Longrider

Via Mr Eugenides, this story:

POLICE have agreed to consult a panel of Muslim leaders before mounting counter-terrorist raids or arrests. Members of the panel will offer their assessment of whether information police have on a suspect is too flimsy and will also consider the consequences on community relations of a raid.

Members will be security vetted and will have to promise not to reveal any intelligence they are shown. They will not have to sign the Official Secrets Act.

What the fuck is going on?! If the police and intelligence services have sufficient evidence to carry out an arrest, then they should do their duty according to the law. But, no, it seems that this is no longer to be the case. So craven have the snivelling, traitorous, cowardly, jackanapes in power become in their anxiousness to display their dhimmitude, that they have set up an Islamic quango to check  for them whether the police have sufficient evidence to carry out a raid  that involves Muslim suspects. Jesus H Christ on a pogo stick! Now, I think I really have heard it all. That nincompoop Sir Ian Blair thinks it a jolly wheeze. As of course, do Muslim self interest groups.

Muslim groups have welcomed the move, which is understood to be backed by Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan police commissioner.

Well, they would, wouldn’t they? They now have the say-so over police action in the event of a potential terror threat. For fuck’s sake! If you are a Muslim contemplating a terror attack, then you know that the police evidence against you will be screened by a biased group who will decide whether it is okay for them to carry out their duty.

Azad Ali, chairman of the MSF, said: “The major concern that came to us from Muslims was that the intelligence was flawed — the raid was on assumption and nothing else. This will allow independent scrutiny of intelligence.”

Independent, my arse! Haven’t these fucking morons heard the expression “conflict of interest”?

Bad enough, that we have to deal with utter incompetence (Forest Gate, Ricin plot, Jean Charles De Menezes); bad enough that we have to deal with subsequent cover-ups, excuses and whitewash; bad enough that the utterly, utterly, useless dhimmi Ian Blair remains in post, but now we have a religious group deciding on the veracity of police evidence before they act upon it.

I presume that as I am not a Muslim, if I was to engage on a terror plot, no one will be vetting the police evidence before they raid me? No, I thought not. All men are equal, but Muslims are more equal, it seems.

This would have been a comment on Carpsio’s post, but comments require Blogger membership and I’ll be damned if I will comply.

He asks:

I’m curious as to at whether failing to do a risk assessment is now considered to be a criminal offence.

Answer: Yes. See my post below.

In a previous post, Carpsio picks up on what concerns me most about our risk averse culture:

A pale, emasculated culture, where ‘risk’ is something you can avoid by filling in an Excel spreadsheet.

Indeed. Good risk management is about recognising and managing risk. You can do this with a few notes on the back of a fag packet if you like. When training people in assessing risk, I find an obsessive adherence to formulae – the 5×5 system – instead of a practical observation of the task and the risks it imports. The 5×5 all too often leads to an unrealistic assessment. When faced with a “high” figure from a trainee, I usually ask: “To the best of your knowledge, just how many people have been killed or injured doing this?” The answer is usually “none”. I then ask them to think carefully (without recourse to figures or formulae) just what the likelihood is that continued application of the task will lead to death or injury. The answer is invariably “none” or “unlikely” even if we accept that it is possible. The risk, then, is low, is it not? Excel didn’t tell us this, our brains did. :dry: 

In recent years a deep-seated westophobia has developed in the Muslim world.

Lord Carey of Clifton 18/09/06

To the person who came here after googling:

female self-abuse punishment clitoris with carbolic acid

I really haven’t a clue…

I commented albeit in passing on the matter of health and safety the other day.

Health and safety has become an industry all of itself these days. Indeed, the Health and Safety Practitioner has pages of appointments with juicy salaries that neatly underlines the point. Law requires employers to have competent health and safety management (management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999) :

 Health and safety assistance
     7.  - (1) Every employer shall, subject to paragraphs (6) and (7), appoint one or more competent persons to assist him in undertaking the measures he needs to take to comply with the requirements and prohibitions imposed upon him by or under the relevant statutory provisions and by Part II of the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997.

On the face of it, this is common sense. An effective enterprise will only be effective if its employees are competent to carry out their duties – and those charged with safety management are no exception. So, is regulation 7 merely stating the obvious? For me, yes, but if we took a totally libertarian approach and had no law at all, would employers apply common sense? Would they regard killing their employees, contractors and customers as bad business practice to be avoided? In the majority of cases, probably so. But experience tells a different story.

Those of a certain age will recall the horror of Aberfan forty years ago next month. An employer is required under modern legislation to exercise due regard for the safety not only of his employees, but contractors, visitors, clients and neighbours. Indeed anyone who may be affected by the business’ undertaking. The occupants of Pantglas Junior School were neighbours potentially affected by the undertaking of the National Coal Board. At the time, safety legislation that existed did not provide any protection for neighbours. As no miners were killed or injured, no prosecutions took place because there was no effective law with which to prosecute. Nowadays, doubtless, someone would suggest corporate manslaughter, but as recent attempts have demonstrated, a successful prosecution needs to show a clear audit trail from the consequence to the person in the dock and that is not always manageable.

The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 is a sensible piece of legislation given what went before. The hotch-potch of statutory instruments were replaced with one all encompassing act that made health and safety management simple, manageable and enforceable. As it applies to all places of work, no matter what the enterprise and covers everyone who may be affected by that work, it is all that is really needed – assuming, of course, that you accept the principle of health and safety legislation in the first instance. In essence, it requires the employer to analyse what the risks are in relation to his operation, decide who may be affected and put into place suitable control measures. The law does not say what they should be as they will be appropriate for the business.

It took twenty years and the introduction of the European imposed “six pack” for employers to finally get the message about risk assessment. I’m not going to get into the EU argument here; simply to point out that this is where the legislation came from. These regulations made under the enabling statutory instrument essentially say much the same thing as the original act:

Display Screen Equipment regulations; risk assess the work station and put into place suitable control measures

Control of Substances Hazardous to Health regulations: Identify and assess the risks associated with substances employees may come into contact with and put into place control measures (including advice and information).

Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations: do the risk assessment you should have been doing for the past twenty years and put into place suitable control measures. Oh, and while we are at it, an added duty is placed on employees.

The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, section 7 has this to say for employees:

7. It shall be the duty of every employee while at work

(A) to take reasonable care for the health and safety of himself and of other persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions at work; and

(B) as regards any duty or requirement imposed on his employer or any other person by or under any of the relevant statutory provisions, to co-operate with him so far as is necessary to enable that duty or requirement to be performed or complied with.

And section 8:

8. No person shall intentionally or recklessly interfere with or misuse anything provided in the interests of health, safety or welfare in pursuance of any of the relevant statutory provisions.

How many people, I wonder, are aware that they also have a duty to report breaches of health and safety (Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, regulation 14)?

(2) Every employee shall inform his employer or any other employee of that employer with specific responsibility for the health and safety of his fellow employees - 

(a) of any work situation which a person with the first-mentioned employee’s training and instruction would reasonably consider represented a serious and immediate danger to health and safety; and

(b) of any matter which a person with the first-mentioned employee’s training and instruction would reasonably consider represented a shortcoming in the employer’s protection arrangements for health and safety,

in so far as that situation or matter either affects the health and safety of that first mentioned employee or arises out of or in connection with his own activities at work, and has not previously been reported to his employer or to any other employee of that employer in accordance with this paragraph.

That apart, the management regulations are pretty much saying what was in the original act; but tightening up on some of the specifics.

Manual Handling – assess what has to be lifted and put into place suitable control measures

Provision and use of work equipment – asses the risks imported by the equipment and put into place suitable control measures.

Notice a trend here, or do you want me to continue? No, point made, I think.

A colleague of mine once observed that we have something like 11,000,000 words of health and safety legislation on the statute book. You might think he needs to find something else to occupy his mind, but there’s a point there.

Yet it goes on – and in part it is the fault of those who miss the point of good safety management. About eighteen months ago we has the working at height regulations dumped upon us. I recall much complaining that this would stop window cleaners carrying out their business. No, it does nothing of the sort. What it does require is that people working at height assess the risks involved and ensure that those risks are adequately managed. That is why Amey refused to use ladders to replace light bulbs in Kendal. Despite the blindingly obvious method being imposed by successive regulation, people are still more likely to be killed or injured at work due to a fall, so now we have legislation that specifically require risk assessment of jobs that involve working at height.

Much as I deplore ever more regulation – and I believe we have far too much, until people start to apply the principles properly, then government will intercede with greater enforcement.

Much of this regulation is telling us the same thing – look at the risk, identify the hazards and put suitable control measures in place. It was saying that in 1974.

Two things recently caused me to contemplate the relationship between reader and writer. The first, a few days ago was an article in the Telegraph by Lynne Truss and the second, today, on an Internet forum. I’ll start with the latter:

why do i have to correct my self as long as you understand what im saying i dont see eneny problem im not the greatest spellier like i care im hear for decent conversations not insolts about my grammer no affence

The writer of this post will remain anonymous as I wish to protect the guilty. I spent (wasted) some effort attempting to explain why, exactly, we need to write clearly, concisely and accurately. Why, exactly, we need to use punctuation and structure our sentences – create sentences, even.

Given that even well constructed correctly spelled and properly punctuated sentences can lead to misunderstanding, it makes sense to apply every effort to accurately convey one’s meaning. Anyone who has savoured the voyeuristic pleasures found in following the increasing animosity of a really juicy flame war on a forum will understand what I am talking about. A missed nuance, misunderstood word – or a post not properly read will lead to an all-guns-blazing row that face to face in a pub would probably not have raised an eyebrow. Unless the protagonists were drunk, in which case anything could happen.

Around 70% of communication is via body language - that’s why written words so frequently lead to on-line arguments. The nuance, tone of voice and facial expression that indicates a lightness of tone is missing. Often a joke is misinterpreted and slight is seen where none is intended. The Pope’s recent experience suggests that even the spoken word can get you into trouble, so careful wording that conveys accurate meaning becomes essential in the written word to minimise the risk of misinterpretation.

Correct spelling, correct punctuation and well structured sentences go some way to mitigating this. Look upon punctuation as the written equivalent of tone of voice. So, too, can misspelled words lead to misunderstanding as meaning becomes mangled beyond recognition:

Whose and who’s, for example mean different things as do; their, there and they’re. Not to mention the frequently transposed accept and except. Look ’em up in a dictionary - the meanings are entirely different. I don’t doubt people could list plenty more where these howlers came from. That’s why we have rules for grammar, punctuation and spelling. That is why, if the writer wishes to be taken seriously, he should make every effort to learn, understand and use them. Then, perhaps, break them.

It is the writer’s responsibility to make every effort to ensure that his prose is legible and easily understood by the reader - it is not the reader’s responsibility to decipher writing that is misspelled, badly constructed and lacking in punctuation. That we frequently do is simply because poor use of English is far too prevalent for readers to become too pedantic. After all, we have a whole a generation that grew up without ever being introduced to the rules of grammar. I’d not read anything if I complained every time I came across badly written English. Having said that, if it is too bad I stop trying and subsequently ignore the poster, which is a pity as they may have something interesting to say.

Lynne Truss cites a good example with a letter she received here

Dear Costumes,

Over the last few months there has been a few situations with the car park, so starting Wednesday 9th August the hotel be cracking down on security.

Every on who pay’s for the car park will have a pass (see customer list) they must show this to reception to get a code if they forget there pass you will be asked you name and company. The reception team will have a copy of all the paying customers.

If you are a way or would like some one else to use your car park space you must give them your pass and let reception know as soon as posible the reception team will not accept any thing else not following the rules may result in paying £10.

Any Problems or Situations please do contact my self, Gary philips or Cherry brown on 01603 XXXXXX

Best Regards,
Anne Farnsbarns
Receptionist

So, do we need a pass and a code, or just a pass? Do we only need a code if we forget our pass? You tell me, because this missive certainly doesn’t. Here, in a beautifully executed example is the answer to my original correspondent’s question. This is why he needs to communicate in clear, accurate English – because if he doesn’t. people will not understand what it is he wishes to say. And what he has to say may one day be of vital importance.

Clarity is the duty owed by the writer to the reader. To fail in that duty is to disrespect the reader. If the writer is unprepared to put effort into his prose, why, then, should he expect it of the reader?

The Association of British Insurers want learner drivers to have lessons for a year before being let loose on their own

Learner drivers should take lessons for a minimum of 12 months according to the Association of British Insurers (ABI).

The plans are backed by motoring and safety groups, such as the RAC Foundation, which said they would lead to 1,000 fewer road casualties a year.

The proposals are intended to reduce the high numbers of young drivers killed or injured on Britain’s roads.

Where to start? Once again, a pressure group has opted for a “one size fits all” solution. One of my concerns here is the general nature of the statement made by the ABI. How many lessons in a year? How many hours would that be? One hour a week? Two hours a week? What about people who have intensive training over a couple of weeks? These days, forty one-hour lessons prior to being able to pass the test is not that unusual - it was happening when I gave up driving instruction fifteen years ago. You can teach a moderately capable person to control a vehicle and carry out manoeuvres in ten lessons or so. The rest is spent honing those skills; gaining experience and confidence sufficient to deal with whatever the candidate might encounter on the test and afterwards. Given that many people have one hour’s worth of tuition a week and that there are fifty two weeks in a year, a good many people are already having a year’s worth of lessons anyway – presuming that is the formula the ABI are using and it’s anyone’s guess that they are.

Even young people who learn new skills quickly are finding that the combination of learning to control a vehicle combined with high traffic density is taking more time than it did when I learned to drive in the early eighties. I noticed this trend less than a decade later when I started teaching others to drive. A year, therefore, (or equivalent) is not that unusual already, I suspect. My problem has always been with the immediate post test environment when the newly qualified driver is alone for the first time. I am always loathe to opt for compulsion in anything - however, given that we do not (quite rightly) allow people to drive vehicles on our roads without some form of training and assessment, I believe that the motorways at the very least should be included in that process. The reasoning for it not being included has traditionally been the inaccessibility for many parts of the coutry. However, I do not believe it beyond the wit of man to find a suitable solution – a two stage test, perhaps? Such as the current arrangements for automatic vehicles.

I would like to see more emphasis on post test training on more complex roads, higher speeds and motorways; a change in culture that makes it not only acceptable, but desirable, “cool” if you like, to continue training throughout ones driving career. Unfortunately, many learners don’t want to spend the money on this. The money previously spent on driving lessons is now paying for a car, MOT, insurance and road fund licence. This reluctance could be overcome with imaginative marketing as part of the overall training package and here, the ABI could be of use. And, for once, I am in accord with the Department of Transport:

But the Department for Transport said it wanted to influence new drivers with incentives instead of regulation.

Indeed, and the ABI’s efforts would be more usefully directed at incentives on the insurers’ part to encourage new drivers to take advanced training by offering discounts. But, I suspect, they don’t mean that, as calls for more regulation are much sexier.

Prompted by comments on the Pedant General’s blog and again over at the Devil’s Kitchen,  I wanted to discuss the matter of Jamie Oliver (must I? Yes, I must, I’m afraid) and his ongoing crusade for more healthy school meals. I don’t have a problem with Mr Oliver mounting his campaign – after all, I believe in the right to free expression and he has every right to express his disdain for the food being served up to school children. And, indeed, what he is saying is pretty much sensible stuff. So, no, I have no problem with him voicing an opinion – apart that is, from the matter of him being probably the second most irritating man on television (the first being Graham Norton by a league and a half) making me change channels the minute his smug fizzog starts to spout his pukka wisdom. No, it is what the PG mentions later in his post that bothers me:

But there is a darker side. Whatever one may think about the eponymous (he must be nearly eponymous by now) Mr Oliver and whatever one may think about the importance and soundness of his cause, he is a walking demonstration of the massive structural faults in our system of government. Mr Oliver is a little short of a single issue terrorist who has inflicted the most insidious form of “blackmail by television” upon the current administration.

Yes… that bothers me greatly. When, exactly, did we elect Mr Oliver to make government policy? Ah, yes, of course… we didn’t. The PG goes on:

No politician - of any stripe - is going to declare on television that such an eminently sensible solution to an undoubtedly serious issue should not receive money when such money is demanded. What Jamie Oliver has done is to demonstrate exactly how to extort taxpayers cash for any given pet project. In a world of limited resources, especially if one desires that government resources NEED to be limited, all requests for such resources have to be balanced. Availability of a charismatic celebrity ought not to be one of the criteria for setting such a balance. I struggle to see how, in a liberal pluralist democracy with a strong and free press, such blackmail can be resisted.

Blackmail. It’s an ugly word, but that’s what is happening here and the majority will go along with it precisely because in this case, the cause is a just one. However, despite this, some are standing their ground and rebelling against the new regime in the name of choice:

A group of mothers has started delivering fast food through a school’s fence in protest at the campaign for healthier school meals.

The parents claim they are taking action because pupils are turning up their noses at what they describe as “overpriced, low-fat rubbish”.

Four of them are using a supermarket trolley to make daily runs with fish and chips, pies, burgers, sandwiches and fizzy drinks from local takeaways.

While it may seem contrary to admire a rebellion against common sense, I do admire them, because they are rebelling against the puritanical restriction on their right to choose and if there is any doubt about the justness of their cause, it is underlined by the response to their protest:

Staff at Rawmarsh Comprehensive School, near Rotherham, South Yorkshire, have called in environmental health and education officials. They are looking into whether the women are allowed to sell food without an operating licence and whether they are covered by food hygiene regulations.

Ah, yes, that bastion of the prissy, puritanical bully, the “it’s-health-and-safety-innit?” argument. Allow me to digress for a moment if you will. I have some experience of health and safety management – I also have some experience of training in this subject. As a consequence, I view with contempt the ignorant who use it as a means to stop people doing things of which they disapprove; as a tool for oppression, a stick to beat those who dare to voice opposition to the accepted wisdom. Indeed, so absloute is my contempt that when some tedious little jobsworth comes out with the phrase “well, it’s elfansafety, innit?” I have this overwhelming urge to tear their head from their neck and vomit in the resultant cavity. If only… :dry:

Good health and safety management (and the same principle applies to environmental management) is about analysing and managing risk. What risk, exactly is being imported to the school by these parents? Will the children all die of food poisoning because their parents collected the food rather than collecting it themselves? How likely is this? The risk is miniscule. If the children are fed an exclusive diet of pie and chips, their long term health will suffer, but there is no indication here that this will happen. What is happening is merely a short term backlash – its very nature means that it will die a natural death. This is a protest about choice. There is no significant health and safety risk and talk of operating licenses and food hygiene regulations is massive overkill. But, then, that’s what bullies do when faced with opposition.

Back on subject… the reason I am so concerned about blackmail by slebs on a mission such as Jamie Oliver is that there is no stopping them. Having achieved one aim; getting school meals in place that meet his approval in this instance; Mr Oliver has turned his sights on those who have the effrontery to opt out:

Jamie Oliver, the television chef famous for his crusade to improve school dinners, has lashed out at parents over the food they give to their children.

He said 70 per cent of packed lunches in the country were “disgraceful” and he would like to see them banned.

There you go. Not satisfied with achieving his goal regarding school lunches, he immediately sets about trying to get the alternative banned. Banned because he does not approve and having given into him once, how will government be able to refuse a second time?

How, exactly, does Mr Oliver know that 70% of packed lunches are “disgraceful”? How many has he checked? This is a wild, unsubstantiated assertion – and on the basis of that assertion, he wants government to act and ban packed lunches. He seeks to deny parents the right to choose, to opt out of the school lunch system should they so wish. His vision is right and everyone must fall into line – or else.

He added: “Packed lunches are a problem. Most of them, whatever anyone says, aren’t appropriate.”

No, they are not a problem – until he has proved otherwise. It is time, perhaps, for Mr Oliver to return to his kitchen and keep his nose out of other peoples’ business (and preferably off our television screens as well :dry: ).

Update: For a slightly more colourful take on this see Carpsio. Warning – lots of swearing. He says about Oliver what I think.