Depression is suddenly in the news again, following the tragic death of Robin Williams. Here, I'll not be talking about depression.
It's not something I talk about. For reasons I'll not state. That's how it is for me.
A lot of reaction to the death has focussed on the health issues he had, centred around addiction and depression, and there has been a lot in social media about depression and what is, and isn't, the right way to support sufferers.
I'd just like to say that we need to consider this illness along the same lines as cancer is now viewed. We don't think of cancer as being one illness, with one treatment, but rather as an umbrella term for a range of illnesses. This is why we don't talk about a "wonder-drug" to cure cancer, but drugs that are effective against certain forms of cancer. No single, silver bullet.
Depression is a term used to cover a range of illnesses. Treatment that works perfectly well for one person, will not work for another. Causes in one patient will be different to the causes in another. Even sufferers will not be able to say whether their treatment will work in another ... having it doesn't make you an expert on anyone else's. Each illness is separate, and unique to the sufferer.
It's insidious and clever, and knows how to counter the tools you develop to fight it off. It's like playing chess against an opponent that can read your mind.
Do not preach your solutions to others. They might work, they might not, but it carries no more validity than "cheer up", and no less. The treatment is unique to the condition.
All you can do is offer support, and the form of that support will be set by the patient, and your relationship to them. There's no blueprint to follow, like there's no blueprint for friendship. No prescriptive advice - you know how to treat your friends without needing the words of strangers.
Wednesday, August 13, 2014
Thursday, June 12, 2014
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
Whitby Pubs
One of the things I used to do, but kept to myself, was to indicate the best pubs in places that I've visited. So as you're all really really interested in my opinion on this crucial aspect of modern-day life, I thought I'd share.
Firstly, let's clarify what makes a good pub - the beer.
Okay, having gone through that list let's cover the aspects that might discourage a recommendation:
There are quite a number of pubs in Whitby, some of which I don't think I'd re-visit. A few along the harbour-side (whale-bone side) are okay, but are either too "family-friendly" (Pier Inn), or are too difficult to get into without having to step over a drunk (The Jolly Sailors). Or the Buck Inn - which ticks a number of items in the list above. So, avoid those in general. There are many; we can be picky.
Stepping across the swing bridge, towards the Abbey, immediately on your right is the Dolphin. This have recently been refurbished and has been much improved. It offers a decent selection of beers; and a good collection of food. Slightly better than what I'd call simple 'pub grub' and well worth one or two visits. Service was fine, if not stunning. The views out towards the bridge and west bank are also a bonus. Busy in high season.
Further into the cobbled streets of Whitby there are two pubs at the end of the main road, close to the 199 steps: the Board Inn and the Duke of York.
The Duke of York is very popular due to the views across the harbour from a number of the tables. Again, this has had a couple of minor alterations in recent years to expand capacity, and there's a fairly obvious nautical theme. Furnishings are pleasant, staff friendly and efficient. The meals are fine, and the beer is good. If you can get in, then one of the nicer pubs in Whitby, and not resting on its laurels.
(there are no decent pictures of the Duke of York ... certainly the interior shown on their website is pre-alterations)
Next door (and don't accidentally exit the Duke of York for a swift tab, then return to the wrong venue) is the Board Inn. Slightly ignored in favour of its neighbour this is a decent, simple, local pub. Cheap pub grub and nicely kept beer, usually with a few different Theakston's on. You won't go in here and feel disappointed, if it's not exactly a 'wow'.
One other pub of note is The Shambles - up the steps near to the cobbled square 50m from the Board Inn. A nice selection of fairly well-kept beer, and okay food but mainly of note for seating offering views across the harbour. Good if a little soulless - not quite a pub, as you'll understand if you go. There are at least another five pubs on this side of the harbour, all within 10 minutes' walk ... plenty of choice!
Returning to the whale-bone side of the town there are a few more pubs worth a mention.
The Wetherspoons in Whitby (The Angel Hotel) is on the corner, just passed where the leisure boats are booked. Although nothing special (beer isn't great, and I'd avoid the food) it's enormous inside, and has one of the fewer outside seating areas which is a sun trap. You can sit and have a pleasant coffee with great views across to the Abbey up on the hill. Coffee and a bacon cob though, is about as far as you ought to sensibly go in terms of food and drink.
Going past the Wetherspoons, continuing towards the train station, you'll find the Station Inn. This has always been one of the better pubs in Whitby, and still is. Good selection of beers, pork pies to eat, and a couple of lovely big fires if you're visiting in the colder months. Busy at times (especially on quiz nights) but if you have the time to spare, a place for a lazy afternoon to slip by.
And finally, on the corner as you going up past the church you'll find the Little Angel. One of only a few pubs in Whitby to show sport on TV, but not in an obtrusive way. The beer is good, and although there's not really a food selection beyond a few sandwiches at lunchtime, it's where to go if you need a fix of sport. Bar staff friendly, and it's an easy, casual atmosphere.
So that's my set of recommendations for pubs in Whitby. A set of at least half a dozen to busy yourself with. Enjoy!
Remember: beer - it'll never let you down.
Firstly, let's clarify what makes a good pub - the beer.
Okay, having gone through that list let's cover the aspects that might discourage a recommendation:
- loud music
- neon signage
- lots of huge TV screens
- young people
- even younger people (i.e. children)
- chrome fittings
- shabby furnishings
- poor service
- a lack of beer
There are quite a number of pubs in Whitby, some of which I don't think I'd re-visit. A few along the harbour-side (whale-bone side) are okay, but are either too "family-friendly" (Pier Inn), or are too difficult to get into without having to step over a drunk (The Jolly Sailors). Or the Buck Inn - which ticks a number of items in the list above. So, avoid those in general. There are many; we can be picky.
Stepping across the swing bridge, towards the Abbey, immediately on your right is the Dolphin. This have recently been refurbished and has been much improved. It offers a decent selection of beers; and a good collection of food. Slightly better than what I'd call simple 'pub grub' and well worth one or two visits. Service was fine, if not stunning. The views out towards the bridge and west bank are also a bonus. Busy in high season.
 |
| The Dolphin |
Further into the cobbled streets of Whitby there are two pubs at the end of the main road, close to the 199 steps: the Board Inn and the Duke of York.
The Duke of York is very popular due to the views across the harbour from a number of the tables. Again, this has had a couple of minor alterations in recent years to expand capacity, and there's a fairly obvious nautical theme. Furnishings are pleasant, staff friendly and efficient. The meals are fine, and the beer is good. If you can get in, then one of the nicer pubs in Whitby, and not resting on its laurels.
(there are no decent pictures of the Duke of York ... certainly the interior shown on their website is pre-alterations)
Next door (and don't accidentally exit the Duke of York for a swift tab, then return to the wrong venue) is the Board Inn. Slightly ignored in favour of its neighbour this is a decent, simple, local pub. Cheap pub grub and nicely kept beer, usually with a few different Theakston's on. You won't go in here and feel disappointed, if it's not exactly a 'wow'.
 |
| The Board Inn (on right is Duke of York ... it's that close!) |
One other pub of note is The Shambles - up the steps near to the cobbled square 50m from the Board Inn. A nice selection of fairly well-kept beer, and okay food but mainly of note for seating offering views across the harbour. Good if a little soulless - not quite a pub, as you'll understand if you go. There are at least another five pubs on this side of the harbour, all within 10 minutes' walk ... plenty of choice!
Returning to the whale-bone side of the town there are a few more pubs worth a mention.
The Wetherspoons in Whitby (The Angel Hotel) is on the corner, just passed where the leisure boats are booked. Although nothing special (beer isn't great, and I'd avoid the food) it's enormous inside, and has one of the fewer outside seating areas which is a sun trap. You can sit and have a pleasant coffee with great views across to the Abbey up on the hill. Coffee and a bacon cob though, is about as far as you ought to sensibly go in terms of food and drink.
Going past the Wetherspoons, continuing towards the train station, you'll find the Station Inn. This has always been one of the better pubs in Whitby, and still is. Good selection of beers, pork pies to eat, and a couple of lovely big fires if you're visiting in the colder months. Busy at times (especially on quiz nights) but if you have the time to spare, a place for a lazy afternoon to slip by.
 |
| Station Inn |
And finally, on the corner as you going up past the church you'll find the Little Angel. One of only a few pubs in Whitby to show sport on TV, but not in an obtrusive way. The beer is good, and although there's not really a food selection beyond a few sandwiches at lunchtime, it's where to go if you need a fix of sport. Bar staff friendly, and it's an easy, casual atmosphere.
 |
| The Little Angel |
So that's my set of recommendations for pubs in Whitby. A set of at least half a dozen to busy yourself with. Enjoy!
Remember: beer - it'll never let you down.
Monday, January 6, 2014
Sherlock 3.02 - Review
Last night's Sherlock was so utterly disappointing that I feel I need to put down what was so wrong just to get over it.
I have no problems with a show based loosely upon Conan Doyle's great detective, but this show, from the outset, has chosen to show *the* Holmes, re-set to today's world, albeit with the obvious difference that the fictional detective was never created (one assumes ... or people in this world are strangely taciturn on the matter).
So, within this set-up, Sherlock needs to be the modern-day Sherlock Holmes, and for the most part the earlier series stuck to that remit. We had updated, yet still recognisable, Holmes stories, with a believable detective and comrade. This however, isn't what we've seen recently. We now have some inconsistent, dimwitted everyday man, with baffling legal connections, and confusing mind slips.
The 'plot' such as it was, took too long to be introduced, flitted around, then climaxed in disappointment. There was no wit, no flair, and no enjoyment. The issue here is that the BBC seem so pleased with the commercial success that they've lost control of Moffat's creation. Or they've forced out an extra series when the storylines weren't ready, just to fill the schedule and keep the pounds rolling in. It's no coincidence that many series start to suffer when writer/director start to take on producing roles - when there's no balancing voice stepping back and saying "hey, are you sure this is good enough?" I find it hard to believe that a producer would have let this rubbish be created had the commercial aspect not been already guaranteed by previous success.
Some of the more crass parts of the storyline (if we'll gloss over the excruciating early minutes that were clearly filler to hit the 90 minute mark)
The Murderer. Operating from some sense of righteous vengeance after the death of army personnel, seeks to kill the commanding officer who is held accountable. Yet, as part of his plan he "rehearses" the murder on an innocent guard? If he's out for revenge, how can his sense of justice let him murder an innocent, just to ensure his own safety? This makes no sense. Was the guard culpable as well? Did we find this out, and I snoozed through it (possibly)
The Guard's (attempted) Murder. On finding the soldier bleeding to death in the shower, the soldier heads for the commanding officer declaring the soldier dead? He doesn't seek medical attention from the army's own doctor? Call an ambulance? No - he acts in a completely unbelievable manner, and with remarkable timing runs in to Watson, who is present at the exact moment of the guard's death. And then Watson calls Sherlock 'nurse' - yes, at the moment you're trying to save someone's life, it's important to make a little side joke about your relative positions at this moment. Quite apart from Sherlock's now apparent lack of knowledge about the human body, even though it's been demonstrated on several occasions that Sherlock has detailed knowledge of human anatomy
Obvious Clues. Leaving aside the fact the Sherlock then drops this murder puzzle for no apparent reason ("too tough; can't solve it" ... which is odd given that he was recounting this tale at the wedding, from a blog post Watson had written - we saw the web page - but apparently none of the guests are big fans of Watson's blog as evidently none had heard of either of the cases Holmes related) so leaving that aside, then the two items (Watson's middle name; that Watson would be attending a wedding) which reveal the killer connection were very, very obvious. To me at the time of watching; yet not to Sherlock when they happened? Conan Doyle made Holmes a brilliant detective - beyond what any man could hope to achieve. Yet suddenly this detective is missing such obvious clues? When did he become a dunderhead? It's established in flashback that Sherlock has searched for weeks/months for Watson's middle-name, so he'd be especially attuned to hearing that very middle name from someone else, and yet he completely misses it. Huh?
Photographer. The whole section of un-masking the photographer as the killer was illogical. Why bother looking through the man's photographs? They had no bearing on anything, other than to add (undramatic) pause. Surely we'd all figured out it was the photographer by that time? And why did it need to be the photographer? Because "no-one notices them, and they can slip in a needle to the wedding in their photography case"? But, the intended victim had brought a handgun with him ... surely that's more of a weapon than the murderer had? And a sword maybe? This wasn't a high security event. Nobody was strip-searched at the door, or had their suitcases examined. The murderer could just have easily have walked in off the street; been already at the hotel; been a waiter; any number of less elaborate pretexts would have been sufficient. Sherlock's whole speech about the advantages leant by being a photographer were spurious. Anyone present had the means and opportunity. Just poison him next time you dolt, ring reception and ask for the room number, catch him on the way to or from the wedding, ... endless other options.
The Murder method. Well, it was kind of silly. Wouldn't such a small puncture wound heal in a few hours? Would blood gush out of such a small hole? Wouldn't you know you'd been stabbed?
Pass Key. Seriously, if someone is in a hotel room in mortal danger, ask reception to open the door. It saves having to kick it in, or negotiate with a potential suicide.
Stag night. Watson has no friends but Sherlock. And fortunately London bars are pretty lax on letting you walk into their bars with large glass beakers. Yes - you can do that in any bar in London. Walk in and walk out with glass. No problem.
And a few others (there are many more) ...
Almost the only moments of merit came from Freeman's Watson, who seemed to be acting in an altogether different, and better, television programme. Maybe in that other programme, Mary would exist for some reason other than as an excuse to set a story at a wedding. If you're going to introduce a new character, actually give her something to do. Seriously underused.
Someone needs to take Moffat et al aside and say, "come on chaps, we know you're very successful right now, but you have to try a little harder. Cumberbatch swishing a coat might thrill the same people who scream at One Direction, but you ought to be aiming a little higher than that." This is Holmes dammit ... if you want to make just any old programme, then choose a different central character.
I have no problems with a show based loosely upon Conan Doyle's great detective, but this show, from the outset, has chosen to show *the* Holmes, re-set to today's world, albeit with the obvious difference that the fictional detective was never created (one assumes ... or people in this world are strangely taciturn on the matter).
So, within this set-up, Sherlock needs to be the modern-day Sherlock Holmes, and for the most part the earlier series stuck to that remit. We had updated, yet still recognisable, Holmes stories, with a believable detective and comrade. This however, isn't what we've seen recently. We now have some inconsistent, dimwitted everyday man, with baffling legal connections, and confusing mind slips.
The 'plot' such as it was, took too long to be introduced, flitted around, then climaxed in disappointment. There was no wit, no flair, and no enjoyment. The issue here is that the BBC seem so pleased with the commercial success that they've lost control of Moffat's creation. Or they've forced out an extra series when the storylines weren't ready, just to fill the schedule and keep the pounds rolling in. It's no coincidence that many series start to suffer when writer/director start to take on producing roles - when there's no balancing voice stepping back and saying "hey, are you sure this is good enough?" I find it hard to believe that a producer would have let this rubbish be created had the commercial aspect not been already guaranteed by previous success.
Some of the more crass parts of the storyline (if we'll gloss over the excruciating early minutes that were clearly filler to hit the 90 minute mark)
The Murderer. Operating from some sense of righteous vengeance after the death of army personnel, seeks to kill the commanding officer who is held accountable. Yet, as part of his plan he "rehearses" the murder on an innocent guard? If he's out for revenge, how can his sense of justice let him murder an innocent, just to ensure his own safety? This makes no sense. Was the guard culpable as well? Did we find this out, and I snoozed through it (possibly)
The Guard's (attempted) Murder. On finding the soldier bleeding to death in the shower, the soldier heads for the commanding officer declaring the soldier dead? He doesn't seek medical attention from the army's own doctor? Call an ambulance? No - he acts in a completely unbelievable manner, and with remarkable timing runs in to Watson, who is present at the exact moment of the guard's death. And then Watson calls Sherlock 'nurse' - yes, at the moment you're trying to save someone's life, it's important to make a little side joke about your relative positions at this moment. Quite apart from Sherlock's now apparent lack of knowledge about the human body, even though it's been demonstrated on several occasions that Sherlock has detailed knowledge of human anatomy
Obvious Clues. Leaving aside the fact the Sherlock then drops this murder puzzle for no apparent reason ("too tough; can't solve it" ... which is odd given that he was recounting this tale at the wedding, from a blog post Watson had written - we saw the web page - but apparently none of the guests are big fans of Watson's blog as evidently none had heard of either of the cases Holmes related) so leaving that aside, then the two items (Watson's middle name; that Watson would be attending a wedding) which reveal the killer connection were very, very obvious. To me at the time of watching; yet not to Sherlock when they happened? Conan Doyle made Holmes a brilliant detective - beyond what any man could hope to achieve. Yet suddenly this detective is missing such obvious clues? When did he become a dunderhead? It's established in flashback that Sherlock has searched for weeks/months for Watson's middle-name, so he'd be especially attuned to hearing that very middle name from someone else, and yet he completely misses it. Huh?
Photographer. The whole section of un-masking the photographer as the killer was illogical. Why bother looking through the man's photographs? They had no bearing on anything, other than to add (undramatic) pause. Surely we'd all figured out it was the photographer by that time? And why did it need to be the photographer? Because "no-one notices them, and they can slip in a needle to the wedding in their photography case"? But, the intended victim had brought a handgun with him ... surely that's more of a weapon than the murderer had? And a sword maybe? This wasn't a high security event. Nobody was strip-searched at the door, or had their suitcases examined. The murderer could just have easily have walked in off the street; been already at the hotel; been a waiter; any number of less elaborate pretexts would have been sufficient. Sherlock's whole speech about the advantages leant by being a photographer were spurious. Anyone present had the means and opportunity. Just poison him next time you dolt, ring reception and ask for the room number, catch him on the way to or from the wedding, ... endless other options.
The Murder method. Well, it was kind of silly. Wouldn't such a small puncture wound heal in a few hours? Would blood gush out of such a small hole? Wouldn't you know you'd been stabbed?
Pass Key. Seriously, if someone is in a hotel room in mortal danger, ask reception to open the door. It saves having to kick it in, or negotiate with a potential suicide.
Stag night. Watson has no friends but Sherlock. And fortunately London bars are pretty lax on letting you walk into their bars with large glass beakers. Yes - you can do that in any bar in London. Walk in and walk out with glass. No problem.
And a few others (there are many more) ...
- pointless opening scenes to show that Lestrade trusts Sherlock too much. Sledge-hammer plot point. No nuance.
- Sherlock not understanding he was being asked to be best man. An obvious and unfunny joke, at odds with the actual character.
- Sherlock prepping wedding guests to be nice. Holmes wouldn't have an interest in such frippery; it was inconsistent with both previous Sherlock episodes, and with the Holmes character.
- Sherlock being sentimental to the point of nausea; no-one saying "hang on a sec pal, this is about the happy couple, not you" (the tedious wedding speech where Mary wasn't even mentioned, other than as an adjunct to Watson)
Almost the only moments of merit came from Freeman's Watson, who seemed to be acting in an altogether different, and better, television programme. Maybe in that other programme, Mary would exist for some reason other than as an excuse to set a story at a wedding. If you're going to introduce a new character, actually give her something to do. Seriously underused.
Someone needs to take Moffat et al aside and say, "come on chaps, we know you're very successful right now, but you have to try a little harder. Cumberbatch swishing a coat might thrill the same people who scream at One Direction, but you ought to be aiming a little higher than that." This is Holmes dammit ... if you want to make just any old programme, then choose a different central character.
Saturday, June 15, 2013
Battlestar Galactica - a Review
Battlestar Galactica - a Review
I never watched Battlestar Galactica (BSG) when it was 'on' - I recall flicking on to a few episodes to see scantily clad young ladies sweating, and thought it wasn't for me. So, I'm late in the day here, but a colleague recently lent me the entire series box set and since March I've been ploughing through them. And so here is my review of the much-admired show.
Spoiler Alert
Contains *many* spoilers! |
| Cylon! |
 |
| Cylon! |
In summary it struck me a lot like Lost. Remember Lost at the beginning? When it was clever, mysterious, and intriguing? When you were thinking - is the island moving? does everything that kid think of materialise? who are The Others? What do those numbers mean? And then - much like other J.J. Abrahms shows - it just fizzled out. An idea that started one way; became too popular so it *had* to be drawn out, and then became nothing sensible in the end. So, that for me, is almost BSG. 'Almost' I say, as at least BSG *ended*. And properly - there's nothing more to see here. We're done.
 |
| Grumpy Old Cylon |
The Pilot
The pilot show was excellent. Very good indeed. It took the original 70s series premise and shifted it into the now. A re-boot that both made sense, and extended the original ideas. Characters were introduced carefully and with a decent back-story. Good sci-fi that you wanted to watch. All in all a truly excellent start to a show. Well done.Seasons 1 and 2
 |
| Grumpy Old Man |
Political and religious themes were introduced, but given such wafer-thin treatment that they were hardly worth mentioning. Certainly not handled on a serious level.
Certain currents ran throughout but not sensibly (50,000 survivors with a huge press corp; an ex-convict taken seriously as a presidential candidate; a clearly psychotic traitor - yes, you, Baltar, given more and more credence and power) It was a world that made sense only if everyone was congenitally stupid.
Not to say that all things were bad. The sub-plots involving the Caprica-bound Helo and one-of-many Boomer was well done; in complete contrast to the obvious sports-jock fling between Anders and Starbuck. But the original attacks of the Cylons, the breaking of the truce, the Cylon skin-job in-fighting and angst (given they'd just wiped out billions) never really explained. No rationale. Overall a big disappointment given what came before.
 |
| Fit Cylon |
Season 3
The toughest to get through. I know several people who gave up at this point, and I almost joined them. We start well enough with the occupation of New Caprica, but the subjugation and rehabilation of the survivors is too quick - collaborators one week; Galactica soldiers the next.The episodes became tedious - Baltar's trial and acquittal too unbelievable. Tyrol and Starbuck's weekly personality changes. The Lee, Kara, Anders triangle too re-hashed. Themes introduced and dropped willy-nilly. But I stuck with it, and towards the end we at least seemed to be heading somewhere. The apparent death of Starbuck (who was convinced though - let's see hands) and then the final reveal ... four of the final five out in the open.
Season 4 (or Season 4 plus the Final Season in the UK)
 |
| Not Quantum Leap Cylon |
The final showdown between the humans and renegade Cylons against the remaining Cylons was fairly well done, and then we finished in a final sort of way.
Not the worst show I've ever seen, but as sci-fi ... well, the political and religious themes weren't as well thought out as on Babylon 5 (which had an awful final season, and pretty dire concluding penultimate one); and never captured the joy or the comradery of Farscape (possibly the best of all sci-fi series ... had it ended at season 4).
Major Grumbles
My main issues lie around several, what we'd call, "changed premises":Timeline
 |
| Cylon Jock |
Cylons are un-detectable
(apart from by Centurions, or other Cylons, but not by other skin-jobs - i.e. a Cylon will spot Anders and back-off, but the others won't; apart from when they are revealed, when they will - clear?)
 |
| Stubbly Cylon |
So we know Balter was talking doo-doo when he was building his Cylon detector, and even when they conveniently declared "this aint a Cylon cos their DNA is the same as when we last recorded it" (yes, I know). But in essence these things are identical, down to DNA level with humans.
 |
| Conveniently Introduced-late Cylon |
Changed Personalities
Chief. Chief Chief. Lee. Lee. Lee. Starbuck. Starbuck. Starbuck. |
| Not-a-Cylon |
Here, there be Angels
So, if we can get over the fact that Baltar acts constantly and consistently like a lunatic - talking to himself; being shifty; acting suspiciously, we eventually find out that he's being guided by an angelic Six; whilst his Caprica Six is being guided by angelic Baltar. And although these angels are sub-standard (appearing only to one person) we then get Angel Thrace, who is a fully-interactive, drinking, swearing, fracking, human. Except she aint. Nor, it appears, is she leading mankind to their doom. If she did, then it was when she led them to "Earth" as after that, she was dead. So that wasn't their doom was it? No. It wasn't. You can't trust hybrids clearly.Earth/"Earth"
 |
| Drunk Angel |
 |
| Jessie J |
Hendrix
So, if they ended up on our Earth, and I'm guessing the idea is they seeded life here, then the Hendrix they were listening to wasn't our Hendrix. So, this "all this has happened before, and will happen again" is very literal. Unto each generation a Hendrix is born. And a Dylan. And they will write and cover a specific song. Makes you wonder why you bother, eh?In summary...
Generally, a lot of the acting was good, especially from Edward James Olmos, Mary McDonnell, and Tricia Helfer. The rigour of military life and command was also well handled in the most, and there was a nice 'reality-grime' to life on board. They were well-defined if fickle. And it ended. Never discount the value of an ending.Personally, I thought that it would turn out that *everyone* was a Cylon. And this was a re-enactment they went through as penance for the destruction of an entire race. That would have been a nice twist.
Overall, enjoyable, but not the great ground-breaking show people would have you believe.
Friday, April 12, 2013
PM David Cameron answered my question
PM David Cameron answered my question:
-----------------------
What do you make of his answer?
And here's my question in full:
Mike Flint asked via email: Do you think it is adequate that James Crosby gives up three letters in front of his name as penance for his part in the downfall of HBOS?
David Cameron's response: This is his responsibility - and giving up his knighthood and some of his pension was the right decision.
-----------------------
What do you make of his answer?
And here's my question in full:
(Sir) James Crosby
Do you think it is adequate that James Crosby gives up three letters in front of his name as penance for his part in the downfall of HBOS? What does the fact that he only made this offer after a report was published, detailing his inadequacies? Surely the facts of the matter were apparent (to him at least) much earlier, yet he was offered, and took a position in a financial institute knowing his part in the HBOS collapse. What does this say of the FSA? Many more people who were much less culpable lost much more as a result of his actions. Where is the parity in how he is feeling the pain, compared to those who lost jobs and homes by his incompetence. This doesn't feel to me like we're together in this at all. When will the government step in and take real action against those responsible for major contributions to financial failure? If you'll chase a reporter for hacking a phone, why not a CEO for ruining lives through their (proven) negligence?Monday, December 17, 2012
The Shocking Truth about UK Gun Deaths
With current tragic news stories, there seems to have been a large number of emotive posts on the subject of gun deaths, so I though I'd represent here some number based facts on the matter.
Using the US as my baseline I will reveal some startling facts about our own country, which points at a sinister plot to deny us accurate details on what could be happening on our own doorstep.
To make the numbers easy to understand, I'm rounding to the nearest unit in all cases...
Firstly, let's look at Gun Ownership in the US versus the UK:
Guns in US = 300m
Guns in UK = 2m
(based on general figures from a number of sources)
So a basic ratio of US/UK guns = 150:1
Now, an approximate figure for annual gun deaths in the US is around the 10,000 mark (I've seen figures ranging from 9,000 up to 30,000 ... 10,000 seems a reasonable approximation).
Now, this figure is based on the current controls within the US, where certain states restrict the carrying of guns in certain areas (for example, schools, movie theatres, and so on). Therefore, with the much greater restrictions here in the UK (no public gun carrying), we need to scale that figure up by the reduced safety caused by these restrictions.
Let us again approximate. Limiting ourselves to populated areas, consider the lack of defence as proportionally twice as high with current restrictions (this might seem too low, but we need to account for the large un-populated areas).
Therefore, proportionally, we would have 20,000 gun deaths per annum.
However, this is at our restricted level of gun ownership. As has been stated, were we to have more guns (more means of self-defence) there would be fewer deaths. Therefore, we need to scale up the deaths by the proportional lack of guns, which as given above is about 150:1.
So, taking the 20,000, multiplied by 150 yields 3,000,000 gun deaths.
Of course, we now need to account for a smaller population.
UK population = 60m
US population = 300m
With that 1/5th population we arrive at the actual figure of:
600,000
(I know .... I was shocked too, to see this figure)
However, and this is where things take a sinister turn, official figures show around only 100 per year (even in a 'bad' year). That's a mere fraction - 1/6000th of what the baseline numbers predict it should be from our US model. So clearly we are being misled somehow, as the working out is accurate, and the base figures approximately right.
We need to speak to our government urgently and find out what is behind these misleading figures. Identify what the real numbers are, and get to the root of this mass deception. And soon.
It's either that, or the entire set of premises to my argument is false, and the people supporting them are wildly off the mark. Yet my figures are 'good' so where can the logic error be?
Using the US as my baseline I will reveal some startling facts about our own country, which points at a sinister plot to deny us accurate details on what could be happening on our own doorstep.
To make the numbers easy to understand, I'm rounding to the nearest unit in all cases...
Firstly, let's look at Gun Ownership in the US versus the UK:
Guns in US = 300m
Guns in UK = 2m
(based on general figures from a number of sources)
So a basic ratio of US/UK guns = 150:1
Now, an approximate figure for annual gun deaths in the US is around the 10,000 mark (I've seen figures ranging from 9,000 up to 30,000 ... 10,000 seems a reasonable approximation).
Now, this figure is based on the current controls within the US, where certain states restrict the carrying of guns in certain areas (for example, schools, movie theatres, and so on). Therefore, with the much greater restrictions here in the UK (no public gun carrying), we need to scale that figure up by the reduced safety caused by these restrictions.
Let us again approximate. Limiting ourselves to populated areas, consider the lack of defence as proportionally twice as high with current restrictions (this might seem too low, but we need to account for the large un-populated areas).
Therefore, proportionally, we would have 20,000 gun deaths per annum.
However, this is at our restricted level of gun ownership. As has been stated, were we to have more guns (more means of self-defence) there would be fewer deaths. Therefore, we need to scale up the deaths by the proportional lack of guns, which as given above is about 150:1.
So, taking the 20,000, multiplied by 150 yields 3,000,000 gun deaths.
Of course, we now need to account for a smaller population.
UK population = 60m
US population = 300m
With that 1/5th population we arrive at the actual figure of:
600,000
(I know .... I was shocked too, to see this figure)
However, and this is where things take a sinister turn, official figures show around only 100 per year (even in a 'bad' year). That's a mere fraction - 1/6000th of what the baseline numbers predict it should be from our US model. So clearly we are being misled somehow, as the working out is accurate, and the base figures approximately right.
We need to speak to our government urgently and find out what is behind these misleading figures. Identify what the real numbers are, and get to the root of this mass deception. And soon.
It's either that, or the entire set of premises to my argument is false, and the people supporting them are wildly off the mark. Yet my figures are 'good' so where can the logic error be?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)