Longrider

Liam Donaldson just cannot help himself. Here, he engages in some valedictory bossiness.

The chief medical officer today berates the nation for its slothfulness, saying that inactivity is pervasive in England and the cause – and future cause – of worsening health.

If a drug existed that would improve health as drastically as taking more exercise, it would be hailed a miracle cure, says Sir Liam Donaldson in his last On the State of Public Health report before stepping down.

Actually, I wish he’s just step down. We have already heard far more than we need to from this man.

“Inactivity pervades the country. It affects more people in England than the combined total of those who smoke, misuse alcohol or are obese,” says Donaldson. “Being physically active is crucial to good health. If a medication existed that had a similar effect on preventing disease, it would be hailed as a miracle cure.”

It’s none of the government’s business. If we choose to be slothful, drink our livers into oblivion and smoke ourselves to death that is our choice. We know what the risks are and we choose, in full knowledge of those risks, which ones we will take. It is no concern of the chief medical officer and none of the state’s.

Most people fail to take enough exercise, he points out. Studies show that 61% of men and 71% of women do not meet the minimum levels of activity that are recommended by the department of health.

Like all those other minimum recommendations, eh? As we all have different bodies, the amount of exercise, like the amount we need to consume and the amount of alcohol we can tolerate will vary. Therefore, I eschew government recommended guidelines and go with what my body tells me. I’m an adult. I expect to be treated as one. When the government and its useful idiots get on their soap boxes to treat me as a child, I treat them and their message with contempt.

He also wants minimum activity levels built into public health programmes and standardised across the whole of England.

Good God! Why is my mind full of images of fit young Aryans all doing their exercises in unison for the cameras? Liam Donaldson can take his minimum activity levels and stick them where the sun don’t shine. I will decide how much exercise I need, not him.

And, last but not least:

Government and health leaders should drive lifestyle changes in order to combat climate change which will impact badly on health.

Oh, FFS! Just piss off, man and spare us your control freakery. Enough already.

A new law has been passed in jersey making helmets compulsory for all cyclists under the age of 18. So, the mainland UK is not the only one with a nanny state.

In a close vote, politicians rejected 25 to 24 the law for adults, but agreed to make them compulsory for under-18s.

Deputy Andrew Green, whose son was left with a brain injury after falling off his bike, had made an emotional plea in the States to bring in the law.

So, we have a politician who suffered a persona tragedy using his position to enforce his belief that a cycle helmet would have made a difference on everyone else.

But Deputy Daniel Wimberley opposed the plans, claiming evidence showed wearing a cycle helmet can make injuries worse.

Well, quite. When the compulsory motorcycle helmet law passed back in 1973, there were unexpected consequences. A helmet will make a difference in some circumstances. In others they will be of little use or even counter productive. At even relatively low speeds, the brain can move inside the skull, leaving the wearer brain damaged. Frankly, I’d rather be dead. Whatever the arguments for and against, it should be a matter for the individual to decide, not the state. As for the matter of children, that is a decision for their parents, not the state.

Deputy Wimberly continues:

I do believe that this proposal is put forward by a well-intentioned lobby group.

But they are proposing a law that would affect half of islanders, effectively criminalising them on a scientific basis that is so weak.

Indeed.

Many politicians argued whether it was the States’ place to compel people to wear helmets. 

It isn’t. Didn’t stop the bastards, though. 

Via Al Jahom, I see this interesting story.

LORRIES are to be permanently banned from overtaking during the daytime on two stretches of a busy North East motorway.

The ban is aimed at curbing the frustrations of motorists stuck behind two slow lorries overtaking, and on increasing the capacity of motorways.

It is to come into force on the A1(M) in County Durham from March 31, following an 18-month trial which the Highways Agency has hailed a success, claiming less congestion and improved journey times for other vehicles.

From 7am to 7pm each day, lorries of 7.5 tonnes or more will be banned from the outside lane on two uphill stretches of the southbound carriageway of the A1(M), between Junction 63 at Chester-le-Street and Lumley New Bridge, and between Junction 61 at Bowburn and Bishop Middleham.

Much as I dislike bans and petty laws, I cannot but feel that this one has been a long time coming. This ban applies to a two-lane stretch, but the same congestion occurs on three-lane motorways as well. Many goods vehicles are limited by law to 56mph, which doesn’t help matters, but we all have to bow to the gods of the carbon footprint and elfansafety, so vehicles that once could overtake relatively briskly can no longer do so.

However, it takes a measure of bloody-mindedness to move out and overtake travelling at one or two miles per hour faster than the vehicle in front, thereby creating a 56mph traffic jam for several miles at a time. The whole thing is summed up by the person making the first comment to the article:

Of course none of this would be necessary if lorry drivers exercised just a smidgin of common sense and courtesy towards other drivers.

Indeed.

Apparently this ban will be enforced by fines and penalty points – so that will work well… Much is made of the French ban on trucks at the weekends and on public holidays. As someone who travels the French motorway system regularly, I can assure you that this ban is regularly breached. Truckers regard the fines as an occupational hazard and worth balancing against the cost of being holed up somewhere unable to get to their destination. The same, I suspect, will apply here.

While I am having a moan about trucks, another comment echoes one of my regular complaints:

They will tailgate other road users with alarming closeness in order to intimidate them to speed up if they find they can’t overtake due to traffic in the outside lane.

Whenever I slow down for a 50mph limit through road works, I invariably see the radiator grill of a truck in my rear view mirror, barely a few feet from my bumper. If anything happened and we had to stop suddenly, I would be crushed and the trucker would walk away. I don’t give a fig if people wish to play fast and loose with their own life – I do have a problem with arrogant bastards who take risks with mine just because they want to ignore the prevailing speed restriction.

——————————-

Update: While I’m in full rant mode… When you want to overtake, you check your mirrors and if there is a suitable opening you indicate your intention. You make the move when there is sufficient room for you to do so. What you don’t do is put the indicator on and move out irrespective of any vehicles that may be alongside you at the time. I have to take avoiding action pretty much every motorway trip I do because of this moronic homicidal behaviour.

According to Gillian Braunold, it’s all for our own good, of course. Well, she would say that, wouldn’t she?

The chairman of the BMA, Dr Hamish Meldrum, declared this week that NHS consultants and GPs “have coped up until now without an electronic record of patient details”. And he is right – but at the expense of several high-profile deaths and countless near-misses and incidents of accidental harm, which accessible information could have prevented.

How many, precisely? We are not offered any statistics, but consider this; how many people turn up at A&E who are unconscious, unaccompanied, confused or otherwise unable to communicate and have some sort of life-threatening condition or allergy? Realistically, this is an insignificant problem and if this is the best that HMG can do to justify the £10billion this thing is supposed to cost, then they clearly haven’t done their cost/benefit analysis properly.

Oh, but they can do better:

Inquiries into cases such as those of Penny Campbell, Maria Caldwell, Victoria Climbié and Jonathan Zito all emanate from different parts of the health service. They have one recurring theme: if key information was available at a time when the risk is highest, the vulnerable, the sick and the old would be better protected.

Talk about scraping the barrel. Dragging these cases into the argument is just plain sick. That’s it; bereft of any rational justification for this scheme, they roll out the scare tactics and attempt to pile on some collective guilt into the bargain. Well, I don’t feel guilty and before I left the UK I advised my GP that I wished to opt out. He was sympathetic to my request and expressed his own concerns about the database. It seems as if he is not alone.

We know that patients have concerns about confidentiality and have gone through rigorous processes to ensure that the right levels of security and patient consent are in place. This means that you have an absolute right to opt out of having such an electronic record.

Naturally we have concerns about confidentiality – and with good cause. The government and its agencies have demonstrated remarkable incompetence over the past few years when handling sensitive data; why should this be any different? And, specifically, when a massive central database simply isn’t necessary? As comments to Braunold’s piece point out, there are alternative solutions to the problems she outlines that would be more secure and cost a fraction of the £10Bn of the spine. For example, a smartcard updated at the GP’s surgery when a new medication is prescribed along with relevant care information would be kept by the patient in the event of another medic needing access. Simple, reasonably secure and no need for a database.

But, then, HMG wouldn’t be able to lose it or sell it, would they?

Dick Cheney’s daughter is engaging on a witch hunt, it seems. Her Keep America Safe campaign is targeting lawyers who had the temerity to represent terror suspects.

Now Cheney’s daughter, Liz, has taken up the cudgel by heading what some are describing as a McCarthyite campaign to purge the government of lawyers who dared to defend men, and even a child, accused of terrorism. The lawyers drew particular ire by sometimes defeating in court the Bush administration’s attempts to declare itself beyond the law.

Liz Cheney and her organisation, Keep America Safe, have dubbed lawyers who acted on behalf of accused terrorists, and who now work for the department of justice, the “al-Qaida seven”. The group has rebranded the justice department the “department of jihad”.

Liz Cheney, who trained as a lawyer and served as a deputy assistant secretary of state in the same administration as her father, is backed by some Republican members of congress, relatives of 9/11 victims and parts of the conservative press who have accused the lawyers, some of whom worked pro bono, of “coddling” and “abetting” terrorists.

The longer I live, the more I realise that humanity learns nothing from the past. The whole point of a judicial system is that we are all equal before it – innocent or guilty, no matter how heinous the offence of which we have been accused.

Deny the accused terrorist a fair trial with full legal representation and you undermine the whole process. Deny the accused paedophile his right to a fair trial on the evidence and nothing but the evidence, and you deny all of us a right to a fair trial.

Once more, I have to refer to A Man for All Seasons, because once more, I see that the lesson contained therein is being ignored:

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

Liz Cheney’s is the behaviour of the lynch mob and she the self-appointed witch-finder general. Just as the howls of outrage and demands for information by the British tabloids over Jon Venables last week, this too, seeks to undermine the rule of law, because the lynch mob will never be out for the decent, upright, law abiding citizen, will it?

Keep America Safe – whose mission statement says the current administration is “unwilling to stand up for America” – has recently launched a television attack advert questioning the loyalty of the targeted lawyers and sinisterly asking: Whose values do they share?

I’d have thought that fairly obvious; they value the rule of law and the right to a fair trial; basic principles that underpin any civilised society, something of which Liz Cheney should be fully aware.

But the assault has prompted an unexpected backlash from some former Bush administration lawyers and officials who have joined liberal critics in denouncing the campaign as unAmerican and violating the principle that even the most unpopular defendant is entitled to a lawyer.

Quite.

Why do I keep thinking of “To Kill a Mockingbird”?

Neil Burden indulges in the usual tired anti-motorcycle clichés in a CiF article that is the predictable ill-informed bollocks one expects from the Grauniad.

I have recently discovered the hugely unwelcome news (courtesy of an RAC road sign) that over 10,000 bikers plan to invade Wootton Bassett next Sunday, Mothering Sunday. As residents of the high street for the past 20 years, this is particularly vexing to my family. The children may have to review the planned family day at home, and take the cards, chocolates and flowers elsewhere in an attempt to escape the fumes, the noise and the congestion.

Oh, FFS! This is nothing more than blatant scaremongering using the old mods and rockers imagery. Of course people will be able to do whatever they planned to do on Mothering Sunday, you hysterical little cretin. And, as with any parade, it will all be over in a few moments once it has passed.  This is not some wild west town waiting for a gunfight, Jeebus! It’s also worth pointing out to this moron that modern motorcycles are subject to legislation and type approval regarding noise output. The average modern motorcycle is pretty much as quiet as the average modern car. And perhaps I should also point out to this terminally ignorant dunderhead that modern motorcycles are expensive things and the entry bar to riding one is set fairly high due to successive governments thinking that it is their place to dissuade us from riding them. For our own good, of course. So, rather than being the preferred transport of hooligans – as this article slyly insinuates – we are, for the most part, fairly well off and generally middle aged and above. I.e. responsible taxpaying citizens who happen to like a different mode of transport. Still, never let reality get in the way of prejudice, eh?

As an aside, I do have to say here that the Wootton Bassett parade doesn’t float my boat; so even if I was in the UK, I wouldn’t attend. I prefer to ride alone or at the most with two or three others. I really don’t like mass ride-outs.

What is particularly perplexing about all this, however, is that this invasion is apparently sanctioned by the police, Wiltshire council and the MoD. The town council were not consulted. Nor were the residents. It turns out that the rally is taking place under the aegis of the charity known as Afghan Heroes. According to its website, by arranging for 10,331 registered (and who knows how many unregistered) bikers to thunder along the high street, it is “honouring the people of Wootton Bassett and the soldiers who have lost their lives in Afghanistan”.

That’s because the charity went through the appropriate channels to obtain approval. And notice the snide little bracketed comment. Contrary to the insinuation, no one may take part unless they have registered. Indeed, if you follow the link to MCN that Burden provides, you see this:

All those attending RAF Lyneham will require to pre-register, giving Name, Address, DOB and Bike Registration.

This is to enable security clearance to be carried out by the RAF. REGISTRATION CLOSES MONDAY 15TH FEBRUARY 2010.

Anyone who does not register WILL NOT be allowed onto RAF Lyneham.

Registration will be through a secure site, this will be posted out on Monday.

So this buffoon cannot even be bothered to read the links he provides to support his article.

This bigotry is nothing new to me. I’ve endured the clichéd “hells angel” comments from the uninformed for over thirty years. I’m more or less immune to it now. If I’m inclined, I’ll give a sharp retort, but for the most part I treat them to contemptuous silence.

But, this article has served to illustrate the Guardian at its worst once more. Motorcyclists aren’t members of Hideous Harridan Harman’s protected species (not that I would want to be). Consequently in the eyes of the loathsome, perpetually arrogant, snobbish, self-righteous, humourless, dull, relentlessly middle class, cowardly and cheap Guardian, they are fair game. Just consider this, if it was a parade of black, muslim, one-legged, lesbian cyclists would the Groan be publishing a comment piece full of insinuation and cheap shots?

Thought not.

It’s not that this article – predictably piss poor though it is – indulges in the usual double helping of bigotry and prejudice, it’s the topping of hypocrisy that riles. But, then, I shouldn’t be surprised by that – and I guess I’m not.

I see that level crossings are in the news today.

The driving test should have compulsory questions on level crossings to cut the number of drivers who take risks on them each year, Network Rail has said.

It said there were 14 crashes and 13 deaths last year and 140 near misses between vehicles and trains.

The rail operator recorded 3,200 incidents of misuse, but said the actual figure was likely to be higher.

Network Rail said motorists were “too often playing Russian roulette with a 200-tonne train” – and losing.

As an erstwhile signaller and signalling manager, I’m well aware of this one. I recall one of my crossing keepers complaining bitterly about the amount of cars playing that Russian roulette with his crossing.

However, before going any further, I want to make a point that is missing from the BBC reports; there is more than one type of crossing involved. On their news report this morning the BBC showed pedestrians milling about on a crossing as the barriers were coming down. This type of crossing was a full barrier type. These crossings will be directly operated by a signaller or crossing keeper who will be able to observe the crossing either from the signalbox or via CCTV. Once the barriers are down, they press the “crossing clear” button at which point the protecting signal will clear. Milling about on this type of crossing is not as dangerous as is being suggested. Jumping the lights as the barriers are coming down risks damage to the crossing and it entails delays to trains, but the likelihood of being struck by a train is remote – unless the train passes the protecting signal at danger (SPAD).

No, the really dangerous ones are the open crossings with lights only and the automatic half barriers. These crossings are operated by a treadle on the track. The signaller has no control over them and cannot see what is going on.

Modernised level crossings are a variation to the Railways act that requires the infrastructure to be fenced off to prevent public access. Level crossings require access, hence the variation. Each crossing will have a parliamentary order that details the location and type of crossing. It goes into road markings and the operation of the crossing – things that I had to check on an annual basis. When a train hits the treadle on an AHB, for example, you have about 30 seconds (the exact time will be in the parliamentary order) before the train reaches the crossing. Once the siren starts and the amber lights flash, that’s it – nothing will stop that train. These crossings are inherently dangerous. They are more so because they are used where the line speed is relatively low and the traffic not particularly dense – so they don’t look dangerous. Jump one of these and you are taking your life in your hands. Sure, you’ll delay trains as with the full barrier. You will also permanently delay your life.

Network Rail’s solution has some merit but rather misses the point. I believe fervently in the benefits of education – and if the driving test pays more attention to this, education must precede it. However, I’m inclined to agree with the AA.

Motorists must be aware of the rules, which are simple, logical and well signed.

The quote on the BBC site doesn’t do justice to what  Mr Howard said on the news report that I watched. He went on to say that motorists know what they are doing and are taking a calculated risk. Exactly. Education will only go so far.

While I normally take a personal responsibility approach to risk taking; on this one, I take a slightly different view. Common law places a responsibility on all of us not to endanger others. Network Rail has a responsibility under common law not to set a trap – and  the open and AHB crossings are a trap. The best solution ultimately is to close the damn things, which I’m sure Network Rail would love to do. Unfortunately, that’s a massive expense for what is still a relatively small risk – particularly if they are used properly. So the BTP has a point:

British Transport Police Deputy Chief Constable Paul Crowther welcomed the move, saying level crossing incidents were “wholly avoidable” and changing driver behaviour was the “only sustainable solution”.

Although, I don’t believe that the proposed solution will change driver behaviour for all the reasons I mention above.

However, should you be amenable to changing your behaviour; when approaching level crossings – any type – approach with the expectation of having to stop. Ease off, select a lower gear and as you approach the point of no return, you are in a position of being able to gently stop or accelerate away depending on what happens. If the siren starts and you have passed the point of no return, you should then be crossing on the amber light, not the red one. Approaching at full belt expecting it to remain open leads to that last minute panic whereby you cannot stop and have to jump on the red lights. Remember – thirty seconds ain’t long. Dead is a lot longer.

Once again, this truly appalling government resorts to mass punishment to resolve what is, in fact, a small problem that is already illegal.

All dog owners in England and Wales would have to insure against their pet attacking someone, under Labour proposals to tackle dangerous breeds.

Police and local authorities could also be given powers to force owners of dangerous dogs to muzzle them, or even get them neutered.

So, because some dog owners are irresponsible, all dog owners have to be punished. Timmy asks the money question.

There are pet insurance companies. They would clearly benefit from the passing of such a law.

Someone should start tabling questions in the House. Which Ministers have met representatives of such companies? Which such companies have made donations to which political parties? Who knows who?

Indeed. After all, the vast majority of dogs do not attack people and the vast majority of owners keep them responsibly. Why, therefore, should they pay unnecessary insurance, if not to benefit the insurance industry?

Another part of the proposal is compulsory microchipping.

All dogs are to be compulsorily microchipped so that their owners can be more easily traced under a crackdown on dangerous dogs to be unveiled today.

Sigh… The people who keep pit-bulls in defiance of the existing dangerous dogs act – a stupid and ill-conceived piece of legislation – will be equally likely to ignore this new piece of equally ill-conceived legislation. Responsible owners already microchip their animals or otherwise identify them so that if they do stray, they can be reunited with them.

So, one more, we have a failing government making up silly laws on the basis of tabloid headlines.

Scientists are looking at biological control of Japanese knotweed in the UK.

A tiny Japanese insect that could help the fight against an aggressive superweed has been given the go-ahead for a trial release in England.

Since Japanese knotweed was introduced to the UK it has rapidly spread, and the plant currently costs over £150m a year to control and clear.

But scientists say a natural predator in the weed’s native home of Japan could also help to control it here.

The insect will initially be released in a handful of sites this spring.

Which sounds all fine and dandy. In Japan, knotweed is kept under control by natural predators. Having no such predators in the UK, it spreads quickly and destructively.

They looked at the superweed’s natural predators – nearly 200 species of plant-eating insects and about 40 species of fungi – with the aim of finding one with an appetite for Japanese knotweed and little else.

It’s the “and little else” that bothers me. That suggests “not exclusively” and when released into an alien environment, what, I wonder, will they develop a taste for? This one has unintended consequences written all over it.

Via Constantly Furious, this:

British journalists and TV crews are to be banned from the Afghan front line once a date for the election has been set, while senior officers will be prohibited from making public speeches and talking to reporters.

MoD websites will also be “cleansed” of any “non-factual” material including anything containing troops’ opinions of the war, according to a memo leaked to The Daily Telegraph.

Cleansed, eh? So MoD folk aren’t allowed to express an opinion because it might cost Labour votes. This is pretty disgraceful stuff and that’s putting it mildly.

In the memo, Nick Gurr, the MoD’s director of media and communications, says “embeds” for all British news broadcasters and national journalists will be prohibited during the campaign, expected to begin later this month.

Why? What possible justification is there for this? That there is an election coming is no excuse. We, the electorate, have a right to know how things are going. After all, we are paying for it and it is our youth who are dying for it. That it might be embarrassing for Labour is tough shit, frankly. Mind you, foreign and local journalists aren’t banned and in these days of global media those determined enough can watch foreign channels, undermining the ban. Therefore, the only possible justification for this is to restrict domestic audiences, who for the most part won’t go out of their way to find a workaround, for political motives.

Mr Gurr says that allowing journalists to report from the frontline during the election “could call into question [the forces’] political impartiality or give rise to the criticism that public resources are being used for party political purposes.”

Bollocks! Banning them is what smacks of party political purposes.

But the order has led to accusations that the government wants to hide the true picture of the war in Afghanistan from voters.

Er, yes.

Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said he would table an emergency question in the House of Commons demanding an explanation on Monday.

“Given the recent visit of the Prime Minister, this is a bad joke,” he said. “There is clearly one rule for Gordon Brown, when he wants to use the armed forces as political props, and another for reporters who want to tell the public what is being done in their name.

“It’s a truth blackout. Nothing, especially the truth, is to stand in the way in Brown’s election. Our armed forces can fight and die, but not write or speak. Any critics of the Government are to be banned from having any contact with the press. This is the grotesque endgame of New Labour. They want to bury bad news and bury the truth.”

I doubt he’ll get a valid explanation; rather the usual cockwaffle used to justify Labour control freakery. I expect terrorism will find its way into the weasel words used to justify what can only be described as politically driven censorship.

CF has this to say on the matter of censoring the troops:

This is some chilling stuff. What next? How the fuck do they think they’re going to get away with this?

Soldiers, Civil servants. Anyone with any ‘non-factual’ material. CF hereby throws his blog open to you.

Come here, and have your say. Have a guest post. Have as many as you want. Email CF, DM CF on Twitter. Stick links in the comments.

We will not let this fucking corrupt, mendacious, inept Government censor you for PR reasons.

Labour can censor and restrict the tame, buyable, dead-tree media, but they can fuck right off out of the blogosphere.

Quite.