There is a conflation in the article between compete novice with no road sense whatsoever and the experienced driver who is looking to use the scooter as a means of reducing commuting costs. The latter rider will already have the road sense –  I know, I’ve taught such people. They are also aware of the potential dangers and tend to have a more mature approach –  probably because they are more mature, eh?

All in all, this article tells us nothing we did not already know and ramps up the fact that riders are more vulnerable on the road. We constitute a small quantity of the overall road population but our casualty rates are much higher. Largely because we are more vulnerable in the event of an incident. A minor bump between two cars is usually little more than an exchange of insurance details and on their way. A motorcyclist could well be a hospital admission or worse.

So, yes, we know this.

The best defence is defensive riding instilled early on during the initial training. CBT is but a start. A pretty crude start, frankly, being a day’s instruction on basic machine control with little time for anything else. Ideally the rider will come back for more and following a test pass will continue to improve their learning. However, like their four-wheeled counterparts, many do not. The big risk factor is during that experience gaining period where they can control the machine but have not yet fully developed their roadcraft. Training during this period helps. However, I go back to my original point –  the target of this article is the experienced driver who is now hopping onto a scooter. These people already have that roadcraft, consquently, they are a lower risk.

So, no news here. Nothing to see.

Facebook is much more than an internet brand that’s managing to ride the fad wave. It’s becoming a monopoly.

While I have some sympathy with Mitchell’s stance on Facebook –  I haven’t joined it either –  a monopoly it ain’t. No one is forcing you to join and no one is preventing competing products. Therefore, it is not a monopoly. This is something that Mitchell acknowledges later on in the article:

I’m sure Facebook would claim it’s not a monopoly – strictly speaking it isn’t – but it clearly wants to be and, if there are whole sections of society who feel obliged to sign up in order to be able to communicate with one another, then its dreams are coming true.

Yeah, but we have a choice. There is no pressure to join up –  none at all. There are plenty of other ways of remaining in contact with people. That said, Mitchell does seem to have a point about how people behave with perceived pressure. When Mrs L’s sister came to stay with us in France a year or so back she wanted to get in touch with her daughter so persuaded Mrs L to sign up to Facebook, so that she could use it to do the necessary. I never did get to the bottom of why she couldn’t just sign up herself –  or, better still, use the email or telephone. Since then, the account has gone into stagnation. There is no need for it as it serves no purpose. We get by perfectly well without it.

The killer though is this:

When you’re getting something free, you’re not the customer, you’re the product.

Quite so. As I have no desire to be one of Zuckerberg’s products I can very easily avoid signing up. There is no pain involved whatsoever and I feel no compunction, no pressure at all.

Is it really in the public interest for Facebook, this service that we all use, this lobster pot we’ve swum into, to remain in private hands? After all, it’s practically a public good. There must be strong economic arguments in favour of nationalising it.

He’s joshing isn’t he? That’s the problem when comedians write articles like this, you can never be sure what’s serious and what is satire. This being the Guardian, unintentionally both, I suppose.

That would protect our children from the purveyors of hard drink. It would also reduce by up to 50% the amount of online bullying and abuse they suffer, force us to cut down on the time we waste staring at our computers and increase by a similar ratio the leisure hours we spend getting exercise or meeting people. How would Facebook hit these targets if it were taken into state ownership? By doing what the public sector’s harshest critics always accuse it of: not working half the time.

I think he has a point in there somewhere. Facetious comment with an underlying barb of reality. Maybe he has a case –  take Facebook into public ownership. That would put an end to it tout suite.

New research casts doubt on the idea that women can cope better with pain than men.

Anyone who drops by here regularly will be aware that I am generally sceptical of research published in the media. However, this statement has a ring of truth. The idea that one sex had a different response to pain always struck me as a bit of an old wives’ tale. I have been living with low level pain pretty much most of my adult life. A slight spine curvature means that neck pain –  and at one time migraines –  was an ongoing problem. My back is usually aching and sciatica is a fairly regular problem, not to mention the headaches (not migraine). Yeah, I know, I sound like an old crock ready for the knacker’s yard. Well, actually, I cope with it without complaint. I am aware of the low level pain, but have grown so used to it, that it is now almost an old friend.

The point is, one’s propensity for dealing with pain will vary from one individual to another and to an extent, we can adjust ourselves to manage it. It really isn’t as simple as men are wimps who feel pain whereas women aren’t –  or, as this press release suggests, the opposite for some ailments.

They say more research is needed into why men and women seem to experience pain differently.

Really?

But, then, I would say that, wouldn’t I? But then, as far as I am concerned, man flu is an absurd myth.

I had yet another rejection following an interview. I made a decision to stop here.

During this past two years I have been following my sister in law’s advice. What she said, following the loss of my main contract in April 2010 was that I needed a steady job with a regular income. She had a point. My life and finances were (and still are) in ruins following that collapse. So there followed hundreds of job applications, the majority of which went unacknowledged. I’ve had a few interviews. Five with Network Rail. Indeed it took five interviews for jobs that I was eminently suited for, for them to inform me that I wasn’t eligible as they have a policy on not re-employing people who left through redundancy or compromise agreements (read; unfair dismissal).

So, despite my CV making my redundancy clear, the HR team doing the initial sift either didn’t look properly or didn’t know about the policy –  equally so with the interviewing managers. A brief, heated email exchange once I discovered the existence of the policy drew nothing about why this happened. Sure, the organisation likes to talk the talk when it comes to competence management, but it is the worst kept secret on the railway that they don’t practice what they preach, so I guess it should come as no surprise to discover that despite a website encouraging erstwhile employees to apply, they didn’t bother to mention the “but not if you took redundancy” clause. And, of course, the systematic incompetence that followed, putting me though interviews for jobs I was never going to get. To say that I was annoyed would be putting it mildly to say the least.

I also had an interview with First Great Western. It seems I don’t cut the mustard for train despatch on a railway station, despite a twenty year rail career and safety critical experience and knowledge way above that required for the job. That, for me, was the final straw. I am sick to the back teeth with bloody stupid and humiliating interviews asking the same damn fool questions and giving the same tired responses, none of which means anything. I’ve been that side of the table, I know it’s all nonsense and I know that someone who performs well at interview does not necessarily make a good employee. People lie. Yes, even with competence based interviewing.

I am a trainer. It’s what I do. I’m naturally didactic. I realised this one summer Saturday in 1980 when, having recently passed my IAM motorcycle test, I volunteered to instruct at the local RAC/ACU training centre. I enjoyed it and got on well. A few years later, I took and passed, my ADI exams and ran my own driving school until the economic downturn of 1990, which pretty much killed the business stone cold dead.

Although I thought I’d put it behind me when I joined BR as a signaller, a few years later, I was managing the training for the Great Western Zone of Railtrack.

From there, I went to HQ and was actively involved in the training and assessment of signallers, operations managers and Rail Incident Officers as well as being peripherally involved in the development of the track safety training materials and signal sighting training.

Then came redundancy. I joined a small independent training provider delivering NVQ learning and development training. Frankly, there just wasn’t enough work, which was why I drifted through a number of temporary jobs until I landed the contract auditing the track safety training. The downside to this was that conflict of interest meant that I couldn’t register to deliver training or assessment, so had no real back up plan should it all go wrong. Which it did. Hence the current situation.

Just before Christmas I managed to find a sponsor who would register me as a trainer and assessor. Fortunately, this one is keeping his word, unlike some. As an aside, I never really did understand what was going on there. The client wanted some verification work and offered full time employment. When I asked for a contract of employment, it all got very vague and no one would respond to phone calls or emails. Very odd.

Still, later this week, I’ll be co-running a track safety course. They make no promises about how much work they have, so are being honest. I can live with that. Once I’m on the register of track safety trainers and assessors, I can sell my services to other clients, so won’t be relying on the one.

Given this, and given that I’ve simply had enough of trying to get a proper job, I was musing idly and wondered what the situation was like these days with motorcycle training. I emailed a local training school and asked the question. All I asked for was what the process was. I was also interested in how much it was likely to cost. They asked me to come in so that they could discuss it properly. After a forty-five minute chat, I was lined up to observe a CBT course on Saturday. As it turned out, once the trainer realised my background, she had me helping to run the course, giving instruction and feedback to the learners.

It all came flooding back. The patter, the tricks and tips. Three decades sloughed off my shoulders like melting snow off a roof. For a few brief hours I felt something that had long gone. I forgot, temporarily the sheer bloody misery of the past couple of years and got on with what I do best –  training people. And I was doing it with my first love; motorcycles. Pigs in shit had nothing on me.

I’ve been offered free training to get my training licence. As the licensing regime is changing next January for learner riders, they anticipate a rush this summer as people try to get their qualifications in this year, so fast tracking me as an instructor will help them cope. If I want to progress, I can go to Cardington for the DSA assessment.

Having come home and then gone to work last night at Sainsburys, I’m pretty tired, but it’s not the exhaustion of the past year or so. This is the kind of mental exhaustion that comes from imparting knowledge and skills. It’s altogether different.

So, after countless applications, wasted time and false promises, all it took was a speculative email to a complete stranger. With the motorcycle training as well as the track safety stuff, hopefully, a lull in one can be cushioned with the other.

On the downside, Mrs L now has to find new work –  she’s been trying anyway, as I have been. Her employer is about to go tits up. So, mixed news, really… 

The idea of an image of a red London bus set against a monochrome background is fairly well worn. However, even if it is not, taking a similar image is not copyright theft no matter how litigious the complainant may be. At least it wasn’t until now when we get an idiot judge who found the whole thing difficult:

‘His honour Judge Birss QC decided that a photograph of a red London bus against a black and white background of Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament, with a blank sky, was similar enough to another photograph of the same subject matter to infringe copyright.’

No! No! No! They are similar. Similar is not the same. This stupid, stupid judgment now opens the floodgates for anyone who sees an image similar to their own to seek damages. Any photograph taken at a tourist destination will inevitably be similar to others taken at the same location –  it has the same elements and composition will be similarly restricted. The addition of a little manipulation such as in the case here is not copyright theft. You do not own the copyright to a particular idea or type of manipulation, FFS!

The judge himself admitted that he found it a difficult question, but in the end he decided that a substantial part of photograph one [Temple Island's image] had been reproduced in photograph two [New English Teas'].’

If he found it difficult, then it’s time he retired. It isn’t difficult at all and the two images are similar, not the same therefore copyright was not infringed.

Swan warned: ‘The Temple Island case is likely to herald more claims of this kind. The judgement should be studied by anyone imitating an existing photograph or commissioning a photograph based on a similar photograph.
‘“Inspiration” and “reference” are fine in themselves, but there is a line between copying ideas and copying the original expression of ideas which is often a difficult one to draw.’

It isn’t difficult at all. Copying an image is infringement of copyright. Copying an idea is not. The line is so clear you can see it from space.

Though the images are not identical, the judge ruled that Fielder’s composition of the image, to include such features as the ‘visual contrast’ of the bright red bus and monochrome background, were the photographer’s ‘intellectual creation’.

Well, duh! It’s a piccy of a London bus set against the palace of Westminster. All images of London buses set against the palace of Westminster will look much the same and now, because of your cretinous judgement, the photographers are open to litigation.

This is a terrible judgement and I do hope the defendant appeals as if it is allowed to stand, all photographers are potentially open to litigation when we take images of well known landmarks, or, as I have here, use a specific technique.

Perhaps photographers should go en masse to London, stand on Westminster bridge and take photographs of Route masters and then photoshop them before publishing the results on the interwebs…

Very early on in my somewhat chequered career, I was told that I should wear a tie to work rather than an open necked shirt. I refused and stuck to my guns. They backed down. At that time, I was unaware of exactly what the law was regarding this –  however, I was on firm ground. There was no written code, so it couldn’t be enforced. And this is the crux; a dress code must be written down, preferably consulted with those affected and equitable. This means that you can’t have a relaxed code for some people while having it rigidly enforced for others. The principle originally set by Schmidt v Austicks Bookshops Ltd [1977] still applies. The principle is that an employer (or school) may set different codes for male and female employees or students, however, they must be equally restrictive.

This means that in the case Bucko cites regarding trainers in school, the parents are onto a loser. The code was written down and reasonable. As it was clearly communicated, enforcement shouldn’t have come as a surprise.

Where I do get annoyed about dress codes is when the employer starts to impose their code not on clothing –  or a uniform –  that can be changed at the end of the working day, but upon the bodies of their employees –  hair length and facial hair, for example. You cannot grow your hair back at the end of the working day, nor does one’s chin sprout a decent growth of beard for the evening –  although mine comes close. I don’t get so much a five o’clock shadow as a midday one.

Such codes are legal for the reasons given above –  the law does not differentiate between hair length and the wearing of ties. That it should is moot. It doesn’t and that’s that. At least it will be until someone sets a precedent in court. Hasn’t happened yet and I’m not holding my breath. And, frankly, such restrictions are pretty rare. I’ve only been taken to task once regarding the length of my hair and on that occasion, as there was no dress code, I refused and reminded them what the law says on these matters. No more was said.

Disney’s erstwhile ban on beards wouldn’t affect me. I have only worn a beard the once and then briefly. But, again, it was an imposition. Sure, you can choose not to work for an employer –  if you have that luxury. However, it is not the employer’s place to dictate your body. Clothes, yes –  issuing a uniform, fine and dandy and if they don’t want you to wear your piercings at work, then I see no problem. I can even see an argument for no visible tattoos, but a beard? A beard is perfectly natural. It is the normal state of affairs for men. Shaving is unnatural, as is cutting our hair. And there is no reason why either condition cannot look smart, businesslike and professional.

“While we are careful to maintain our heritage and the integrity of our brand, a recent review of our guidelines led to a decision that an update was appropriate at this time.”

What this tells us is that Disney are keeping up with the times and changing social attitudes. This is also part of the principle of applying dress codes –  be aware of changing attitudes. When it became known that I was under fire for having shoulder-length hair, the general reaction was “they can’t do that these days!” Well, actually, they can, but they need to play by the rules. Those rules include having a written dress code and, if you are being sensible, being sensitive to changing social norms. A man with longer hair is no longer seen as untidy or unprofessional. And although you don’t see many beards, these are not unprofessional either.

Disney are doing the right thing here. Not that this pleases Paul Hamilos.

But Disney’s public pronouncements in support of beardies need to be read closely. While they may now permit facial hair, they nonetheless still expect it to be “short and neat” (it can be no longer than a quarter of an inch, which, as Andrew Sullivan has pointed out, is not a beard – it’s a gesture). So Santa Claus wouldn’t have been allowed to work at Disneyland. Neither would Jesus. Interesting message you’re putting out there, Disney.

Actually, I’d say that was a reasonable compromise. It’s a way of ensuring that the beard remains neat and it is an easy way to avoid ambiguity. I am reminded of a Petty Officer I once knew who was regularly being told to cut his chest-length beard. He refused and got away with it, citing Queen’s regulations. He had been given permission to stop shaving and that was what he had done. Nothing said he had to cut it. Last time I saw him, the battle was ongoing. That’s why Disney have laid down such specific guidelines.

————————-

As an aside, do trawl through the comments and look at what SanDiegoFemist has to say on the matter. Hilarious, or what?

…to suggest that wiry, rough-textured facial hair is the same as head-hair is completely ridiculous. For a start head hair is something which is shared by both men AND women (apart from rather amusingly bald men)… secondly, I am struggling to remember the last time I saw a person with bits of food in their head-hair – something which happens very frequently with nearly all bearded men. Beards clearly have no place in a modern and gender-progressive society.

Or this:

Beards are self-evidently unhygeinic – being constantly exposed to food and saliva renders the vast majority of facial hair a breeding ground for germs from the decaying food and the encrusted spittle. What we have to ask ourselves is ‘why should women and children be exposed to the health hazard of male men who are too juvenile to resist making this aggressive visual statement’?

We need legislation to prevent what is clearly both a health hazard and a symbol of male aggression

What do you reckon, clever trolling?

The city council has now asked the police, city attorney’s office and workplace safety officials to figure out how they enforce the rule, the Los Angeles Times reports.

Surely they should have been asking themselves that question before enacting the legislation? They might have concluded that they cannot and therefore, common sense might have prevailed. Yeah, I know, I know…

Business –  well, large corporates – and government can amount to much the same thing. However, if I had to choose, then government is the one I trust less, but it is a choice between the plague and typhus…

As to the point he is making, there is no argument from me. I agree that the sentencing guidelines make a mockery of justice. The juror in question was foolish and clearly did not appreciate why what she did was wrong. That she was held in contempt was quite right. However, the sentence she received was way over the top for the offence –  not least when compared with lighter sentences handed down for violent assault.

No, it’s when we get to the comments that things get interesting. Follwow the thread where Lee wades in with his plan to disrupt the jury system by not only doing exactly what Ms Dallas did, despite it being clear why it was wrong, he has decided that being an Englishman puts him above not only the law, but the rights of the defendant. When it is pointed out to him, we get this:

What right would you have to tell me how to behave on a jury? An Englishman/woman has the right to be tried by their peers – and that includes people such as myself who hold unconventional views.

Lee is entitled to hold whatever unconventional views he likes. No one is gainsaying that. What he is not entitled to do is wage a one-man war against the system from the jury bench. In so doing, he is jeopardising the defendant’s entitlement to a fair trial. And previous convictions are withheld from the jury for a very good reason. They are not judging previous, they are judging the evidence in this case, and this case alone. That is because it is up to the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. That someone has previous convictions does not mean that they committed this offence. Because, of course, the police have never taken the easy route and charged a convenient suspect because they have previous, have they?

Yet, despite these principles being pointed out, Lee is adamant. He can do as he damned well pleases and I must not tell him otherwise. Although if we served on the same jury he would find out pretty sharpish that I can and will.

You do not volunteer to be a juror, neither are you employed; therefore you are not bound b y any contract.

I have every right to undermine the English legal system, I’m a citizen, a free man and an Englishman. I believe that the system is wrong, bloated, corrupt and corrupted, and have every right to do whatever I see fit to change things.

Never mind the defendant. Lee is going to have his day in court. That an innocent person may go down for a crime they did not commit is neither here nor there to our hero –  he is going to change the system. I presume the defendant is mere collateral damage.

However, look at the language –  language that I see all too often in libertarian circles. Language that puts people off. It puts me off and I am sympathetic. The sheer, pompous arrogance of “I can do as I like and to hell with everyone else”. Yet libertarian philosophy does not involve doing as you like. There is the counterbalance of personal responsibility –  and that personal responsibility involves not causing harm to others. In this case, the defendant in a criminal trial. A defendant who is innocent until proved guilty on the basis of the evidence presented by the prosecution, not what some idiot juror has looked up on the Internet.

I will do as I see fit, as a man of good faith and moral integrity: you must abide by your own moral code…but don’t you dare try to impose it on me.

This from a man who would impose his campaign on an unwitting defendant, possibly causing a miscarriage of justice. The cognitive dissonance is staggering. With friends like this, who needs enemies?