not know prior to this 'lesson' and I am sure I will remember those facts for some time to come.
What was clear from this experience was this: there was no messing around in class; there was absolute respect for the teacher and you would be punished with more than detention or being removed from the class if you misbehaved or failed to learn.
Whilst we have moved on, in all senses, since the times when we had to know our place (the teacher made us all repeat a number of sentences that were designed to keep the poor down). you can't help think that we should not have thrown the baby out with the Victorian bath water. Getting children to repeat their tables is nothing but a good thing so that they automatically know an answer without thinking. As far as I am concerned, primary schools should be concerned only with providing the foundations for learning; children can start to understand why and what they know when they're at senior school.
If my children can read, write and do maths well by the time they leave their primary school they will be well-equipped to cope with what comes next. And, if any evidence was needed that the current education system isn't working, in this country we have increasing levels of innumeracy and illiteracy.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
4 times 4 equals ?
Following from my recent post about falling educational standards in the UK, this post provides several explanations why standards are plummeting.
Firstly, at a recent parents' evening we mentioned that we are helping our boys to learn their times tables. The teacher said that: "it would make her life a lot easier if more parents did that." Sorry, but aren't teachers meant to be doing that? I know that when I was at junior school, in the 1970s, that our tables were drilled into us and to this day I know them all up to 12 x 12, even though I have computers, telephones and calculators that can do the job just as well.
The admission that teachers aren't teaching the times tables ought to surprise and shock most parents; such news ought to ring the alarm bells at the top of government. Sadly, successive Education Secretaries only seek to undermine the teaching profession and opt for the headline-making pronouncements.
As much as I am appalled by the amount of work that we have to put in to our boys' education I am not surprised and I don't blame the teachers.
Which brings me on to my second point.
A good friend is a junior school teacher and she has to run lessons as though dictated by Stalin himself. Such is the rigidity of the lessons there is hardly any time to actually provide any quality teaching. They have to set out the lessons' objectives before they teach; they then work through the learning objectives and then there is a plenary session during which time the children assess if they have learned the things that were set out in the list of objectives that were defined less than an hour before.
Take out 15-20 minutes from an hour for pointless objective-setting and plenary sessions and you can see why teachers struggle to impart any knowledge.
In this Orwellian nightmare of a teaching system I know one thing: that if we don't help our boys with their maths and English that they would fall behind and not because they're... now, what's the politically-correct phrase?... stupid.
If you have children from broken, violent or otherwise malfunctioning families then is it any wonder that we have a growing underclass of illiterate and innumerate children who are unlikely to ever work?
If Education Secretaries let teachers do their job, rather than getting them to tick useless boxes, then those children who receive no support from their parents might actually get an education and pull themselves out of poverty.
Firstly, at a recent parents' evening we mentioned that we are helping our boys to learn their times tables. The teacher said that: "it would make her life a lot easier if more parents did that." Sorry, but aren't teachers meant to be doing that? I know that when I was at junior school, in the 1970s, that our tables were drilled into us and to this day I know them all up to 12 x 12, even though I have computers, telephones and calculators that can do the job just as well.
The admission that teachers aren't teaching the times tables ought to surprise and shock most parents; such news ought to ring the alarm bells at the top of government. Sadly, successive Education Secretaries only seek to undermine the teaching profession and opt for the headline-making pronouncements.
As much as I am appalled by the amount of work that we have to put in to our boys' education I am not surprised and I don't blame the teachers.
Which brings me on to my second point.
A good friend is a junior school teacher and she has to run lessons as though dictated by Stalin himself. Such is the rigidity of the lessons there is hardly any time to actually provide any quality teaching. They have to set out the lessons' objectives before they teach; they then work through the learning objectives and then there is a plenary session during which time the children assess if they have learned the things that were set out in the list of objectives that were defined less than an hour before.
Take out 15-20 minutes from an hour for pointless objective-setting and plenary sessions and you can see why teachers struggle to impart any knowledge.
In this Orwellian nightmare of a teaching system I know one thing: that if we don't help our boys with their maths and English that they would fall behind and not because they're... now, what's the politically-correct phrase?... stupid.
If you have children from broken, violent or otherwise malfunctioning families then is it any wonder that we have a growing underclass of illiterate and innumerate children who are unlikely to ever work?
If Education Secretaries let teachers do their job, rather than getting them to tick useless boxes, then those children who receive no support from their parents might actually get an education and pull themselves out of poverty.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Down with skool?
There's no doubt that governments, irrespective of their political inclination, absolutely love good news especially when that good news leads to bold and positive headlines.
But if there is one annual announcement that is guaranteed to frustrate me (and I suspect many employers and like-minded parents) it is when the GCSE and A-level results are published. Every year the incumbent education secretary will seize on the 'fantastic news' that the number of pupils achieving the highest grades has (yet again) surpassed the previous year's results.
There are at least two things wrong with these results.
Firstly, examination results always used to be graded in line with the normal distribution curve, which would guarantee that only a certain proportion of students would fail, a certain number would get low grades, some would get the top grades but most would attain average grades. To ensure that the results were in line with expectations, test examination papers were set to ensure that the distribution of grades would be appropriately allocated; if too many achieved higher grades the exam was deemed too easy and modified. If the exam was too difficult the results would be skewed toward lower grades with a higher failure rate, resulting in having the exam paper amended to deliver the expected distribution of grades.
Given that students, by definition of the laws of distribution, cannot be getting clever, the conclusion is all too obvious: that the exams must be getting easier and easier.
Sadly, every year the naysayers (those who argue that education continues to 'dumb down') are shot down by bumptious politicians who confidently assert that the results due to the hard work of teachers and pupils. Calling all elephants: can you please leave the room now?
My second point is that employers are surely better placed to judge whether standards in education are falling or rising. They are the ones who take on school-leavers and graduates, and they are the ones who can see, first hand, just how academically able their new employeers are.
The conclusion drawn from the anecdotal evidence from employers, and from the many reports available on the internet, is that standards are falling. Education is failing more and more students, and there is an increasing number of children who are both illiterate and innumerate, who go into adult life without the basic skills that even the working poor attained 100 years ago!
From the perspective of a parent with two boys at primary school and it is all too obvious where things are going wrong: the (very well meaning) teachers are forced (via the inflexible national curriculum) to focus too much on peripheral subjects, which leaves less time to teach the core basics of reading, writing and 'rithmetic (yes, the good old 3Rs). We are having to teach our boys their times tables (up to 12 and not the more popular 10) and we are helping them with their reading and writing, which is in addition to their daily homework tasks.
Education is failing our children, which in turn will have an impact on our economy. There needs to be a speedy return to a focus on the 3Rs and there needs to be a return to having children sitting at desks all facing the front, not at trendy round tables in which they 'share' tasks and rarely face the teacher.
From a teacher's perspective (my father taught at a secondary modern for over 20 years) it is also so obvious where things are going wrong. Teachers are not given the flexibility to go 'off piste' with what they teach and they must stick rigidly to a system that has been created in isolation. The problem is that we have educationalists that in trying to improve standards have achieved the exact opposite; they have undermined a system of education that drilled pupils in the basics in their early years so that they were equipped to explore, experiment and challenge once they had the building blocks of knowledge.
No wonder so many children are metaphorically falling over: they are being forced to run when they don't know how to walk.
Until we change this standards will continue to fall.
Education is failing our children, which in turn will have an impact on our economy. There needs to be a speedy return to a focus on the 3Rs and there needs to be a return to having children sitting at desks all facing the front, not at trendy round tables in which they 'share' tasks and rarely face the teacher.
From a teacher's perspective (my father taught at a secondary modern for over 20 years) it is also so obvious where things are going wrong. Teachers are not given the flexibility to go 'off piste' with what they teach and they must stick rigidly to a system that has been created in isolation. The problem is that we have educationalists that in trying to improve standards have achieved the exact opposite; they have undermined a system of education that drilled pupils in the basics in their early years so that they were equipped to explore, experiment and challenge once they had the building blocks of knowledge.
No wonder so many children are metaphorically falling over: they are being forced to run when they don't know how to walk.
Until we change this standards will continue to fall.
Wednesday, November 09, 2011
SCOURGE OF THE ROAD
If one of my friends tells me that for one of their holidays they've decided to go on a cruise or rent a villa, or go to a hotel anywhere in the world my reaction would be positive and interested.
Yet, why is it that when anyone with a caravan mentions that they have one or are going away in it that they almost have to apologise for it?
In this enlightened day and age (although how enlightened we are when Radio 4 still has Thought For The Day on their Today programme) caravanners (of which I am one -- there, I said it) do have to tread carefully. Only the other day I was at a client's party and when caravans were mentioned I actually hesitated before I talked about 'our caravan' in relation to our holidays.
It's ridiculous that caravanning, which contributes significantly to the tourism industry (and is becoming more popular each year), is still seen in largely negative terms. There's snobbery at work, which I don't think you experience in many other countries. There's even snobbery between caravanners, which makes things worse. If you don't have the latest twin-axled palace hauled, at least by a Discovery 4, or a Range Rover you may as well head for Dale Farm.
Perhaps this is why going to France and other European countries is such a pleasure when you're in a caravan. I've been on many French sites and have seen that there is no issue with what you drive, what sort of caravan you have or what you do for a living. I have seen the better off next to those who clearly are less well off and yet there's still interaction between them. The French simply enjoy being outdoors and caravans give you exactly that: relaxing holidays in the fresh air where you can do as you please, not limited to the times that hotels decide to feed you.
Of course, the French have the weather -- part of the reason for heading abroad -- but it's the lack of snobbery that is almost palpable. There is money in France, of course, but it seems that if you have it you're far less likely to shout about it or drive something that tells everyone that you're doing alright.
The other problem in this country is that we have JC, yes Mr Jeremy Clarkson, who has destroyed more than his fair share of caravans on Top Gear. I have no problem that he doesn't like caravannig -- it isn't for everyone -- but why must he always take such childish, cliched pot-shots at something that thousands enjoy?
Well, I'm going to hide my secret no longer: the C-word will be on my lips the next time me and my friends discuss what we're doing for our holiday.
Vivre les caravanes!
Yet, why is it that when anyone with a caravan mentions that they have one or are going away in it that they almost have to apologise for it?
In this enlightened day and age (although how enlightened we are when Radio 4 still has Thought For The Day on their Today programme) caravanners (of which I am one -- there, I said it) do have to tread carefully. Only the other day I was at a client's party and when caravans were mentioned I actually hesitated before I talked about 'our caravan' in relation to our holidays.
It's ridiculous that caravanning, which contributes significantly to the tourism industry (and is becoming more popular each year), is still seen in largely negative terms. There's snobbery at work, which I don't think you experience in many other countries. There's even snobbery between caravanners, which makes things worse. If you don't have the latest twin-axled palace hauled, at least by a Discovery 4, or a Range Rover you may as well head for Dale Farm.
Perhaps this is why going to France and other European countries is such a pleasure when you're in a caravan. I've been on many French sites and have seen that there is no issue with what you drive, what sort of caravan you have or what you do for a living. I have seen the better off next to those who clearly are less well off and yet there's still interaction between them. The French simply enjoy being outdoors and caravans give you exactly that: relaxing holidays in the fresh air where you can do as you please, not limited to the times that hotels decide to feed you.
Of course, the French have the weather -- part of the reason for heading abroad -- but it's the lack of snobbery that is almost palpable. There is money in France, of course, but it seems that if you have it you're far less likely to shout about it or drive something that tells everyone that you're doing alright.
The other problem in this country is that we have JC, yes Mr Jeremy Clarkson, who has destroyed more than his fair share of caravans on Top Gear. I have no problem that he doesn't like caravannig -- it isn't for everyone -- but why must he always take such childish, cliched pot-shots at something that thousands enjoy?
Well, I'm going to hide my secret no longer: the C-word will be on my lips the next time me and my friends discuss what we're doing for our holiday.
Vivre les caravanes!
Tuesday, July 05, 2011
Derby to lose 1500 jobs
What a pity that Thameslink decided to choose Siemens for the £3bn contract to build 1,200 carriages for the new north-south cross-London route, which comes into service in 2015.
Ironically, rail minister Theresa Villiers said that the announcement of the new £3.5bn rail link was "...further proof of the government's commitment to investing in Britain's future." Hollow words for the 1,500 workers whose jobs will soon be hitting the buffers.
The decision to award the contract to a German manufacturer is hardly investing in Britain's future and the loss of the contract will raise questions about the future of Canadian-owned Bombardier's Derby manufacturing unit, the last train-building facility in the country.
Ms Villiers, in silk purse out of sow's ear mode, went on to explain that the taxpayer would get a better deal by offering the contract to Siemens. The rail minister also suggested that 2,000 jobs would still be created in the UK as a result of Siemens winning the contract. Clearly desperate to make a positive out of a negative Ms Villiers fails to recognise that the net benefit of the contract going abroad is just 500 new jobs and not the 2,000 that she suggested.
It is hard to imagine any other European country letting such a big fish escape; in France, for example, the TGV and the AGV (the replacement for the TGV) and the Eurostar series are all made by Alstom, a French multinational conglomerate.
But as they say in France: c'est la vie.
Ironically, rail minister Theresa Villiers said that the announcement of the new £3.5bn rail link was "...further proof of the government's commitment to investing in Britain's future." Hollow words for the 1,500 workers whose jobs will soon be hitting the buffers.
The decision to award the contract to a German manufacturer is hardly investing in Britain's future and the loss of the contract will raise questions about the future of Canadian-owned Bombardier's Derby manufacturing unit, the last train-building facility in the country.
Ms Villiers, in silk purse out of sow's ear mode, went on to explain that the taxpayer would get a better deal by offering the contract to Siemens. The rail minister also suggested that 2,000 jobs would still be created in the UK as a result of Siemens winning the contract. Clearly desperate to make a positive out of a negative Ms Villiers fails to recognise that the net benefit of the contract going abroad is just 500 new jobs and not the 2,000 that she suggested.
It is hard to imagine any other European country letting such a big fish escape; in France, for example, the TGV and the AGV (the replacement for the TGV) and the Eurostar series are all made by Alstom, a French multinational conglomerate.
But as they say in France: c'est la vie.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Do we have to believe in the Royal Family?
Over the last few years I have decided not to believe in a god and it is quite refreshing not to have to appease or appeal to an all-encompassing higher order.
Reading Dawkins' books, "The God Delusion" reinforced some of those hard-to-put-into-words thoughts and feelings about the idea of giving up on a deity that has been a part of most of your life.
This notion of an all-knowing god that both forgave sins but also punished sinners was quite a powerful image to carry around as I grew up. Going to Sunday School and evensong were boring rituals that my parents insisted on but I never really felt that I was connecting with anything other than my own thoughts. Perhaps that's all any god ever is: our inner voice questioning and doubting our every move.
As a teenager we stopped going to Sunday School and, following a move from the town where I was born, we stopped going to church as a family. By not going to church, however, our lives didn't descend into heathen chaos. No, the way our parents had brought us up, broadly along Christian principles, didn't disappear the moment our backs were turned, metaphorically, on the Church.
It was a relief not to have to go to a building to pray or sing or worship; at around the age of 18 I felt that I could thank God for every day if I was out in the coutryside rather than being in the confines of a building.
Over the next few years I can't really say how my faith changed, but there came one point when I simply couldn't accept the foundations of Christian belief: the virgin birth and the ressurrection. Without those two elements fixed in your psyche and you cannot be a Christian. From that point most other beliefs quickly fall away because you question everything else associated with Christianity. The Bible isn't the word of God it is the result of an editorial committee 300 years after the death of Jesus. I actually believe such a man existed, but that he was just that: a mortal man. Of course it was the Council of Nicaea that created the fiction of Jesus being the son of god, rather than a man who (many argue) married Mary Magdalene (who was anything but a prostitute). It is easy get all Dan Brown and see conspiracy everywhere in the Church, but the Church has been well served by Jesus.
But what has all this to do with our Royal Family?
There is a link between my lack of faith in deities and how we percieve a very fortunate family, and it is this: just as you don't have to believe in any god you don't need to believe in the Royals. Of course, unlike mystical beings, the Royals do exist and most do a good job in the confines of their limited roles.
I wouldn't necessarily follow our European counterparts and abolish the monarchy but perhaps it's just that we should have a cut-down Royal family that stands on its own financial feet.
The more you think about the privilege that they enjoy and just how disconnected they are from their subjects (not citizens, I'm afraid) then you can't help but question their existence.
Many supporters argue that they're great for tourism and that they work hard for the country, which is why we should keep them. Others argue that having a family as head of state is better than an elected head, such as Sarkozy or Berlusconi, but is that really enough of a reason not to change?
Of cours, we dabbled with Republicanism in the 1640s for about an hour or so, but we quickly restored the monarchy after getting rid of the upstart, Cromwell. Since then there have been various calls for their abolition but having witnessed the out-pourings of support for the new Duke and Duchess of Cambridge it seems that we're nowhere near ready to collectively give up on that belief system just yet.
Reading Dawkins' books, "The God Delusion" reinforced some of those hard-to-put-into-words thoughts and feelings about the idea of giving up on a deity that has been a part of most of your life.
This notion of an all-knowing god that both forgave sins but also punished sinners was quite a powerful image to carry around as I grew up. Going to Sunday School and evensong were boring rituals that my parents insisted on but I never really felt that I was connecting with anything other than my own thoughts. Perhaps that's all any god ever is: our inner voice questioning and doubting our every move.
As a teenager we stopped going to Sunday School and, following a move from the town where I was born, we stopped going to church as a family. By not going to church, however, our lives didn't descend into heathen chaos. No, the way our parents had brought us up, broadly along Christian principles, didn't disappear the moment our backs were turned, metaphorically, on the Church.
It was a relief not to have to go to a building to pray or sing or worship; at around the age of 18 I felt that I could thank God for every day if I was out in the coutryside rather than being in the confines of a building.
Over the next few years I can't really say how my faith changed, but there came one point when I simply couldn't accept the foundations of Christian belief: the virgin birth and the ressurrection. Without those two elements fixed in your psyche and you cannot be a Christian. From that point most other beliefs quickly fall away because you question everything else associated with Christianity. The Bible isn't the word of God it is the result of an editorial committee 300 years after the death of Jesus. I actually believe such a man existed, but that he was just that: a mortal man. Of course it was the Council of Nicaea that created the fiction of Jesus being the son of god, rather than a man who (many argue) married Mary Magdalene (who was anything but a prostitute). It is easy get all Dan Brown and see conspiracy everywhere in the Church, but the Church has been well served by Jesus.
But what has all this to do with our Royal Family?
There is a link between my lack of faith in deities and how we percieve a very fortunate family, and it is this: just as you don't have to believe in any god you don't need to believe in the Royals. Of course, unlike mystical beings, the Royals do exist and most do a good job in the confines of their limited roles.
I wouldn't necessarily follow our European counterparts and abolish the monarchy but perhaps it's just that we should have a cut-down Royal family that stands on its own financial feet.
The more you think about the privilege that they enjoy and just how disconnected they are from their subjects (not citizens, I'm afraid) then you can't help but question their existence.
Many supporters argue that they're great for tourism and that they work hard for the country, which is why we should keep them. Others argue that having a family as head of state is better than an elected head, such as Sarkozy or Berlusconi, but is that really enough of a reason not to change?
Of cours, we dabbled with Republicanism in the 1640s for about an hour or so, but we quickly restored the monarchy after getting rid of the upstart, Cromwell. Since then there have been various calls for their abolition but having witnessed the out-pourings of support for the new Duke and Duchess of Cambridge it seems that we're nowhere near ready to collectively give up on that belief system just yet.
Friday, March 25, 2011
CAN'T WAIT, WON'T WAIT
As I sit typing this post in a Starbucks, whilst having a gallon of coffee (their choice, not mine) and an almond croissant, I overhear a conversation between a young mum and, I assume, her mum. As the mother sits with her white iPhone clamped to her ear the conversation (at least the bit I can hear) goes something like this: "... I left a message on your phone and wanted to make sure that you'd got it, so that's why I'm calling, I didn't know if you had received the message..."
Surely, the whole point of leaving a message is because you couldn't get hold the person you were hoping to converse with. You don't need to check that they received the message, otherwise you wouldn't leave a message and you would try again later.
The young mum in question went on to tell the relative how much their daughter had enjoyed going on one of the rides adjacent to the coffee house, whilst the 3- or 4-year-old sat on her own dribbling onto her sandwich. How important was that piece of information? Should I call my father when I have had a wash or issues a new press release for a client? No, of course not.
The problem with mobile phones, and mobile internet for that matter, is that we're all compelled to use these gadgets simply because we can. I remember when I got my first mobile phone and couldn't wait for it to ring; it didn't so I called someone, just because I could. In the early 90s there were few who had mobiles so it was very unlikely to have been called, especially as so many were worried about the perceived cost. At least when it as £5-a-minute (well 50p, I exaggerate) you only made the most urgent of calls. Now, with free talktime on offer it makes sense to try to use up your 6 gazillion free minutes talking absolute bollocks. Unless you work in the evening phone call trade, shall we call it, when you really are paid to talk about such matters (and probably paying £5/minute).
The same problem happens with e-mails. You send one and you sit their expecting an instantaneous reply. Why? What is it about having to have an instant response. You don't receive a postcard or letter and send a response back within minutes of receiving it, so why just because of a flashing icon on your screen?
No wonder that so much time is wasted on nonsense calls and e-mails checking to see if you have received an e-mail; or acknowledging that you have received an e-mail.
It is time to end this instant response mania, for surely it is becoming a mental problem (can I say 'mental' anymore?) for us to feel the need to respond within seconds of receiving a message.
At least I am wrtiting this in my lunchbreak between meetings, so at least these 10 minutes have not cost the economy a bean.
Surely, the whole point of leaving a message is because you couldn't get hold the person you were hoping to converse with. You don't need to check that they received the message, otherwise you wouldn't leave a message and you would try again later.
The young mum in question went on to tell the relative how much their daughter had enjoyed going on one of the rides adjacent to the coffee house, whilst the 3- or 4-year-old sat on her own dribbling onto her sandwich. How important was that piece of information? Should I call my father when I have had a wash or issues a new press release for a client? No, of course not.
The problem with mobile phones, and mobile internet for that matter, is that we're all compelled to use these gadgets simply because we can. I remember when I got my first mobile phone and couldn't wait for it to ring; it didn't so I called someone, just because I could. In the early 90s there were few who had mobiles so it was very unlikely to have been called, especially as so many were worried about the perceived cost. At least when it as £5-a-minute (well 50p, I exaggerate) you only made the most urgent of calls. Now, with free talktime on offer it makes sense to try to use up your 6 gazillion free minutes talking absolute bollocks. Unless you work in the evening phone call trade, shall we call it, when you really are paid to talk about such matters (and probably paying £5/minute).
The same problem happens with e-mails. You send one and you sit their expecting an instantaneous reply. Why? What is it about having to have an instant response. You don't receive a postcard or letter and send a response back within minutes of receiving it, so why just because of a flashing icon on your screen?
No wonder that so much time is wasted on nonsense calls and e-mails checking to see if you have received an e-mail; or acknowledging that you have received an e-mail.
It is time to end this instant response mania, for surely it is becoming a mental problem (can I say 'mental' anymore?) for us to feel the need to respond within seconds of receiving a message.
At least I am wrtiting this in my lunchbreak between meetings, so at least these 10 minutes have not cost the economy a bean.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Chasing Ratings or Securing Oil Supplies
Whilst it is wonderful to live in a free country and to enjoy the democratic right to vote (irrespective of how powerful a single vote actually is) I would question the right of the West (with some Arab states) to interfere with the internal issues of a sovereign country, in this case I refer to Libya.
Colonel Gaddafi is no saint, but neither is Mugabe (and he's still in power), and it isn't good that he's attacking his own people; but, it is their country and they make the rules no matter how unpleasant we may view those rules. We might snipe from the sidelines about Gaddafi's despotic behaviour but it wasn't many years ago that everyman and his dog were lining up to do business with this reformed character. Blair, I seem to remember, led the charge and in the wake of the West's softening policy towards Libya much business has been done (and we do need his oil).
Indeed, I have an oil industry client who would be doing business with other such countries if it wasn't for the sanctions that make trade with Libya and Iran illegal. There must be hundreds of companies in the UK that are desperate for those contracts, which will go to other countries where there is no trade embargo.
That aside, I think what really stuck in my craw was when I heard Cameron talk about the need for urgent military action against Gaddafi and that if we leave him alone he will threaten not only UK security but world security! Where have we heard that before? The only time in recent years when military action was needed was the Falklands and possibly in the Balkans; other than that it seems that our presence (occupation) in other counties is actually feeding anti-western feelings that will put the UK in harms way and not vice versa as our politicians have us believe.
Looking at things cynically, this is fantastic opportunity for Cameron so that he can show that he is truly a world "stateman" (as Blair before who revelled in the war-mongering rhetoric), but what a pity it is always conflict that politicians like to associate themselves with in order to prove their statemanship. It is certainly disingenuous to start referring to Libya as a failed pariah state, especially, as mentioned above, following Blair's cosying up to trade with Libya.
As Churchill allegedly stated in 1954 (the words were spoken in private and so were never actually verified): “It is ‘better to jaw-jaw than to war-war”.
I can't say that I have a solution to this crisis, but seeing burned-out buses and cars on bombed highways in Libya and you can imagine that the rebel's support for the no-fly zones will soon turn to anger as the death toll of innocent civilians begins to rise.
At that point everyone might stop and see if we can't "jaw-jaw" for a change.
Colonel Gaddafi is no saint, but neither is Mugabe (and he's still in power), and it isn't good that he's attacking his own people; but, it is their country and they make the rules no matter how unpleasant we may view those rules. We might snipe from the sidelines about Gaddafi's despotic behaviour but it wasn't many years ago that everyman and his dog were lining up to do business with this reformed character. Blair, I seem to remember, led the charge and in the wake of the West's softening policy towards Libya much business has been done (and we do need his oil).
Indeed, I have an oil industry client who would be doing business with other such countries if it wasn't for the sanctions that make trade with Libya and Iran illegal. There must be hundreds of companies in the UK that are desperate for those contracts, which will go to other countries where there is no trade embargo.
That aside, I think what really stuck in my craw was when I heard Cameron talk about the need for urgent military action against Gaddafi and that if we leave him alone he will threaten not only UK security but world security! Where have we heard that before? The only time in recent years when military action was needed was the Falklands and possibly in the Balkans; other than that it seems that our presence (occupation) in other counties is actually feeding anti-western feelings that will put the UK in harms way and not vice versa as our politicians have us believe.
Looking at things cynically, this is fantastic opportunity for Cameron so that he can show that he is truly a world "stateman" (as Blair before who revelled in the war-mongering rhetoric), but what a pity it is always conflict that politicians like to associate themselves with in order to prove their statemanship. It is certainly disingenuous to start referring to Libya as a failed pariah state, especially, as mentioned above, following Blair's cosying up to trade with Libya.
As Churchill allegedly stated in 1954 (the words were spoken in private and so were never actually verified): “It is ‘better to jaw-jaw than to war-war”.
I can't say that I have a solution to this crisis, but seeing burned-out buses and cars on bombed highways in Libya and you can imagine that the rebel's support for the no-fly zones will soon turn to anger as the death toll of innocent civilians begins to rise.
At that point everyone might stop and see if we can't "jaw-jaw" for a change.
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
Be Careful WIth The C-Word
When presenters of Top Gear ever mention the c-word, you know you're in for a bit of fun; of course I refer to the word "caravan" and not the shorter Anglo-Saxon word that you were expecting.
The last time the three kidults went out in a caravan they "accidentally" set fire to it so that they could produce a memorable closing sequence: a car towing a smouldering caravan chassis. Amusing? Yes; hilarious really, but the messages are clear: caravans are their to be mocked, even hated.
As someone who has a caravan I can actually see the funny side of Clarkson's japes, childish and predictable as they are. The sad reality is that he doesn't want to understand what it is that caravans give you or to see just how much fun a holiday in your home-on-wheels can be.
But as much as I don't like the idea of having the fun poked at something that me and my family enjoy, you can see exactly how some of those who have caravans do give the rest of us a bad name. It's not just the matching fleeces, from the Edinburgh Woollen Mill (of course), it is the air of seriousness, general unfriendliness (rarely to you get a "good day") and that many caravanners seem to revel in the site rules. On too many sites there are the locked toilet and shower blocks, and frequently the "no ball games" signs littering the site. Just who are the site owners trying to deter? Football playing families that have no access to hot water, clearly.
Now, I enjoy a peaceful campsite with clean facilities, but we go caravanning for some freedom and sense of getting away from it all.
Take you caravan to Europe and everything changes.
In France, which is where we have taken our caravan since 2008, there is no issue with caravanners; you get the "bonjours" from complete strangers on the site or in the local towns and you have mixed shower and toilet blocks that aren't locked.
You meet people from all walks of life and you don't get the gleaming pumped-up Discoverys on steroids; most cars on French campsites are regular hatchbacks, MPVs and saloons. You could be next to a company director, a fireman or cleaner, but there is no real sense of social division. But of course France is much more egalitarian than our class-ridden society where integration between the have-nots and have-lots just doesn't happen.
Caravanning isn't about the latest 'van and accessories, it is about the opportunity to explore areas away from the confines of package holidays; it is about enjoying a simpler life and mixing with people and it is about relaxing and unwinding.
Clarkson and his type won't ever understand the enjoyment of caravanning and that's fine, but surely it's live and let live; I don't enjoy package holidays but many do; I'm not a fan of the idea of a cruise (I have never been on one) but they're increasingly popular. At least don't criticise what others do and neither should Clarkson.
I am looking forward to our next expedition with our caravan: a trip to the Alps later this year; we'll be in an area that enjoys 300 days of sun a year, with temperatures in the summer months as high as we enjoyed in the Charente-Maritime (high 20s).
The great thing about caravans is that the moment you hook-up your unit you are already on holiday; there's no checking in at airports and no worries about the weight of your suitcases.
As for the return trip: you have plenty of room to stash all that fabulous wine.
The last time the three kidults went out in a caravan they "accidentally" set fire to it so that they could produce a memorable closing sequence: a car towing a smouldering caravan chassis. Amusing? Yes; hilarious really, but the messages are clear: caravans are their to be mocked, even hated.
As someone who has a caravan I can actually see the funny side of Clarkson's japes, childish and predictable as they are. The sad reality is that he doesn't want to understand what it is that caravans give you or to see just how much fun a holiday in your home-on-wheels can be.
But as much as I don't like the idea of having the fun poked at something that me and my family enjoy, you can see exactly how some of those who have caravans do give the rest of us a bad name. It's not just the matching fleeces, from the Edinburgh Woollen Mill (of course), it is the air of seriousness, general unfriendliness (rarely to you get a "good day") and that many caravanners seem to revel in the site rules. On too many sites there are the locked toilet and shower blocks, and frequently the "no ball games" signs littering the site. Just who are the site owners trying to deter? Football playing families that have no access to hot water, clearly.
Campsite in the Haute-Savoie on the shores of Lac Bourget, France
Now, I enjoy a peaceful campsite with clean facilities, but we go caravanning for some freedom and sense of getting away from it all.
Take you caravan to Europe and everything changes.
In France, which is where we have taken our caravan since 2008, there is no issue with caravanners; you get the "bonjours" from complete strangers on the site or in the local towns and you have mixed shower and toilet blocks that aren't locked.
You meet people from all walks of life and you don't get the gleaming pumped-up Discoverys on steroids; most cars on French campsites are regular hatchbacks, MPVs and saloons. You could be next to a company director, a fireman or cleaner, but there is no real sense of social division. But of course France is much more egalitarian than our class-ridden society where integration between the have-nots and have-lots just doesn't happen.
Caravanning isn't about the latest 'van and accessories, it is about the opportunity to explore areas away from the confines of package holidays; it is about enjoying a simpler life and mixing with people and it is about relaxing and unwinding.
Clarkson and his type won't ever understand the enjoyment of caravanning and that's fine, but surely it's live and let live; I don't enjoy package holidays but many do; I'm not a fan of the idea of a cruise (I have never been on one) but they're increasingly popular. At least don't criticise what others do and neither should Clarkson.
I am looking forward to our next expedition with our caravan: a trip to the Alps later this year; we'll be in an area that enjoys 300 days of sun a year, with temperatures in the summer months as high as we enjoyed in the Charente-Maritime (high 20s).
The great thing about caravans is that the moment you hook-up your unit you are already on holiday; there's no checking in at airports and no worries about the weight of your suitcases.
As for the return trip: you have plenty of room to stash all that fabulous wine.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Fuelling inflation
At what point does any government decide that they're taking enough from the motorist who has to pay increasing sums to fill the fuel tank? Judging by recent increases in both VAT and fuel duty the ConLib alliance remains blissfully unaware of the impact at the pumps.
For millions of hard-working families, recently referred to by Cleggers as "alarm clock Britain" (what a ridiculous phrase), who are now paying around £70 to fill up, the cost of getting to work is increasing at rates way above inflation. The irony is that the cost of fuel is, er, fuelling the inflation that the Bank of England is keen to tame. The likely outcome is that interest rates will be heading up; we can almost here Bruce Forsyth (in Play Your Cards Right mode) asking if it's going to be higher or lower than 0.5% I think the studio audience would be screaming at the hapless contestant: "Higher, higher, higher".
When we remember that the cost of fuel is only 42p per litre we can see exactly why governments quite like having millions of cars on the road; every mile you drive and you're sending money to the government at the rate of almost £1.00 per litre. If your vehicle does 30 miles per gallon you're dropping around 13p per miles to the government. If you do 10,000 miles per year, yep that's right, £1,300.00 in tax that you simply cannot avoid.
So, whilst governments are keen to be seen to be caring for the environment they actually don't want to reduce the easy money that we motorists provide -- and that we provide so willingly. If governments are so keen to be green, why are they spending soooo much money on widening our motorways that will encourage more traffic? It also explains why they're so slow at re-opening Beeching's closed railway lines (closed by Marples, who happened to be a director of a road-building company) or why they won't electrify the whole network. Indeed, previous governments have actually looked at the impact that new rail lines will have on the motoriing public; if too many drivers might switch to rail and, therefore, reduce tax revenue from driving, they would not open the line.
It is time for the government to stop fleecing the motorist and work towards a properly joined-up transport network.
For millions of hard-working families, recently referred to by Cleggers as "alarm clock Britain" (what a ridiculous phrase), who are now paying around £70 to fill up, the cost of getting to work is increasing at rates way above inflation. The irony is that the cost of fuel is, er, fuelling the inflation that the Bank of England is keen to tame. The likely outcome is that interest rates will be heading up; we can almost here Bruce Forsyth (in Play Your Cards Right mode) asking if it's going to be higher or lower than 0.5% I think the studio audience would be screaming at the hapless contestant: "Higher, higher, higher".
When we remember that the cost of fuel is only 42p per litre we can see exactly why governments quite like having millions of cars on the road; every mile you drive and you're sending money to the government at the rate of almost £1.00 per litre. If your vehicle does 30 miles per gallon you're dropping around 13p per miles to the government. If you do 10,000 miles per year, yep that's right, £1,300.00 in tax that you simply cannot avoid.
So, whilst governments are keen to be seen to be caring for the environment they actually don't want to reduce the easy money that we motorists provide -- and that we provide so willingly. If governments are so keen to be green, why are they spending soooo much money on widening our motorways that will encourage more traffic? It also explains why they're so slow at re-opening Beeching's closed railway lines (closed by Marples, who happened to be a director of a road-building company) or why they won't electrify the whole network. Indeed, previous governments have actually looked at the impact that new rail lines will have on the motoriing public; if too many drivers might switch to rail and, therefore, reduce tax revenue from driving, they would not open the line.
It is time for the government to stop fleecing the motorist and work towards a properly joined-up transport network.
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
FLASHER LANDS IN COURT
Has the Lincolnshire Constabulary really got nothing better to do than to waste court time (and tax-payers' money) prosecuting motorist Michael Thompson for a minor infringement of the law?
Apparently, the answer is 'no', they don't have anything better to do. Now, we have a situation in which a law-abiding member of the public has a criminal record all because he flashed his car's headlights to warn other motorists that they're heading towards a Police 'safety camera' (aka money-spinning speed trap).
The reason why most motorists, the writer included, warn other motorists of speed traps is because they are frequently cynically placed to do nothing more than to generate revenue; they don't have much to do with safety and with the cut-backs starting to bite we can all expect to see more of these mobile money-spinners springing up on a road near you.
In my region, rural Derbyshire, so many of the main trunk roads have had their speed limits reduced from the national speed limit to 50 mph, accompanied by the condescending statement: "It's 50 for a reason" (and we now know what that reason i$!). A case in point is the A515 from Buxton to Ashbourne, which had it's speed limit reduced to 50 mph.
The argument for reducing speed limits is to reduce the number of crashes or fatalities; having travelled along this road for several years I can't tell you the last time I saw a crash. Now, if you keep to 50 mph you often get stuck behind lorries and tractors, and to overtake you have to break the law, which is a complete nonsense.
The A610 that links Codnor to the edge of Nottingham, on the Nottinghamshire-Derbyshire border, allows you to do 70 mph and then just before a long incline, and still miles away from pedestrians, the speed limit reduced to 50 mph and as you approach the roundabout where the A610 meets junction 26 of the M1, it is reduced to 40 mph.
There must be hundreds of examples from around the country with nonsensical speed limits. The irony is that on narrow country lanes you can tear along at 60 mph when the limit perhaps ought to be lower; but there's not enough traffic on country lanes to make it worth trying to enforce a sensible speed limit. The same goes for villages where often the speed limit is 30 mph (as it should be) but motorists hurtle through.
I am not a fan of speed cameras but I believe they should be deployed where motorists ought to know better, but on the open road the speed limits should be set higher.
As for the motorways, when will we be allowed to catch up with our Continental cousins and travel at 80 mph?
Apparently, the answer is 'no', they don't have anything better to do. Now, we have a situation in which a law-abiding member of the public has a criminal record all because he flashed his car's headlights to warn other motorists that they're heading towards a Police 'safety camera' (aka money-spinning speed trap).
The reason why most motorists, the writer included, warn other motorists of speed traps is because they are frequently cynically placed to do nothing more than to generate revenue; they don't have much to do with safety and with the cut-backs starting to bite we can all expect to see more of these mobile money-spinners springing up on a road near you.
In my region, rural Derbyshire, so many of the main trunk roads have had their speed limits reduced from the national speed limit to 50 mph, accompanied by the condescending statement: "It's 50 for a reason" (and we now know what that reason i$!). A case in point is the A515 from Buxton to Ashbourne, which had it's speed limit reduced to 50 mph.
The argument for reducing speed limits is to reduce the number of crashes or fatalities; having travelled along this road for several years I can't tell you the last time I saw a crash. Now, if you keep to 50 mph you often get stuck behind lorries and tractors, and to overtake you have to break the law, which is a complete nonsense.
The A610 that links Codnor to the edge of Nottingham, on the Nottinghamshire-Derbyshire border, allows you to do 70 mph and then just before a long incline, and still miles away from pedestrians, the speed limit reduced to 50 mph and as you approach the roundabout where the A610 meets junction 26 of the M1, it is reduced to 40 mph.
There must be hundreds of examples from around the country with nonsensical speed limits. The irony is that on narrow country lanes you can tear along at 60 mph when the limit perhaps ought to be lower; but there's not enough traffic on country lanes to make it worth trying to enforce a sensible speed limit. The same goes for villages where often the speed limit is 30 mph (as it should be) but motorists hurtle through.
I am not a fan of speed cameras but I believe they should be deployed where motorists ought to know better, but on the open road the speed limits should be set higher.
As for the motorways, when will we be allowed to catch up with our Continental cousins and travel at 80 mph?
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Invincible Vince Cable?
"Reputation is an idle and most false imposition; oft got without merit, and lost without deserving", wrote William Shakespeare in Othello.
This might have been written about Vince Cable, a policitian whose integrity towered above his colleagues matched with a razor-sharp wit; how can anyone forget the famous put-down when he compared Gordon Brown, when he was prime minister, to Mr Bean? Today, however, after revelations in the Daily Telegraph in which Vince Cable told (nay, boasted) to undercover journalists that he could topple the coalition government if he resigned from the Cabinet. He is now looking more like Mr Clumsy than the able politician that he is. However, his gaffe over tuition fees (in which he threated to vote against his own policy) seems to have started the rot.
But what can we take from this major error of judgement? Firstly, that when you're a politician you should always keep your personal views to yourself. You never know who you're talking to and you simply cannot risk anything leaking out that isn't government policy. This is an area in which New Labour excelled; everyone followed the official party line and maintained strict discipline when communicating with the media.
Secondly, that as Shakespeare so eloquently put it, reputation can come and go at the whim of those who bestowed positive attributes to you in the first place. Vince Cable's reputation is now heading south faster than a flock of migrating birds; if he were a Plc we would be selling shares and I can't see that situation changing in the near future. I would be surprised if he didn't do the decent thing and resign before or during the Christmas recess.
The same problem, of a sliding reputation, is also being visited upon Nick Clegg. Was it only 6 months ago when, on the lawns of No. 10, we all witnessed that friendly, knock-about banter between the newly-weds, Clegg and Cameron? Today, Clegg's reputation has been tarnished partly by his volte face on his party's position of tuition fees.
It seem that the problem with both politicians is that they have come under the spell of power and will do anything to keep hold of power. Before the election it was all heart-felt pledges and a promise to do politics differently. Clegg sounded convincing and Cable was his powerful right-hand man, and there was a sense that we could have witnessed a new dawn in British politics.
Of course, the electorate failed to deliver a decisive victory to any party and we now have a situation in which the Tories are getting their own way and the LibDems are having to bite their lips (or so it seems) as they agree to policies that were never in their manifesto. Perhaps Cameron should have formed a minority government, which would have given Cameron a working majority but the opposition parties would have had real power.
I am sure that Clegg enjoyed the moment when he became deputy PM, but he and his colleagues are actually part of a Tory government, which is great news for Cameron because the LibDems are being wheeled-out to take the flack for unpopular policies whilst they sit back pinching themselves, because I am sure that they can't believe they're not dreaming.
This might have been written about Vince Cable, a policitian whose integrity towered above his colleagues matched with a razor-sharp wit; how can anyone forget the famous put-down when he compared Gordon Brown, when he was prime minister, to Mr Bean? Today, however, after revelations in the Daily Telegraph in which Vince Cable told (nay, boasted) to undercover journalists that he could topple the coalition government if he resigned from the Cabinet. He is now looking more like Mr Clumsy than the able politician that he is. However, his gaffe over tuition fees (in which he threated to vote against his own policy) seems to have started the rot.
But what can we take from this major error of judgement? Firstly, that when you're a politician you should always keep your personal views to yourself. You never know who you're talking to and you simply cannot risk anything leaking out that isn't government policy. This is an area in which New Labour excelled; everyone followed the official party line and maintained strict discipline when communicating with the media.
Secondly, that as Shakespeare so eloquently put it, reputation can come and go at the whim of those who bestowed positive attributes to you in the first place. Vince Cable's reputation is now heading south faster than a flock of migrating birds; if he were a Plc we would be selling shares and I can't see that situation changing in the near future. I would be surprised if he didn't do the decent thing and resign before or during the Christmas recess.
The same problem, of a sliding reputation, is also being visited upon Nick Clegg. Was it only 6 months ago when, on the lawns of No. 10, we all witnessed that friendly, knock-about banter between the newly-weds, Clegg and Cameron? Today, Clegg's reputation has been tarnished partly by his volte face on his party's position of tuition fees.
It seem that the problem with both politicians is that they have come under the spell of power and will do anything to keep hold of power. Before the election it was all heart-felt pledges and a promise to do politics differently. Clegg sounded convincing and Cable was his powerful right-hand man, and there was a sense that we could have witnessed a new dawn in British politics.
Of course, the electorate failed to deliver a decisive victory to any party and we now have a situation in which the Tories are getting their own way and the LibDems are having to bite their lips (or so it seems) as they agree to policies that were never in their manifesto. Perhaps Cameron should have formed a minority government, which would have given Cameron a working majority but the opposition parties would have had real power.
I am sure that Clegg enjoyed the moment when he became deputy PM, but he and his colleagues are actually part of a Tory government, which is great news for Cameron because the LibDems are being wheeled-out to take the flack for unpopular policies whilst they sit back pinching themselves, because I am sure that they can't believe they're not dreaming.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Are you being served?
If you like coffee and you haven't been on Mars for the last few years, you'll be very familiar with the changes that have taken place to the way that we consume coffee. Over the years we have moved from being a nation that enjoys being served at a table to one where self-service is the order of the day.
The rise of the American-styled, self-service coffee chains has led to the Americanisation of yet another part of our daily lives, which has inflicted a whole new service model on the caffeine-hungry consumer.
If you visit any chain-operated coffee bar, and an increasing number of independent operators, the enjoyment all but evaporates the moment you walk in. The sanitised process starts with a queue as you wait in line to be served; when you finally get to place your order, having had to decipher a myriad of coffee options and then select the size of the chosen beverage (why can't they just offer you "large" or "small" rather than "regular" or "tall" or "grande"?). Then comes the "upselling" question, the one that marketeers must have been very proud of when they decided that every customer is likely to spend more if they're asked to: "would you like anything with that?". Invariably, it's a "no" because I think I might be old enough to know whether I would like a small piece of heated dough and smidgen of chocolate, sorry pain au chocolate, which I will be asked to pay around £1.70. What next? "Does sir need to use the toilet?"
Once you have negotiated the ordering stage, you then have to wait until your beverage is served. If, when your drink emerges, you want sugar you have to take your tray to another area where milk, sugar, ridiculous wooden stirring sticks and serviettes are available.
At this point, and you could have been in the cafe for 10 or more minutes, you're still nowhere near being able to enjoy your rapidly-cooling beverage. The next part in this consumer-unfriendly environment is being able to find a vacant table to sit at; if you're with friends or colleagues you can deploy the pincer movement on arrival: one queues for the drinks whilst the others find a table. However, in some establishments even this forward-thinking activity is frowned upon. If you're alone then it's every coffee-lover for themselves.
Of course, being British no one wants to have to share a table even if this means occupying a table for 4 and then spreading out newspapers and laptops to ensure that no other customer will dare to enquire if they can join you. What did the owners expect? That we would all lapse into Friends-esque exuberance at 8.00 in the morning (or at any time of the day for that matter)?
So, we're finally at our table and in a few short minutes we've consumed our lukewarm cappuccino (the best advice is to always go for a black coffee because at least the coffee will still be hotter than the milky alternatives). What next? What if you want another drink? If you're with friends, again, no problem; if you're alone what do you do? Do you leave all your belongings alone and exposed, and then nervously keep checking that your prize laptop is still where you left it as you endure another customer service nightmare? Or do you pack everything up and go?
Emotionally, I packed up and left the chains behind some time ago because I think that enjoying a coffee or tea or whatever you prefer should be a pleasant experience and not a trip down memory lane to the school canteen. I now go out of my way to avoid the chains (sometimes you have no choice: it is either a McKing burger bar or coffee chain), and always choose those places where you do get service (even a genuine smile) and a decent coffee (as opposed to a superdupersillyfrillylattefrothyccino).
Such places are out there waiting for your custom and when you do find them you won't be disappointed; you will enjoy the difference between the clinical, sausage-machine approach to selling coffee and the more personal approach where staff are generally pleased to serve you, an experience which most Europeans still enjoy.
With the chains achieving ridiculously high mark-ups on the cost of the raw ingredients (7p per espresso shot is what it costs them) they are going to be with us for some time to come, but if we want to avoid a chain-only coffee future then I suggest that we all try to seek out those coffee bars where the last thing you're asked is: "do you want anything with that?".
The rise of the American-styled, self-service coffee chains has led to the Americanisation of yet another part of our daily lives, which has inflicted a whole new service model on the caffeine-hungry consumer.
If you visit any chain-operated coffee bar, and an increasing number of independent operators, the enjoyment all but evaporates the moment you walk in. The sanitised process starts with a queue as you wait in line to be served; when you finally get to place your order, having had to decipher a myriad of coffee options and then select the size of the chosen beverage (why can't they just offer you "large" or "small" rather than "regular" or "tall" or "grande"?). Then comes the "upselling" question, the one that marketeers must have been very proud of when they decided that every customer is likely to spend more if they're asked to: "would you like anything with that?". Invariably, it's a "no" because I think I might be old enough to know whether I would like a small piece of heated dough and smidgen of chocolate, sorry pain au chocolate, which I will be asked to pay around £1.70. What next? "Does sir need to use the toilet?"
Once you have negotiated the ordering stage, you then have to wait until your beverage is served. If, when your drink emerges, you want sugar you have to take your tray to another area where milk, sugar, ridiculous wooden stirring sticks and serviettes are available.
At this point, and you could have been in the cafe for 10 or more minutes, you're still nowhere near being able to enjoy your rapidly-cooling beverage. The next part in this consumer-unfriendly environment is being able to find a vacant table to sit at; if you're with friends or colleagues you can deploy the pincer movement on arrival: one queues for the drinks whilst the others find a table. However, in some establishments even this forward-thinking activity is frowned upon. If you're alone then it's every coffee-lover for themselves.
Of course, being British no one wants to have to share a table even if this means occupying a table for 4 and then spreading out newspapers and laptops to ensure that no other customer will dare to enquire if they can join you. What did the owners expect? That we would all lapse into Friends-esque exuberance at 8.00 in the morning (or at any time of the day for that matter)?
So, we're finally at our table and in a few short minutes we've consumed our lukewarm cappuccino (the best advice is to always go for a black coffee because at least the coffee will still be hotter than the milky alternatives). What next? What if you want another drink? If you're with friends, again, no problem; if you're alone what do you do? Do you leave all your belongings alone and exposed, and then nervously keep checking that your prize laptop is still where you left it as you endure another customer service nightmare? Or do you pack everything up and go?
Emotionally, I packed up and left the chains behind some time ago because I think that enjoying a coffee or tea or whatever you prefer should be a pleasant experience and not a trip down memory lane to the school canteen. I now go out of my way to avoid the chains (sometimes you have no choice: it is either a McKing burger bar or coffee chain), and always choose those places where you do get service (even a genuine smile) and a decent coffee (as opposed to a superdupersillyfrillylattefrothyccino).
Such places are out there waiting for your custom and when you do find them you won't be disappointed; you will enjoy the difference between the clinical, sausage-machine approach to selling coffee and the more personal approach where staff are generally pleased to serve you, an experience which most Europeans still enjoy.
With the chains achieving ridiculously high mark-ups on the cost of the raw ingredients (7p per espresso shot is what it costs them) they are going to be with us for some time to come, but if we want to avoid a chain-only coffee future then I suggest that we all try to seek out those coffee bars where the last thing you're asked is: "do you want anything with that?".
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
Give the independent coffee shops a break
With their slicker-than-slick marketing campaigns, matching equally slick interiors it is all too easy to walk past the independent coffee shops in favour of the Costa Neros of the world (or should that be Costa Small Fortune?). The coffee chains offer much to tempt the easily-persuaded consumer that walking into one of their stores will give them the feeling that they're walking on to a set from Friends.
However, the next time you see an independent outlet give them a go. I was on Kennington Road in London recently waiting for a meeting. I was looking for somewhere to wait and spotted and independent patisserie. I initially hesitated before going in because the one thing that chains offer is consistency and it is this safety in knowing what you'll get that people are so tempted to go back time and time again.
I went in and ordered coffee and a pain au chocolat. I was asked for £1.25 and thought that they had forgotten to add something to my bill. The pastry was fresh out of the oven and still warm and the coffee wasn't bad (although it wasn't as good as it could have been). It wasn't anything like as organised or as beautifully designed as the chains, but then I hadn't had to pay for the branding, marketing and design in the inflated prices they charge.
Chains and independents should live side-by-side, but as the chains take an increasing share of the market the indie sector is bound to be squeezed and that would be a shame.
The next time you have a choice between a multiple coffee bar operator and an independent give the little guy a go.
However, the next time you see an independent outlet give them a go. I was on Kennington Road in London recently waiting for a meeting. I was looking for somewhere to wait and spotted and independent patisserie. I initially hesitated before going in because the one thing that chains offer is consistency and it is this safety in knowing what you'll get that people are so tempted to go back time and time again.
I went in and ordered coffee and a pain au chocolat. I was asked for £1.25 and thought that they had forgotten to add something to my bill. The pastry was fresh out of the oven and still warm and the coffee wasn't bad (although it wasn't as good as it could have been). It wasn't anything like as organised or as beautifully designed as the chains, but then I hadn't had to pay for the branding, marketing and design in the inflated prices they charge.
Chains and independents should live side-by-side, but as the chains take an increasing share of the market the indie sector is bound to be squeezed and that would be a shame.
The next time you have a choice between a multiple coffee bar operator and an independent give the little guy a go.
Monday, May 24, 2010
BA's demise?
I was just that little bit too young to remember the real impact of the striking car-workers in the 1970s, but I know exactly the outcome: a non-existent volume car manufacturing industry here in the UK.
The power of the unions in the 1970s had grown out of all proportion and you can see why Maggie decided to take them all on -- and win. Workers in throughout the Industrial Revolution had no rights and many worked in appalling conditions, so you can see why the workers needed someone or some organisation to stand up for them. The unions became too powerful and threatened to damage the very industries that were paying their members, in most cases, a rather good wage (boosted by bonuses, overtime and other additional payments).
Fast-forward to today and with BA we have a situation where a company losing millions is having to make cuts; the unions won't allow these cuts to be made and the cabin crew have walked out. The result is millions of pounds in lost revenue for every day the aircraft remain on the ground.
It shouldn't take a genius to work out what will happen if the workers continue to strike. They might win the argument but, when they're sitting filling in their unemployment payment forms, they might wonder how they managed to lose the war. As for the unions? They're all right, Jack.
Must fly...
The power of the unions in the 1970s had grown out of all proportion and you can see why Maggie decided to take them all on -- and win. Workers in throughout the Industrial Revolution had no rights and many worked in appalling conditions, so you can see why the workers needed someone or some organisation to stand up for them. The unions became too powerful and threatened to damage the very industries that were paying their members, in most cases, a rather good wage (boosted by bonuses, overtime and other additional payments).
Fast-forward to today and with BA we have a situation where a company losing millions is having to make cuts; the unions won't allow these cuts to be made and the cabin crew have walked out. The result is millions of pounds in lost revenue for every day the aircraft remain on the ground.
It shouldn't take a genius to work out what will happen if the workers continue to strike. They might win the argument but, when they're sitting filling in their unemployment payment forms, they might wonder how they managed to lose the war. As for the unions? They're all right, Jack.
Must fly...
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Demise of the French coffee shop?
On Radio 4's Today programme there was a piece about the rise in the number of cafés that are closing in France, currently around 2 per week across the country.
In the UK we have had far higher rates of pub failures, so in the context of cafés closing perhaps two per week isn't such a tragedy. The reasons for the closures include fewer customers and rising costs, but at the end of a recession these closures should come as little surprise. The other factor was a change in French lifestyles that are affecting demand for the coffee shops.
One of the French interviewees cited the rise of the popularity of Starbucks and explained that they had taken coffee and had marketed in a way only the Americans could. The conclusion, the listener was left to draw, was that the independent operator couldn't keep up with the demands for the Friends-esque lifestyle promised in the CostaNerroBucks identikit operations that are threatening localised cultures across Europe, if not across the globe.
For the French, coffee shops are often at the heart of the local community and no matter how small the village or hamlet every place had a least one place where the people could come together and talk about the day's work over a coffee, pastis or bière.
To the visitor to the country the coffee shops are an integral part of the experience of a country that offers a very different way of life, even it's only for two weeks a year. From my perspective the independent coffee shops offer several benefits over the chains of coffee bars. The staff serve you where you sit -- there's no queueing like you're back in the school canteen; there's no pressure on having to buy anything with your drink (most bars don't do food, that's left to the restaurants); you don't have to choose from umpteen options of coffee and you can buy an alcholic drink if you so desire. Each bar has such a different feel, which adds to the experience, and you are mostly served by the owner, who has a very keen interest in keeping their customers happy.
Compare that to the mayhem of the average high street coffee bar and I can't understand why they're even popular in our country. Having said that we don't have that coffee bar culture that the French and most other European countries seem to enjoy. For us Brits it's the pub or nothing; as for getting a decent coffee -- virtually impossible away from the high street, which perhaps explains why the chains have become so popular. Even many independent tea rooms, which I would prefer to use, don't even know how to spell "coffee" let alone serve a decent espresso.
[As a note to the owners of the coffee chains, could we at least have table service? If I am out on business and want a coffee whilst I check my e-mails I have to fight to get served, I have to wait for my drink, which I then have to carry to a table if I can find one that is available. If I want another coffee what do I do? Leave the laptop and risk a quick dash to the counter? No, I leave. A waiter or waitress would be able to serve me at my seat and in so doing getting me, the customer, to spend more money. Everyone would probably spend more by being served at a table; you have time to think about what you want and you certainly have the option of buying another drink if you are on your own. Even if putting on more staff didn't increase profits, it would add much to the experience, which I currently try to avoid at all costs.]
I hope the French don't wake up one morning and find a country over-run with the multiple operators offering demi-semi-frothy-choco-frappeccinos, when all the customer really ever wants is a decent coffee. The fact that you can't buy a muffin or some other fat-laden product must also be great for the diet.
As an optimist for the French way of life and given their Gallic stubbornness it is likely that their independent operators will remain at the heart of many communities. Most French towns and cities still have mainly independent retail operators, which is a far cry from most UK high streets; in this age of global brands it is a pleasant experience to go shopping in France and have some real choice.
As we plan for our summer holiday, which will be in France (no surprises there), we look forward to a country that still has a routine that, certainly the more rural areas, still abide by. Shops do close at 12 until 2, which can be irritating to the shopaholic Brits, but it is refreshing that there is the enforced down-time.
It also means that you can enjoy a leisurely lunch in a tranquil place sit back and savour la difference.
À bientôt.
Monday, November 09, 2009
SIMON COWELL'S CYNICAL DECISION
Although I am not usually a fan of so-called reality TV shows, I have been hooked in to the current series of X Factor. Of course, everything about such shows is really about as far from reality as you can get; yes, the show and its copy-cat variants do make stars of a handful of people, but you can't help feel that you're being manipulated by very astute producers as you follow the progress of the talented and the talentless.
Whilst I have been happy enough to watch the show thus far, and go along with the make belief world, last night's decision by Simon Cowell demonstrates just how controlling the producers (of which he is one) are. Louis Walsh's only remaining group, John & Edward, together with Lucie Jones, received the fewest votes and as such has to sing again so that the judges could decide who should leave the show.
So far, so good.
The decision, according to Cowell, would be made purely on the performances that J&E and Lucie were about to make. Lucie, after a shaky start, quickly gained her composure and sang like an angel. J&E, on the other hand, the jokers in the pack, performed as anticipated: out of tune and hyperactive.
After the performances, Dermot O'Leary pressed the judges for a decision. Walsh naturally saved his act and Minogue saved her act. Cole chose to send J&E home and then it came down to Cowell. Last week he failed to make a decision and relied on the public vote to determine who would go home. This week he was in control of J&E's fate and the nation willed him to send home the weakest act. In all the previous weeks he was always arguing that it was a joke that they were in the show, so his decision should have been quite easy.
But, he paused, he shuffled in his seat and he cogitated. Before he made a decision he said that neither act would win the show and droned on further before saying that he would let the public decide.
Lucie received the fewest votes and left the show.
If it is a talent show then Cowell should have sent home John & Edward, who without a doubt have been the worst performers in the series. They should never have been allowed to through to the live finals, which is another reason that makes you realise that the show isn't based on talent, but about ratings and hooking in the viewers so that they will vote in their millions and fill the producers' coffers.
No one really minds the fact that so much is being made from the voting system, but when decisions are made that clearly have nothing to do with the apparent aims of the show (to find the best talent) then there is something very wrong.
Whilst there was a lot to admire about Simon Cowell, his decision not to send home the weakest act undermines his credibilty. But Cowell doesn't worry about public opinion and by keeping the jokers in the show it is probably going to result in more people voting for their preferred acts. I imagine next week's show will achieve record numbers of voters.
The conclusion we draw is that such shows are simply vehicles to make money whilst the public is duped into thinking that they are watching a show that is actually interested in identifying the stars of the future, which it clearly is not.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Ryanair Rip-off
Perhaps it just that I haven't flown for a couple of years, and out of touch with the "low cost" airlines, but the experience booking tickets to Rome doesn't encourage me to become a regular flyer.
First of all is the issue of choice. EasyJet used to fly out of East Midlands Airport (EMA) but now the "choice" is straight out of the options manual from Henry Ford: any airline you want as long as it's Ryanair.
So, it's on to the Ryanair website to get those cheap flights. The site itself is very easy to navigate around and I was soon nearing the check-out. Then comes the minefield that is Ryanair's check in and baggage options. We've already arrived at a sub-total of £420.00 for two adults and two children to get to and from Rome, which isn't too bad all things considered, but then you have a summary page which automatically includes travel insurance for every passenger.
You have to go through each person's details and manually de-select the travel insurance option, but I imagine many simply leave it in as it could easily be assumed that you must have travel insurance. If you pay with a credit card then you are automatically insured; you don't need to pay their rip-off rates.
On the baggage options I clicked the one case option and there appeared another cost of £28.00. OK, one bag and I'll check in at the airport despite fuming that there was another unexpected cost to add on.
For my wife and two boys we don't need further baggage so they're left as zero; then we can check-in online for free or for £9 at the airport. I select the free option and then go to check-out; but I can't proceed as one person (me) has to check in the bag at the airport, even though there are no other bags to check in.
The option is that I must do two separate booking; one for me with a bag and another one for my wife and children without baggage, which means they can check in online.
We decide that as we can all take hand luggage we won't have any luggage in the hold, which means that we can all check in online and for free.
I finally arrive at the payment section and have my credit card at the ready. But, another catch: if you pay by credit card there's a booking fee. A what? Another tax!
The rate works out at a 9% surcharge taking our total to £460.00.
At IKEA they charge just 70p to pay by credit card and that's enough. We know that the card companies charge around 1% to their customers so Ryanair is making up to 8% for nothing. Disgusting. The only card that escapes a fee is if you have an Electron card; if you're a regular Ryanair flyer I would get yourself one and quick.
So far, so unrelaxing and we haven't even set foot in the airport yet. However, without checking in baggage and nothing to collect when we land in Rome we should at least be out of the airport in minutes.
Compare this to travelling by ferry or Eurotunnel; a few clicks and you're at the check out and no issue about how much baggage. You just select the size of car and include how many passengers. On the day of travel you drive to the ferry terminal, wait until you embark and then you sit back and enjoy the ride.
There's no fighting through Customs and check in, there's no fear of your luggage ending up in Timbuktu and there's no worry about the cost of parking.
For me it's the ferry everytime.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)