PM David Cameron answered my question

PM David Cameron answered my question:

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?

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?

All humans are murderers

... or the "The Sad Tale of Chicken Little"

I recently came across this heart-rending tale and had to share it with my hordes of avid readers. This pitiful note was found scrawled on the underside of hut No. 5 at Grangefield chicken farm, Eurasia (names have been changed to protect the innocent):

"I hate all humans.

I didn't use to. Don't get me wrong - I wasn't hatched into the world with this bitterness and hatred in me. I've been made that way.

Okay. Let's start at the beginning.

Once, when I was young and carefree, I'd love my time chirping and pecking along with my lovely, fluffy brothers and sisters. We'd have such fun playing around in the dirt. Getting excited at feeding time; hiding from mum when she turned away from us; teasing the little piglets next door; hiding under the hut then jumping out when the old dog went by, ...

Oh I recall those days so fondly. Lovely, happy, precious, innocent moments. I never really noticed that sad, worried, frightened look in my mother's eye. I never considered where this was all leading to.

But then things started to change. I think ... yes, it was quite a wet day ... the five of us had just been nestled together trying to stay dry when there was a terrible commotion two huts down. Shrieks of terror. 'Take me! Take me!' I thought I heard distinctly among the sound of the raindrops and the squawks of fear. 'Take me...'

That was the first day. From then on my world descended into carnage. Madness. Those I thought my friends amongst the humans (the nice woman who brought the feed) were involved, it was clear. The huts started to empty. Hushed words were passed between us. Tales of capture, murder, and terrible unspeakable things. "They eat us!" I heard once. I shudder to think of it. 

Now, we're the last hut unaffected. Well, that was until today. When my sisters were with me. Now there's just me. My mother ... she cannot speak. Her eyes...

So now I know the true nature of humans. These killers. These hateful, awful creatures. We need to unite against them. Make sure future generations know our fate, so they can guard against these dreadful beings. I hope you, my brethren, are able to find my words, and know the face of the enemy."

And that was all we found. I'm not sure what happened to 'Little'; only that when we arrived at the farm to liberate it, we found no living birds in that place. It's with a heavy heart that I realise we were one, maybe two, days late to save the last of the farmstead. She will have died hating us all. Never knowing that her view of humanity was limited to those few she encountered, and coloured by their behaviours, not knowing this was the merest fraction of humanity.

Politics, Philosophy and Economics

The social media world is an amazingly reactive beast, which is sometimes a good thing, and sometimes bad. Polarised views surface quickly, and we (or rather, politicians) need to be mindful of the knee-jerk reaction and concomitant views often expressed.

Let's look at three recent examples of the last week.

Julian Assange
The Wikileaks founder/rape story is one where proponents of either camp seem keen to overlook facts, and instead work from speculation and hearsay. Although that's fine for you and I (nobody really cares what you or I think), if you're a politician, my best advice to you would be, in the words of Homer Simpson, "to keep your damn fool mouth shut."

Advocates of Assange press the point that the allegations against Assange came after the US had reacted bitterly to the release of 'secrets' on the Wikileaks site (I say 'secrets' ... the US spy on friend and foe alike; they quite often say one thing to your face, and another behind your back ... ?  Well, hardly cause for a new book of Revelation for that); and that there appears to have been prior congress between Assange and his accusers.

Those of the opposing view appear to have already convicted Assange in their mind, and see him as a self-serving misogynist, using his notoriety and fame as a shield against the attempts at justice.

Probably neither camp has it right, and the best course of action would be for the judicial process be allowed to progress. Those worried that Assange won't get a proper trial (when/if he is arrested and charged) should consider that Sweden is hardly a US puppet-state without a proper legal system. Those who are already treating him like a convicted rapist should remember that he is innocent of any crime until proved otherwise.

However, those like Mr Galloway who seek to jump into the limelight as a result of the media frenzy (so unlike George...) ought to keep their thoughts to themselves. Social media is great at demonstrating the adage; "best to keep your mouth closed and let everyone think you're an idiot, rather than to open it and remove all doubt."

And whilst I'm dishing out mild admonishments, 'feminist former MP for Corby', Louise Mensch ought to consider the propriety of re-tweeting this 'joke':

Simon Hinde ‏@Simonhinde

#assange ends speech with a big shout to "all the ladies in the house" and invites some girl from the audience to join him on the balcony

- at the very least, poor taste.

Todd Akin / "Legitimate Rape"
For those of you who haven't seen it, the video of Mr Akin is a priceless wonder:

http://t.co/MxQlud5u

For once, he can hardly offer the "quoted out of context" defence. Let's ignore the "legitimate rape" line, as it's been re-quoted to death (and for what it's worth I think he was possibly trying to make a distinction between 'alleged' and 'proved' rape; but that's by-the-by ... if you make the claim for 'legitimate rape' then you obviously open yourself up to the counter statement, and that's something to avoid). In case I'm being unclear - all rape is rape. It's so obvious, it hardly needs saying.

What I find incredible though, is that this is a grown man, in his 50s/60s, with an entourage of advisers, who would have primed him for the interview; someone who will have undergone a vetting process to get this far in politics; and at no point did anyone realise / notice / understand / question this man's idiotic grasp of basic human biology. It begs the question - how exactly are these people advised and vetted? Are US politicians really so naive about the world? Is this the level of ignorance and stupidity that the 'bible belt' breeds? It's shameful. It's embarrassing.

If there's one with this level of stupidity, doesn't it call into doubt all the others in the 'Grand Old Party'? US Democrats laughing their way to re-election.


Girl Arrested for Blasphemy
Finally, there's the story of an 11-year old girl in Pakistan with Down's Syndrome who has been arrested for desecrating pages of the Koran. In Pakistan, it's a crime punishable by life imprisonment. However, I hope/think this is one of those sensationalist stories that has been picked up from an AP feed, and the truth is somewhat less dramatic.  The main threat from desecrating the Koran appears to be from mob-mentality, threatening ill to any perpetrator. In fact a few politicians have been killed for threatening to suggest the repealing of such laws.

In this case I think the authorities are aware of the girl's age, and of her condition, and she's been taken into custody as much for her protection as for anything else. But it's a juicy tale we can get enraged at, so that's why it's been reported I suspect.

It's one of those cases where we need to accept that not all countries and societies are like ours. We can't celebrate diversity and multiculturalism one moment, and then decry it the next. Of course, it's absurd to punish a child with  an illness for her actions; yet we shouldn't either try to enforce our morality and sensibilities on a foreign culture. We let them live and act as they see fit, and hope that their convictions conform to a sensible moral code. We have various international human rights' acts to suggest a minimum acceptable treatment to people, and suitable diplomatic processes in place to ensure this is enforced. At times we need to trust that sense and justice will prevail. Rushing to take the moral high-ground is rarely going to increase the chances of our words of protest being heard.

---

Phew!  After all that I feel quite tired.  Time for another glass I think ...

(Anti) Gun Control Laws

I don't have quite the level of energy required to detail all my thoughts on this matter, but in the wake of the Aurora killings, I have heard the three following 'arguments' from, I believe, Republican supporters of not imposing greater gun control in the US:

"Guns are less lethal than bombs"
Yes, this was one of them. The quote I read was roughly "hey, this guy apparently knew explosives, so be thankful he had access to guns, or it could have been much worse."

"Gun control caused more deaths in the movie theater"
Again, this is an actual argument made by an (ex-) Republican politician. His argument being that, apparently, there's a 'no guns' policy in American movie theaters, so the victims were un-armed when they were attacked. Had they only had their fire-arms with them, they could have returned fire, thus disabling the miscreant before there was too much loss of life.

"The 9/11 terrorists didn't use guns to kill, and they killed thousands"
Basically, there were many more victims of the 9/11 attacks than at Aurora, and those killers did not use guns, they used planes, so removing access to guns wouldn't have stopped the largest single terrorist act against the US.

-------------

I don't intend to critique these arguments, as I don't believe that is necessary. There are no words I could use to adequately express their fallacy; and any I gave would not dissuade those who hold such opinions from their views, as they evidently possess a form of logic completely alien to my own.

I just felt like recording them here, for the sheer wonder they inspired in me.

Film Review - "Never Let Me Go"

I don't often (okay, never ... well, let's leave aside those huge lists of films I've posted before, yes? Deal) do film reviews in my blog, but with IMDB, LoveFilm, Amazon, ... to choose from, why not go for a little personal reviewing, eh? There will be slight spoilers...

It's a poster (honest)

So without further prevarication, here's my review of the 2010 film 'Never Let Me Go', starring Keira Knightly (both 'k's are pronounced of course), Carey Mulligan, and soon-to-be friendly-neighborhood (sic) Andrew Garfield. 

Mostly this is a review of reviews - namely the IMDB ones, simply because a lot of them have clearly missed the point. This is an amazing film; beautifully and skilfully acted, well-written, and superbly photographed. The cast (both young, and slightly older) are universally excellent, fitting their performances into a stilted, slightly other-wordly framework, without ever falling into sentimental schmaltz.

For those of you who don't know Ishiguro's story, this is a film set in 'another England' one where human transplants have become the order of the day; a means to the end of elongating human life beyond it's current boundaries, with a devious, amoral scheme to ensure there are always organs available to harvest. The majority of criticism I have read centres around the central premise, and subsequent action (or inaction) of the main protagonists - "why didn't they run?" "couldn't they have escaped?" and so on. But to concentrate solely on this aspect of the film completely misses what the story is about. To draw a parallel, consider Speilberg's remake of 'War of the Worlds'. Those familiar with the original story and film know this is a fight between humanity and an invading alien force. Speilberg could simply have re-worked that theme into his film, but rather than do that, he took it as read that these events, the action, was unfolding as we all expected it to, and he chose instead to focus on the perspective as seen from an ordinary family. So rather than the epic battles between terrestrial and extraterrestrial forces, these are only hinted at, shown off-screen, their consequences felt but not observed. Instead we see the impact these moments have through the lens of a family unit; shattered then re-formed. We see the little person in the big picture. It becomes real and personal for us. The same story, from a different angle. A proper 're-imagining'.

Similarly 'Never Let Me Go' could have been a different film. There could have been scientific breakthroughs shown; a sea change in attitudes towards organ transplants and donors. Perhaps early experiments in embryo growth or cloning; scenes of failures. An admittance that a 'real' upbringing was required in order to succeed. Shots of moral protestations; marches, a political and ethical battle. The eventual creation of 'farm units'; creation of a control and monitoring mechanism, and so on and so on. We could have had that movie instead. The story of the mechanics of how the situation arose. But we didn't. Instead, just like Speilberg had done, we got the story from the personal perspective of a number of individuals caught up within the events. So, we didn't get to see all of the aspects that were there. Questions were left unanswered (why did they want to meet their originals? why didn't they run? what were the bracelets?) but the point is, that wasn't the story to tell. That would have simply been another interesting future / "what if?" scenario played out for the plot, rather than a story about humanity, life, and the precious moments and opportunities it presents.

Carey Mulligan ... rising star of cinema

So, to those asking for the why, the what, the how - that's not what this film was about. It's a personal exploration, an empassioned cry, an imperative tale about the singularity of existence, and about making the correct decisions in life when that life has a limited life-span. At its essence it was about human life. Ishiguro's point is that we are the donors, not the 'people' in the film. We are the ones with a limited life that can end suddenly, and will probably seem to have no ultimate purpose. Yet even with those confines in place, we can still choose how to live and how to make the best use of that time. And whether that's 20, 30, or 90 years that theme still applies.

It's a brilliant film. One of the finest I've seen in the last decade. Stellar cast - Mulligan is a great of cinema in the making, and any film with Andrea Riseborough in can't be that bad.

Possibly a poor film review, but not a review of a poor film. And, hey, it's my blog.

Childhood Terrors

... or "TV programmes that scared the bejeesus out of you but were too afraid to ask"


There are two TV programmes I recall vividly as a child that I found terrifying. Really terrifying, not just a "ooh look a cuddly monster, I'll hide behind the sofa" style, but the "I can't sleep, cos if I shut my eyes it'll get me, soaked in sweat, gripping duvet cover for dear life" sort of way.
And recently I've managed to track them both down, and now possess both on DVD. Unwatched thus far, of course.

So, to make it clear, I never found Dr Who scary as a child, and I never watched it from behind the settee. It's just not that frightening (well, some of the recent Moffat episodes have been, but let's not wander too far from the path. You'll be able to pull me up on the 'wandering' thing shortly. Trust me).

Anyway, back to those programmes. Well, not actually. Whilst I'm in the general area I'll mention three films that left a great impression on me, and I think they are still quite effective today. But they were all first watched as a child, so bear with me. The first is 'Quatermass and the Pit'; it's the scene in the house towards the beginning, when the policeman is explaining that the house has always had a strange feeling and was generally empty, and the explanation of the origin of the street name - Hobbs Lane (being the name for the Devil I think?). The second is 'The Haunting' - the Robert Wise black and white version. Too creepy to go into details. It just is. And then there's "Something Evil" one of the TV movies Speilberg made before his big movie breakthrough came. Unlike 'Duel' this is a straight-forward horror movie, along the lines of several made in the mid- to early-70s ... couple move into farmhouse, strange things happen, turns out to be occupied by demons. In this incarnation the wife is played by Sandy Dennis, with Darren McGavin as her TV producer hubby. As is typical, 'she' is convinced something's afoot, but 'he' is more dismissive; the key scene is at the studio when he's reviewing some test footage taken at his house earlier in the day. "Wait, what was that? Rewind back for me." And behind his wife, from inside the window of his house, a pair of demonic red eyes glows then fades, as we zoom in. Unnerving.

Anyway, where was I? Oh yes ...

So, as a child I loved lego. The proper, hard to take apart, sharp and hard as glass stuff, not that flimsy collapsing inferior rubbish you often were treated to. And when I was but seven of eight my uncle gave me his son's lego collection (it was the yucky stuff by and large), in a lovely box he'd made himself (my uncle that is). About a metre square by four centimetres high, with a sliding cover made of hardboard. Beautifully painted on the cover was a road layout, around which you could build and place lego buildings, and there were a few cars in the box too. It was very, very nice. Lovely little compartments for your lego to be sorted into. Great stuff. However, on the back of that lid (on the rough criss-cross underside of the hardboard), if you could locate that box today - and I can; I don't "hand-down" my lego to no-one, not no how, no way, bud - you'd find a drawing of a house. A simple, childlike drawing; four windows, two up, to down, each divided into four 'panes'; door in the middle; chimney pot; fence; path; gate. You know the sort of thing. However, the 'garden' of the house unusually holds a number of rather unpleasent looking monoculus rock-like blobs. And the windows of that house ... well, someone has scribbled over them in some sort of pique.

It's all a bit sinister. Or not. As I did that drawing, echoing what the main protagonist of terrifying TV programme number one did. Although her actions had much more interesting consequences, other than merely defacing a fairly nice present. So, this is (I got there in the end) 'Escape into Night'. Based on the book 'Marianne's Dream' it's about a young girl, who whilst off school with a broken foot, draws a house in a sketchbook. Then when she falls asleep she awakens in the garden of that house. But it's a house with an occupant. A sickly, wheelchair-bound boy, who might just exist in real life. One who perhaps can't walk because he was never drawn with legs. In one encounter etched on my memory they argue, and when she wakes up she scribbles over the house. When she returns to the house in her next dream, black bars cover the windows, exactly mirroring the arced lines of scribbled lead she had made earlier that day. There's an out-of-tune radio that whispers to her; a grandfather clock with but a single hand; the rock-like sentinels in the garden with their light beams issuing from their single eye, slowly advancing on the house; and then, finally, the boy's lost father, set to return to the house in the final episode, blind, furious, and utterly deranged.

All this in the 4:20 slot for 'younger children' preceeding the likes of fluffy Magpie, and happy-go-lucky Blue Peter in the scheduling. I would watch it (on Wednesdays I think) on my own. Like all series at that age, it seemed to last forever, yet was only six episodes. Lost to time I thought (no-one else at school ever watched it ... in recent years I've almost doubted the memory) but it's now on youTube (illegally?), and those nice people at Network DVD have it for sale! Me bought. So, of course, it's terribly dated, with 'jolly hockey-sticks' children saying "mummy, mummy, whhhyy don't the poooor children like us?" yet imagine this as a children's programme, when you're seven.


If I have the wit I'll include a link or two below:

(watch the opening seconds, if only for that "dum dum dummm, darr da-darrrrr" of the ATV logo!) ... watch from 6:30 in for about 5 mins, until Marianne leaves the house again. This is just after she argued with Mark (the boy) so rubbed him out in her pad, and drew her friend in to take his place. #Fail, were she around today!  Oh - and do watch the end credits, for more creep-out time :)

The second programme was a much shorter, but much much scarier memory. For which I blame my mother. All I recall of it was this: there's a scene set in Victorian times, I guess, of a man recounting a tale of terror. He claims that his house (or family) is haunted by the ghost of a horse. The man's house is by the edge of some moors. As he tells the tale, we cut to a view of the moor at night, the camera panning as though following something, before we switch to a view as though from a horse, the image bouncing up and down, the sound of heavy horse breath, the pounding of hooves. The scene switches to inside the house. A man is walking along the hallway away from the door. He stops, apparently startled by something. He turns. We are outside again, seeing as the horse, pounding towards the house, galloping down to the doorway. Back to the man, he opens his mouth as though to scream, but before he can a splintering crash breaks the silence. We're the horse again, in the house, the man before us, we bear down on him, then rise as though preparing to kick and trample him to his death ...

At which point, my mother says, "Oh I think this is a bit frightening for you, better get to bed." Oh yes, that's a good plan. Now I only have my imagination to terrify my for the rest of my life. Much better than seeing the whole thing and having the suspense dispelled.

So for (possibly) about forty years I've had that in my head, and it's really been a bit too scary for me to look into. And I didn't think that searching for "TV ghost horse Victorian" would be much good. But then again, I was wrong. So I now have in my possession series one of a short-lived thing called "The Rivals of Sherlock Holmes", a series of independent stories featuring other Victorian era detectives, who never enjoyed the Baker Street occupant's fame. And episode 5 is entitled, "The Horse of the Invisible" with plot synopsis: "A ghost detective enters the gas-lit shadows of the Higgins family in search of an invisible horse which haunts them." Now that sounds 'promising' (if that word is appropriate). And it even stars Donald Pleasance, and I have the vaguest of vague recollections of seeing him in the show. It's almost as though the more I consider it, the more I recall. The watching itself might take the odd stiff whisky ... or daylight. Plenty of daylight.

Well, there you have them. Two 'moments' from my childhood. Forgive me my rambling, but the context is quite crucial for these things.

What were the 'killer creepies' of your childhood? And have you laid those ghosts to rest, or do they still haunt you?