Perhaps I'll take a break from bashing the Press today.
Firstly, last Saturday's cover, featuring Jason Duncombe providing us with a delightful enumeration, via the medium of his middle digits, of the precise number of braincells he posesses, was outstanding. All credit to the photographer for getting the shot (I'd have been too incensed to have had the presence of mind to press the shutter button), and to the editors for turning it into Guernsey's very own 'Up Yours Delors'.
El Ed has defended it as 'exposing' the yob culture. To be honest, I don't think that defence is even necessary. It's sufficient that the photo shows, at a glance, precisely what kind of person Duncombe is, in a way that a dry court report couldn't possibly do. It's only a shame the photo hasn't been immortalised in the online version of the article.
And secondly, Nigel Baudains' report today on the anti-mast lobby group's hijacking of Al Brouard's public meeting comes as a great relief. Without taking sides, the Press has finally managed to come up with some much-needed critical reporting on the attitudes and approach of this group's hysterically irrational hardcore members.
Anyway, enough of this praise, normal service will be resumed shortly. I haven't got started yet on the Press's tendency to report staff mishaps as earth-shattering news...
Monday, 13 August 2007
Friday, 27 July 2007
The Great Mobile Mast Conspiracy
Over the last few weeks, a bit of a storm has erupted over Airtel's applications to spackle the island with the masts required to run the island's third mobile phone network. Naturally there's some serious questions to be answered about these potential eyesores, why they are necessary and why they couldn't share existing sites.
However, lately the furore has largely focused on health implications. Most recently on Tuesday, Mr Roger Coghill rolled in to the island to give a talk at St Martin's Community Centre which has been widely and uncritically reported in the media. The Press proclaims him to be an 'electromagnetic energy expert' and a 'research scientist', and BBC Guernsey never miss an opportunity to point out that he is 'Cambridge-educated'.
But dig a little deeper, and it seems things are not quite what they appear.
As the Press notes (nearly) correctly, Coghill became quite prominent in 1998 when he published independent research arguing that RF emissions from mobile phones damage the immune system, and attempted a private prosecution against a mobile dealer arguing that under the Consumer Protection Act he should be displaying warning labels on phone packaging.
Coghill lost the case. His research was not published in any peer-reviewed journal, and as such represented nothing more than his opinion. More importantly, it was not corroborated by other peer-reviewed studies. But that didn't stop both the case and the research generating a huge amount of media interest: Coghill was cited 119 times in the media between 1998 and 2003, fuelling considerable public fear over the safety of mobile phones.
Around the same time, Coghill set up Coghill Research Laboratories. For the last ten years, he has been conducting research there into the effects of magnetism, electric fields and non-ionising radiation on living tissue.
Coghill has published very few papers in peer-reviewed journals (especially if you don't count papers in European Biology and Bioelectromagnetics, a journal set up by Medcross Group which in turn was founded by... er... Roger Coghill). Of those which have, none effectively demonstrate a causal link between EMR (electromagnetic radiation) and negative health effects.
Nor do any of them provide evidence for the health benefits of Coghill's products, peddled via his website. These consist of a variety of alternative therapy books, highly dubious 'therapeutic' pendants and bracelets, mobile phone shields, and the modestly-named 'Coghill SuperMagnet', which is... er... a magnet. It's a very expensive magnet though, so it must be good at... whatever it does...
So what? The guy's a bit iffy - but there's still lots of research to indicate there are risks from mobiles, right?
Well, it is true that even though we know a lot more than we did 20 years ago, mobile phone masts are still not guaranteed to be safe. Millions of pounds are being poured into epidemiological studies to continue to examine the long-term effects of mobile phone emissions, and rightly so.
But with each study which comes up negative, with the benefit of ever longer case histories to examine, and with each literature review which whittles out the chaff from the previous studies, the odds that we will discover any health risks in a future study get smaller and smaller.
Despite this increasing body of evidence, surveys conducted in Europe, the UK and the US generally indicate that about 3% of the population suffers from a condition known as 'electromagnetic hypersensitivity syndrome' (EHS). This is a recognised condition with symptoms like stress, nausea, headaches and joint pain. The problem for scientists is that it is not known what causes EHS. A number of 'provocation studies' have been conducted into this - basically subjects who claim to have EHS are tested to see how the presence or absence of a mobile phone signal affects their symptoms.
One such study was published by Essex University yesterday and made headline news nationally. In fact there have been more than 30 similar studies published in the past. Most of these gave similar negative results to the Essex study - the few that didn't were either demonstrably flawed, couldn't be repeated even by the same researchers, or had mutually contradictory results.
However, what the provocation studies do show is that although EHS is not caused by the presence of mobile phone signals, subjects are afflicted with EHS when they believe that a signal is present.
Many media outlets have reported this result as saying that EHS is 'all in the mind', but that's not helpful because it belittles the very real and sometimes debilitating effects of EHS - a bit like dismissing depression as being 'all in the mind'. Though other causes of EHS cannot be ruled out, the most plausible explanation is that many subjects suffering from EHS are experiencing the consequences of anxiety brought on by their own fear of 'electrosmog'.
Coghill believes (or at least says he believes) that mobile companies are engaged in a conspiracy to fund biased studies, stymie true research, and cover up the true dangers of mobile technology. True, a lot of research into mobile phone risks is sponsored by mobile phone companies, but that's why there is a scientific peer-review process. What would Coghill be saying if the mobile companies refused to fund this research?
In reality, campaigners such as Coghill are always poised on the sidelines to pump the media with misinformation over any health scare, justified or not, and the media's blind acceptance of their authority converts this into public fear. Whilst Coghill reaps the rewards and boosts his notoriety, the well-being of around 2 million EHS sufferers in Britain alone is in jeopardy.
Acknowledgement: Apart from Coghill's own website, this astonishing thread on the James Randi Educational Foundation forum proved to be an absolute mine of references and links which proved thoroughly useful in researching this post, largely provided by the man himself.
However, lately the furore has largely focused on health implications. Most recently on Tuesday, Mr Roger Coghill rolled in to the island to give a talk at St Martin's Community Centre which has been widely and uncritically reported in the media. The Press proclaims him to be an 'electromagnetic energy expert' and a 'research scientist', and BBC Guernsey never miss an opportunity to point out that he is 'Cambridge-educated'.
But dig a little deeper, and it seems things are not quite what they appear.
As the Press notes (nearly) correctly, Coghill became quite prominent in 1998 when he published independent research arguing that RF emissions from mobile phones damage the immune system, and attempted a private prosecution against a mobile dealer arguing that under the Consumer Protection Act he should be displaying warning labels on phone packaging.
Coghill lost the case. His research was not published in any peer-reviewed journal, and as such represented nothing more than his opinion. More importantly, it was not corroborated by other peer-reviewed studies. But that didn't stop both the case and the research generating a huge amount of media interest: Coghill was cited 119 times in the media between 1998 and 2003, fuelling considerable public fear over the safety of mobile phones.
Around the same time, Coghill set up Coghill Research Laboratories. For the last ten years, he has been conducting research there into the effects of magnetism, electric fields and non-ionising radiation on living tissue.
Coghill has published very few papers in peer-reviewed journals (especially if you don't count papers in European Biology and Bioelectromagnetics, a journal set up by Medcross Group which in turn was founded by... er... Roger Coghill). Of those which have, none effectively demonstrate a causal link between EMR (electromagnetic radiation) and negative health effects.
Nor do any of them provide evidence for the health benefits of Coghill's products, peddled via his website. These consist of a variety of alternative therapy books, highly dubious 'therapeutic' pendants and bracelets, mobile phone shields, and the modestly-named 'Coghill SuperMagnet', which is... er... a magnet. It's a very expensive magnet though, so it must be good at... whatever it does...
So what? The guy's a bit iffy - but there's still lots of research to indicate there are risks from mobiles, right?
Well, it is true that even though we know a lot more than we did 20 years ago, mobile phone masts are still not guaranteed to be safe. Millions of pounds are being poured into epidemiological studies to continue to examine the long-term effects of mobile phone emissions, and rightly so.
But with each study which comes up negative, with the benefit of ever longer case histories to examine, and with each literature review which whittles out the chaff from the previous studies, the odds that we will discover any health risks in a future study get smaller and smaller.
Despite this increasing body of evidence, surveys conducted in Europe, the UK and the US generally indicate that about 3% of the population suffers from a condition known as 'electromagnetic hypersensitivity syndrome' (EHS). This is a recognised condition with symptoms like stress, nausea, headaches and joint pain. The problem for scientists is that it is not known what causes EHS. A number of 'provocation studies' have been conducted into this - basically subjects who claim to have EHS are tested to see how the presence or absence of a mobile phone signal affects their symptoms.
One such study was published by Essex University yesterday and made headline news nationally. In fact there have been more than 30 similar studies published in the past. Most of these gave similar negative results to the Essex study - the few that didn't were either demonstrably flawed, couldn't be repeated even by the same researchers, or had mutually contradictory results.
However, what the provocation studies do show is that although EHS is not caused by the presence of mobile phone signals, subjects are afflicted with EHS when they believe that a signal is present.
Many media outlets have reported this result as saying that EHS is 'all in the mind', but that's not helpful because it belittles the very real and sometimes debilitating effects of EHS - a bit like dismissing depression as being 'all in the mind'. Though other causes of EHS cannot be ruled out, the most plausible explanation is that many subjects suffering from EHS are experiencing the consequences of anxiety brought on by their own fear of 'electrosmog'.
Coghill believes (or at least says he believes) that mobile companies are engaged in a conspiracy to fund biased studies, stymie true research, and cover up the true dangers of mobile technology. True, a lot of research into mobile phone risks is sponsored by mobile phone companies, but that's why there is a scientific peer-review process. What would Coghill be saying if the mobile companies refused to fund this research?
In reality, campaigners such as Coghill are always poised on the sidelines to pump the media with misinformation over any health scare, justified or not, and the media's blind acceptance of their authority converts this into public fear. Whilst Coghill reaps the rewards and boosts his notoriety, the well-being of around 2 million EHS sufferers in Britain alone is in jeopardy.
Acknowledgement: Apart from Coghill's own website, this astonishing thread on the James Randi Educational Foundation forum proved to be an absolute mine of references and links which proved thoroughly useful in researching this post, largely provided by the man himself.
Saturday, 21 July 2007
Bottled out
As I blogged a month or so ago, I'm a bit of a recycling cynic, at least as far as Guernsey's present strategy is concerned. This week the Press joined the party with their article about the bazillion tons of glass, carefully sorted and posted into the green bins by enviro-conscious consumers, and collected and crushed at taxpayers' expense.
After all that work, this multi-coloured crushed glass is now being stockpiled at Longue Hougue and is very possibly destined for landfill after all, because the product of the process is basically worthless. When you think about the insane cost of producing all this crushed glass, largely borne by those who in good faith have gone to great efforts to 'do their bit', you can't help but feel a little bit let down.
The fact that the glass can't be used as aggregate because it hasn't been finely crushed enough is reasonably amusing, but probably beside the point. The point being, what was the point anyway? The Press referred to using glass as aggregate as 'down-cycling'. I think that's something of an understatement.
If we don't use glass as aggregate, then instead we use rock. When rock is quarried, it leaves a hole in the ground which we can use to dump rubbish (like... er... glass). Why go to the trouble of crushing and processing glass to use as an aggregate if it's easier just to use rock (the crushing of which Ronez has down to a fine art), and then dump the glass where the rock came from?
All we've really achieved is to divert a relatively tiny amount of inert waste away from Mont Cuet, but it looks like that was all we would ever have achieved anyway. Even if the glass can be used as aggregate, that's not what any green-minded recycler would really call recycling.
Recycling is supposed to help the environment by reducing energy and resources consumed. What we're doing with this glass doesn't achieve that. In fact all it will achieve is to fractionally extend the lifespan of the tip, and in turn all that will really achieve is to give the States an extra month or so to dither around and put off having to make any difficult decisions about how we should manage our waste.
After all that work, this multi-coloured crushed glass is now being stockpiled at Longue Hougue and is very possibly destined for landfill after all, because the product of the process is basically worthless. When you think about the insane cost of producing all this crushed glass, largely borne by those who in good faith have gone to great efforts to 'do their bit', you can't help but feel a little bit let down.
The fact that the glass can't be used as aggregate because it hasn't been finely crushed enough is reasonably amusing, but probably beside the point. The point being, what was the point anyway? The Press referred to using glass as aggregate as 'down-cycling'. I think that's something of an understatement.
If we don't use glass as aggregate, then instead we use rock. When rock is quarried, it leaves a hole in the ground which we can use to dump rubbish (like... er... glass). Why go to the trouble of crushing and processing glass to use as an aggregate if it's easier just to use rock (the crushing of which Ronez has down to a fine art), and then dump the glass where the rock came from?
All we've really achieved is to divert a relatively tiny amount of inert waste away from Mont Cuet, but it looks like that was all we would ever have achieved anyway. Even if the glass can be used as aggregate, that's not what any green-minded recycler would really call recycling.
Recycling is supposed to help the environment by reducing energy and resources consumed. What we're doing with this glass doesn't achieve that. In fact all it will achieve is to fractionally extend the lifespan of the tip, and in turn all that will really achieve is to give the States an extra month or so to dither around and put off having to make any difficult decisions about how we should manage our waste.
Saturday, 14 July 2007
Guernsey 2.0
The times are a-changing. BBC Radio Guernsey has recently dropped the 'Radio' from its name to reflect its 'multimedia' status (mostly because many people now listen online - not a seismic shift exactly but it's a great start). The Guernsey Press's archives are now available, so you can find out all about great historic u-turns. They are even on the verge of figuring out what a blog is. Soon, Rock Candy will be launched (apparently some kind of contributor-written online magazine - could be great, could be awful, we'll find out soon...) And WhyGuernsey, home of the new Guernsey enlightenment, have seen the light themselves and made their forums readable by guests and therefore, more importantly, indexable by Google.
We can now get stacks of local factomation online which just a couple of years ago would have involved making a trip to the Priaulx Library. People from outside the island wanting to get a snapshot of Guernsey life have it all laid out for them in full gory detail.
But if everyone from the traditional media down to the casual WhyGuernsey mud-slinger is embracing the Internet, why is the States of Guernsey's website so abysmal?
Just three weeks ago or so, the Treasury dropped a leaflet on everyone's doormat explaining how the new 'tax on real property' system will work. Some people who have opted out of junk mailings won't receive it, and some people who are affected might own property in Guernsey but live overseas, so they won't have one either.
Still, that's no biggie because they can get the information from the States website, can't then? Well, maybe some enterprising reader of this post can let me have the URL in a comment, but I can't find it anywhere, either by navigating the site (a maze of twisty passages all alike if ever I saw one), or by using the site search.
I've also been told that the Government Business Plan is there somewhere, but I can't find that either, despite being told by various politicians that this is a document of fundamental importance and the subject of the July States debate.
How can we expect Guernsey to have a presence on the international stage when the island's flagship official website is such a joke? Why aren't the politicians who fret about public apathy doing something about this?
The site urgently needs professional attention. Aside from publishing the Billets, what's there at the moment achieves very little more than paying lip-service to the notion that the States ought to have a website.
Sure, replacing it is going to cost money - but a little investment could go a long way in reducing civil servant time spent handling questions which could easily be answered online. And what price to ensure that the casual Google searcher gets Guernsey facts from the elected government, and not Guernsey mud from WhyGuernsey?
We can now get stacks of local factomation online which just a couple of years ago would have involved making a trip to the Priaulx Library. People from outside the island wanting to get a snapshot of Guernsey life have it all laid out for them in full gory detail.
But if everyone from the traditional media down to the casual WhyGuernsey mud-slinger is embracing the Internet, why is the States of Guernsey's website so abysmal?
Just three weeks ago or so, the Treasury dropped a leaflet on everyone's doormat explaining how the new 'tax on real property' system will work. Some people who have opted out of junk mailings won't receive it, and some people who are affected might own property in Guernsey but live overseas, so they won't have one either.
Still, that's no biggie because they can get the information from the States website, can't then? Well, maybe some enterprising reader of this post can let me have the URL in a comment, but I can't find it anywhere, either by navigating the site (a maze of twisty passages all alike if ever I saw one), or by using the site search.
I've also been told that the Government Business Plan is there somewhere, but I can't find that either, despite being told by various politicians that this is a document of fundamental importance and the subject of the July States debate.
How can we expect Guernsey to have a presence on the international stage when the island's flagship official website is such a joke? Why aren't the politicians who fret about public apathy doing something about this?
The site urgently needs professional attention. Aside from publishing the Billets, what's there at the moment achieves very little more than paying lip-service to the notion that the States ought to have a website.
Sure, replacing it is going to cost money - but a little investment could go a long way in reducing civil servant time spent handling questions which could easily be answered online. And what price to ensure that the casual Google searcher gets Guernsey facts from the elected government, and not Guernsey mud from WhyGuernsey?
Friday, 22 June 2007
Pressing issues
On page 2 the Press today laments the poor turn-out at last night's public meeting on the new tax on real property system being introduced in January. Of course it's lucky that those of us who couldn't find time to turn up can rely on the Press to send their most senior political reporting staff to cover these events.
Or did they? The article is headlined with a thoroughly negative (and wholly unrepresentative) quote allegedly made at the meeting by Chief Minister Mike Torode. This comes as a surprise since Mike Torode wasn't even present. It probably comes as a particular surprise for Lyndon Trott, who is in charge of implementing the new system, chaired the meeting and made the remarks in question, but isn't mentioned in the article at all!
Update (23/06): A correction appeared in today's Press, but interestingly the online edition of the original article has the mistake erased.
Or did they? The article is headlined with a thoroughly negative (and wholly unrepresentative) quote allegedly made at the meeting by Chief Minister Mike Torode. This comes as a surprise since Mike Torode wasn't even present. It probably comes as a particular surprise for Lyndon Trott, who is in charge of implementing the new system, chaired the meeting and made the remarks in question, but isn't mentioned in the article at all!
Update (23/06): A correction appeared in today's Press, but interestingly the online edition of the original article has the mistake erased.
Thursday, 21 June 2007
Remarqueeble
Oh yes, the continuing saga of the market terrace (or 'in front of HMV' as it is more commonly known).
Many words have been expended in the Press and on BBCRadio Guernsey on the matter, mostly about whether this is an eyesore which the Environment Department should be cracking down on.
But looking back through the pages of the Press, before the marquee appeared, you wonder what happened to other plans for this area. Back in July 2006, John Silvester, the States head of estates, said:
"The potential for Market Square and terrace overlooking the Town Church will be considerable for all sorts of events: the world is your oyster. It gives Culture and Leisure the opportunity to do all sorts of things."
And as recently as March 2007, reporter Nick Mollet interviewed Brett Allen, Director of McAulay. The article assured that "plans were at an advanced stage for a 'local market' on Church Square terrace, to run on Fridays and Saturdays."
Street entertainment and a weekly local market are sadly lacking in Town at the moment, and the community-minded intentions of the States and McCaulay to subsidise these activities was highly welcome. But since taxpayers entrusted this space to their care, the purpose for which it has been used has fallen drastically short of expectations.
Renting out the space without appropriate permission was bad enough. But will the States and McAulay be held to account for selling out on their promises for how this space would be used?
Many words have been expended in the Press and on BBC
But looking back through the pages of the Press, before the marquee appeared, you wonder what happened to other plans for this area. Back in July 2006, John Silvester, the States head of estates, said:
"The potential for Market Square and terrace overlooking the Town Church will be considerable for all sorts of events: the world is your oyster. It gives Culture and Leisure the opportunity to do all sorts of things."
And as recently as March 2007, reporter Nick Mollet interviewed Brett Allen, Director of McAulay. The article assured that "plans were at an advanced stage for a 'local market' on Church Square terrace, to run on Fridays and Saturdays."
Street entertainment and a weekly local market are sadly lacking in Town at the moment, and the community-minded intentions of the States and McCaulay to subsidise these activities was highly welcome. But since taxpayers entrusted this space to their care, the purpose for which it has been used has fallen drastically short of expectations.
Renting out the space without appropriate permission was bad enough. But will the States and McAulay be held to account for selling out on their promises for how this space would be used?
Friday, 8 June 2007
If recycling is the answer, what is the question?
The news is that there's a big hole in the ground at Mont Cuet. In 2015 or thereabouts, it's not just going to be full, it's going to be a big hill made of rubbish.
The response the States has made to this, and the response that the media seem to be concentrating their attention on, is how much of this stuff we can recycle. We now have a target to recycle 50% of our waste by 2010 - that's an awful lot when I think about the occasional carrier bag I recycle compared with the 40 litre bin sacks I give the bin men.
The Education Department has done its bit by launching a web site (which I can't find...) and teaching programme devoted to extolling the virtues of recycling - the theory being that if parents won't recycle on their own, then perhaps their dewy-eyed children can guilt them into doing it. In the words of said children, interviewed on Radio Guernsey earlier this week, recycling is basically morally right and 'makes the world a tidy place', whilst not recycling is generally evil.
That's hopelessly naive of course, but then they are only children emerging from their first indoctrination into the received wisdom about recycling. On the other hand, we also had Martin Ozanne insisting that recycling will help us 'stop burning up the atmosphere'.
It's comments like this last one which give off bad smells, suggesting there might be something rotten at the core of a debate which is going on amongst deputies more worried about an election in 2008 than they are about a missed target in 2010 or an overflowing tip in 2015.
What's going to sink the recycling target is that much of the burden of the cost of recycling falls on those who chose to recycle, and the States shows no inclination of alleviating this problem by, for example, offering island-wide kerbside collection.
For businesses, there is absolutely nil incentive to recycle when it's cheaper for them just to send the stuff to the tip. And how could they recycle if they wanted to? Window repairers, for example, cannot recycle old glass, simply because it won't fit through the holes in the green bins.
But then why do we have this 50% target anyway? At the root of this target seems to be the fallacy which the island's schoolchildren are being indoctrinated with: That recycling is an inherently good thing, an end in itself in fact.
Recycling is only one of the three Rs - reduce, reuse and recycle - and the last one at that. What are we doing about the first two? How are we persuading Marks and Spencer to stop wrapping every individual steak in a foil and plastic tray with extra cardboard wrapping? How do I get my jam jar back to the manufacturer so he can put more jam in it? Why are we still churning out millions of non-recyclable milk cartons every year, instead of using our much-vaunted milk distribution network to issue re-usable bottles? Why do supermarkets insist on issuing plastic bags at the checkouts?
The evidence that recycling is going to save the environment just isn't there. We do not have any foreseeable shortage of the raw materials to make paper or glass or even aluminium, but we do have shortages of the fresh water, energy and labour it takes to recycle them. And recycling most certainly will not stop the atmosphere from burning up, especially if we all have to individually drive to and from the recycling bins to do it!
If we are really serious about the three Rs, and prologing the life of Mont Cuet, then we need policies to tackle all three, not just recycling. The answer is sensible recycling and reuse schemes, which have proven environmental benefit. And these should be funded by increasing tipping charges (again) and, critically, charging individuals, households and businesses according to the volume of refuse they leave on the kerb.
Sadly this means replacing the warm fuzzy feeling of pointless recycling with a grim future of wheelie bins and bigger rubbish bills. But we really want to save the planet, right?
The response the States has made to this, and the response that the media seem to be concentrating their attention on, is how much of this stuff we can recycle. We now have a target to recycle 50% of our waste by 2010 - that's an awful lot when I think about the occasional carrier bag I recycle compared with the 40 litre bin sacks I give the bin men.
The Education Department has done its bit by launching a web site (which I can't find...) and teaching programme devoted to extolling the virtues of recycling - the theory being that if parents won't recycle on their own, then perhaps their dewy-eyed children can guilt them into doing it. In the words of said children, interviewed on Radio Guernsey earlier this week, recycling is basically morally right and 'makes the world a tidy place', whilst not recycling is generally evil.
That's hopelessly naive of course, but then they are only children emerging from their first indoctrination into the received wisdom about recycling. On the other hand, we also had Martin Ozanne insisting that recycling will help us 'stop burning up the atmosphere'.
It's comments like this last one which give off bad smells, suggesting there might be something rotten at the core of a debate which is going on amongst deputies more worried about an election in 2008 than they are about a missed target in 2010 or an overflowing tip in 2015.
What's going to sink the recycling target is that much of the burden of the cost of recycling falls on those who chose to recycle, and the States shows no inclination of alleviating this problem by, for example, offering island-wide kerbside collection.
For businesses, there is absolutely nil incentive to recycle when it's cheaper for them just to send the stuff to the tip. And how could they recycle if they wanted to? Window repairers, for example, cannot recycle old glass, simply because it won't fit through the holes in the green bins.
But then why do we have this 50% target anyway? At the root of this target seems to be the fallacy which the island's schoolchildren are being indoctrinated with: That recycling is an inherently good thing, an end in itself in fact.
Recycling is only one of the three Rs - reduce, reuse and recycle - and the last one at that. What are we doing about the first two? How are we persuading Marks and Spencer to stop wrapping every individual steak in a foil and plastic tray with extra cardboard wrapping? How do I get my jam jar back to the manufacturer so he can put more jam in it? Why are we still churning out millions of non-recyclable milk cartons every year, instead of using our much-vaunted milk distribution network to issue re-usable bottles? Why do supermarkets insist on issuing plastic bags at the checkouts?
The evidence that recycling is going to save the environment just isn't there. We do not have any foreseeable shortage of the raw materials to make paper or glass or even aluminium, but we do have shortages of the fresh water, energy and labour it takes to recycle them. And recycling most certainly will not stop the atmosphere from burning up, especially if we all have to individually drive to and from the recycling bins to do it!
If we are really serious about the three Rs, and prologing the life of Mont Cuet, then we need policies to tackle all three, not just recycling. The answer is sensible recycling and reuse schemes, which have proven environmental benefit. And these should be funded by increasing tipping charges (again) and, critically, charging individuals, households and businesses according to the volume of refuse they leave on the kerb.
Sadly this means replacing the warm fuzzy feeling of pointless recycling with a grim future of wheelie bins and bigger rubbish bills. But we really want to save the planet, right?
Wednesday, 6 June 2007
Press oops
I've been pretty busy of late, hence unable to post here. There are currently a couple of bouquet garnis of contention simmering in the stock pot of my mind, but hey, who am I kidding, nobody reads this anyway!
Still, for the time being, here's a nice little quote from the Reverend Kevin Northover, proof-read by the Guernsey Press:
Ding-dong indeed!
Still, for the time being, here's a nice little quote from the Reverend Kevin Northover, proof-read by the Guernsey Press:
Ding-dong indeed!
Tuesday, 22 May 2007
The MySpace Generation
Somehow I suspect that the MySpace Generation is in charge of the Ladies' College's Wikipedia page.
Friday, 18 May 2007
Property prices wiggling a little bit
Trumpet, fanfare, front page splash, property prices are dropping. Or, to be precise (which of course the Press isn't), the median local market price dropped this quarter compared to last.
So, is this the bubble bursting, or just an excuse for the usual hysterics?
Let's forget for the moment that comparing the houses sold one quarter with those sold in the following quarter is not comparing like with like (after all, they are different houses).
Let's forget that the average conveyance value only reflects the value of houses which are actually changing hands.
Let's forget that the median price always tends to be a round number - by the nature of medians, one extra property sale either side of the median could cause the 'average' price to leap £5,000 (or, er, 1.7%...)
Let's forget all that. The answer to the question is on page 2 of the report in question. Over the six years since 2001, the median local market price has fallen seven times. This quarter it has fallen a mere 1.7%, but in Q1 2002 it fell by 11.1%, and it fell by 7.1% over two quarters in 2005. All during six years of relentlessly rising prices.
So the last six times the quarterly median fell, it was just a statistical wiggle each time. But for the Press, this is it, this 1.7% is the tip of the iceberg, time for the sub-editors to get out the big fat hysterical headline pen. Maybe it's a quiet news day...
So, is this the bubble bursting, or just an excuse for the usual hysterics?
Let's forget for the moment that comparing the houses sold one quarter with those sold in the following quarter is not comparing like with like (after all, they are different houses).
Let's forget that the average conveyance value only reflects the value of houses which are actually changing hands.
Let's forget that the median price always tends to be a round number - by the nature of medians, one extra property sale either side of the median could cause the 'average' price to leap £5,000 (or, er, 1.7%...)
Let's forget all that. The answer to the question is on page 2 of the report in question. Over the six years since 2001, the median local market price has fallen seven times. This quarter it has fallen a mere 1.7%, but in Q1 2002 it fell by 11.1%, and it fell by 7.1% over two quarters in 2005. All during six years of relentlessly rising prices.
So the last six times the quarterly median fell, it was just a statistical wiggle each time. But for the Press, this is it, this 1.7% is the tip of the iceberg, time for the sub-editors to get out the big fat hysterical headline pen. Maybe it's a quiet news day...
Thursday, 17 May 2007
Fashion tax
Inspired by the petrol price debate, there have been a couple of callers to the Radio Guernsey Moan In this morning about UK chains and franchises charging the same VAT-inclusive prices in Guernsey as they do in England, mostly it would seem in respect of clothing retailers. In the bizarre words of one caller, 'we shouldn't be paying this tax'.
Er, hello. We're not paying VAT. All that's happening is that the shops pocket as extra profit the money which would normally go to the Chancellor. So what is wrong with that? We have to expect that any shop is going to price their products to make as much profit as they can (in the long run of course). That's why those shops are successful, and that's why they can afford to be in the high street.
The prices of high street mainstays like clothing and cosmetics are driven by the economics of marketing and fashion, not manufacturing. The £40 upwards price tag on a pair of Reeboks has very little to do with the £7 they paid the sweatshop to manufacture them, or the £1 labour cost paid to the people who actually did the work. More than half the wholesale cost of a bottle of perfume is blown by the manufacturer on marketing and designing shiny bottles, and most of the rest is spent on working out how to copy competitor's products, giving product away to very rich people, and ruminating on what the next whim of the public might be. The retailer then stacks on their own costs, staff costs, glitzy displays, the cost of tester bottles and their profit margin. Only a miniscule fraction of what the customer pays actually goes into synthesizing the chemical cocktail in the bottle.
If you think it's worth spending £x because you want to have brand Y, then buy it and don't complain that company Z, owner of brand Y, spends a hefty wodge of your £x just to improve the level of kudos which comes with brand Y.
There is no cartel - if you don't think the brand you buy is giving you good value for money, you can chose a different one. There is no fraud - you pay the price on the ticket, with no hidden costs. So if the ticket price has another 17.5% stacked on, just for the Guernsey customer, and you still buy it, then that's really nobody's problem but yours. The ultimate difference is that whereas in the UK maybe 90% of the price goes to middlemen, in Guernsey it's maybe more like 92%.
In the economics of fashion, prices (and ultimately high street rents) are driven by what people feel they can afford to pay. Whether or not the ticket price contains VAT makes no difference.
If you aren't happy with it, there are plenty of shops on the Bridge, in Fountain Street, in the Pollet and on the Internet with lower rent bills, more enlightened pricing policies, and little or no fashion tax...
Er, hello. We're not paying VAT. All that's happening is that the shops pocket as extra profit the money which would normally go to the Chancellor. So what is wrong with that? We have to expect that any shop is going to price their products to make as much profit as they can (in the long run of course). That's why those shops are successful, and that's why they can afford to be in the high street.
The prices of high street mainstays like clothing and cosmetics are driven by the economics of marketing and fashion, not manufacturing. The £40 upwards price tag on a pair of Reeboks has very little to do with the £7 they paid the sweatshop to manufacture them, or the £1 labour cost paid to the people who actually did the work. More than half the wholesale cost of a bottle of perfume is blown by the manufacturer on marketing and designing shiny bottles, and most of the rest is spent on working out how to copy competitor's products, giving product away to very rich people, and ruminating on what the next whim of the public might be. The retailer then stacks on their own costs, staff costs, glitzy displays, the cost of tester bottles and their profit margin. Only a miniscule fraction of what the customer pays actually goes into synthesizing the chemical cocktail in the bottle.
If you think it's worth spending £x because you want to have brand Y, then buy it and don't complain that company Z, owner of brand Y, spends a hefty wodge of your £x just to improve the level of kudos which comes with brand Y.
There is no cartel - if you don't think the brand you buy is giving you good value for money, you can chose a different one. There is no fraud - you pay the price on the ticket, with no hidden costs. So if the ticket price has another 17.5% stacked on, just for the Guernsey customer, and you still buy it, then that's really nobody's problem but yours. The ultimate difference is that whereas in the UK maybe 90% of the price goes to middlemen, in Guernsey it's maybe more like 92%.
In the economics of fashion, prices (and ultimately high street rents) are driven by what people feel they can afford to pay. Whether or not the ticket price contains VAT makes no difference.
If you aren't happy with it, there are plenty of shops on the Bridge, in Fountain Street, in the Pollet and on the Internet with lower rent bills, more enlightened pricing policies, and little or no fashion tax...
Monday, 14 May 2007
The most righteous Guernsey Press
The Guernsey Press reported in their Editors' Blog and Saturday's GP comment that news editor James Falla was the only media representative who turned up to a T&R press conference on the zero-10 strategy - ostensibly a very important meeting about the biggest deal in the States right now.
Shaun Green's blog post was quick to admonish the broadcast media for neglecting this high-profile and far-reaching issue: 'Who was present from our two radio stations and two TV stations (including BBC)? No one.'
Thank you GP for alerting us to this - indeed, one doesn't have to look back that far in the mists of time to see other examples of the media neglecting important stories for the sake of piquing public hysteria with tabloid trivia.
If only the GP team could have meted out similar opprobrium to the outlet which decided to run a dismal report on UFOs as their lead story on the 26th April, when the previous day's population debate in the States and the last lobbying efforts and political manouevres in advance of the debate on the Milk Law were at the top of the agenda for most of the media.
It wasn't even news - this was the day after the whole UFO affair had already been thoroughly dissected by every other pundit in the galaxy. So in a desperate bid to whip it up into a good lather the report even included the priceless and apparently shameless aside that 'the sightings come days after reports that scientists have discovered outside our solar system an Earth-like planet capable of supporting extraterrestrial life'.
So which news team was too busy spunking over a quick sales opportunity to give due coverage to the real news of the day? Step forward the Guernsey Press...
Shaun Green's blog post was quick to admonish the broadcast media for neglecting this high-profile and far-reaching issue: 'Who was present from our two radio stations and two TV stations (including BBC)? No one.'
Thank you GP for alerting us to this - indeed, one doesn't have to look back that far in the mists of time to see other examples of the media neglecting important stories for the sake of piquing public hysteria with tabloid trivia.
If only the GP team could have meted out similar opprobrium to the outlet which decided to run a dismal report on UFOs as their lead story on the 26th April, when the previous day's population debate in the States and the last lobbying efforts and political manouevres in advance of the debate on the Milk Law were at the top of the agenda for most of the media.
It wasn't even news - this was the day after the whole UFO affair had already been thoroughly dissected by every other pundit in the galaxy. So in a desperate bid to whip it up into a good lather the report even included the priceless and apparently shameless aside that 'the sightings come days after reports that scientists have discovered outside our solar system an Earth-like planet capable of supporting extraterrestrial life'.
So which news team was too busy spunking over a quick sales opportunity to give due coverage to the real news of the day? Step forward the Guernsey Press...
Saturday, 5 May 2007
Colonic irrigation?
"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
Edmund Burke, 1729 - 1797
Richard Digard recently posted a piece on the This is Guernsey blog which coins the delightful phrase 'the Bottom Up Brigade'. No, this is nothing to do with Deputy Ron Le Moignan's personal Room 101. It's his characterisation of those who are wont to ignore, whenever it's convenient, Edmund Burke's principle (quoth above).
Reflecting on this, I thought I'd pass on to you a glorious example of 'bottom-up' government from The Other Island, which illustrates Burke's point beautifully.
In the 1980s, reports commissioned by the States of Jersey from the British Geological Society showed that water supplies were very limited and contaminated with pesticides. Last year, drought hit the island, and the water shortage became acute. In low-lying areas the water was found to be contaminated with salt water, a sure sign of over-extraction. Senator Freddie Cohen reacted swiftly to draft water conservation legislation and slow consumption.
Enter George Langlois, water diviner, backed up by a lobby group consisting of fellow dowsers and borehole-drillers. It's all fine, he said, Jersey's ground water doesn't come from Jersey rain, it actually comes in under the Channel via 'streams' from France, and it'll never run out!
At this point, we must get one thing straight. Water divining is total bunk. There is bugger-all credible evidence that it works. Diviners and dowsers are deluded or dishonest. Langlois's claim was no more than blind speculation. Worse still, it was flatly contradicted by the available scientific evidence. A senator wouldn't have to do a particularly onerous amount of research to convince himself of this.
Sadly, a lot of the Jersey public either don't have the time, the inclination or the presence of mind to relinquish this little bit of hogwash of its popular pedestal, and who can blame them - we'd all rather be happy than right!
But what does the States of Jersey do? Do they act swiftly on the unequivocal advice of the scientific experts to avert a crisis? Or do they, instead, eject their brains and vote on the say-so of a man with a twig?
You guessed it. Cohen's legislation was vetoed.
A lesser man than Cohen might have thrown up his hands in despair at this point and booked a one-way ticket to New Zealand, leaving George Langlois and his soothing words to waltz the island into certain disaster. But Cohen instead stuck to his guns and used taxpayer's money to buy them out of their own ignorance. He successfully launched a £70,000 investigation to drill two deep boreholes at sites chosen by the diviners, to test whether the water comes from Jersey or from France as the diviners claimed. He even got George Langlois onto the working party, and secured his commitment to accept the results.
The verdict was announced in January. Surprise, surprise, the ground water in Jersey comes from rainfall in Jersey. There is no link with France. New legislation to clamp down on water usage is now imminent.
You'd think that would be the last of it, but no! The protestations of the dowsers still rumble on. The sad fact is that in a perverse way, the £70,000 blown on this utterly unnecessary exercise will only bolster the expectation that dowsers should be taken seriously, and they probably still wouldn't think twice about blowing the same amount again.
The senators can stop a repeat of this, but only if they can learn when to keep their heads out of their bottoms.
Tuesday, 1 May 2007
Those bloody railings
With much fanfare, Mike Torode revealed the solution to the problem of the 'safety' railings blighting the east end of the brand-spanking-new markets this weekend. Big planters will be installed instead, to achieve the same effect of blocking access to the granite plinths.If you think the problem with the railings is just that they look a bit crap, we have a solution.
But if you think the problem is that these railings are the most ludicrous expression of nannyism ever to be spewed forth from our executive legislature, then replacing them with differently-shaped but more aesthetically pleasing expressions of nannyism doesn't really get to the nub of the matter...
Wednesday, 25 April 2007
Milky milky
Isn't this whole debate about milk zoning a bit wide of the mark? Forgive me if I am wrong (I may well be, I only read the Billet yesterday!), and forgive me if I sound like a Commerce and Employment spokesman. But, as I understand it, the milkmen have never had more than 'de facto' protection of their territory. There never has been any legal provision for zoning; the wording printed on round licences until a few years ago has never conferred legal exclusivity.
So there never has been any legal reason why one retailer couldn't serve a customer in another's 'zone', and the chaos which the Guernsey Milk Retailers' Assocation tells is it won't be able to save us from has always been a possibility. As I understand it, what is being purchased when a milkman buys 'a round' is not a legally drawn-up territory, but the goodwill of the other members of the GMRA not to compete on what is mutually agreed to be their territory.
A milkman who tries to poach customers from other rounds will lose this goodwill. A milkman who obtains a licence but does not buy 'a round' will find it very difficult to get a foothold because the GMRA won't let him in. It'll be even harder after the new C&E proposals are introduced which will require retailers to buy in commercial quantities.
So it seems that implementing the Lowe/Jones amendment will mean very little additional protection for the milkmen (who are very well protected by the GMRA anyway), but it will create a whole heap of headaches for C&E (like where do they draw the boundaries at big new developments like Leale's Yard...), costing a twonk-load of taxpayer's money in administration costs to resolve fights between milkmen.
I can understand the milkmen being aggrieved that what they thought they were buying was a legal zoning, and in fact it was no such thing. The licence reprinted in the Press this week does look pretty misleading. But what they have is in fact worth just as much - in fact, it will continue to be worth exactly what the milkmen and the GMRA think it is. The only thing which can cause a collapse in round value is if the milkmen and the GMRA lose confidence in it, and they are doing their best to talk themselves in that direction!
So where is all this debate coming from? Presumably C&E have let the GMRA bandwagon career off in this direction without wasting too much time debunking it because it's a good foil to draw media and public attention away from the meat of the proposals.
But I may be completely wrong - I'm interested to know what you think!
So there never has been any legal reason why one retailer couldn't serve a customer in another's 'zone', and the chaos which the Guernsey Milk Retailers' Assocation tells is it won't be able to save us from has always been a possibility. As I understand it, what is being purchased when a milkman buys 'a round' is not a legally drawn-up territory, but the goodwill of the other members of the GMRA not to compete on what is mutually agreed to be their territory.
A milkman who tries to poach customers from other rounds will lose this goodwill. A milkman who obtains a licence but does not buy 'a round' will find it very difficult to get a foothold because the GMRA won't let him in. It'll be even harder after the new C&E proposals are introduced which will require retailers to buy in commercial quantities.
So it seems that implementing the Lowe/Jones amendment will mean very little additional protection for the milkmen (who are very well protected by the GMRA anyway), but it will create a whole heap of headaches for C&E (like where do they draw the boundaries at big new developments like Leale's Yard...), costing a twonk-load of taxpayer's money in administration costs to resolve fights between milkmen.
I can understand the milkmen being aggrieved that what they thought they were buying was a legal zoning, and in fact it was no such thing. The licence reprinted in the Press this week does look pretty misleading. But what they have is in fact worth just as much - in fact, it will continue to be worth exactly what the milkmen and the GMRA think it is. The only thing which can cause a collapse in round value is if the milkmen and the GMRA lose confidence in it, and they are doing their best to talk themselves in that direction!
So where is all this debate coming from? Presumably C&E have let the GMRA bandwagon career off in this direction without wasting too much time debunking it because it's a good foil to draw media and public attention away from the meat of the proposals.
But I may be completely wrong - I'm interested to know what you think!
Monday, 23 April 2007
Flybe v Michalke
Poor old Reiner Michalke. In an incident, featured in the Press last week, Flybe somehow managed to fail to get him and his family onto their flight out of Guernsey to Gatwick, after his frustration with Flybe's inane hand-baggage restrictions escalated via baggage searches, swabs of his 'explosive' eau de toilette and a comment about exposives in his boarding cards, to confrontations with special branch officers, threats of arrest, passport confiscation, interviews and denial of boarding.
It's worth reading his version of events verbatim. However, I wasn't there, so for all I know Mr Michalke might have been belligerent and obnoxious. And it seems there may be some confusion about what was actually said - in particular the airport notably omits the details of the eau de toilette swab in their precis quoted in the Press.
But whatever actually happened, the Press saves the best bit till last. These comments from Ian Taylor, Flybe General Manager, have left a jaw-shaped imprint on my coffee table:
Security policies are there to deter and prevent terrorism, but they will never be completely unbreakable. We have to make sensible trade-offs between safety, convenience, respectful treatment and civil liberties (and, as the airlines are always quick to point out, low cost). There is always a debate to be had about where the trade-offs lie, so knowing about incidents like this is clearly in the public interest.
Flybe also tells us 'there has to be a general recognition that anyone claiming to have explosives ... can expect themselves to be refused boarding'. Well, in his version at least, Mr Michalke didn't claim he had explosives. The flippant comment he did make about explosives only came after being accused (or at least believing he was being accused) of having explosives in his baggage. And remember this conversation was being conducted in his second language.
The term in Flybe's conditions which Ian Taylor is referring to is 7.1.1.13 - 'we may refuse to carry you if you have made a hoax bomb threat'. I hardly think Michalke's reported comments constituted a 'hoax bomb threat', but by that stage it seems Flybe were trigger-happy enough to leap on that excuse to chuck him off the flight anyway, whether or not they really had good enough grounds.
It's already bad enough that the aviation and security industries have turned security into security theatre, in which people like Reiner Michalke become the fall guy. We are awash with rules and regulations which seem designed just to create frustration and inconvenience for innocent travellers, and turn security staff into overbearing jobsworths.
But, for the moment, let's assume that we are stuck with all this for the time being. So if Flybe wants respect and compliance, then perhaps their staff should show a little more respect for the plight of their customers and sympathy with their concerns. And perhaps their management should show some respect for the public's ability to reason about what is and is not a sensible security measure.
On the other hand, if Ian Taylor's attitude is the best they can give, they deserve every obnoxious and belligerent passenger they get.
It's worth reading his version of events verbatim. However, I wasn't there, so for all I know Mr Michalke might have been belligerent and obnoxious. And it seems there may be some confusion about what was actually said - in particular the airport notably omits the details of the eau de toilette swab in their precis quoted in the Press.
But whatever actually happened, the Press saves the best bit till last. These comments from Ian Taylor, Flybe General Manager, have left a jaw-shaped imprint on my coffee table:
'We have absolutely no apology to make to this passenger. There has to be a general recognition that anyone claiming to have explosives on them in an airport, for whatever reason, can expect themselves to be refused boarding to a flight.The astonishing implication is that Flybe thinks it is irresponsible for the Press to report the inconvenience which can be felt by innocent, upstanding, professional people as a result of airport security measures. I think that's bull.
'I think it is irresponsible of media to highlight this kind of incident because they will only end up encouraging people to do it more often.
'It will inconvenience other passengers and could well lead to even more security than is already in place.'
Security policies are there to deter and prevent terrorism, but they will never be completely unbreakable. We have to make sensible trade-offs between safety, convenience, respectful treatment and civil liberties (and, as the airlines are always quick to point out, low cost). There is always a debate to be had about where the trade-offs lie, so knowing about incidents like this is clearly in the public interest.
Flybe also tells us 'there has to be a general recognition that anyone claiming to have explosives ... can expect themselves to be refused boarding'. Well, in his version at least, Mr Michalke didn't claim he had explosives. The flippant comment he did make about explosives only came after being accused (or at least believing he was being accused) of having explosives in his baggage. And remember this conversation was being conducted in his second language.
The term in Flybe's conditions which Ian Taylor is referring to is 7.1.1.13 - 'we may refuse to carry you if you have made a hoax bomb threat'. I hardly think Michalke's reported comments constituted a 'hoax bomb threat', but by that stage it seems Flybe were trigger-happy enough to leap on that excuse to chuck him off the flight anyway, whether or not they really had good enough grounds.
It's already bad enough that the aviation and security industries have turned security into security theatre, in which people like Reiner Michalke become the fall guy. We are awash with rules and regulations which seem designed just to create frustration and inconvenience for innocent travellers, and turn security staff into overbearing jobsworths.
But, for the moment, let's assume that we are stuck with all this for the time being. So if Flybe wants respect and compliance, then perhaps their staff should show a little more respect for the plight of their customers and sympathy with their concerns. And perhaps their management should show some respect for the public's ability to reason about what is and is not a sensible security measure.
On the other hand, if Ian Taylor's attitude is the best they can give, they deserve every obnoxious and belligerent passenger they get.
Wednesday, 18 April 2007
Pupils' cars clogging Jenny Tasker's streets
I was wondering how far I would be able to get with this blog before writing an article about that great Guernsey obsession: Traffic.
Not very long it would seem...
Oh yes. The Guernsey motorist is beset on all sides by petrol tax, motor tax, preaching environmentalists, parking charges, speed humps, road closures and of course his arch-nemesis - other motorists clogging up the roads and car parks with their cars.
And there's a particular class of motorist which these whining ninnies would like to blame all their troubles on - the mum or pupil on the school run. At the start of each term, there's always a few who will crawl out of the woodwork to whinge about the space taken up on the roads by people driving to school (whereas the space they take up, 52 weeks of the year, is of course theirs by right).
To be honest, I very rarely find it in my nature to sympathise with these views, considering the monstrous amount of taxpayer's money and public resources which are poured into keeping the whole private transport show on the road. So I found Deputy Jenny Tasker's comments on Radio Guernsey yesterday, suggesting as she did on air that we might consider evicting pupils from their cars entirely, rather bizarre. I agree with most of what she says most of the time, but I think she's gone a bit over the edge on this one.
Obviously I'm not alone - the Ladies' College girls featured on Morning Report this morning put their case pretty well. Basically, if mummy and daddy gave them a car for their 17th, and the state deems them to be skilled enough in its operation, then they have just as much right to drive where and when they want as anyone else. In fact compared to the average office worker or, dare I say it, States Deputy, they've probably got a good deal more gear to cart about, so all the more cause to drive.
To their concerns, I might add these: If the alternative to pupils driving is mum doing the school run, then in many cases turfing pupils off the roads will mean replacing one journey with two. And it's hardly encouraging students to continue their sixth form education to be told that it will mean putting off the time when they can cruise around in the ultimate teen status symbol. Finally, how do you enforce it? I have hideous visions of roadside school-uniform-sensitive cameras!
At some point, the solution to our traffic problem has to mean using sticks and carrots - sticks to get people out of their cars, and carrots to get them onto buses, bikes and those spindly things that connect their hips to the ground. But it has to apply to everyone; unfairly bumping one (fairly small) group of motorists off the roads will achieve little more than delaying inevitable gridlock. So rise up, oh ye pupils from affluent multi-car families, and cast off the chains of whiny motorist oppression!
Not very long it would seem...
Oh yes. The Guernsey motorist is beset on all sides by petrol tax, motor tax, preaching environmentalists, parking charges, speed humps, road closures and of course his arch-nemesis - other motorists clogging up the roads and car parks with their cars.
And there's a particular class of motorist which these whining ninnies would like to blame all their troubles on - the mum or pupil on the school run. At the start of each term, there's always a few who will crawl out of the woodwork to whinge about the space taken up on the roads by people driving to school (whereas the space they take up, 52 weeks of the year, is of course theirs by right).
To be honest, I very rarely find it in my nature to sympathise with these views, considering the monstrous amount of taxpayer's money and public resources which are poured into keeping the whole private transport show on the road. So I found Deputy Jenny Tasker's comments on Radio Guernsey yesterday, suggesting as she did on air that we might consider evicting pupils from their cars entirely, rather bizarre. I agree with most of what she says most of the time, but I think she's gone a bit over the edge on this one.
Obviously I'm not alone - the Ladies' College girls featured on Morning Report this morning put their case pretty well. Basically, if mummy and daddy gave them a car for their 17th, and the state deems them to be skilled enough in its operation, then they have just as much right to drive where and when they want as anyone else. In fact compared to the average office worker or, dare I say it, States Deputy, they've probably got a good deal more gear to cart about, so all the more cause to drive.
To their concerns, I might add these: If the alternative to pupils driving is mum doing the school run, then in many cases turfing pupils off the roads will mean replacing one journey with two. And it's hardly encouraging students to continue their sixth form education to be told that it will mean putting off the time when they can cruise around in the ultimate teen status symbol. Finally, how do you enforce it? I have hideous visions of roadside school-uniform-sensitive cameras!
At some point, the solution to our traffic problem has to mean using sticks and carrots - sticks to get people out of their cars, and carrots to get them onto buses, bikes and those spindly things that connect their hips to the ground. But it has to apply to everyone; unfairly bumping one (fairly small) group of motorists off the roads will achieve little more than delaying inevitable gridlock. So rise up, oh ye pupils from affluent multi-car families, and cast off the chains of whiny motorist oppression!
Wednesday, 11 April 2007
Art for arts' sake
"When you play music you discover a part of yourself that you never knew existed."
Bill Evans (1929 - 1980)
It's always disheartening to read another diatribe railing against funding for the arts such as this pot-shot aimed at Guernsey's new Performing Arts Centre.
As a little aside, I have a feeling I know where these moans come from. What image does the phrase 'the arts' conjure up in the imagination of the uninitiated? How about bespectacled goatee-laden twenty-something slackers musing over a Jackson Pollock? Or tails-wearing toffs at the opera tutting condescendingly in the direction of the less well-bred in the cheap seats? Or maybe grey-headed choir biddies warbling away well past their prime? Or am-dram divas exclaiming 'darling' somewhat more than is strictly necessary?
"The arts! It's all airy-fairy namby-pamby elitist twaddle!'
I doubt anyone would condemn 'music', 'dance', 'drama', 'film', 'photography', 'painting', 'sculpture', 'architecture' and 'poetry' in one breath. This phrase 'the arts' brackets disciplines which have little more in common than they they exist in a world of aesthetic ideals. With this phrase at their disposal, the naysayers are empowered to smash it all up in one go with fists of fury under the guise of egalitarianism.
Enough of that, back to the point - why fund 'the arts', or more specifically, education in performing arts? I could digress again and drivel on about the evidence for causative relationships between performing arts and improved school discipline, academic achievement, crime reduction and societal well-being. But the research is all out there anyway, the arguments have already been made.
In the aforementioned spirit of aesthetic ideals, let me offer an alternative defence. A student may spend years acting in plays or playing in school orchestras. He may detest every minute of it. But one day he may stand up and perform a Shakespearean soliliquy and find the text gets under his skin, the audience evaporates, and it his entire soul is dragged inside the play. Or, performing a Beethoven trio, he will suddenly be aware of a feeling of total unity with the other two players and of the perfection of musical structure and form unfolding at their command.
Those involved in performing arts education know what they want to achieve. It's not to solve society's ills, even if that is a handy side-benefit. They want to give every student a taste of profound and intangible truths.
Without public funding for the arts, both at the elite and grass roots levels, our children can never discover that part of themselves which they don't know exists.
Wednesday, 4 April 2007
Liberation Day?
A couple of weeks ago Culture and Leisure announced that the Liberation Day 'funfair' will be scrapped. Well, huzzah for that!
Inevitably, a letter published in the Press yesterday rebukes the 'nanny culture' which is responsible for the funfair being 'banned'. I say inevitably, because the Press's slightly misleading inclusion of that word 'banned' in the headline on their original article was obviously geared to provoke this response, but that's beside the point.
The point being that 'banning' the funfair has nothing to do with 'nanny culture'. The funfair costs the taxpayer money, police time and organisational resources, plus of course it deprives the island's poor long-suffering petrol-heads of the use of a car park for a week (and how could we be allowed to forget that!) Last year's spectacle of stunningly ignominious chavvery was the end result of spending 14 years injecting these resources into a tawdry entertainment aimed at the lowest common denominator.
One can only hope that the time and money saved by ditching the funfair might be diverted to entertainments which do not result in a sea of pea-brained delinquents converging on Town, driving out anybody who doesn't like to spend their day tripping over beer cans into piles of vomit.
In any society, in any country, it's going to be difficult to play host to an all-out street piss-up without cutting families and vulnerable citizens out of the party. But Guernsey is a small place, and there isn't room for that kind of event without stomping on people's faces. So why stop at the funfair? Why is the Home Department still too weak-willed to impose some extra restrictions on where people can swig their brews?
On this face of it this goes against my libertarian instincts, but just perhaps it's because I feel the residents of St Peter Port have a right to walk around the streets without have to engage in a turf-war with drunken louts. Few would question that licensing laws exist to give the government the power to contain the anti-social consequences of alcohol - so why don't we use them where we most need them?
My prognosis for Liberation Day 2007 is better than it was two weeks ago, but even with that hideous boom-box scream-fest cut out of the equation, there is more work to be done. For the time being the irony will remain: Many Guernsey residents will still not feel the slightest bit free on Liberation Day.
Inevitably, a letter published in the Press yesterday rebukes the 'nanny culture' which is responsible for the funfair being 'banned'. I say inevitably, because the Press's slightly misleading inclusion of that word 'banned' in the headline on their original article was obviously geared to provoke this response, but that's beside the point.
The point being that 'banning' the funfair has nothing to do with 'nanny culture'. The funfair costs the taxpayer money, police time and organisational resources, plus of course it deprives the island's poor long-suffering petrol-heads of the use of a car park for a week (and how could we be allowed to forget that!) Last year's spectacle of stunningly ignominious chavvery was the end result of spending 14 years injecting these resources into a tawdry entertainment aimed at the lowest common denominator.
One can only hope that the time and money saved by ditching the funfair might be diverted to entertainments which do not result in a sea of pea-brained delinquents converging on Town, driving out anybody who doesn't like to spend their day tripping over beer cans into piles of vomit.
In any society, in any country, it's going to be difficult to play host to an all-out street piss-up without cutting families and vulnerable citizens out of the party. But Guernsey is a small place, and there isn't room for that kind of event without stomping on people's faces. So why stop at the funfair? Why is the Home Department still too weak-willed to impose some extra restrictions on where people can swig their brews?
On this face of it this goes against my libertarian instincts, but just perhaps it's because I feel the residents of St Peter Port have a right to walk around the streets without have to engage in a turf-war with drunken louts. Few would question that licensing laws exist to give the government the power to contain the anti-social consequences of alcohol - so why don't we use them where we most need them?
My prognosis for Liberation Day 2007 is better than it was two weeks ago, but even with that hideous boom-box scream-fest cut out of the equation, there is more work to be done. For the time being the irony will remain: Many Guernsey residents will still not feel the slightest bit free on Liberation Day.
About this blog
To contact us, send an e-mail to 25squaremiles@googlemail.com. All e-mail will be treated privately and in strictest confidence.
Contributing
If you are interested in contributing posts to the blog then get in touch at the address above, giving us an idea of the sort of things which really get on your goat...
Contributing
If you are interested in contributing posts to the blog then get in touch at the address above, giving us an idea of the sort of things which really get on your goat...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)