Author Archives: Mark Griffin

As Thick as Two Short Plancks

Posted on by
Reply

So the European Space Agency have proudly released their all-sky image of the universe, and quite stunning it is too. Bravo. Except, no. On reading further and hoping to access high-resolution images I find that one is not available. As Dr Tauber explains on the BBC web site, “We have also reduced the resolution of the image to something which is more manageable for people to look at. Otherwise it would just be too big.” What a bunch of conceited scumbags these people are.

NASA releases masses of high-definition imagery all the time, from Hubble, from Mars, from everything, and what a joy it is. I’m not sure whether I’m more annoyed at ESA treating us as imbeciles, “just too big” for us to look at indeed, or for their academic selfishness in purposely withholding scientifically and culturally significant material. Apparently “one or two groups” have already tried to make “unauthorised interpretations”. How shocking, and how backward this is.

I’m not happy. I think either a change of policy is required, or a change of personnel followed by a change of policy.

Not Google Earth View (Copyright ESA)

Last of the Summer Whine

Posted on by
Reply

Two residents of Holmfirth have fallen out with their council over a £130,000 pedestrian crossing directly in front of their home.

£130,000 puffin crossing ‘unusable’ [Daily Telegraph]

On the face of it, this is a simple case of two planning decisions overlapping with unintended consequences. I wouldn’t fault Kirklees Council or the Wrays over this, except perhaps that the Council were a bit mean to even consider banning the Wrays from using their driveway.

What I do find astonishing, however, is the cost of the crossing. £130,000 seems an extraordinary amount of money for not a lot really. Four traffic light units, two poles, two push-button units, one controller. Presumably there were two advance signposts warning motorists as well, one from each direction. So dig four holes, a trench across the road to link the two sets of traffic lights, another trench to the nearest electricity supply, make good and daub a bit of paint on the road. Job done. It’s not as if they’re building a house.

That amount of money would have paid the wages of a labourer for eight years, and still have left enough to buy the equipment. Or, they could have taken two people off the dole and given them a flag instead. They could have worked daytime shifts and manned the crossing for four years, flagging down traffic any time someone wanted to cross the road. I’m assuming the £130,000 includes maintenance, otherwise the cost will be much higher yet, so my scheme would have to include the cost of a spare flag in case the first one broke.

Just how competitive is the tendering process?

Has it been stifled by red tape?

Lights, Camera, Action

Posted on by
Reply

Most commentators have stopped saying Derrick Bird “snapped” and are now thrashing around instead to find his motive. I think we may need to go back forty years for that. Derrick Bird was born in 1957, and I think it may be significant that he was born within a few years of two other mass-murders, Michael Ryan (Hungerford) born in 1960, Thomas Hamilton (Dunblane) born in 1952. So I think it’s not the year they committed their crime that matters, nor their age at the time, but that they were young and impressionable when Hollywood released films such as these:

Get Carter (1971)
High Plains Drifter (1973)
Death Wish (1974)
The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976)

These were highly acclaimed ultra-violent films that dealt with retribution, portraying a solitary individual successfully exacting revenge and being widely admired by the cinema-going pubic for it. Allowing of course that each of these three murderers had different “triggers” that prompted them to put their fantasies into effect, I do think it’s possible films such as these could have provided them with a rationale for their actions. That was to settle scores and die in a blaze of glory. In their world, the outcomes were justified.

Here’s the score-settling tally for Bird: He settled scores with his brother and the family solicitor over a family dispute; he settled scores with his taxi-driving colleagues over alleged fare stealing; he tried to settle a score with a scuba-diving instructor; and he targeted passers-by seemingly at random. I wonder if they weren’t as random as we imagine, but perhaps they represented fare-paying passengers who he felt had disrespected him in some way. I can certainly imagine as a taxi driver he might have a problem with cyclists. I’m not saying all taxi drivers do or should, but seeing as he now seems to be an intolerant individual maybe he saw cyclists generally as a nuisance. So, see one, kill one. Likewise if he sees someone who reminds him of passengers who never tip, or someone who might have thrown-up in his cab once, or maybe even the guy who robbed him. It’s death by association.

You need the means and you need the motive to carry out something like this, but I think you also crucially need the self-justification.

Outrage >> Knee >> Jerk

Posted on by
Reply

It had to happen. It’s been years since we had a shooting outrage, but within minutes of the latest one, and on the basis of no knowledge whatsoever, we have the first knee-jerk reactions calling for tighter gun control.

First of all it has been reported that this guy held his license for 15 years. Is there any possibility whatsoever we could make gun license applicants wait fifteen years to see if they were going to do anything stupid? On top of all the other existing conditions and restrictions? Would that work? Of course not. In the 15 years he held his license, some 750 people (as near as I can find out right now) have been shot dead by people not licensed to carry guns.

It is suggested that he “snapped”, perhaps provoked in a family dispute. It has also been reported he told a taxi driver he’d argued with the night before, “There’s going to be a rampage tomorrow,” and then he went home and armed himself with two weapons. He was dissuaded on that occasion by a friend’s daughter. I feel desperately sorry for her right now, how must she feel? But at that point, even then could he have been stopped? How many people get angry but never follow through? Could she have reported him? What if it turned out he was only making an idle threat? It must happen a million times. How about the hospital where he is supposed to have gone for help, only to be turned away?

In the event, after killing his twin brother, he calmly went to the home of the family solicitor, waited for him and killed him, before going to Whitehaven to settle a grudge with former co-drivers. That done, and all in cold blood, he went off on his killing spree. It doesn’t seem to me he “snapped”, he made a calculated decision and followed it through. Even the killing of his brother could not have been a “snap” decision, it occurred at a quarry and not at the home of either of them. So they met there, and Bird took his guns with him.

How do we legislate against that, other than “No guns, no way”? I think everyone who’s asking that question right now is asking the wrong question. I would be much more interested in a debate about personal responsibility. He was able to rationalise his actions before he took them. How did he get there? I think that’s the more frightening aspect.

Given up for “Lost”

Posted on by
Reply

I think the “Lost” finale* is a pretty good metaphor for where we are as a country right now. We’ve just woken from thirteen seasons under Labour to find out we died the day Tony Blair walked into Downing Street. Whether the Coalition Government can breathe life into our corpse of a country remains to be seen, but for the sake of all of us, I hope they do.

The early signs look good, and Cameron and Clegg are brushing off some witless criticism that they have each “sold out” their respective Parties. Cameron, we are told, should have struggled along as a minority government and then gone to the country for an early election and a full mandate. But that advice is coming from commentators who write strident columns without bearing any responsibility for what happens in the meantime, so I’m happy to give Cameron credit for actually trying to deal with the problems facing our country instead of grandstanding.

We need to deal with the fundamental problems of the country, they include, but are not limited to, a bloated bureaucracy with an obsession for targets and form-filling; a dysfunctional banking and business sector with a culture of personal enrichment at any cost to the consumer; and an inverted society where the rights of criminals, illegal immigrants and even terrorists trump the natural rights of the law-abiding citizen.

That doesn’t even touch on any special interests of mine, such as the appalling level of care we give to wounded soldiers and the shoddy equipment we provide them with in the first place, or the creeping European superstate that is taking us over without any democratic process of any kind.

But I remain hopeful that at last we seem to have a government that is addressing them all.

* The “Lost” finale reveals that all the castaways actually died when the plane crashed onto the island.

No, I’ll not move on, thank you Mr Clegg

Posted on by
Reply

It may seem to Nick Clegg the correct thing to do after Gordon Brown has apologised for his “bigot” remark is to be the proper gentleman and suggest we put it behind us. But Brown’s unguarded remark reveals how much contempt he has for ordinary people and reminds us why we want and need change. It is the breathtaking arrogance of so many of our masters in Parliament, exemplified by the expenses scandal, that has us so riled. This government has signed-over our rights to Europe and denied us the right to have a referendum, they won’t even have a debate on whether to have a referendum. They sign into Law new legislation by Order in Council, evading even the minimal scrutiny this lame-duck Parliament gives to anything these days. They even told us flat-out lies in order to get support for a war that all the evidence suggests was illegal. No, Mr Clegg, you are wrong. That gaffe goes to the very heart of the problem; we want to be listened to, we want our opinions heard, we are not bigots. If you don’t know that, then you don’t really understand us.

Virus Warning

Posted on by
Reply

A new virus has been discovered that has been described by the Daily Telegraph as the most dangerous ever to hit Britain. Innocent users are being duped into marking an “X” in a box on a piece of paper that will result in catastrophic consequences. If you receive a manifesto with a picture of a red rose on it, destroy it immediately, if you do not it will infect the election process and may result in the following:

* More rights being given away to Europe without a referendum
* Higher taxes for low income households, lower taxes for the mega-rich
* Continued double-dip recession and increased taxes on jobs
* Continued low spending on our armed forces and neglect of the wounded
* Continued lack of border control and increased uncontrolled immigration
* Continued assaults on anything representing British culture and values

Do not put a cross in the box next to “Labour” on your ballot paper.

Virus removal procedure:

If you become accidentally infected by this virus, there is only one thing you can do: emigrate

OMG, I am so honoured!

Posted on by
2

This has just landed in my in-box, and frankly I am overwhelmed. Thank you, thank you, thank you to everyone who nominated me, I feel so humbled to receive your recognition. My life will not be the same after this. Who is the Presidential Who’s Who anyway?

Dear Mark,

You were recently chosen as a potential candidate to represent your professional community in the 2010 Edition of Presidential Who’s Who.

We are please to inform you that your candidacy was formally approved February 28th, 2010. Congratulations.

The Publishing Committee selected you as a potential candidate based not only upon your current standing, but focusing as well on criteria from executive and professional directories, associations, and trade journals. Given your background, the Director believes your profile makes a fitting addition to our publication.

There is no fee nor obligation to be listed. As we are working off of secondary sources, we must receive verification from you that your profile is accurate. After receiving verification, we will validate your registry listing within seven business days.

Once finalized, your listing will share prominent registry space with thousands of fellow accomplished individuals across the globe, each representing accomplishment within their own geographical area.

To verify your profile and accept the candidacy, please visit here. Our registration deadline for this year’s candidates is March 31th, 2010. To ensure you are included, we must receive your verification on or before this date. On behalf of our Committee I salute your achievement and welcome you to our association.

Sincerely,
MarkAnthony McGuiness
Chief Operations Officer

Presidential Who’s Who
134 Rockaway Ave
Valley Stream, NY 11590, USA

The Death of the Photographer

Posted on by
Reply

I was rather taken aback when I went to the Telegraph web site recently to read up on a topic I was interested in. I found three or four reports on what I was looking for, but they were all videos. Aside from one photo in a paragraph that linked into these stories, there were no other photos, and aside from the introductory text on the same paragraph, there was no other text. I would have expected this on the BBC web site, after all they are a television broadcaster, but the Telegraph exists in the world of the printed word.

Writing imposes certain disciplines, it trains the mind to think and construct arguments, to make points, to reason. Writing also works because it has to be read, and you have to think to read.  With words, you can re-read a sentence and ponder any deeper meaning. Writing can be Googled, linked and quoted. The written word, therefore, helps us to tease out knowledge and improve our understanding because it makes the writer think about what he’s writing, and gives the reader time to think and digest that meaning.

Video is an entirely different medium. That’s not to say that a well-written and well delivered piece to camera cannot have any impact, on the contrary, it can have massive impact which can be multiplied when transcribed and made available to a wider audience. But it’s impossible for a commentator to alter a single word or phrase without having to re-record the whole segment, it’s tedious for the viewer to rewind and play a clip repeatedly to review a comment, and all too easy to “space out” and miss a crucial point.

But my greatest disappointment is for what this video-only trend means to the art of photography. It is of course a tired cliche to say that a picture is worth a thousand words, but I really believe that, even in this photoshopped era. However, it does not follow that video at 30 frames per second is worth thirty thousand words per second. A short video clip may indeed be worth less than an excellent photograph because in my view, the skilled photographer can capture a moment in time which we can then study at length.

News media are struggling to maintain full complements of journalists as it is, but if they also need more cameramen to record video then traditional stills photography will be sacrificed. I don’t think a frame-grab from video is the same thing. So I see fewer photographers out there in future and the diminishing of a remarkable medium for documenting social and political history. Would Robert Capa’s “Death of a Loyalist Soldier” have resonated down the ages if it had been a clip on YouTube? I don’t think so.

Robert Capa's "Death of a Loyalist Soldier", now thought to have been staged

When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail

Posted on by
Reply

Problem: Smoking is bad for your health.
Solution: Put a tax on it.

Problem: We need to increase availability of broadband.
Solution: Put a tax on it.

“Government plans for a 50p-a-month tax on households to fund super-fast broadband across the country have been criticised by an influential group of MPs,” says a report on Sky News, and quite right too.

The instinct of this government is to tax, however clumsy or counter-productive it might be. If the government wants to encourage virtuous activity, they should give businesses an incentive to do it.

Follow-Up

I have to edit this and add the latest piece of insanity from this government. With a recession still ongoing and jobs, you would think, being a top priority, this government wants to increase the tax on jobs that is National Insurance. Not only will workers take home less pay, but employers will pay more too. So:

Problem: Low employment
Solution: Increase the tax on jobs