I like going to the theatre and I often get my tickets on the internet. I bought some tickets this week for a comedy and this time I was asked if I wanted to give to their charity. The wording was quite good and I was persuaded to give them something. I didn't go for the gift aid which would have given them more money from the government but it did make me think that the theatre could take money rather than give it to the government.
I am sure that the tax man is already involved, but what could the theatre legitimately receive from him? Let's say the tickets were £24 and the donation was £1. Could those amounts be reversed ? If you have a theatre management that is so persuasive could they pay no tax and get a lot of money back in gift aid? I wonder if there have been experiments in which theatres just asked for donations and gift aid.
Change the world
Saturday, 7 August 2010
Friday, 6 August 2010
Naive and ignorant
Does Naomi Campbell's testimony irritate you as much as it irritates me? She says that she gets gifts at all hours of the day and doesn't know who gives them. This is the same person who is so protective of her privacy that she doesn't want to be photographed as she enters and leaves court. I simply can't believe that if I send her a token gift to be delivered at 4am that she would accept it (don't worry I won't be sending anything). Can you believe that she thought that she was accepting "dirty stones"?
She also said that she didn't want to give testimony in a war crimes trial! She couldn't be bothered about justice being done when she has a direct bearing on it. I would say that she was naive and ignorant (in a polite sense) but I really don't think she is, and there are many aspects of her testimony that are outrageous.
You may agree with Naomi and not recognise bags of diamonds, be welcoming of gifts of dirty stones at all hours, and consider this an unimportant trial. Compare that with the months of harrowing testimony from the victims of the Sierra Leone civil war and you may choose to disagree with her.
Change the world
She also said that she didn't want to give testimony in a war crimes trial! She couldn't be bothered about justice being done when she has a direct bearing on it. I would say that she was naive and ignorant (in a polite sense) but I really don't think she is, and there are many aspects of her testimony that are outrageous.
You may agree with Naomi and not recognise bags of diamonds, be welcoming of gifts of dirty stones at all hours, and consider this an unimportant trial. Compare that with the months of harrowing testimony from the victims of the Sierra Leone civil war and you may choose to disagree with her.
Change the world
Thursday, 5 August 2010
48 hours is ample
How many hours should you work per week? My first reaction to this question is that I am always doing something and I should be able to call it work. Let's say I sleep eight hours per night. Add another 30 minutes either side of sleep to wind down and to get ready in the morning. That leaves fifteen hours per day when I am doing something. As I would not get paid for meal breaks let's reduce that by another hour for two meals which leaves me working 14 hours. Let's also say I was 30 minutes from work. That make 13 hours. If I did nothing else but work I could manage a working week of 91 hours. The problem is that I may want to do something else. I may get tired.
This week the working time directive has been criticised by doctors. 48 hours is supposed to be the limit for the working week but you can do extra if you do less in other weeks. Doctors want a 65-hour working week and presumably with variations in shifts this would mean some weeks they are working all their waking hours. This is a large proportion of a maximum possible working week.
I thought we had advanced from doctors coming to patients at 10pm having started work at 7am. This isn't a training experience, it is a form of extreme sport and patients don't want to play. Doctors have had plenty of time to get their act together and should work a 'normal' working week. I expect them to study around their subject in their own time and it would be nice to think they had some rest too. A working week of 48 hours is ample.
Change the world
This week the working time directive has been criticised by doctors. 48 hours is supposed to be the limit for the working week but you can do extra if you do less in other weeks. Doctors want a 65-hour working week and presumably with variations in shifts this would mean some weeks they are working all their waking hours. This is a large proportion of a maximum possible working week.
I thought we had advanced from doctors coming to patients at 10pm having started work at 7am. This isn't a training experience, it is a form of extreme sport and patients don't want to play. Doctors have had plenty of time to get their act together and should work a 'normal' working week. I expect them to study around their subject in their own time and it would be nice to think they had some rest too. A working week of 48 hours is ample.
Change the world
Wednesday, 4 August 2010
CCTV may help
In my blog on the 23rd July I wrote about the death of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protest. I concluded that all is not well with our police force. I came to the same conclusion with the news this week of CCTV footage of Mark Aspinall's arrest in Wigan. The initial claim was that he assaulted the police officers but due to CCTV a special constable was found guilty of assault.
My concern was raised by the comment that the other officers, who were holding Mr Aspinall down while he was being thumped, were cleared of all charges. What were these charges? If they were about punching a member of the public then they should be totally exonerated - at least as far as this CCTV footage goes. If the charge was about doing the right thing then I would question the result. Maybe our police officers have been taught not to question another officer beating up a member of the public and they were simply following instructions.
I am not particularly interested in the court case of one special constable. I am concerned about police tactics and it would be nice to see this making the headlines. One metaphor could be a rugby match and a fight breaks out. A player is sent off but really it was caused by a message from a coach. The headlines are all about this player but sometimes they are made by the coaches who organise the violence.
Change the world
My concern was raised by the comment that the other officers, who were holding Mr Aspinall down while he was being thumped, were cleared of all charges. What were these charges? If they were about punching a member of the public then they should be totally exonerated - at least as far as this CCTV footage goes. If the charge was about doing the right thing then I would question the result. Maybe our police officers have been taught not to question another officer beating up a member of the public and they were simply following instructions.
I am not particularly interested in the court case of one special constable. I am concerned about police tactics and it would be nice to see this making the headlines. One metaphor could be a rugby match and a fight breaks out. A player is sent off but really it was caused by a message from a coach. The headlines are all about this player but sometimes they are made by the coaches who organise the violence.
Change the world
Tuesday, 3 August 2010
Investigating tittle tattle
I sent an email to a Lancashire County Councillor on Sunday. I was told, before I sent it that it might be read by council officials. I suppose this is alright. I did send it via the official council website and if I had sent a letter it may have been opened by an employee of the council. If I had something private to say then I could have sent a letter to his private address. And at least there was that advance warning. But what if all our communications were accessible to officials, and we had no warning about it?
On Sunday there was a news article about two Gulf states, UAE and Saudi Arabia, banning the sending and receiving of emails on the Blackberry mobile phone, as well as internet access, because they are unable to monitor these things. Other mobile brands are no problem because their services can be tapped into locally, but the Blackberry services are encrypted and are processed in Canada.
This makes me wonder what the situation is like in other countries. I've found that a bill was introduced in the Canadian parliament last year to require wireless service providers to make the service easier to tap. I don't know if that bill has passed or not. Finding details of such things is surprisingly tricky, since they tend not to make a big splash on the front pages. But I remember one Barack Obama, prior to his inauguration as US president, vociferously defending his right to keep his Blackberry. I wonder what the White House reaction would be to the US president's communications being subject to covert surveillance by shadowy Canadian organisations.
At the other end of the scale, it seems that in the UK, surveillance can be requested by a vast number of organisations, from the Charity Commission to Her Majesty's Chief Inspector for Schools, and there are maybe a thousand instances per week. In one well known case three children and their parents were put under surveillance to check if they were in their school's catchment area, while other cases involve under-age smoking and drinking. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Powers_Act_2000
The original motivation for all this may have been to combat terrorism, but it has spread far beyond that, and in any case real terrorists would presumably be smart enough to encrypt their communications. I don't know if surveillance does help in the war against terrorism but, in the words of John Prescott, we may find out mor tittle tattle.
Change the World.
On Sunday there was a news article about two Gulf states, UAE and Saudi Arabia, banning the sending and receiving of emails on the Blackberry mobile phone, as well as internet access, because they are unable to monitor these things. Other mobile brands are no problem because their services can be tapped into locally, but the Blackberry services are encrypted and are processed in Canada.
This makes me wonder what the situation is like in other countries. I've found that a bill was introduced in the Canadian parliament last year to require wireless service providers to make the service easier to tap. I don't know if that bill has passed or not. Finding details of such things is surprisingly tricky, since they tend not to make a big splash on the front pages. But I remember one Barack Obama, prior to his inauguration as US president, vociferously defending his right to keep his Blackberry. I wonder what the White House reaction would be to the US president's communications being subject to covert surveillance by shadowy Canadian organisations.
At the other end of the scale, it seems that in the UK, surveillance can be requested by a vast number of organisations, from the Charity Commission to Her Majesty's Chief Inspector for Schools, and there are maybe a thousand instances per week. In one well known case three children and their parents were put under surveillance to check if they were in their school's catchment area, while other cases involve under-age smoking and drinking. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Powers_Act_2000
The original motivation for all this may have been to combat terrorism, but it has spread far beyond that, and in any case real terrorists would presumably be smart enough to encrypt their communications. I don't know if surveillance does help in the war against terrorism but, in the words of John Prescott, we may find out mor tittle tattle.
Change the World.
Monday, 2 August 2010
Ian Huntley's rights
Prisoners have rights. When Ian Huntley had his throat cut by another inmate it may have been that the prison authorities were partly to blame and that they failed in their duty to protect him from harm. I don't know the details but let's say for a moment that he wins his case and receives £100 000 (which would be ridiculous). I don't think he should receive an amount that is far in excess of that received by the families of his victims. If there is a legal case for this then the law needs changing.
The reaction that I saw on the news was one of fury. This reaction was from people who live in Soham but I think opinions would have been similar in any town. He has tried to take his life three times. Is there a case for him suing the authorities because they failed to stop him from hurting himself? The world may have gone mad. It just seems wrong but I may have an answer.
Don't stop prisoners having human rights - they are humans. However if they have money then let them pay for the costs of their incarceration. I felt that it was also wrong when Jeffrey Archer was in prison and writing bestsellers. He spent a lot of his time in isolation while he was writing, but this was hardly a punishment for him as this is how he writes. As for Ian Huntley, £100 000 may not go far for in paying for his security.
Change the world
The reaction that I saw on the news was one of fury. This reaction was from people who live in Soham but I think opinions would have been similar in any town. He has tried to take his life three times. Is there a case for him suing the authorities because they failed to stop him from hurting himself? The world may have gone mad. It just seems wrong but I may have an answer.
Don't stop prisoners having human rights - they are humans. However if they have money then let them pay for the costs of their incarceration. I felt that it was also wrong when Jeffrey Archer was in prison and writing bestsellers. He spent a lot of his time in isolation while he was writing, but this was hardly a punishment for him as this is how he writes. As for Ian Huntley, £100 000 may not go far for in paying for his security.
Change the world
Sunday, 1 August 2010
Iraq intelligence
John Prescott has given his statement to the Chilcott enquiry on the Iraq war - and what a statement! "When I kept reading them (intelligence reports), I kept saying to myself, 'Is this intelligence?' It was not very substantiated but clearly was robust. ..." There's plenty more where that came from. In particular, the bit about Lord Goldsmith being "not a happy bunny" because of the weight put upon his shoulders to come up with a legal justification for war - that was pure gold.
Lord Prescott's use of the word "robust" leaves me wondering if he actually knows what it means. The definition at dictionary.com says "(of an object) Sturdy in construction". I'm not quite sure how something which is "not very substantiated" can be sturdy in construction. I suspect that Lord Prescott was trying to have it both ways. His testimony was nevertheless incredibly revealing, if not outright damning. The big question has to be why he couldn't have said these things at the time, when they might have made a difference. He said that “true leadership is not about having the benefit of hindsight”. Well there were very many at the time without the benefit of hindsight who knew that war with Iraq was wrong.
Change the World.
Lord Prescott's use of the word "robust" leaves me wondering if he actually knows what it means. The definition at dictionary.com says "(of an object) Sturdy in construction". I'm not quite sure how something which is "not very substantiated" can be sturdy in construction. I suspect that Lord Prescott was trying to have it both ways. His testimony was nevertheless incredibly revealing, if not outright damning. The big question has to be why he couldn't have said these things at the time, when they might have made a difference. He said that “true leadership is not about having the benefit of hindsight”. Well there were very many at the time without the benefit of hindsight who knew that war with Iraq was wrong.
Change the World.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
