£1000 fine for using the wrong bin? Something very wrong here.

There is something very wrong with a country that can fine an ordinary person up to £1000 ($1400) for using the wrong bin, or for putting too much waste into one, while it cannot even fine violent criminals an appropriate amount. Is it just another cynical attempt to tax by stealth? The thing is that many councils do not recycle recyclable waste properly anyway!

Britain has a higher violent crime rate than the US and any country in Europe, according to the Conservative Party. Its no wonder when you look at the fact that most violent criminals are fined less than £1000 and even then given ridiculous lengths of time to pay. One man recently was fined £750 for a violent mugging (plus a suspended sentence) and was ordered to pay at the rate of £1.50 a week. Thats over 9 years to pay!

Our schools admit that one in ten children cannot read or write properly when they leave school. Our university graduates cannot spell or add up without a calculator. Our only 'Boom Industries' are Crime and Punishment. Britain is fast becoming a refuge for the lazy, the criminal, and the incompetent. Something needs to be done about it.

It is time I think for the legal system of this country to be quietly dismantled, the rubbish stripped out, and a new system concocted which stands a chance of working in this Modern Age.

Big Freeze Part 2- Death toll is 60-80,000

So what is wrong with this picture in a major nation (or are we now in truth a third world country).

• Shops running short on food and putting up prices.
• Road and rail transport in Chaos
• Air transport Failing
• Gas Supplies reportedly in danger of failing.
• Food supplies to run lower as harvest fails and crops rot in the ground.
• 60-80,000 elderly predicted to die before their time because they are frightened of heating costs

Yes at the moment 60,000 pensioners are predicted to die before their time as a result of the freeze-up yet in the last freeze in 1963 there were 89,000 premature deaths.

To put this in some perspective during the whole of WW2 the civilian death toll in Britain was some 67,000. So how come Gordon brown is doing as good a job (or possibly better) than Hitler at attacking his citizens?

I fear the answer is simple mathematics. The old age pension now stands at an average of around £83 per person per week. 80,000 x 83 x 52 = £345.28 Million per year. It is estimated that the average old age pensioner costs an additional £35 a week for carers and other council services. This is 80,000 x 35 x 52 = £145.6 million per year. However the average pensioner costs the NHS a wopping £85 a week for free prescriptions and hospital/clinic treatments. This is 80,000 x 85 x 52 =£353.6 million. Now let us say that the average pensioner who dies would have lived an extra five years with decent care. This means that (345.28+145.6+353.6) x 5 - thats £4,222,400,000 (or 4.22 Billion pounds) that is saved.

In other words the freeze is saving the government around 4 billion pounds over the next five years!

Its easy for Gordon to get away with it. Lets face it most of the 'people who matter' in this country live in London which has only had 14cms of snow, travel disruption here has been minimal or non existent and peoples lives, elderly or not are barely affected. So by carefully avoiding making this an issue he can brush this under the political carpet (which this year seems to be full of lumps and bumps).

It would be different is London were to suddenly get 2 meters of snow... oh yes! Something would undoubtedly have to be done then. I do hope it happens.

More Details on Global Warming Lies

Here is a more detailed discussion on why too much action on Global Warming is probably not a good thing. I realise that I risk Gordon Brown calling me a flat-earther by publishing this but hey I can bear it! See also Global Warming Article

Firstly within WRITTEN History there have been warm periods such as and possibly even warmer than the current 'peak' year of 1998. Yes thats right 1998 was the warmest year on direct scientific record and not any of the later years. this is because of glo9bal cooling (but we will come to that).

The ‘medieval warm period’ was a 350 year stretch of good weather that started around 1000AD. Writers at the time, and archeological evidence suggests that the globe was far warmer then than it is now.

The best and most documented two examples, supported by writers of the time and archeaology that show this are:

Red wine grapes were regularly grown all across Southern England. Yes we do have vinyards in Southern England now - just a few and in very sheltered spots. The grapes they grow are particularly hardy varieties which have only been in existance since the 17th century. Here we are talking about all varieties of grapes being grown all over the South, up as far as Watford. Try that now and you would get a withered stalk and no fruit, even with the more hardy varieties.

The Vikings were farming in Greenland and the Shetlands. Growing crops in areas that are now permafrost and and growing crops we find difficult on mainland Britain due to climate today. So at least we know for certain that Greenland was far warmer then than it has been since.

All this is very inconvenient to Global Warming believers because there were no cars or factories pumping out greenhouse gases in 1000AD yet the Earth still warmed. Confusingly some tree-ring data eliminates the medieval warmth altogether, while others reflect it.

Secondly the most powerful variable which is discounted by the IPCC computer models is the Solar output. Why is this disregarded? Simple - until we had satellites we had no way to measure it and trying to find an indicator that can archeaologically measure it (say in AD85) did not work. So we should just ignore it right?

No we cant. Tiny variations in many parameters input (down in the range of 0.0001%) have been shown to affect these computer models considerably. The Solar variations that we normally measure in the 11 year cycle are as high as 0.1% - thats 1000 times higher than the sensitivity threshhold of the model. There is historical evidence for much wider variation than this in sunspot records that have been kept by Solar observers since around 1650 AD.
The number of sunspots on the Sun’s surface is roughly proportional to total solar output. One well known dip in activity, the Maunder Minimum, occured from 1650–1700 and may have influenced Europe’s little ice age. Since then, sunspot number have risen and fallen in a regular 11-year cycle. An 11-year running average shows only the long-term variation, which shows a rise in total sunspot numbers from 1700 until today (ie the sun has grown more active).


Thirdly we have the vested interests of Governments and politicians. At the moment due to peak oil and oil availability issues it is likely that many, if not all of us, will have to give up on car use. Who wants to be the first politician to ban motoring? Send the army round to collect your Mercedes SLK and scrap it? Nobody.

How much nicer to say 'Look the Scientists say you should stop using your cars because we will all die and the seas will rise and a plague of frogs will infest your armpits.' This way you will give up your own cars willingly. Unfortunately it is another cynical con.

Fourthly Global Cooling. Yes thats right Cooling. The suppressed data that has emerged which was not included in the climate reports is a tree ring study, studying growth over 1950-2000 period which shows overall a remarkable DROP in the mean global temperature. So why are the polar cap ice packs melting? Well the other big variable climatologists ignore is the amount of wobble the earth has on its axis. This is another cyclical thing - the bigger the wobble the more of the earths ice caps gets exposed to the sun. You guessed it - we are on a peak value of wobble at the moment! In addition the propagandists have only focussed on one side of the issue.

Antarctic Ice Is Growing And Thickening! It has been consistently doing so for at least 30 years now. Western Antarctica has shed several ice shelves over time, but Eastern Antarctica has grown greatly in the same time. The climate propagandists ignore the East antarctic.

Fifthly the measurements made by the modern equipment is more unreliable than indirect methods such as Tree ring dating and Ice core sampling.

WHAT I hear you exclaim. Impossible. But no - the scientists shot themselves in the foot again.

The problem is that in fact readings from thermometers or electronic ‘thermistors’ are open to interpretation. This is because the sites of weather stations that were once open countryside become built up areas, so trapping heat, and the type of equipment used changes over time. These anomalies between readings need to be ‘adjusted’.

But can we trust the way such ‘adjustments’ are made?

Recently there was a re-analysis of the data from the past 130 years in Darwin, Australia. This suggested that average temperatures had risen there by about two degrees Celsius. However, the raw data had been ‘adjusted’ in a series of abrupt upward steps by exactly the same amount: without the adjustment, the Darwin temperature record would have stayed level.

In 2007 records across America were examined. It was found that between 1999 and 2007, the US equivalent of the Met Office had changed the way it adjusted old data. The result was to make the Thirties seem cooler, and the years since 1990 much warmer. Previously, the warmest year since records began in America had been 1934.

Sixthly the main Global Warming hypothesis rests only on the work of around 60 scientists and reviewers and not the 4000 often claimed. By contrast a petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it (but one presumes not President Obama).

So it looks like we should all be careful before we let the politicians pass the buck this time.

Pirate Symptoms

Britain must wake up!

A royal navy ship, an auxiliary tanker named Wave Knight, stood by whilst a rag-tag crew of mostly unarmed Somalian pirates kidnapped Paul and Rachel chandler from their yacht the Lynn Rival.

Yes WARNING shots were fired from the Navy vessel with its hundred strong crew, two 30mm cannon and four machine guns, but the Pirates were happy to ignore this, if it were an American vessel would they have ignored it I wonder. Would the heavily armed tanker simply have stooged around waiting until the pirates had secured their prey and left? I think not.

To compound the cowardly inaction the government has said that it will not pay the ransom demanded by the pirates... well I am sorry but is this not exactly the same as putting their lives at risk? The official excuse for inaction was that the captain was worried about causing casualties to the hostages... now we are still inactive but that inaction is risking their lives!

This is a symptom of how weak Britain has become internationally that even a band of ill equipped hoodlums know for certain they have nothing to fear from our forces.

The official excuse was that the captain was worried about causing casualties to the hostages. Well sorry but if his men are such rubbish shots with their modern weaponry that they cannot blow the bow or stern off a shoddy pirate craft or hole her beneath the waterline, then stand off and watch her sink then they should be replaced with people who can and will.

What should have happened is the craft shopuld have been sunk from underneath both the pirates and hostages. Then they can all swim (try swimming holding a weapon for any length of time) until they are exhausted, or sharks appear, and the pirates are begging to be let aboard the RN ship.

This is just a symptom of the lack-lustre do-nothing attitude that has pervaded britain for the last 30 years.

I say the captain of the Wave Knight should face a Court Martial and the relatives of the hostages.

Political Systems... New Balls Please!

So what sort of political system should we have in this modern age? The original democratic system was based on each individual qualifying citizen having his say directly in the Senate at Athens. As cities became bigger we had to move to a system of representation.

All systems of representation are not truly representative of the thoughts of the populace. Now however for the first time since the Athenian age we can provide individual citizens the power to have their say via the Internet. This makes political parties and indeed politicians completely unnecessary!



Here is the type of system that I propose would make an ideal substitution for parliament.

1. Every year all eligable citizens would be issued with a unique 20 character identification, linked to their name. They can log into the peoples parliament site using their surname and the 20 character ID code.

2. Via a forum system on the site any citizen may sponsor a bill if they can get 100 votes from other citizens. The citizen writes the draft of the bill which is then passed to a civil service cleric for research into the practicalities of implementation and emerges no later than three months after submission as an official first draft.

3. The first draft is published for criticisms and people write notes on what they see as the good and bad points. After one month the bill is withdrawn for redrafting and republished as a final draft one month later.

4. The bill is voted on as a whole, people voting on the bill have to prove that they have read the bill by getting an 80% pass mark on a multiple choice test based on the bills contents.

5. If the bill is declined it cannot be resubmitted in any form for 12 months.

6. If the bill is passed it goes into the refinement stage. Every clause is similarly voted on to be good or bad. Clauses voted bad are subjected to revision as per 3 above and those judged to be good are passed to be included.

7. The final bill is now presented on the website for an adoption vote. People who dislike the bill may post articles on why they dislike it, people who are for the bill can post articles stating why it is a good idea. After one month these articles are frozen and 5 days of voting begins.
People voting on the bill have to prove that they have read the arguments by getting an 80% pass mark on a multiple choice test based on the contents of the pro and con arguments.

8. The bill goes into legislation or is demoted back to step 3 above.

In this way everybody can have their say on subjects they feel strongly about and hopefully a more correct legislation will result because people who feel strongly on an issue often have more knowledge.

Mission to Mars 1

We hear that the astronauts have just emerged from 105 days locked into a simulated space module - and they did not kill each other! Whoopie doo. There is something very wrong with our entire attitude to the conquest of space. We seem to be determined that space exploration will result in near zero loss of life. Sorry but that is unrealistic. So is our attitude to exploration - sending people millions of miles to spend a few days somewhere then yanking them back.

Can you imagine if this were the attitude of explorers of the new world in the 15th century? We land a galleon (which can only sail during 6 months of the year) put ashore 5 people for a week, then sail back again. Sorry but we would still be exploring the swamps around what is now New York, the silver lining is that the Native American Indian and the Aztecs would still be around....

Folks, exploring new frontiers is a perilous business. Was America settled by scientists, Doctors and Air Force Pilots? Can you imagine what would happen if we tried that? Hmmm.

What is needed is PIONEERS not scientists. COLONISTS not visitors. Yes lives will be lost. When America was colonised lives were lost in their tens of thousands... we need not go that far but we are going about this the wrong way.

Here is what we need to do.

Firstly we need to consolidate our position on the moon.

Advertise for strong young colonists, male and female, minimum IQ of 120 and reasonable (not outstanding) physical fitness should be the only qualifications. Train these people in the use of the simplest space-suits we can design.

While this is going on we send payload after payload into earth orbit using dumb re-usable rockets. These payloads are picked up by space shuttle and have a small computer and booster rocket pack bolted to them, then they are sent on a lunar landing trajectory, coasting most of the way. They contain food and water, equipment to produce oxygen from lunar soil, solar panels, building and farming equipment, seeds, and so on. We aim to put down maybe 1-200 of these packages hard landed using similar inflatable ball technology to the Mars rover within a 12 mile radius of the most suitable apollo site.

The colonists are sent using a similar method but with a 'soft landing', a long slow ride that uses little fuel and lands maybe 40 people at a time, with some 'heavy' equipment and an inflateable shelter. THERE ARE NO PLANS TO RETURN.

The colonists make a permanent shelter by digging a tunnel into the side of a hill (something the moon is not short of) sealing the rock using a sprayed on polymer (like araldite) and erecting a prefabricated airlock and front door assembly. Gap filling foam can seal it to the rock around the edges. This process with the proper tools would take 30 people a month. The remaining ten are gathering the packages that were hard landed and ferrying them to the shelter.

Meanwhile of course more packages are being hard landed every week. When the shelter is finished the solar farm is set up and the air manufacturing plant started.
The inflateable shelter is now to be used for farming. 20 people work on growing plants, chickens and maybe sheep (pretty hardy) for food. 10 people work on extending the tunnel system and 10 people work on water extraction.

Any piece of space junk already in orbit that could be canibalised or used we bundle up, strap a booster pack on and aim it at the moon to land in a designated area.

After 3 months the process is repeated again, but this time less up front hardware is needed because the new arrivals will have the extended tunnel system to use as a shelter, so they will bring mostly farming and building equipment.

After another three months 40 more people arrive and now a second tunnel is started, for low Gee laboratories and factories..... I could continue.

Now once we have a viable colony on the moon that is self supporting (or very nearly) we can look at Mars. In some ways Mars will be easier than the Moon, it is more hospitable. In other ways more difficult (its a lot further).

Probably the best thing to do would be to build a really big spacecraft on the Moon in the 1/6th gravity. Haul pretty much a duplicate of everything that was required to set up the lunar colony plus any items that experience shows us should have been included. Launch from the moon, with its really low escape velocity.

This is the way to explore and conquer new worlds and I think there would be no lack of volunteers.

How the Banking Crisis Should have Been Dealt with

Well here we are, a couple of months on and what has changed? Very little as far as the bankers are concerned. After the Government has spent billions to bail them out the bankers are showing all the signs of getting up to their old tricks again. See Times Banking Article, how many bets they will be awarding themselves mega bonuses over christmas?

What we have done is sent the Fat Cat Bankers (oh how I long to swap a B for a W) entirely the wrong message. We have said that they are so important to us, that regardless of what they do, or what level of greed they espouse we will support them.

What complete tosh.

What we should have done is ALLOW the two major British banks concerned to become bankrupt. Move the accounts of all their investors to a new bank, with no member of it the same, and used the billions spent to prop up those banks to repay the investors capped at say a max of 500K or 80% of the account value whichever is the least. We must not forget the INVESTORS do need to learn a lesson as well as the bankers. It is these Investors and the bank shareholders who need to LEARN to be careful about investing their money and insist on proper controls.

Its not just the complacent bankers, it is also the investors and shareholders who turned a blind eye to the banks activities.

As it is nobody has learned a thing and I am saying that its odds on that we are in for a repeat performance in 5-10 years.