91热爆

While it will be good to have 'the latest' about the affaire Damian Green, I wonder if there will be a discussion about the flagrant attack on Parliamentary sovereignty.

Its not just a question of who did wrong, or who knew what and when - it is a question of principle: why were police allowed to raid the parliamentary offices of a Shadow Minister and remove confidential papers?
As has been reported - Damian Green did not even breach the OSA.

I hope this attack on Parliament gets the debate it truly deserves!

big on extra costs for us but anything about a feed in tariff? which would redistribute wealth and when you contribute to the grid it moves your meter backwards.



anyone else want a meter that goes backwards? It works with all types of energy -solar etc. Why does the govt block it? Why is the uk one of the few countries not to have a feed in tariff?

why does every govt report ignore it?

There are millions of acres of factory roof that could be earning money and generating power?

think of the fiscal stimulus if the money that goes to multinational power companies was spent in the shops instead?

On Damian Green I wonder whether the Tories could take out a civil action against Brown (previous recipient of a leaker as seen on TV) if Green is prosecuted?

Smith seems to lose key USB memory sticks every other month so there does seem to be an air of scapegoating a civil servant.

These are the people who want ID cards.

On climate change there seems to have been massive underinvestment in renewables. Is the recession a sign that trend will continue or a way of investing to spend our way out of trouble.

On Baby P I am surprised that more has not been said about the batterer. Was the Nazi obsessed illiterate a psychopath and how come the system didn't pick up on him. Perhaps thats easy to say and hard to do.

But I'm glad Harringey have bitten the bullet
and taken the necessary action.

It's about time Sharon Shoesmith, George Meehan and Liz Santry resigned - perhaps it is a tiny speck of justice in the Baby P case. Apparently the useless Saudi doctor who failed to detect Baby P's broken spine has also been sacked.
Failure of regulation? 60 visits and a doctor checking Baby P and nothing? It's nothing short of gross negligence, and it has cost a life.

BarrieSingleton:
"I have had an uneasy feeling about Mr Barroso for a long time. I'll have a poke round in his basement. Maybe I could get him arrested and have a look in his computer? Nah - I'd need some spurious accusation to cover my tracks - it would never work."


No, you won't be able to have a look around Barroso's computer, but the EU will be able to have a look around yours... "remotely".


"Remote searches of suspect computers will form part of an EU plan to tackle hi-tech crime"... "Forces will also take part in "remote searches" and patrol online to track down criminals."


When the EU says "remote searches", what they really mean is hacking into your computer and having a rummage around your hard drive.

The Register describes it in more detail:

"And what sort of measures would Herr Schauble like to see introduced? Remote searches of computer hard drives. Security services would send emails with Trojan software attached to machines used by suspected terrorists. These would then serve a dual function, sending data from the hacked machine back to police computers, and also acting as key loggers."


And we all know what they mean by "terrorists": Damien Green, Icelandic banks, parents suspected of being in the wrong school catchment area etc etc.

#2 bookhimdano

"which would redistribute wealth"

Is it right to redistribute wealth? Why should people be forced to give wealth to others?

( I can see a case for redistributing Royal wealth and other unearned wealth, but not earned wealth).

Paying higher prices for energy now transfers wealth forward to people who, if they ever exist, are likely to be wealthier than people alive now (on average). Why should I make sacrifices to transfer wealth forward?

REDISTRIBUTION (#6)

That is a 'nice' question 13th. It is the sort of question that will get you blank stares.

It's OPPORTUNITY that needs redistributing.
Schooling enhances opportunity for some, and kills it for others.
School generates 'success' but is also an engine of FAILURE. If I said that to Balls, the blank stare would come out to meet it.

PS Clowns @ 5: the Cyber Police are going to have a dull day hacking in here. I have no life - I just blog.

I was worried by the NSPCC's representative suggesting that this is entirley a problem with councils.
Sadly I had a next door neighbour (in a council flat) who had three small girls 4, 2 and 6 months.
I became very concerned, I knew she had a social worker and tried to contact them via the council. I was brushed off yes she was OK as far as they were concerned, I asked if they could make a visit. Some weeks later I contacted them again to be told that the case worker was on holiday. By this time I was very worried, I called the NSPCC. They said they would help.
Nothing happened, I rang the NSPCC, they said that the family was already being dealt with by the social services.
Really really worried now I tried social services again and was in effect told to mind my own business.
About a week after that I heard someone go to her door and knock repeatedly, I went out and met the local health visitor, whose visit had been triggered by the failure of her mother to take the baby for a checkup.

The children were immediately taken to the local GP, who had them admitted to the hospital, and from there the social services took them into care.

(the RSPCA attended the same day to rescue the two cats and some fish)

The NSPCC also needs to review its procedures, there may well have been neighbours to Baby P who were concerned and tried to get help. The NSPCC almost certainly said - they have a social worker - they should know that that doesn't mean they are safe.
Carrie

Dear God, not more 'climate change' hysteria? Not George, again!

Who is going to save us from these nutters?

We desperately need nuclear and coal to stop the lights going out in under ten years, not more subsidy-guzzling windmills and solar panels.

Is harringay council one of those badly run and once loony left led authorities? you know the type i mean - Bernie grants and the brotherhood of man/woman all embracing culture with low work standards -ie lazy - and bureucratically heavily laden with inclusion for all mentality - albeit some more included than others...just wondering if it was!

It would appear that the Corporate Nazi's have hijacked to climate change debate to further their ultimate end of exterminating all the poor people by freezing them to death. Of course the rich eco-fascists can still fly around in the private jets and drive around their countryside mansions in 4 by 4's and inflate world food prices by using bio-fuel.

The whole scheme sounds a bit like the Mafia offering to save the planet just so long as you pay them protection money. Of course our gormless stock market parasite puppet politicians will agree to their Corporate Nazi demands.

Meanwhile the lights are likely to go out in the next ten years and instead of investing in proven reliable Nuclear all the potential money will be wasted on wind which stands idle for 75% of the time. No specific mention of potential tidal barrages on the Severn and Morecambe Bay but then the eco-fascists object to these also.

It is interesting to note that Monbiot has already moved into the countryside ( somewhere in Wales ). Many wealthy townie eco-fascists are likely to attempt to follow him if they can manage to re-inflate the stock market / housing bubble on the strength of alleged green technology.

The global warming argument looks pretty thin in the middle of the worst cold snap we have experienced in several years, and its only December 1st.

King Charles I tried to arrest John Hampden and four other MPs. Later, we cut his head off.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I thought the section on " climate change " was as usual shameful.

George Monbiot came out with his usual alarmist " the world is going to end, unless we take radical steps in the next 5 years [ which would bring real economic hardship]

Paxman was as usual ill informed and did not challenge Monblats ridiculous assertion that the world will warm by 6 degrees this century and that this is a given.

Paxman said nothing, when there is a welter of evidence and opinion that suggests Monbliot prediction is way off the mark.

He could have pointed out all the similar doomsday predictions about temperatures in the last decade have not happened .

Lazy journalism and unbalanced discussion .

Ed Balls commented that he was disturbed that no-one listened to the voices of the children in cases like these - bit unrealistic
perhaps in the case of Baby P but still an important issue for others who're in care.

This is year is however the 30th anniversary of the "Who Cares?"
movement - begun originally in
England by Mia Kelmer- Pringle
of the National Children's Bureau
to give young people in care their
voice:



In Scotland, 'Who Cares?' took off during the UN International Year of The Child in
1978 encouraged by pioneers like Julia
Robertson, Children's Officer in Angus:



In Scotland, thirty years on, 'Who Cares?'
grows from strength to strength ............

THE ENERGY NON DEBATE

Nuclear power is very UNSUBTLE: a slow bomb that eats itself and leaves a uniquely terrible mess.

Wind and wave are paradoxical in that they are dependent on climate, which is undergoing (unpredictable) change. See what I mean?

Since NASA put a mirror on the moon, it is fairly certain that our satellite will not go away any time soon; the tides will (predictably) continue.

There is now some nice, second generation, generation-kit (invented by Brits) appearing, to take advantage of tidal energy. I have a feeling Barnes Wallis would have had our shores stuffed with elegant devices (and better ones on the way) by now. MOON POWER is clean, reliable and 24/7 so why chase less SUBTLE sources? Something smells - as usual.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Climaye change none debate

Jeremy you really do need to clue up on the subject when you allow George Monbiot on the programme. You let him get away with alarmist claims of temperature rise by the turn of the century with little or no challenge.

Your only attempt was to refer to China, but you should have hit him with some facts
China is now building 550 coal-fired power stations - opening at the equivalent of two a week - and we are concerned about building two by 2020

Excellent debate by Jeremy on the Baby P case. The Climate change debate was boring and even I fast forwarded through it. The Czech President (Vaclav Klaus) is taking the European Presidency and hopes the EU gives up its climate change myth struggle and concentrate on the global financial crisis. He also questioned the myth of Al Gore's climate change movie too.



All these energy companies use the global climate change hysteria to charge customers more.

Jeremy Paxman, what a lazy excuse of a journalist.

Why do we need to listen to such drivel as demonstrated in the climate "debate"?

Three (easy to check) pieces of data:

1. Satellites show no warming of the atmosphere

2. Recent ocean temperature measurements show no warming in last three years

3. Surface Air temperature records such as those provided by the Hadley Centre show no warming in the 21st century

If there is no warming shown in the atmosphere, oceans and land, where is this so-called latent energy that will drive temperatures up? Answer: there isn't any.

CO2 has a near instantaneous effect in the atmosphere, there is no delay. Nor is there any masking effect as there just isn't the quantity of aerosols to have an effect (human contribution to the quantity is less than 3% - very marginal).

The numbers just do not work. Our understanding of the atmosphere is still pretty limited. There is no empirical evidence to support the CO2 hypothesis. Pretending that restricting carbon emissions will have any effect is merely tilting at windmills.

Climate change is a constant. Humans have adapted to warming and cooling of their climate since we first emerged. I'm all for energy efficiency, UK energy security, effective renewal power etc. This are just rational responses to an increasing world population. However, why we need the drivel about carbon emissions is baffling.

Jeremy is NOT a lazy excuse of a journalist! Excluding snoreworthy debates on mythical climate change (oh please no more!) his interviews normally hit the headlines the next day. He is the only journalist to say it like it is - and thank goodness for that!

ClownsRunTheTowns #5

State sponsored Trojans? Yet another good reason to run Apple Macs then. :-)

..Is it right to redistribute wealth? Why should people be forced to give wealth to others? ...

do people have their thinking caps on?

you give money to energy companies. with a feed in tariff you get to keep YOUR money.

which bit of redistribution do people not understand in that?

the redistribution is from the money you give to energy multinationals back to your own pocket.

unless you think energy multinationals are a hard up story who need your money?

..It is the sort of question that will get you blank stares....

because it beggars belief.

if the money you give to energy companies is , because of a feed in tariff, now not going to energy companies but stays in your pocket to spend in the shops or what have you then it is quite right people will give blank stares if they see people who think that redistribution of wealth back to the people is 'wrong' and insist and prefer to give it to multinational energy companies?

unless people are speaking on behalf of energy companies then such statements should get blank stares?

BLOGDOG STUDIES @ NEWBURY UNI

This course will start in the new year (but immediately, for all who have no life beyond Newsnight blogging) and will cover all aspects of HOUSE RULES, with particular emphasis on whether the Blogdog can spot if JUST ONE WORD is removed, and the item re-submitted, as with my piece: WORLD DOMINATION - TAKE YOUR PICK covering Obama and Mombiot.

Modules: 1/ Fuzzy logic. 2/ Proof reading
3/ Relative language skills (male/female) lectures by renowned Prof. Jaded Jean.

Attendance of ancillary course in use of tranquilisers - optional.

24/7 Anger Management - free on campus.

...windmills offshore 'to preserve the countryside'...

another lord with the haywain hardwired in their head? with a prejudice and bias?

the lord also wants to keep everyone tied to a one way monopoly grid.

there is no need for pain no need for higher bills. no lights going out. just get a feed in tariff.

this Lord's report is a crime against the british people.

#23 #24 bookhimdano

"if they see people who think that redistribution of wealth back to the people is 'wrong' and insist and prefer to give it to multinational energy companies?"

Paying for/ being paid for is distribution; has nothing to do with REdistribution, as that terms are usually used.
(REdistribution is concerned with tax and welfare payments).


You are very confused (and confusing!). Your view is very blinkered and myopic. That may explain why you make your points so forcefully.

These global companies are NOT REAL. They are legal fictions, they exist only in law. People are real. Companies are merely the processes by which people allocate resources for the benefit of people. Companies do not eat or drink. They do not consume resources on a net basis; they create value for PEOPLE. Company profits are used to pay taxes, buy productive equipment and then pay dividends to PEOPLE (e.g. pensioners).

Company shares are owned by people {either directly or indirectly via (e.g.) pension funds}. People benefit when businesses are successful {provided the business exists for a useful purpose. I exclude such businesses as advertising, nail bars (and other "beauty" snake oil sellers) and football clubs}.

I note Paxo seemed to suggest energy company profits were money. Anyone who thinks that is seriously confused. Profits are NOT money. Nothing like it. Nor is there any reason to believe the accounting profits reported are real (economic) profits. The likelihood of that is a great as flying pigs.

CLIMATE OF SELF-INTEREST

I suppose that any government that is prepared to kill countless people on a whim-and-a-lie, is not really stirred by the climate spectre - Monbiot style of other. It is only large-scale death and misery of another kind.
If ministers can get a few years of pomp and prancing, followed by a fat retirement, I doubt they are really bothered what follows for the masses. There is a total disconnect between saviour-Brown's aid to Africa and his ineffectual tinkering with renewables. But the former gives photo opportunities and a sense of greatness, here and now.

#26 bookhimdano

"
there is no need for pain no need for higher bills. no lights going out. just get a feed in tariff."

Maybe we could use specially trained little horses to power treadmills. We could call them one-trick ponies!

Methinks you are waiting for Santa to bring you a generator kit. Perhaps the tooth fairy will pay for it.

Yet another discussion about the convenient soundbite 'climate change'.

So where did Lord Turner get his 1% of GDP from. Ah the Stern Report. Where did the Stern Report come from, the agenda of the 2005 G8 climate change and Africa.

And where did that come from, oh me.

Climate change was an 'example' in 2002 of widening the debate from 'the war on terrorism' and some bright idea to drop bombs on children, to something more expansive, more meaningful, something questioning, something to see if the future could be a bright infinite and eternal rainbow for all life.

How it saddens me that it has become a political and corporate soundbite. Now with everyday that passes, narrowed in its scope to more or less, shall we have electric cars?

Sadly I have been deluded. I thought to understand how a planet worked one would have to know about biology, geology, ecology, chemistry, cosmology, oceanography, physics, evolution. Oh I could go on and on.

Seems all you need is the instant expert kit. "Climate change = green taxes".

Oh and

Clowns run the towns

"When the EU says "remote searches", what they really mean is hacking into your computer and having a rummage around your hard drive".

What hard drive, isn't everything moving into "The Cloud"?



Wait for Centigrade 180 is published. Only thoughts, ideas, comments and views are permitted which are allowed on the corporate servers.

Anyone who has ideas to share which are not acceptable on the corporate servers will have their hard drives heated to remove all none accepted information.

You will be allowed to have your own thoughts contained within your own head, but will not be permitted to share them with anyone else.

Conveniently the name for the process has already been decided. You will be 'Cured' of any transmittable thoughts not acceptable to the corporate servers.



Celtic Lion

I'm still getting to grips with the logic of trumpeting encouragement to fly overseas to bring back and extra 16 kilos as an assist to economy and environment....

"Bing bong! We will shortly be bringing around the Duty Free bowser. Please have your credit cards ready. An additional irony-free amount may be deducted for lugging all this extra on board to satisfy newly-created demand, and then pad a few carbon credit schemes concocted between Brussels, Westminster and the City. Thank yew! Bing bong"

It must all add up somewhere.

I was an engineer once. Then I became an ad man (sadly no qualifications that get you in or on TV news commenting on 'stuff' in any form).

But I do have an ability to be inspired by substance, and also sniff out when the smoke and mirrors are being deployed (and not to focus the power of illumination).

At the moment... erring on the latter.

My poor kids.

Baby P

A sorry story !

CLIMATE CHANGE

Hasn't it been changing ever since the earth began ?

Energy Security

In theory I am all for this, windmills coal nuclear gas wave sun, it all gets my vote.

I agree with micro generation and being able to sell excess electricity back to the grid (with no tax).

I can understand why people don't want windmills on their landscape, but I have concerns about putting them out at sea , these windmills produce vibration (and heat, but different issue), these vibrations will travel to the seabed, this could have an effect on the seas food chain and then ours.
I don't know enough about it in any technical sense, that I will leave to others with the required skill sets.

DAMIAN GREEN

1) Did any Ministers of the Crown (the Labour Government) or Political appointees put any pressure on the top Civil Servant to make such a complaint to the Police ?

2) What happened to the Police discretion ?
Surly their legal advisor's warned them of the Constitutional problems this would cause ?

Personally I think the Top Civil Servant at the 91热爆 Office should withdraw Police complaint soon and end this !

13thman

i understand your pain. it comes from ignorance. this topic on a feed in tariff has been going on here for about a year. most people are up to speed on it.

i do understand there are huge vested interests that do not like a feed in tariff because it will mean the loss of billions to the energy companies.

but thank you for giving me the opportunity to say once again that a feed in tariff has proven to create 100,000s of jobs, provide billions in income, and in germany a feed in tariff provides more energy than the whole of uk nuclear.

further the uk is one of the few countries not to have a feed in tariff. the govt have blocked every bill trying to bring one in.

there are acres of factory roof that could generate energy and income.

there are no economic reasons to deny the british people the right to a feed in tariff. so to talk against it and block it must be political. So who benefits from blocking a feed in tariff? From a one way grid cash cow?

THERE'S ELEGANCE and PRAGMATISM or THE BRITISH WAY

Having recently encountered the figures for the German 'feed-in tariff' and noted how long back they initiated it, I am in total accord with bookhimdano - and empathise with his frustration.

Further, having absorbed Jaded Jean's take on the emasculation of Britain, it all adds up.
If ever a country was ripe for revolution, it is this one. But we don't do revolution do we! We have been stitched up, sold down the river, cheated, lied to, conned and generally treated like the proverbial s-word, for decades - and we just take it.

When David Davis seemed to be about to throw of the stench of Westminster and become a People's Champion, I was ecstatic. I was soon deflated. Half a champion is worse than no champion at all. Vince Cable - for all his 'initial' promise, goes 'thus far and no farther'. We still need a hero.

I did my sad little bit in Newbury 2005. The national media were vaguely aware of me but had no idea that I stood for an ideal. Indeed, I suspect they have lost all knowledge of what an ideal is; unless they define it as something to be traded for fools gold.

The only true elegance in Britain lies in the sheer magnificence of our corruption; now as discretely woven into the cultural fabric as is alcohol. And therein lies our inability to do anything radical about power generation - or much else.

#33

"So who benefits from blocking a feed in tariff? From a one way grid cash cow? "

Since a feed in tariff is a guaranteed extra payment from the government (i.e. us) to make expensive electricity production viable, we would all pay for it.

There are negative externalities in the production of electricity. There is probably a case for charging the generating companies to cover the externalities. That would raise the cost in use and people could then make rational decisions on the basis of good information. If solar panels, wind generators or any other technology becomes economically viable after consideration of full social costs, it should be adopted.
Job creation is a poor (VERY poor) reason to adopt a technology. We would just as well pay people to dig holes and then fill them in; it is a way to waste resources.

Comparing German feed in to UK nuclear is no more meaningful than comparing it to my inside leg. They are not comparable. Though it perhaps suggest we do not have enough nuclear plants.

You seem unable to understand that companies are merely ways for people to organise production for mutual gain. Benefits to companies are benefits to people.

I have an underlying worry about the whole way the Baby P tragedy is being handled.

I can hear the words Scape Goat rattling through my head as people resign or are sacked.

What perturbs me is that 2 weeks ago, SIXTY doctors signed a letter in support of Shoestring. That is a lot of people who are on the ground and know what they are talking about.

As opposed to a bunch of inspectors who have been told to find someone to blame

We have a blame mentality.

"Must find a senior person to shoot"

Which is the best way I can think of to get rid of capable, well respected people - like shoestring.

"This must never happen again" is the rallying cry of the thickhead politician.

Well, bad news. It will happen again. And again, and again, and again. And you will never EVER stop it.

The best you can hope to do is reduce the numbers dramatically.

And you know what? Social Services have been absolutely brilliant at doing just that every year for years.

How many children die in such circumstances? Too many for the public or political stomach, but far far less than it might be.

Not one single selfish politician or journalist has asked the people involved in this terrible case how they feel. They are far too busy at appearing to be strong and condemning for the sake of their public image. Sickening.

DIGGING HOLES AND FILLING THEM IN (#35)

It suddenly struck me, 13th, that is a pretty good description of life! A little 'hole digging' at the beginning and a six-footer at the end, with nothing of lasting consequence - on a cosmic scale - achieved in between.

Incidentally, I follow, with interest, a scheme to return barren lands to forest and agriculture, applying sun and seawater and micro-algae. (Global Eco / FREdome). A 91热爆 program loftily pronounced that algae are too expensive a source of raw material for anything but high-ticket items, missing the low tech arena altogether.

In the long run we are all just another 'filled in hole'. Might as well do something ecologically elegant in the meantime?

...Benefits to companies are benefits to people...

which people? Sovereign wealth funds? how does giving money to multinationals benefit me? Would it not be better for people to keep their money?

how many tens of billions of tax payers money is spent on cleaning up nuclear fuel 'too cheap to meter'?

a feed in tariff is an investment in infrastructure rather than merely subsidy for multinational profit. at some point the tariff stops. unlike current subsidies.

i can understand why some would prefer to give their money to multinationals but not why they would block anyone else from the option of feed in tariff?

is it because it would prove popular among all sectors of society public and commercial to see their meter running backwards?

the depth of opposition to even giving people the option of a feed in tariff is very revealing. A position almost unique in europe? why is the uk almost alone in blocking it? Is everyone else wrong? Gordon recently made a big thing about 'everyone else was doing a fiscal stimulus' which means he believes in the wisdom of the majority? Or is that just lip service? So whaty is the uk nearly alone in opposing it?

..Job creation is a poor (VERY poor) reason to adopt a technology....

its not a reason to adopt. its a happy by product. one that would be of use in these times? Further they would be real jobs that creates wealth not more state workers. It also frees up money that would go to foreign energy companies to be spent in uk shops and provide a fiscal stimulus [without any need for debt].

do you deny german feed in tariff generates more power than uk nuclear? In one german town there are more solar panels than the whole of the uk.

what are the social costs of not having a feed in tariff? of ever more expensive polluting energy? Of fuel poverty. Of enriching unstable parts of the world? on security of supply? Of terrorism? The remedy of a feed in tariff ticks all those boxes. Unlike any of the others.

on all levels the feed in tariff is a win win. no need to block it. let the fear go.

Common Jeremy, it's about time you gave some oif these 'global warming' twerps a good verbal chastising. Do a little more current state of affairs research, and find out for yourself, such as has the Arctic ice indeed returned?

Has the earth been getting cooler recently; and certainly no warmer since 1998 Was it last week some reporter moaned about the coldest November day in ages?
Here's an interesting site which shows the dramatic ice return this year:
"The Cryosphere Today"



The only reason I'm feeling warmer at ther moment, is that I spent 拢15 on a new part to repair my boiler, after insurance company wrote it off as being uneconomic to repair. [They even gave us 拢600 towards a new boiler] What a potential waste of a perfectly serviceable item... No wonder insurance premiums are extortionate....

#36

....."We have a blame mentality.

"Must find a senior person to shoot"

Which is the best way I can think of to get rid of capable, well respected people - like shoestring.

"This must never happen again" is the rallying cry of the thickhead politician.

Well, bad news. It will happen again. And again, and again, and again. And you will never EVER stop it.

The best you can hope to do is reduce the numbers dramatically."....

I don't know enough details to comment on the specific case, but I agree it is wrong always to ask the most senior person to fall on their sword; sometimes the most competent person will be on watch when a more junior person messes up. The only way to avoid that would be to refuse ever to delegate.

I have sympathy for "the thickhead politician". Politicians have to appeal to a thickhead eloctorate; the people who say things like "they should do something", "they should do everything possible to...".


Politicians have little choice but to lie.

Climate Change: a media response

Now there is a nice soundbite, if we keep saying that people will think we understand about about whole system planetary ecology.


What About a Proper informed debate on the subject?

No we can't. Politicians have now taken this challenge on and they had little interest in ecology, science, oceanography, engineering when they were children. So they did history of art, politics and law etc. Few requests for Peter Fairley's science annual in their households.



They have little knowledge or interest in whole system planetary ecology and don't really want to start now.

So instead we just keep it to climate change, tax and spend, electric cars, Green Green Green, Ya boo, order order.

This means the politicians still look clever, people still vote for them and they keep their jobs.



But Climate Change isn't being very well explained and it isn't the problem?

That's the beauty of the media we don't explain or inform on the real problems. So politicians don't have to learn complicated new things.

We change the problem and how it is presented. Therefore we don't have to change the politicians or how the real problem is addressed. It makes everything so much more simple.

The problem is changed so it fits within the established terms of reference and comfort zone. No new ways of thinking required.


What if Everything Goes Down the Tubes in 4 or 5 Years?

Simple the politicians use the same prepared statement used in the recent economic crash for the ecological crash.

"The situation is due entirely to unforeseen circumstances entirely beyond our control".

Tough but neat.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

#38

"...Benefits to companies are benefits to people...

which people? "

1. The people who benefit from the taxes paid.

2. The ultimate beneficiaries of shareholding.

3. The people who benefit from reinvestment; who are the above and customers.

ALL benefits accrue to people. The word effectively means "something good for one or more people".

Benefits NEVER accrue to organisations, it is only our convenient accounting systems which give an impression they do.

Organisations are producers, not consumers. They are not sentient beings; they cannot experience pain or pleasure. "Organisation", "company" etc. are mechanisms/procedures by which we coordinate human activities that produce most of the things we consume. Of course, they don't always get it right.

Why should people subsidise others through a feed in tariff? Feed in OK, if people want to. Payment at the standard tariff, less associated costs OK, but why a subsidy? Why should I pay for people to indulge themselves with solar panels and windmills on their houses?

Nor do I want windfarms around the country. I've seen 2 (Bodmin moor and Thames estuary, North Kent.) UGLY.

RE: #36

It was NOT medical doctors supporting Shoestring!

It was a large group of Haringey headteachers who wrote a letter supporting Shoestring, apparently because she had a background in education and they claimed she had helped Haringey schools. None of the extracts I have seen from their letter had anything relevant to professional social care.






In that respect their action falls into one of two categories. Either they:
- took the attitude of a foreign language teacher whose pupil, originally from France, was awarded outstanding marks for speaking French so well and therefore clearly had to be a good student of Maths, and if not receiving good Maths marks then there had to be something wrong with the Maths evaluation.
OR
- wrote a propaganda letter irrelevant to the particular case and professional case issues, and so politically motivated in writing it while a really independant investigation was being considered.

And if you choose to believe their propaganda I'm sure they and Shoesmith are happy.


As regards social care though, please note the following about the so-called independant Serious Case Review which Shoesmith chaired:

"Shoesmith and officials at Haringey council have repeatedly cited an initial inquiry into Baby P鈥檚 death as evidence that they were not to blame.

One of the authors of that report, Fergus Smith, an independent consultant, admitted this weekend that his inquiry was of 鈥渓imited value鈥�. He said he had been given no independent access to documents or staff for his investigation.

He also said that a panel chaired by Shoesmith had met him to agree the content of the report before it was published last week, but insisted that the document was not a 鈥渨hitewash鈥�. He said it had limited value in the light of the criminal trial. 鈥淭here has been further and pretty worrying information that has emerged from the criminal trial,鈥� he said. "




Perhaps, though, you had in mind the Ofsted report praising Showsmith's department?

"The report was signed off by Juliet Winstanley, who worked for Mrs Shoesmith for three years as a senior official at Haringey Council.
...
On Monday, Ofsted directly contradicted its earlier findings with the production of a "devastating" dossier of evidence against Haringey Council.

The inspectors concluded, after two weeks of work, that there were "fundamental failings" in the way social workers, medical professionals and police dealt with children at risk.
...
The Government has insisted that Ofsted was given incorrect information by the council for its annual performance assessment (APA) in 2007, which did not involve a site visit."




Also, please note the following which seems to confirm how actions may be conducted under Shoesmith - perhaps it's not Shoesmith's feelings we should be concerned about:

"The whistleblower who warned about Haringey Council鈥檚 failing social services department six months before Baby P died has told how the council victimised her, even going to the extraordinary lengths of falsely accusing her of child abuse and beginning an investigation into her nine-year-old daughter鈥檚 welfare."

DISTRACTIONS AND 'INVESTIGATIONS'

A Special Investigation into the 'Baby P' case after an OFSED inspection had said Haringey was good (but not not now as it was not based on good 'data' according to the newish, but ever so well placed ex CEO of New Labour education flagship borough ( Tower Hamlets) . Elsewhere, a storm in a broken teacup (the 91热爆 Office) over whether Civil Servants should do their jobs rather than leak (aka blab) whatever they like like to whomever they like on the grounds that doing so is CLEARLY 'in the public interest' as it's good copy these days (despite the fact that such behaviour makes normal government/line-management effectively impossible...).

Mr Balls is allegedly outraged that Haringey (reportedly largely reliant on agency staff - this is inner London, high immigration and high white flight) has failed a child. Point to ponder: Naive politicians - tools - blame. Serious question: Is he fit for office?

How about a 'Special Investigation' into the extent to which this government has failed its electorate? How many lives have been devastated (or ended) by its incompetence?

How likely are they to get the sack?