Longrider

The A4 running through Saltford is the major route between Bristol and Bath. There is a better; more scenic route, via Kelston, but for most people, the A4 is the quickest and most logical. For those commuting daily between the two cities, this is the one they use. But not for the next nine weeks…

Major roadworks have seen it closed by the Highways Agency and a diversion of the type normally only seen in rural France is in operation. Taking travellers some miles out of their way, it diverts those going from Bristol via the A4174, the A420 and then the A46. Travellers coming in the opposite direction are diverted onto the A39 then A37. The whole thing looks utterly horrendous and I’ll be keeping clear of it. If I do have to go to Bath, I’ll take the Kelston road.

Doubtless there is a sound reason for this complete closure. I suspect that the complete relaying of the road and utilities is behind it. However, it seems that drivers have been misusing the access allowed for residents and visitors to Saltford. Indeed, drivers have been encouraged to break the block by a local radio station.

The Highways Agency has spoken out after a radio station advised listeners to drive through road works claiming they were visiting local businesses.

An agency spokesman said three sources had confirmed reports of the station encouraging its listeners to drive through the A4 roadworks at Saltford.

As one spokesman pointed out on the BBC Points West programme this evening, the road workers are being placed at greater risk and the work may well be delayed as a consequence. This isn’t stopping plenty of drivers going straight through, though.

Any roadworks on that stretch always result in horrible delays. Putting temporary traffic lights wouldn’t be much different to the usual chaos that happens on a regular basis there. I would have thought this preferable to a complete block, but the decision was agreed with local representatives:

Highways Agency project manager Dave Sledge added: “The decision to use a complete closure to through traffic was taken after consultation with local elected representatives.”

It seems to me, that the motorists breaking the block and going through in order to avoid the even more horrible diversions are behaving entirely predictably even if, as Mr Sledge points out, the behaviour is irresponsible and endangers the workforce. Things are so bad on the first day of the works that the Highways agency is now having to put an extra gatehouse in the village to deter the blockade runners. Which leave the obvious question; why didn’t they (and the local representatives) foresee this? 

And as for the drivers, what is it about people that makes them so utterly selfish? Yes, it’s a mess. Yes, we could do without yet another burden on the journey. Yes, the diversions are dreadful as they are now busy with the overload. Yes, it adds an awful level of stress to the journey – but at least the schools have broken up so the SUV brigade aren’t clogging the roads up taking the tots to their classes. So why do these people think it’s okay to take risks with the workers’ lives by driving through their workspace?  A workspace that is supposed to be traffic free?

Daniel Pearl of Newsnight poses the question on his blog; do you realise that we are reading you?

Also, we know what you are saying about us (really, we do).

If you write anything about Newsnight, or about me, on a blog, I’ll probably find it via Technorati.

Yes, Daniel, we do. We can use Technorati, too. :dry: Indeed, I’d be very surprised if you admitted that you didn’t.

Facetiousness aside, I’m bemused that there are bloggers who genuinely don’t appreciate that their scribbles might be read by others – or, for that matter, by the subjects of their entries.

The post itself was fine in that it raised a valid point; that of naivete among some denizens of the world of blog. It is when you get to the comments that things take a turn; Alan Constable, for instance:

Please define the word “BLOG”.

Or Roy Baker:

First off, I don’t know what a blog is, sounds like an abreviation[sic] of a swear word.

Try Google, it’s free and easy to use – or do you need that defined, too? What is it about a certain type of technophobe who thinks that announcing his ignorance to the world in some way makes him clever or superior?

Maybe it’s the time of year, maybe it’s the weather, maybe I’m just getting older and less tolerant, but it seems to me I’m surrounded by stupidity…

Oh, yeah, silly me; it’s the BBC… :devil:

Master Worstall appears to have grabbed the wrong end of this particular stick and as a consequence, wades into Phil Woolas, the local government minister over the latter’s suggestions regarding public lavatory provision. In a speech yesterday to the British Toilet Association and Keep Britain Tidy campaign, Mr Woolas raises the matter of the lack of public conveniences and recommends a solution.

The Department for Communities and Local Government has already produced a very popular ‘How to’ guide giving tips to town centre managers on ensuring there is public access to toilets.

Mr Woolas’ solution is to involve the private sector in the provision of public conveniences. And it is this to which Tim takes exception:

We could explore how the private sector could become more involved with better access on commercial premises. McDonalds has a reputation for being the place ‘to go’ and turns a blind eye for legitimate use. But why should they be the only ones, and why does it have to be a furtive affair?

Tim’s take:

No. Businesses may follow the example of McDonald’s if they should so wish. They can follow that example. But should?

Not your business matey. They are private businesses operating in a competetive market and how they wish to do so is up to them, who they allow into their private property and for what purposes is precisely fuck all to do with the Minister for Local Government.

If that is all Mr Woolas said, I would agree entirely with Tim’s analysis. However, the quote is incomplete and as I read Tim’s piece after I heard Mr Woolas talking about this on Jeremy Vine’s show, I realised that this assessment of his comments was at odds with what he is suggesting. He is not saying that they should do anything; that is turning his comment on its head to mean something entirely different to what was said. Then again, Tim is using the Times’ article as his source and in this instance, it is an unwise choice.

RESTAURANTS and shops should “grow up” and let the public use their lavatories, Phil Woolas, the Local Government Minister, said.

Actually, no, he didn’t. He said nothing of the sort. This is a huge straw man and a disgraceful piece of reporting in that it blatantly misrepresents what was said. What Phil Woolas actually said, if one reads the transcript of the speech is this:

We need to grow up and invite the private sector to be part of the debate.

That rather puts a different perspective on things, doesn’t it? Mr Woolas is inviting the private sector to be involved.

In Richmond upon Thames there is a community toilet scheme where there is a deal between the council and local businesses. This gives people access to the businesses’ toilet facilities in return for an annual contribution towards maintenance costs from the council.

Not only are they being invited to be involved, for this involvement they will be paid. Now, given that the decline in public lavatories is a serious matter for those people with such ailments as irritable bowel syndrome and bladder weakness, this idea will come as a measure of relief (sorry, couldn’t resist). As this plan seeks voluntary involvement of private businesses in the provision of public facilities for a small fee, I not only see nothing wrong with the suggestion, but, for once, I agree entirely with a minister of the crown and applaud him for raising it.

Make the most of this phenomenon, normal service will be resumed shortly.

Last week, I commented about the imminent and well deserved demise of the government’s identity card scheme. In it, I suggested that there may well be a resurrection.

Expect to see shards of the broken project slip into other arenas of government policy.

Today sees David Miliband talking about carbon rationing:

David Miliband, the Environment Secretary, yesterday backed the idea of carbon rationing for all, based on smart credit cards that record an individual’s energy use.

Mr Miliband’s endorsement of personal carbon allowances goes far beyond the contents of last week’s Energy Review, which spoke of dealing with growing household carbon emissions through an overall carbon trading scheme run by the energy suppliers.

Making each individual’s carbon emissions - the principal component in man-made climate change - their own responsibility goes a step further than that.

Ah, well, looks like my reputation as an all-seeing oracle remains undented… Carbon rationing is the latest in a long line of environmental scare tactics that will – should it be made to work – be used to control the population. As the chaps at Samizdata point out:

Make no mistake, this is not about environmentalist voodoo science, it is about controlling people and this is the tool they are going to use.

 And to do this, they will need to track peoples’ carbon use. They will need a massive database and smart cards. Where the devil have I heard this before? What is it about these people who learn nothing from their mistakes? If the NIR is an elephant growing whiter by the second, what makes Miliband think that a similar (exactly the same) scheme for monitoring carbon use going to suddenly turn grey? And, crucially, what is it about government ministers that makes them blind to their own inability to design, create and manage IT projects?

However, the scheme would require more snooping about what we use energy for - through smart meters.

They just can’t help themselves, can they? Once a fascist, always a fascist, I guess. Lop off one of the heads of the Hydra and she promptly grows a new one. Freedom from these people and their eternal attempts to impose state control on our everyday lives is equally eternal vigilance. The ID cards scheme may be dying on its feet; that doesn’t mean that it has gone away, nor have the control freaks who devised it.

Joan Ryan has picked up the poison chalice that is Identity Cards and was mauled yesterday in the commons over the matter as commented upon by Simon Hoggart.

ID cards are going to make every other botched new system look like the merest blip, a minor accident, the equivalent of getting an email asking if your penis is too large and needs to be reduced.

Yesterday at Home Office questions the minister in charge of the cards, Joan Ryan - and if you already lack confidence in the coming system, I beg you not to listen to Ms Ryan for fear of sleepless nights and trouble-laden days - said that one of the many benefits of ID cards would be help in the fight against identity theft.

Identity theft seems to be the last bastion of these charlatans who would catalogue us and watch our every move to satisfy their own freakish control fetish. The last indefensible bastion of the morally and ideologically bankrupt. Ms Ryan offered us this:

She blathered about “getting the rollout right” and “procurement timetables”. We learned that “soundings have given us sound advice”.

Perhaps I should be generous, accept that she is taking the flak for her obnoxious boss and let her be. That’s why she was spouting utter nonsense. From her mouth gushed management speak at its worst. I’m almost expecting “ball-park figures” and “touching base” along with “level playing fields”. Ye gods, where do they dig these idiots up from?

Why should I be generous? We pay these people to represent us and they repay our generosity with an attempt to impose this scheme on us for their own nefarious ends. Generosity is not deserved; utter contempt is, however, and utter contempt is what they get by the bucket-load. Ms Ryan is a part of what is rotten in the state of Westminster. So, she gets todays prize for the most stupid, inane, senseless and pathetic justification for this execrable scheme:

Ms Ryan replied that you might as well blame burglary on burglar alarms.

Fer fuck’s sake, could it get any worse? Oh, yes, indeedy…

When she said that ID cards were “crucial for fighting counter-terrorism” we knew that she was, like Slim Pickens in Doctor Strangelove, riding down to the bottom on the bomb.

These buffoons are legislating on our behalf. Be afraid, be very afraid.

Another case of a blogger being disciplined at work over a blog has hit the headlines.

An English secretary is bringing a test case under French labour law after allegedly being sacked for bringing her employers into disrepute by writing a “Bridget Jones in Paris” blog describing her everyday life.

Using the pseudonym La Petite Anglaise, she has attracted a sizeable international following for her musings on love, work and single motherhood in her internet diary.

Her blog postings, which are read by up to 3,000 people a day, do not reveal her own name, nor that of her French former boyfriend who is the father of her three-year-old daughter, and have never identified her employers.

But partners at the leading British accountancy firm Dixon Wilson alleged that she made herself and therefore the firm identifiable by including her own photograph on the weblog. They also complained that she used office time to work on it.

If Catherine’s blog was semi-anonymous before, it certainly isn’t now. Now, the whole world knows about Dixon Wilson and what a bunch of immature control freaks they are, too. I doubt this is the type of publicity they would choose but it is well deserved.

Catherine blogged semi-anonymously, as do most of us. It is, though, a simple matter to track down real names if people want to. This is a bit over the top, though. After all, a company has no rights over an employee’s private life. They would be perfectly justified if the blog libelled them, but it would appear that the entries are fairly innocent and little more than passing comment. Yes, you could, should you wish, make the effort to identify individuals, but there is nothing outrageous here, so why bother – and, importantly, why bother to make a fuss? But “gross misconduct”? Do me a favour!

Catherine is on sticky ground for using her work time to post entries, but that’s another matter; simple misuse of company time and resources and nothing to do with blogging per se and nothing that doesn’t happen in slack periods at any company from time to time. Or would Dixon Wilson prefer people to “look busy” even when they are not? Again, I detect an immature attitude to work life and relationships, not to mention poor personnel management techniques.

It’s much the same as with other cases like this; be careful what you say. I can see a time when employers try to impose embargoes on blogging in their contracts of employment. I had a similar type of imposition in my contract when I worked for the railway; restricting who I could talk to; namely, the press. That was fair enough. Talking to the press is likely to mean being misrepresented, so getting professional help from the company’s press officer first made sense anyway. Not that any journalists wanted to speak to me anyways…

Watch this space; employers have no compunctions when attempting to exert undue control over employees and that includes freedom of speech outside of work. Contracts of employment at their simplest are an exchange; time and expertise on the part of the employee for money and sometimes other benefits on the part of the employer. They do not confer any sort of ownership of the employee nor do they grant the employer any rights over what the employee gets up to in their own time, unless specifically included as a clause. That doesn’t stop some employers trying it on, though. Give the buggers a micron and they will take a parsec. I just hope Catherine wins her case. For all our sakes.

In the Grauniad, the Tories talk about rail. More specifically, the utter balls-up they made of it when they privatised the industry:

The Conservatives will today admit that the privatisation of the railways under John Major in the 1990s was a mistake that inflicted costs on both passengers and the taxpayer as well as hindering expansion.

Launching a Conservative Rail Review today the shadow transport secretary Chris Grayling will say that privatisation pushed up the cost of running the railway system - and hence fares - and the party will not seek to reprivatise the system if it returns to power.

Well, that pretty much states the obvious. I don’t think anyone seriously expects a prospective Tory government to re-privatise à la Railtrack in much the same way that no one seriously expected the incoming Labour government to re-nationalise à la British Rail. Unless you count Bob Crow, that is. But, then, Bob’s planet orbits a different sun to this one. Oh, no, the situation was too far advanced for wholesale grab-back by the state. The expense needed would have undermined other polices, so until the fiasco of the Railtrack grab-back; oh, sorry, the time Railtrack, through its inability to manage its affairs; due to the government stopping its funding; went into Railway administration, the department of Transport pretty much left the festering mess alone for the first year or so.

A series of incidents; Paddington and Hatfield predominantly; exposed just how the fractured industry failed to operate as a cohesive whole and how failures in competence management picked up by one part of the industry failed to reach those that mattered, leaving the industry and its passengers exposed; tragically as it turned out. Separating the track and signalling infrastructure from the trains running on it was the ultimate piss-poor idea. It was obviously a piss-poor idea when mooted by the Major government. I, as a signaller at the time could see it. Others I spoke to in the industry could see it. This whole plan had catastrophic cock-up writ large in flashing neon letters three miles high all over it, yet Major and his cabinet either did not or would not see it. The logic behind the horizontal split; of removing a state run monopoly and avoiding a series of regional monopolies simply created Railtrack; a monopoly and a series of steadily growing train operating companies that effectively became monopolies by engulfing the smaller players. Sometimes, a monopoly is the nature of the beast.

Chris Grayling continues:

Speaking to a meeting of rail industry figures Mr Grayling will say: “We think, with hindsight, that the complete separation of track and train into separate businesses at the time of privatisation was not right for our railways.”

“We think that the separation has helped push up the cost of running the railways - and hence fares - and is now slowing decisions about capacity improvements.”

“Too many people and organisations are now involved in getting things done - so nothing happens. As a result, the industry lacks clarity about who is in charge and accountable for decisions.”

Thanks for that, Chris. Now tell us something that was not blindingly obvious fifteen years ago.

I decided to cut my hair. I felt so inclined. It’s still not what most people would call short, though.