Recently I saw a programme on television about benefit fraud. None of the people highlighted as being fraudsters had been prosecuted at the time of going on air. It was plainly evident that they were all long term fraudsters and the 'authorities' had been collecting evidence for some time.
Even though the frauds were painfully obvious, the authorities still felt unable to take the cases to court through lack of evidence. The overwhelming conclusions of the programme were: a) a fraudster was extremely unlikely to be caught/prosecuted; b) there are nowhere near enough investigators; c) benefit fraud is very difficult to prove; d) denial and lying are the best ways to ensure the fraudster will get away with it.
What does this have to do with politicians you ask? Both Labour and Conservative/Lib. Dem. politicians have said they would make it a priority to reduce benefit fraud. Well they are being very economic with the truth. Virtually nothing is being done to reduce benefit fraud because it is too expensive and time-consuming to be viable. But it does sound good if you state categorically that you will be doing something about it even though it's not true. It is what the great British public want to hear and it attracts votes, and for some bizarre reason we believe them!
There is of course another issue that doesn't help: incompetent management within Local Government. Most so-called managers would not last five minutes in private industry; they can't manage their way out of a paper-bag. Most are not interested in dealing with difficult issues that require management decisions and staff motivation - actually, most wouldn't even know what either of those involve!
So what is really being done about benefit fraud? As far as I can see, very little and with the current level of political clap-trap and management dis-interest very little is going to be done. So the naive majority of us will continue to pay our taxes largely because we are scared of the consequences of being caught doing something illegal. So really we have only ourselves to blame for all the money which goes to these nauseating parasites, particularly when we could all be doing it with an ever decreasing chance of being caught!
Wednesday 9 November 2011
Saturday 13 August 2011
That awe-inspiring and romantic night sky
Having developed a bit of an interest in astronomy, I have learned a few things you may find a little mind boggling.
When you go to the Mediterranean and look up at the crystal clear night sky and marvel at the size of the universe, you may be interested to know that every single last one of those lovely little twinkly stars is in fact only in our galaxy, The Milky Way. The Andromeda Galaxy is visible but only as a very feint smudge and in overall size is many times larger than the Moon.
The Milky Way galaxy is some 100,000 light years across. That means it takes light, @ 186,000 miles per second or approximately 6 million million miles per year, 100,000 years just to cross our galaxy. The Milky Way contains between 200 and 400 thousand million stars. Our Sun is a star and it is thought to be approximately 33,000 light years from the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy. Recent analysis suggests there may be approximately 200 thousand million galaxies in the Universe.
The Andromeda Galaxy is our nearest neighbour and even that is two and a half million light years away. The nearest star to our solar system is Proxima Centauri, and traveling at the speed of light it would take us 4.2 years to reach it. By comparison it takes the light from our sun just 8 minutes to reach us. We are thinking that Mars may be accessible to us in the next two hundred years. The absolute closest Mars gets to the Earth is 35 million miles. I guess we are a long way from visiting another solar system.
So next time you watch Star Trek it is worth wondering where exactly it is all taking place. As for UFO's - hmmmm. You have to beg the question, if they really came from outer space (wherever that might be) how did they ever find us? We have more chance of finding a colony of microscopic super-beings on the back of one particular flea in a herd of wild camels.
When you go to the Mediterranean and look up at the crystal clear night sky and marvel at the size of the universe, you may be interested to know that every single last one of those lovely little twinkly stars is in fact only in our galaxy, The Milky Way. The Andromeda Galaxy is visible but only as a very feint smudge and in overall size is many times larger than the Moon.
The Milky Way galaxy is some 100,000 light years across. That means it takes light, @ 186,000 miles per second or approximately 6 million million miles per year, 100,000 years just to cross our galaxy. The Milky Way contains between 200 and 400 thousand million stars. Our Sun is a star and it is thought to be approximately 33,000 light years from the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy. Recent analysis suggests there may be approximately 200 thousand million galaxies in the Universe.
The Andromeda Galaxy is our nearest neighbour and even that is two and a half million light years away. The nearest star to our solar system is Proxima Centauri, and traveling at the speed of light it would take us 4.2 years to reach it. By comparison it takes the light from our sun just 8 minutes to reach us. We are thinking that Mars may be accessible to us in the next two hundred years. The absolute closest Mars gets to the Earth is 35 million miles. I guess we are a long way from visiting another solar system.
So next time you watch Star Trek it is worth wondering where exactly it is all taking place. As for UFO's - hmmmm. You have to beg the question, if they really came from outer space (wherever that might be) how did they ever find us? We have more chance of finding a colony of microscopic super-beings on the back of one particular flea in a herd of wild camels.
Monday 11 July 2011
CLODs - Centre Lane Only Drivers
OK, here's the thing - Please can someone explain to me WHY so many drivers on UK motorways insist on sitting in the middle lane?
Often the inside lane can be quite empty for considerable distances and these people are doodling along at about 65mph - WHY? WHY NOT MOVE OVER instead of being a mobile chicane?
On the M25 it is even worse, they sit in the third lane - WHY? What is wrong with lanes one and two which are often clear of vehicles?
On the M27 the overhead signs frequently say "Do not hog the middle lane", but for some reason it has no effect - WHY? Please can someone enlighten me?
Often the inside lane can be quite empty for considerable distances and these people are doodling along at about 65mph - WHY? WHY NOT MOVE OVER instead of being a mobile chicane?
On the M25 it is even worse, they sit in the third lane - WHY? What is wrong with lanes one and two which are often clear of vehicles?
On the M27 the overhead signs frequently say "Do not hog the middle lane", but for some reason it has no effect - WHY? Please can someone enlighten me?
Saturday 25 June 2011
The Dear Old English Language
Had you noticed how much corruption is occurring in the English language? 'Your' instead of 'you're' and 'off of' instead of . . . heaven alone knows what - just to demonstrate a couple.
My guess is that over the years radio and television have enabled everyone to hear a wide application of the use and context of language. In contemporary times there is little doubt that texting has proliferated the use of many rather pitiful short forms. But sadly, I feel that poor education has encouraged little in the way of the teaching of reasonable grammar or spelling. Language always has to evolve, but the current trend towards the adoption of lazy or misused words and expressions seems particularly unfortunate.
So I thought I should list just a few of my absolute pet hates and give some kind of comment/example/alternative:
My all time pet hate is the the misuse of the word 'OF' as in 'I really should of paid attention in English at school!' That should be 'I really should HAVE paid attention in English at school!' The 'of' is rubbish and comes from completely failing to realise that the short form is 'should've' or 'could've' where the ''ve' stands for 'HAVE' not 'OF'!
'Your' is used to denote ownership - 'This is your toy'. 'You're' tells of an event or existence and is short for 'You are' - 'You're going to ruin your language, so you're an idiot!'. Whereas 'Your supposed to hand in your work to show your learning something' has no actual meaning at all.
'Its' is also to do with ownership - 'Stroke its tummy'. Whereas 'it's' is short for 'it is' - 'It's just not fair' or 'If it's not careful it will break its finger'. This is where 'it's' is known as an exception to a grammatical rule - please keep reading!
'Comprise' has almost exactly the same interpretation as 'consists of' - so 'comprises of' actually translates to 'consists of of' which has no practical meaning at all. Comprise has no OF after it! I don't (short for 'I do not') understand why people use 'big' words they don't fully understand, when simple words would work just as well (actually better because they don't reveal the user's poor grip of English). Note: In the case of 'user's' this is short for 'of the user' which would be put after the noun instead of before the noun. If it were to refer to many users it would be 'users' '. 'Its', above, is an exception!
'Off of' is an expression I do not really understand as I have never had any occasion when I have been at such a loss for words that I should have needed to use that particular combination. All I can imagine is that it means 'from' or simply 'off'. As a combination of two words I cannot see that it has any actual meaning at all. In colloquial speech perhaps it's OK; in writing it is quite extraordinarily dreadful.
'It cost me forty pound.' 'Forty pound' is what exactly? I think that was meant to be - 'it cost me forty pounds'. 'Can I lend fifty quid please?' - I don't know, can you? 'Can I borrow fifty quid please?' is probably what is intended!
There are many more examples, but I'm sure you get the general drift so I'll leave it at that for now. There is of course the danger that I shall also commit some grammatical/spelling crime (if I've not already done so) which will be picked-up by some eagle-eyed reader - so I'd best quit whilst I'm ahead.
It is in business letters where this bad language is at its most unfortunate. When you receive a letter from a reputable company and there are three or four grammatical/spelling faux-pas, it is the perception of the company that suffers. In my opinion this is rightly so as it indicates a deterioration in recruitment standards or monitoring which is indicative of the current state of the company.
My guess is that over the years radio and television have enabled everyone to hear a wide application of the use and context of language. In contemporary times there is little doubt that texting has proliferated the use of many rather pitiful short forms. But sadly, I feel that poor education has encouraged little in the way of the teaching of reasonable grammar or spelling. Language always has to evolve, but the current trend towards the adoption of lazy or misused words and expressions seems particularly unfortunate.
So I thought I should list just a few of my absolute pet hates and give some kind of comment/example/alternative:
My all time pet hate is the the misuse of the word 'OF' as in 'I really should of paid attention in English at school!' That should be 'I really should HAVE paid attention in English at school!' The 'of' is rubbish and comes from completely failing to realise that the short form is 'should've' or 'could've' where the ''ve' stands for 'HAVE' not 'OF'!
'Your' is used to denote ownership - 'This is your toy'. 'You're' tells of an event or existence and is short for 'You are' - 'You're going to ruin your language, so you're an idiot!'. Whereas 'Your supposed to hand in your work to show your learning something' has no actual meaning at all.
'Its' is also to do with ownership - 'Stroke its tummy'. Whereas 'it's' is short for 'it is' - 'It's just not fair' or 'If it's not careful it will break its finger'. This is where 'it's' is known as an exception to a grammatical rule - please keep reading!
'Comprise' has almost exactly the same interpretation as 'consists of' - so 'comprises of' actually translates to 'consists of of' which has no practical meaning at all. Comprise has no OF after it! I don't (short for 'I do not') understand why people use 'big' words they don't fully understand, when simple words would work just as well (actually better because they don't reveal the user's poor grip of English). Note: In the case of 'user's' this is short for 'of the user' which would be put after the noun instead of before the noun. If it were to refer to many users it would be 'users' '. 'Its', above, is an exception!
'Off of' is an expression I do not really understand as I have never had any occasion when I have been at such a loss for words that I should have needed to use that particular combination. All I can imagine is that it means 'from' or simply 'off'. As a combination of two words I cannot see that it has any actual meaning at all. In colloquial speech perhaps it's OK; in writing it is quite extraordinarily dreadful.
'It cost me forty pound.' 'Forty pound' is what exactly? I think that was meant to be - 'it cost me forty pounds'. 'Can I lend fifty quid please?' - I don't know, can you? 'Can I borrow fifty quid please?' is probably what is intended!
There are many more examples, but I'm sure you get the general drift so I'll leave it at that for now. There is of course the danger that I shall also commit some grammatical/spelling crime (if I've not already done so) which will be picked-up by some eagle-eyed reader - so I'd best quit whilst I'm ahead.
It is in business letters where this bad language is at its most unfortunate. When you receive a letter from a reputable company and there are three or four grammatical/spelling faux-pas, it is the perception of the company that suffers. In my opinion this is rightly so as it indicates a deterioration in recruitment standards or monitoring which is indicative of the current state of the company.
Saturday 4 June 2011
The great Woman vs Man driver debate.
This commentary starts with two conditions which must be taken along with the comments. 1) This is absolutely NOT intended to be sexist or showing a preference for either sex. There is just no point in that kind of discussion - that's for numpties. 2) It is based on massive generalisations - along with so many discussions on all kinds of subjects. If it does not apply to you, that's quite OK and perfectly within the bounds of probability.
Men and women are different (though there are those who seem unwilling to acknowledge that except when it suits them)! They perform different functions within the whole social and procreative cycle of the continuance of mankind. It therefore stands to reason that there are some quite profound differences in the way they perceive our 'environment'. Spacial awareness being one area where there frequently appears to be a variance of perception.
Men are generally considered to be more analytical and women often more intuitive. Go to Ikea for a wardrobe and the man will probably focus on the practicalities and the woman on the aesthetics. It is my contention that the man will look at the spacial aspects of the object and the woman the physicality, the presence of the object.
If we now go to driving - which is where I was going in the first place - I should like to suggest that men see the space in the road environment and women see the physicality of it. Men will analyse the dynamic space around road objects whereas women will focus on the physical presence of road objects.
This could go some way towards explaining the contentious difference between the approach to driving between men and women. Men analyse the space available around objects and make a decision based on that assessment. Women see the objects themselves and their potential to impact on them and therefore make their decisions based on that set of criteria.
If you think about it, this might explain why men take more risks; have more accidents; drive faster. And women are more cautious; drive more defensively; have fewer accidents. Men become impatient when women take a long time moving-out at a junction for example, and according to a recent survey women are less stressed in traffic jams. Is this because the objects are moving more slowly and are therefore more predictable creating a less threatening environment? Whereas men would find it frustrating because it is restrictive - there is no space to get on with it.
Tiff Needell - formerly a racing driver, now a car show presenter - suggested on air that the reason men become stressed in traffic jams and women very much less so, is because women are less concerned about being late. What do you think?
Men and women are different (though there are those who seem unwilling to acknowledge that except when it suits them)! They perform different functions within the whole social and procreative cycle of the continuance of mankind. It therefore stands to reason that there are some quite profound differences in the way they perceive our 'environment'. Spacial awareness being one area where there frequently appears to be a variance of perception.
Men are generally considered to be more analytical and women often more intuitive. Go to Ikea for a wardrobe and the man will probably focus on the practicalities and the woman on the aesthetics. It is my contention that the man will look at the spacial aspects of the object and the woman the physicality, the presence of the object.
If we now go to driving - which is where I was going in the first place - I should like to suggest that men see the space in the road environment and women see the physicality of it. Men will analyse the dynamic space around road objects whereas women will focus on the physical presence of road objects.
This could go some way towards explaining the contentious difference between the approach to driving between men and women. Men analyse the space available around objects and make a decision based on that assessment. Women see the objects themselves and their potential to impact on them and therefore make their decisions based on that set of criteria.
If you think about it, this might explain why men take more risks; have more accidents; drive faster. And women are more cautious; drive more defensively; have fewer accidents. Men become impatient when women take a long time moving-out at a junction for example, and according to a recent survey women are less stressed in traffic jams. Is this because the objects are moving more slowly and are therefore more predictable creating a less threatening environment? Whereas men would find it frustrating because it is restrictive - there is no space to get on with it.
Tiff Needell - formerly a racing driver, now a car show presenter - suggested on air that the reason men become stressed in traffic jams and women very much less so, is because women are less concerned about being late. What do you think?
Thursday 2 June 2011
Wo-man and the great political correctness issue
Just recently, at a meeting of a local committee, the Chair-man, -person, -woman (or, most ridiculously the Chair) had difficulty trying to decide how she should be addressed.
In this day and age of absurd sensitivities, it has been decreed by some form of biased-consent that -man or -men at the end of a 'title' is sexist. This has always caused me some confusion because one of the most fundamental words used for referring to those of the female form of the advanced intellectual bipeds that inhabit this planet of ours, is WOMAN of the species HUMAN.
Now, call me a kipper, but three fifths of both of these fundamental nouns comprise the word which refers to the male of our species called MAN. Surely this is quite unacceptable in this current climate. It is my contention that individuals of this particular group of our species of three-brained-beings should be referred to as WOPERSON and in multitude WOPEOPLE. As for MALE and FE-MALE - well I should like to leave that one to someone else to sort-out!
I should also like to propose that forthwith and with no further delay the noun for our species should become HUPERSON and we therefore become on mass - HUPEOPLE. Alternatively we adopt a word from a non-English language which has no horrible sexist connotation.
Failing that, can we drop all this idiocy and refer to the head of a committee as the Chairman, then we all know what we are talking about. I for one, sit on a CHAIR, I don't defer to one!
In this day and age of absurd sensitivities, it has been decreed by some form of biased-consent that -man or -men at the end of a 'title' is sexist. This has always caused me some confusion because one of the most fundamental words used for referring to those of the female form of the advanced intellectual bipeds that inhabit this planet of ours, is WOMAN of the species HUMAN.
Now, call me a kipper, but three fifths of both of these fundamental nouns comprise the word which refers to the male of our species called MAN. Surely this is quite unacceptable in this current climate. It is my contention that individuals of this particular group of our species of three-brained-beings should be referred to as WOPERSON and in multitude WOPEOPLE. As for MALE and FE-MALE - well I should like to leave that one to someone else to sort-out!
I should also like to propose that forthwith and with no further delay the noun for our species should become HUPERSON and we therefore become on mass - HUPEOPLE. Alternatively we adopt a word from a non-English language which has no horrible sexist connotation.
Failing that, can we drop all this idiocy and refer to the head of a committee as the Chairman, then we all know what we are talking about. I for one, sit on a CHAIR, I don't defer to one!
Monday 23 May 2011
Believe - accept as true or as speaking truth
Religion is based on belief. Belief is the acceptance of something being true, but without empirical evidence. Therefore, just because you believe something, it does not actually mean it is true, it just means you wish to accept it as true.
It always seems strange to me that in a court of law it is necessary to prove something to be true beyond reasonable doubt. But when it comes to religion we have to respect without question the beliefs of someone else. When it comes to religion, if you believe it to be true, somehow it seems to become fact beyond question.
I really do not understand this. It is all the more of a mystery when you have different people of different religions killing each other over opposing beliefs, or even the same religion with different customs: for example - Catholic vs Protestant : Shia vs Sunni.
What is even more astounding is that all these religions preach tolerance, love, acceptance, respect etc etc towards others. Am I missing something here? Also, just because you believe it, that does not mean it is true, so how can you justify killing someone on the strength of something that may not even be true?
This leaves me to wonder how often religion is used as an excuse to kill people you just don't happen to like or agree with on political, economic or ethnic grounds! Or am I just being a little naive here!!!
It always seems strange to me that in a court of law it is necessary to prove something to be true beyond reasonable doubt. But when it comes to religion we have to respect without question the beliefs of someone else. When it comes to religion, if you believe it to be true, somehow it seems to become fact beyond question.
I really do not understand this. It is all the more of a mystery when you have different people of different religions killing each other over opposing beliefs, or even the same religion with different customs: for example - Catholic vs Protestant : Shia vs Sunni.
What is even more astounding is that all these religions preach tolerance, love, acceptance, respect etc etc towards others. Am I missing something here? Also, just because you believe it, that does not mean it is true, so how can you justify killing someone on the strength of something that may not even be true?
This leaves me to wonder how often religion is used as an excuse to kill people you just don't happen to like or agree with on political, economic or ethnic grounds! Or am I just being a little naive here!!!
The Great British Car
I'm one of those silly old-fashioned people who like British cars and in particular Jaguar. I know it is very fashionable to buy foreign cars and we all know the best are German of course. I mean, after all, there hardly is a British car industry any more, is there? Speaks for itself. Curiously I did have a C-Class Mercedes once (2003-2004). It was the most uncomfortable car I have ever driven. It was not very well put together and was generally quite unreliable. I'm sure that had nothing to do with it being built in South Africa though.
Here's a question. Mercedes, Audi, BMW, Jaguar - what order would you put them in for reliability - 1 is best, 4 is worst. Yep - you are absolutely correct. 1 - BMW : 2 - Jaguar : 3 - Mercedes some way back, and finally : 4 - Audi. This from an actual results survey by Warranty Direct who provide after market warranty. So much for great German engineering. The Astra was also more reliable than the Golf - but who cares about that!
An elderly woman I used to know came into the pub one evening and proudly announced that she was never going to buy another British car again. She had just traded her aged Vauxhall Nova for a Nissan Micra. Let's face it, where's the kudos in buying a British car? Silly c*w - the Nova had been built in Spain and the Micra in Sunderland.
Here's a question. Mercedes, Audi, BMW, Jaguar - what order would you put them in for reliability - 1 is best, 4 is worst. Yep - you are absolutely correct. 1 - BMW : 2 - Jaguar : 3 - Mercedes some way back, and finally : 4 - Audi. This from an actual results survey by Warranty Direct who provide after market warranty. So much for great German engineering. The Astra was also more reliable than the Golf - but who cares about that!
An elderly woman I used to know came into the pub one evening and proudly announced that she was never going to buy another British car again. She had just traded her aged Vauxhall Nova for a Nissan Micra. Let's face it, where's the kudos in buying a British car? Silly c*w - the Nova had been built in Spain and the Micra in Sunderland.
Why am I doing this?
Like most people I get things into my head that I just want talk about - not to anyone in particular, but to everyone in general. Sometimes it's a great idea; sometimes a frustration; it may even be to say something enthusiastic or encouraging; it may be just a RANT!! So instead of these things just going round my head and getting nowhere - I'm going to put them on my Blog - just how good is that!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)