Prisons.

Are the U.K. prisons lacking in certain areas such as education for inmates and training courses?

Should those who by their very actions and subsequent internment be allowed such things?

Are our prisons too soft?

Should the inmates be allowed T.V.'s, pool tables, portable game players etc as they are currently?

I am not in any way saying our prisons should be draconian and offer nothing by way of relaxation materials nor should the inmates be offered just bread and water but the current drive to offer all manner of good things that many good law abiding citizens cannot afford in all prisons is just extracting the Michael and putting two fingers up in the direction of good law abiding people.

Look at the questions above again and think seriously before answering each one. Now look at and read the various reports done by the likes of the Prison Reform Trust and the Inspectorate of Prisons http://inspectorates.justice.gov.uk/hmiprisons Now read again those questions above. Where do you sit in the debate compared to those two ersewhile organisations?

If you are like myself who is a law abiding citizen then you will probably come to the same conclusion I do and that is that the U.K.'s prisons are too soft and offer way too much relaxation things to the inmates.

I have 3 children all currently under 12 years old and they want all manner of things we can simply not afford. Should my wife and I tell them that they can get all they want in prison because in prison they have all those things and more. All you will lose is your freedom to come home or go out with your mates for a few months.

Think about it. And they wonder why the prisons are over subscribed.

Dialing 999.

And so it ever has been and so it ever will be.

The police in the U.K. are once again moaning about 'inappropriate' usage of the 999 number.

For those outside the U.K. '999' is the emergency line which gets you the relevant service (police, fire service, ambulance service). Once dialed you give, in my opinion excessive irrelevant, details and then you are sent the relevant service dependent on 1) What you requested or 2) What they consider the relevant service dependent on what you told them.


People here ring this number for not just emergencies but sometimes for none emergencies like "There is a spider in my room" or "My mobile phone isn't working" and other none emergency things along the same lines.

Now, it does not take a genius to realise that for each none emergency call there is a serious possibility that a true emergency call could be missed. As since seemingly forever the police, as seriously undermanned as they are, are once again whining about this 'inappropriate use of' the 999 number.

Are they ever going to get it? I doubt it.

People will always ring this number for it is they who consider whatever it is to be an emergency. To them whatever it is IS and emergency at that point in time and quite possibly at that given time the only number they can think to ring is 999.

Plus, the only number one could ring to get the police at one time was 999. Police sub stations had a number, usually a local number with local charges. While the little police stations still have a local number to get the police on a none emergency line you have to remember and ring an expensively charged number.

Commonsense dictates that people, that is the general public, do not want to ring these expensively charged lines nor can they remember the local mini, often unmanned, police station so instead they ring 999.

Wake up you lot in charge of our police force and realise what is so brazenly obvious.

Will they ever get it? I seriously doubt it.

Next year the police will once again moan about 'inappropriate use' of the 999 number and so it will go on and on year after year.

That is, until such a time as this little island is a police state by which time no one will dare to ring the police ever.

Surveys and Statistics.

Survey after survey done or commissioned usually by those with a vested interest in whatever the survey is about almost always come out in support of those who commissioned or did the survey.

Statistic after statistic almost always slewed in favour of those who need a favourable statistic. We all know, or should know, that any statistic or set of statistics have an alternative reading and can in fact be read any way one wants determined by what side you are supporting. Any statistic can be made to look good towards the person or company using the statistic to punt their wares or ideas. As with any percentage based number system there is the good number and the bad number and depending which side you are fighting for depends on which end you settle on.

The results of surveys and statistics are dependent on many factors. Not least of which is geographical location. If you ask a question in an affluent southern area on the U.K. the answer would likely be different if you ask the same question in a not so affluent southern area. Indeed, one can get entirely different figures within a short distance within the same city.

Let us take an example of 4 people. All reside in the same city with an adult population of 200,000 people. All are married with 2 children. All are males. The reason they are all alike is because that is what the survey company was told to find. Charles works as a bank manager and is well up on all things technical. Bill is unemployed but is also well up on all things technical. Michael is an electrician but has no interest in technical things. John works for the local council and has some interest in technical things Now, the survey asks the question. "Do you own or will you be buying a 42inch HDTV within the next 6 months?". Charles states he already owns one. Bill states he has not got one and will not be buying one within the given time frame. Michael states he does not have one but is planning to buy one within 6 months. As does John. In this short survey the results are as follows:

Has or will have = 3
Has not and will not = 1

So, we can see from the above survey that 75% of those surveyed said they have or will have a 42inch HDTV within a 6 month time frame. 25% will not.

Now, those figures are sent back to the company or organisation that paid for the survey who have a vested interest in the sales of HDTV's. They now proclaim that 75% of the U.K. have or will have a HDTV within 6 months.

There was only 4 people in our survey so how come they state 75% of the U.K.? Well, they claim that the 4 people who took the survey are a sample of the U.K. population but of course we all know that not every area of the U.K. is the same and by extension will not fall within the stated percentages but that will not stop this company or organisation from touting the "75% of the U.K." angle as that is the answer they wanted.

Surveys and statistics are utter rubbish and should be read in that light.

The NorthWest

So, the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk are moving to the NorthWest from their current Southern base. Well, part of it is. Something of a surprise move they reckon but in the end it boils down to cheaper costs for what they are doing. Nothing more, nothing less. Apparently they are creating a 'media village', whatever one of those is, and of course it is cheaper to run such a place up North than it is down South. It is cheaper in wages and operating costs.

So, it comes as no surprise to find out that the Northwest is starting to infiltrate the otherwise Southern slant of the BBC's news. Oh sure, the BBC reports on all geographical areas of the U.K. as well as reporting on the worlds news but, in previous times both Manchester and Liverpool would not rate a mention for anything other than gun crime in Manchester and the music scene in Liverpool. All that is set to change as the BBC trundles up North and slightly West.

And so, we come to articles on the BBC web site such as this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6956608.stm One would be forgiven if they thought the only cities above Birmingham were Manchester and Liverpool. But then in recent times it is no surprise to learn that the BBC's narrow field view creates such articles as that one. It also shows how little the BBC writers know about those two cities as well as how little they know about the North in general.

The BBC used to be none partisan in their reporting but in recent years with the infiltration of very poor lefty (we have two major political parties here in the U.K. One leans to the left while the other one leans to the right. There is a third party which sits somewhere in the middle but their support is so small compared to the other two they are hardly worth a mention) leaning writers their outward facing public face is a laughing stock amongst the general public. That will not change no matter where they base themselves.

Articles such as that one above will become all the most prevalent as the BBC moves part of its bohemoth organisation up North and they will, as only the BBC can, turn the Northwest into meaning only Manchester and Liverpool.

As ever it was.

Survey after survey done or commissioned usually by those with a vested interest in whatever the survey is about almost always come out in support of those who commissioned or did the survey.

Statistic after statistic almost always slewed in favour of those who need a favourable statistic. We all know, or should know, that any statistic has an alternative reading and any static can be made to look good towards the person or company using the statistic to punt their wares or ideas.


The results of surveys and statistics are dependent on many factors. Not least of which is geographical location. If you ask a question in an affluent southern area the answer would likely be different if you ask the same question in a not so affluent northern area.

And so it goes. If those conducting a survey want statistics that go in their favour they will ask their pointed questions to a group of people in an area or areas of the country they know will give the answers they want thereby making the statistics come out in their favour.

Next time you read about a survey or some erstwhile person or company or organisation trots out some statistic or other take it with a rather large dose of salt.

Fighting back.

There is an element of our society that has always been there but these days there are very few people who will fight back.

This element are commonly known as 'bullies'. The turn on people on a whim. They often times just fight someone for the sake of fighting. They are often fueled by alcohol and drugs. They have a heighten sense of themselves. They should not be given any quarter. They have no right to live amongst us good people.

In previous decades this element was kept in check but nowadays they run amok with no fear of retribution. This situation has come about for several reasons not least of which is the general publics fear of being arrested, hauled before a court and possibly interned. If one fights back then the 'bully' and worse the police see you as the problem not the bully. This situation must stop.

People are being killed from protecting what is rightfully theirs. Not a day goes by without someone being maimed by some bully because they looked at the bully in a funny way.

This situation is simply intolerable. The police have a huge role to play in this and it is they who must not allow bullies to bring charges against those who are willing to fight for what is theirs or willing to fight for just walking down the streets.

This http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/6953609.stm is the sort of thing that happens when the police have lost all respect from the tiny 'bully' minority from amogst the very people they serve. People who take part in such things should not be allowed the same freedoms law abiding people have as a basic right.

The time is now for fighting back against the growing number of bullies on our streets. Forget the police and their inertia whenever you see or indeed if you are a target yourself, some bully attacking someone, anyone of any age, then step in and smack that bully into next week. Protect others as well as yourself and we shall all live in a better place.

I do.

Ugh.

So now the BBC has joined the folly of putting 'dig' 'delicious' 'facebook' etc links at the bottom of most every article.

Bless them, they even have a 'what are these' link to help the hapless. These 'social' bookmarking links are a stain on the Internet. It is bad enough when the BBC technical articles are plainly wrong in whatever it is they are trying to write about and can be seen to plainly wrong by anyone but the socialite group who know nothing about technical things anyway.

But these social bookmarking links are the silliest of the silly. They totally distract from the main article content. The BBC web site designers are so desperate to be seen as hip, as far as the Internet goes anyway, anywhere else they fail miserably as well, that they will seemingly spoil an otherwise excellent web site with folly like this.

They were late to this particular party but even being late does not make it any less tacky. The BBC are playing catch up in many areas and this is one area I would prefer to have seen them avoid.

I know I am not alone in my dislike for these things.

Social bookmarking is all well and good but they are pervasive and because of that they are in ones face everywhere all of the time and because of that they are fast becoming annoying. No, scratch that. They are annoying.

If I want to bookmark something I will and I will bookmark it within my browser not on some external web site that may or may not be around in a few years time or some social bookmarking web site that is so slow to load one may as well have gone back to the web site one bookmarked on it and searched that for the link and still have it load within ones browser before these social bookmarking web sites have loaded.

To make matters worse. Just about all major, and some minor, news outlets on the Internet have these silly links. being so well used does not make it good however.

As one who has been on the Internet since before it was called the internet these things, along with many other things, just plain annoy. I have seen the Internet (or Interweb as some hapless people call it) grow up into something useful that anyone from anywhere who has an internet connection can enjoy. But these social web sites and worse, these links to social web sites are just plain and simply annoying and should have no place whatsoever on a fantastic web site like the BBC.

Aunty Beeb should know better. The problem with the BBC is that it has been infiltrated by 20-somethings who think they know what their readers want, whether they want it or not, and every now and again they do something that irks in the back of ones mind and these links to social bookmarking boxes simply distract from the main story. Because the social bookmarking box is so damn big it really does distract from the main story they are so desperate for you to link via these social bookmrking sites.

Sorry Beeb, you have got this one very very wrong. You annoyed a certain proportion of your user base when you made the Iplayer MS Windows XP only and you will annoy a large proportion of your user base with this madness.

I for one will be voting on my dismay by not using the BBC web site as my opening page in Firefox any more.