Environmentalism - the last refuge of scoundrels.

(Long winded reply to Wakefield Express Green issue*)

We really ought reconsider Environmentalism. At its core it poses people as a problem; The Biggest Problem, not only to the planet and everything on it but also ourselves.
As it is the jury is still out that global-warming - also known as 'dangerous climate change' will prove detrimental or even that we are the main cause. And if it is actually warming. The climate is changing - always has, whether man's contribution poses a significant factor is guessed at via loaded models and 'the science' politically driven.

Even taking the disaster scenarios at their worst - which are the guarantors of our actions - then are we really to take our adaptive actions seriously? So many agencies churn out the same RRRRs but life goes on; we go to work, produce and consume; new technologies build on the capacity of previous and we always find ways to improve.

Environmentalism already greatly affects us - from restrictions on land for housing and the expensive and disappointing product to needlessly sorting through our rubbish and fairtrade schemes that may appease the consciences of liberals but entrap third world producers into western notions of sustainability.
Many claim that for the 7 billion+/- population of the earth to have developed lifestyles - or at least as developed as we in the west - would require 3 or more planets as we don't have the resources. This sees human achievement as static and destructive and fails to pay attention to our remarkable ingenuity eg increased yields in agriculture and even the ability to harness power from natural sources (perhaps just different versions of the same process). The lack of resources are to be found amongst our political leaders and the unimaginative.
Of course there are many shades of green and it's doubtful whether proposals from on high satisfy the eco-worriers amongst us - especially when it's almost business as usual and airports, power stations, roads and houses are still being built or proposed (albeit in dismal fashion) and we all go to work or indulge in activities deemed unsustainable.
Hardly a black and white issue let alone 'Green being the new Red'.

Traditional left vs right notions of the best way forward for us as individuals and as a society have collapsed and given birth to this seemingly radical ideology. Indeed, it is radical - radical in the ways we're going to have to adapt if we accept it as presented. From the spoutings of the green and good it doesn't look that rosy.
Despite the pontificating of our 'leaders' emissions targets haven't been achieved anywhere except in former Soviet bloc countries due to their industrial decline. It's telling that with the opening up of the North Pole - supposedly due to climate negligence - there was a rush to claim exploration rights. UK included. Much talk is made over environmental concerns yet it seems the green elite merely pay lip service whilst the rest of us pay through the nose - in guilt taxes and time wasting activities that actually do more 'harm' than good.

If we truly were to consider the environment then we'd contend ways of dealing with it resourcefully - in ways that benefit humans first. In this the UK seems to have lost its way with the days of great industrial pioneers gone and their contemporaries happier to indulge in the wistful and iconic - or go abroad.
It's only belatedly that sluices in Wakefield are being dredged - perhaps there ought be a major washout of the drains too as many of these are blocked with all manner of debris. These should be activities that are constant and upgraded; it's fine gentrifying the place but a bit more function over form seems necessary. And whilst we're encouraged to dwell on our history we ought remember that Wakefield has it's ings. Instead, and like everything else these days, the blame is laid at us for having patios or concreted drives - to the point that these are considered punishable in taxes.

It's naive and negative thinking such as this that's blighting the economy.

Yawn . . . .

(speech on Youtube.)

Manchester w . . .

(Online forum response to Manchester evening News - "Woman fined £700 in bins row')


I'm stunned that Victoria Clarke gets so much flak from equally affected citizens of Manchester. Rather than attack her character (seemingly assumed and maybe people in glasshouses . . . ) we should be demanding a proper waste collection service where binmen/de-waste collection operators, or whatever their called, pick up all the rubbish from a location principally convenient to the tenant. And taken as granted.

While we're at it we ought lay off the binmen too and develop some solidarity. They are no more guilty than the rest of us who work to schedule or even try to beat the clock. Who knows? - they might then be happier doing what is quite a crappy job and do it well.

Despite ever rising - and sneakier - taxes we're getting a much reduced service; in fact we're doing more of it ourselves. Worse than that, our volunteered efforts become expected, then ordered, 'offenders' pilloried and penalised.

It's shaming that we fight amongst ourselves rather than take this up with those that dealt the blow in the first place, or at least (and they quite possibly are the least . . . ) with the most prominent representatives - New Labour.

And wouldn't you know it? - the misanthropic twats are in town right now and enjoying some £18 million in expense accounts 1). For me they can keep 'their' money and maybe we should emulate the approach of MP barring publican Roger Hantulik and even the Police and give our 'leaders' some Northern Discomfort - make their stay as uncomfortable as they're making our lives.

They may even do something other than save their own skins and deal us up rubbish.

1) See Manchester evening News 'An £18 million windfall as Labour bandwagon rolls into town'.

What's red and green?

New Labour's long drawn out last gasp has fully latched onto sustainability's rise - if not played a huge part in building it.
For those who displace politics with pontificating 'environmentalism' has become a collective wail. Unfortunately for erstwhile radicals they forget how the market can accommodate social trends and even drive them - so, with everyone from boy wonder DiCaprio and his 11thouring, much of what calls itself left wing and BIG industry can flog austerity.

Less costs more and inefficiency celebrated. Cheers.

Cor, blimey!

This guy needs his lights punching out.





"One other book on the curriculum is written by Johnathon Poritt. Entitled Captain Eco and the fate of the Earth it includes the line 'your parents and grandparents have made a mess of looking after the earth. They may deny it, but they're stealing your future . . . . "

Quoted from The Enemies of Progress: The dangers of Sustainability (p82). Austin Williams

Someone ain't telling the truth . . .

Whatever happened to the heroes?

I've met Stuart Smith and he comes across as a likeable enough guy. Yeeah, perhaps a chip on his shoulder, brass neck, motormouth . . . dodgy? pft! - dunno. But as a guy who's put his mug about and been in-yer-face as regards the smoking ban he deserves a medal. Whatever was chucked at him he just kept going - even when people who should know better turned on him. He posted his number directly on The Morning Advertiser website so that his critics could contact him direct (only for his post to be removed), been on video, etc, etc. So he's not scared of facing his critics and believes he's done little wrong in this case.

Even the most outlandish behaviour he's been up for got him just a 6 month suspended sentence - hardly Mr Evil.

I hope the fella becomes a folk hero and would love to see his face on the t-shirts of radical youth, bands, on stickers, etc. I'm pretty sure he'd welcome the idea; I was with him when the above shot was taken (but gave a crappy false name 'cos I should've been at work - oooh!) and it was his suggestion for that shot. Being unafraid of any publicity I'm sure he'd have stuck one up his ass if he'd thought on.

Stu may be contacted at stuartsmithsmoker@live.co.uk. Or various other outlets.
Stuart's full trial is on May 13th.


It's still very much an uphill fight though - some small wins and many setbacks - and council and govt departments getting sneakier by the day. We really ought bar these people for good and demand compensation for those who've lost out at this govt's hands.

While we can still talk about it.

Of interest -

Smoking ban challenged in Germany and China

People in glasshouses . . .

Hmm.

Re Boons' meeting, 23rd April - Almost disappointing - 2 people and a news reporter but a good many well-wishers along the way and very good informal chats with smokers outside and then up town later on.

Crap organising on my part and working on assumptions meant that those who had expressed an interest went to the downstairs room whilst I was upstairs hastily writing spiel to an audience I 'knew' was never going to appear. (And ManUbleedinited were playing Barcelona - pfft! - see what happens when Ronaldo doesn't intimidate his opponent? (oi!, sidefoot - no!).

Success (credibility even) is a tenuous thing and there is no set way to achieve it. That aside, there is a process and we learn as we go along.

According to most reports some 67% of the UK are against an outright ban on smoking in public places and this figure is about the same with publicans. This shows quite a remarkable degree of tolerance given that some 25% is 'the figure' given for smokers ie. two and a half times the amount of smokers. And obviously pubs don't want to lose custom.

This is borne out on recent hasty visits to pubs. Many publicans are anxious about where this will lead, some figured they'd be able to manage whatever was thrown at them and the odd few were happy with the ban. However, most know there's more legislation on the way and that traditional pub culture is on the way out as things stand.

Although no-one was really happy about being coerced into an obvious unpopular measure there's been an air of resignation - until now. UKIP seem to be the only 'mainstream' party in the upcoming local elections with a libertarian bent, particularly with regard to the issue of our social lives. There is the possibility of a breakthrough, of sorts.

I don't give a rat's cock (sshurely a pub name there?) what else they stand for but on this I'll be a slag for democracy and promote them. It may even lead to political debate in pubs and put the wind up those that claim they're 'fighting hard for our interests' or whatever guff they're coming out with whilst they congratulate themselves and erode our freedoms.

Perhaps one of the reasons many daren't speak out is due to the enormous pressure heaped on individuals who dare stand up. Public houses, even under intense regulation, are still largely informal gathering places and there's an element of schwonky business goes off. This is mentioned occasionally on forums and in the news and is very likely something we all come across.
I should imagine that if 'they' are listening in on phone conversations then most of us would get banged up. They probably don't because it's the way things are. Given the volume of laws and regulation this govt. has introduced, we'll all be likely 'guilty' of something - and if not then soon will be . . . maybe.

And maybe not. Our political class are seriously adrift and seem to like to raid the coffers themselves. Of course, running for public office should be an honourable thing and well recompensed - as should we all be for our labours, after all we make the roads, schools and hospitals, etc. and run them and politics ought be about realising our aspirations. Trouble is that raising apirations has given way to restraint - at least for us hoi-polloi.

Given that the smoking ban was brought in undemocratically and based on a pack of lies then maybe that what should be the most public of our houses is the one that needs examining.

Of course there ought be choice in the matter - democratic wannabes can state their case for us, or something like that . . .






www.freedom2chooose.info

UKIP . . .











As requested by Wakefield publicans at first meet up.


















The lady wouldn't recognise a good night if she saw one.
Now playing - 'You think I ain't worth a dollar but I feel like a millionaire', Queens of the stone age.
(followed up nicely by The Rezillos - 'Somebody's gonna get their head kicked in tonight').

Just for you, Mary.

x




Downloads of other of our representatives available HERE.

pfff . . . some more.

TBC . . .















Initial inspiration from Tom Mower''s 'Attention Please!' photo essay and gallery at The Manifesto club site.

Challenging the ban . . .

#1 I'd just gotten a new job - and was struggling - when the smoke ban came into force in England. Despite the owner managers mostly being smokers and near enough 'one of us'' I was taken aback by the tone of the company statement - very strident and making no attempt to inform that this was pushed on them by Govt. Some in management, it seemed, preferred the extra 'authority' the legislation conferred.

Not all the lads were smokers but in an atmosphere where machinery and activity of alsorts makes the air 'dirty' then our little stick of filth kept us happy; ditto shopfloor pots of tea/coffee/drinking chocolate/etc from the vending machine or 'spice' (the archaic but charming term for sweets up here) - all these are no-nos going by what's 'reasonably practicable'. A blind eye is occasionally turned as no-one in their right mind wants to see the workforce disgruntled, although some places have a preference for keeping the men just on the edge.

The blind eye doesn't include cigarettes and practically overnight the place was festooned with various authoritarian 'No Smoking!!' posters and stickers; so much that smoking must be the worst thing anyone could possibly do. Ever.

We were 'being watched', or led into acquiescencing that we were. Our government attempted to pull an even faster one and get us all policing each other - or else!
'Or else' meant fines of some £50 to the smokee and £2500 to the proprietor but not to worry as my 'on side' health and safety rep told me 'I'll make sure that if they fine you that they get fined two 'n' 'alf grand!'. Whoopee; I can barely catch my breath.

The press brake operator, was gutted; he practically lived for his fags. 'Fuck 'em' he said, 'I'm gonna put the guards back on the press'. The supervisor (like Tommy Cooper but without the looks. And not as funny) said 'if I catch you working without guards on your machine then you'll be disciplined' - pfff!?! 'I've not had the guards on for 12 years, you s*@%> f€¡^!' quoth Al, the operator.

Truth is, we're not as daft as we look and complex and intrusive guards often make life more awkward than not. They may even cause an operator to use energies inefficiently where they could concentrate on being effective in their work and able to determine safe methods of working for themselves and those around them. We do go to work to earn a living don't we?

Al was even more pissed off that his beloved, smokey boozer seemed threatened - 'everyone' smoked and it was just a lively village pub with nothing of an outside to accommodate new regulation, let alone us smoking ne'er do wells.
I truly hope that boozer's still open.
Mindst, Al, near retirement, may be glad with some newly acquired health - encouraged to eat 5-a-day, cut out the fags and booze and maybe even doing early morning calisthenics with the gaffers.

Hmm?

Cut to Carl, profile burner. Carl makes my eyes water just to think of him. He has a disability with his hip joints and can often be seen limping badly throughout the day - particularly bad in colder weather when the chill stays in the metal and 'radiates' cold. Of course it gets heated up with work but it's bad enough to affect my minor injuries so Lord knows what it's like for older or more infirm people.
Carl also has an autistic son who he has to beg to get decent care for and, on top of that, his father needs attention to. All of which is delivered matter-of-factly and without complaint.

He's also there at all hours and travels some distance to do the job. I asked whether he cold have a hip replacement but he told me that it's considered too son. Too soon!, the guy's practically crippled now so ten years down the line when he really needs the operation will see him living a large part of his useful life in pain and not as mobile as he could be.



Pass me the Tai-chi - I'm winding myself up.
And cheers to those that know what's best for us.


#2

Prior to this engagement I'd worked in a smaller fabrication shop and a similar bon-homie (ish) existed. Being more used to this type of work I'd managed to settle in easier (even though one can be an awkward feck). Here the gaffers were largely not bothered about the lads smoking on the floor, though we were all smoking our heads off in the run up.
A senior gaffer minded though and he told me he'd bring it in earlier if he could. He seemed oblivious to other 'risks' - the cramped and cluttered conditions we worked in. True, this was prior to a move to bigger premises and so we generally didn't mind the bit of give and take but even so we were welding, cutting, grinding and occasionally spraying, all in close proximity. Despite the odd grunt we got on with it - it being more norm than exception.
(The new factory is now closer to new built houses, the factory starts at 0700 and they like to be busy enough to work some weekends. See 'coming soon': a pox on all our houses?')

Something of a family business, younger gaffers, perhaps not fuller ingrained into the machinery of management, were much more affable. One told me of when they were first setting up and used to have a game of rugby inside. When it was a small concern, such informality was ' a right laff' but something that falls by the wayside under pressures of running a business and letting us know who's boss.

Next door was a two man fabrication outfit. Given the structure of the building they'd managed to set themselves up handsomely; the place old but clean and cosy. They were both smokers and couldn't believe that legislation meant they had to leave their rarely visited works to have a gasp. Nor that they had to put loads of signs up stating the dangers and dubious legalities of the ban.

In an engineering workshop!?! It being a place of business and therefore open to a public, of sorts, they had to be guarded from this evil.

Am not too sure that a recent arrangement I had whereby having a lodger would make my house into a 'public house' and bound by the same rules. In this instance, it would be patently ridiculous to abide by the ban and go outside as we both smoke and the bulk of either of our friends do. One doesn't like to provide ammo but it can be safely betted that this will be on their cards.

Of course, when particular non-smokers come I voluntarily curtail my habit and even ventilate my house. Fair enough, really.

#3 The Public House

The smoking ban was brought in with much fanfare - it would be better all around, intimidated non-smokers and their families would return in droves, us poor smokers would get help to quit our filthy habit from our representatives in Govt and their lackeys and we'd all be much happier and healthier.

Not much, if any of this, rings true - Public Houses are having a hard time of it these days and many have seen difficult conditions become compounded by the smoking ban. Most trade forums attest to this and talk to any licensee or bar staff and even 'upmarket establishments' tell of a significant drop in takings. Pubs were closing at a trickle before 1/7 but the trend has accelerated to well over a hundred a month now.

Some clubs have seen old non-smoking customers return but certainly not in droves; Wetherspoons, who brought the ban in a year or so before most other pubcos, have seen their takings take a massive dent.

One barman in a non-boozer type pub told me 'Yes, there are some new faces and takings are down but we can cope'. Others, not so. Many publicans have other jobs or subsidise a meagre living by eating with the sports teams. In many places pubs end up subsidising their diminishing clientele by using their savings to keep the place cosy.

On the few occasions I visit pubs it's often the case there are more customers having a gasp outside than in and the pub itself has no atmosphere. Of all the notices this Govt has come out with the one that states 'It's an offence to smoke on these premises' particularly galls. Offensive to the majority who huddle outside of doorways and those not bothered inside? or well paid (out of our taxes) enforcement officers minded by a gaggle of proper coppers on double time and our holier-than-thou government?

Many pubs have bent over backwards to satisfy their smoking customers and maintain their business. Some have parted with lots of cash having built shelters but only to see them fall foul of strict regulations as to siting and construction. Also, anyone having a bit of banter and a laugh - surely that's what pubs are for? - can find they contravene noise regulations and end up in court.

Not happy with that there are calls to remove patio heaters as our comfort gives way to concern about the environment - a bigger topic but one related inasmuch as the reasoning behind it is that us humans want too much out of life and are destroying the planet with our selfish ways.

It's unlikely there'll be a perfect shelter as new regulations mooted to remove vending machines from pubs (pubs!?!) and shops where they'll be on show to the slavish gives the implication that 'we' are to be not seen, not heard and, preferably, non-existent. Back behind the bike sheds then?

Truly, we're being treat like kids.

What's next? - already there are similar campaigns afoot as regards drinking - even passive drinking! - and the food we eat, where we want to travel to and even what we can talk about.

It seems this Govt is only too happy to see pubs die out - they make a killing on stamp duty and other taxes when public houses are redeveloped into expensive and crammed private houses - or 'exclusive' appartments as they're now called. They are barely worthy of being called houses but it seems they're good enough for us - if we can afford them. (The only thing exclusive about them seems to be the price tag.)


#4 Giving up?


A landlady - a smoker - said her pub is very easy to clean now the ashtrays are gone. That's a shame as the pub is also a tool of her trade and obviously not being used as purposed. How long before the beer lines and glasses become redundant? Then nothing to clean at all and no business.

Some smokers even welcome the ban as they 'wanted to cut down anyway' and one smoker said he's in favour as all the smokers now have plenty to talk about and things are generally more sociable in the shelter - for now.

I smoke (quite a lot these days . . ) and most of the time I enjoy it; occasionally it's something to do - space filler, pause for thought or claiming a little part of my working day for myself.
Sometimes I want to stop - morning dog breath (perhaps more old beagles mainly - that's a brand name, surely?), when a little breathless or for financial reasons, seemingly.

Seemingly, but then maybe the anti-smoking campaign is getting to me?
Should I decide to stop then it will be my decision and not rammed down my throat by people with far dodgier habits.

I used to be a keen 'mountain' bike rider and spent enough time and money in the effort. I was never anything special or daring yet managed to pick up a fair share of injury, but nothing in comparison to young bloods who practically ride down cliff faces or batter themselves on stunt ramps. To these guys a pinned leg or arm is displayed almost as a trophy and such injuries, when commonplace, aid development of medical techniques.

It's good that the young, and not so, push the boundaries of excitement and are prepared to face injury in the process. It's also preferable that injury comes, as it surely will, from pastimes and not war time and that medical technique develops accordingly. **Facial reconstructive surgery due to WW1 trench warfare and a high number of head casualties led to the development of today's cosmetic surgery.**

It's particularly rich when smokers are constantly harangued for costs associated with our habit. Smoking related illnesses most often occur in older age when we are susceptible to all manner of ailments anyway and given that smokers contribute healthily to the exchequer and die younger then we're hardly a burden.
Further, lung ailments are disproportionately underfunded due to an association with smoking - regardless of whether the illness is due to smoking.

Not only do we prop up the health service but we get little in return. And, should smoking be fully stamped out, where will tax revenues come from?


#5

The ban itself and what's to follow seems disproportionately aimed at the white working class. It seems we are being blamed for the ills of society rather than it lacking direction. Politics used to be far more polarised with the right standing for the prowess of individuals as a driver to take society forward and the left seeking to ameliorate the conditions worked under, distribute wealth evenly and we all prosper accordingly. Sort of.
The truth probably lies between the two but such ideologies are more bound by the economic system we live under rather than determining the paths individuals and society take.

Such ideas have now collapsed and politics is much less about raising aspiration and more about restraint - a point seemingly lost with Gordon Brown's cynical parading of Margaret Thatcher prior to the Conservatives conference. Her popularity came through her appeal to raise our material aspirations and ditch the cloying hand of Old Labour.

Mainstream parties have lost their moorings and now have no idea how to take society forward. Whether the smoking ban comes from a lack of ideas and an attempt to reconnect with our assumed concerns, or those of a vocal minority, or something to do with moulding us into shape to take on new challenges is debateable.
I hold that it's mainly the latter and as much a knowing nod to recessionary tendencies and austerity. What better way to control us than to make out our desire for material wealth is ultimately destructive to the planet, ourselves and everything else?

As such, smoking is an obvious target as it serves no 'real' purpose. It's not necessary to smoke and is quite literally a throwaway habit. It's not the healthiest of things to do either. When we start to look at what we need to do in order to function in our day to day lives then all manner of things fall by the wayside and a good deal become luxury or superfluous. However, we are more than mere animal and our needs and desires are influenced in many complex and interconnected ways - and much more so than, say, mere advertising.

#The white working class and the BNP.

At a Meanwood WMC meeting a woman informed us that muslims were behind the smoking ban and that the BNP stood up against it. Now, they are very much an opportunist lot, and it would be good if they did. But no, a search of their site revealed nothing other than a sentence in an interview with Nick Griffiths, vaguely saying people should have choice in the matter.

It shouldn't really be that much of a surprise as a previous fund drive of theirs asked for sympathisers to donate the price of a pint - only for this to be later replaced by a more responsible cup of tea. Not too much ambition there then.
It seems that attempts to cleanse their image and project decency and responsibility leave their hands tied when it comes to defending an element of traditional white working class culture - the social life we choose.

Shame really given that It's St. George's day and many would no doubt like to celebrate the matter - with a pint and fag, in comfort in the Kings Arms, Redoubt, Waterloo, Imperial, Duke of Wellington . . . . damn! - they're all fighting names aren't they? Or the Coopers', Weavers', Smiths' and various other, Arms - all names suggestive of trade and relaxing after a days toil. Trouble with the BNP is they can't see much further than portraying the white masses as hapless victims of migrant hordes undermining 'our way of life'. Big cop out given that all this legislation comes from an angst ridden and, on the whole, white Govt with little idea other than to squeeze us.

I tried to see whether there was any mileage to be gained from this on a brief visit to Dewsbury pubs where they have some presence. I'm pretty sure that the first barman spoken to was 'one of them' given what he was talking about and we got no further than him blaming everything on foreigners. Not everyone in Dewsbury is a card carrying member of the BNP though, in fact they're pretty marginal other than securing a howl of indignation vote. Not to say though that the BNP have no role to play as they at least believe they are looking out for the concerns of their kith, kin and countrymen. Shame then that they are predisposed to lay society's problems at the feet of others at the bottom of the pile and cling to past versions of what they despise today. All that pomp, ceremony and sense of duty - to what?

They ought to be careful as coercive measures to inform our choices already seek to determine what we can say out loud and the BNP, being 'everyone's favourite bogeyman, may find themselves banned.

Looking around the old buildings of Dewsbury reveals an industrial past; a time when society was forging ahead and offered the masses a chance to better themselves. Dewsbury still has it's industry but nothing on a grand scale and the place is now under scrutiny for regenerative investment. Regeneration schemes come under the guise of the government's renaissance agenda - a desire to gentrify 'place' and us along with it. At its root this includes shoehorning us into distinct and passive individuals following a path set down by them and little room for personal expression.
It's much more likely that this will lead to further disharmony as it requires us to acquiesce to coercive measures and almost stop thinking for ourselves. It also appears counterintuitive as the relentless focus on personal behaviour replaces it with much more of the same. Look at food programmes - we're told we eat too much and what we do eat is rubbish so there are no end of cooking programmes - food, glorious food and much of it labeled organic, local or 'sustainable' on very dubious terms.

It wouldn't be too bad if the Govt had a track record that bears scrutiny and lofty decisions could be left to them whilst we get on with ordering our messy affairs. Perhaps I'm looking at things the wrong way around?
Decency and responsibility in our lives can only come so much from the individual. Even in hard times there are those who will prosper but for society as a whole to move forwards requires less inward soul searching and a grander project.


# Just a brief mention of UKIP and no particular sleight intended.

Like any political organisation UKIP may have their faults but in the case of the smoking ban they seem to be the only party making a stand for liberty. This isn't some god given right to blow smoke in the faces of babies but a determining of choice and development of tolerance between people - and what could be wrong with that?

Jason Smith, candidate for Queensbury, told me he was taken aback by the strength of feeling against the ban and when canvassing pubs was practically carried aloft by cheering punters - not bad for a ginner.

With only some 25% of the population being smokers, yet 67% opposed to an outright ban* - two and a half times the amount of smokers - that seems to be healthy grounds for questioning the assumptions behind the ban and perhaps a vehicle for democracy. *(ONS 2006 survey)


I'm no supporter of UKIP but seriously wish them well on this - who knows? we may even get the necessary debate on the pros and cons of our leaders attachment to the European Union.


(To edit . . )

Sweaty takes the piss.

Ed Balls may put himself about a bit, even break a little sweat, as a local MP and Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families but, he shows he's pretty useless at providing inspiration.

In a week when substantial parts of the region were underwater, Ed's face was splashed about in the media talking to the kids about their ideas to save the planet - particularly water solutions.
This forms part of an initiative called Little people, Big ideas with Yorkshire water 1).

It really ought be called Big people - no idea.

Kids can be extremely bright given the right stimulus but watching their video shows they've more been watching Button Moon than Tomorrow's World and this promotion more forcefeeding today's barren ecological values and indulging the kids than providing leadership or learning opportunity.
I hope the kids got shown around the place and saw what large scale technologies can do or, instead of indulging 'their quirky ideas' (one or two on the right track but mostly recycled mainstream ones, plus toys) show them the huge leaps being taken by the Chinese - 3 Gorges dam or the canal* that's to be as long as the UK, for instance. This is the sort of thing that will provide us with better living, even 'harmonising' with nature and developing newer means of coping with whatever it throws at us.
It's more than annoying to say that British inventors were once at the forefront of developing grand ideas yet today they are put on pedestals in opportunistic regeneration schemes and, worse, their very ideas laid blame for the supposed mess we are in.
We owe these pioneers a debt of gratitude and need to relocate them from 'renaissance' public space to their true place in history.

What could have been an informative and inspiring occasion for some of tomorrows civil engineers instead turned out to be New Labour's relentless forward pitching of themselves. It could be stretching things somewhat but it seems they have aspirations and diary dates up to *2018* and, further indulging my inner conspiracy theorist, wouldn't mind betting they're grooming the kids along the way.

Maybe not, but their tenure has seen a relentless loosening of faith in current society, if not humanity ie. the very people that make things work. Strangely though they don't seem to be inflicted with our curse - while their policy has roundly just about slagged everyone else off their halos remain intact. They may rob the past and have aspirations to lead us into the future yet have little idea in the here and now. Ed said as much at a patronise the public event in the local library, stating if he 'was Gordon Brown he'd take 2-3 yrs developing a new programme rather than dive straight in'.

As Brown's right hand man (and Brown firmly behind Blair) Ed's been right up there for the past decade - creaming billions in pension raids 2) and stamp duty and hand in hand with the missus cramming us into ever smaller and more expensive housing - if 'affordable' at all 3).

At his 'My life as an MP' promotion I asked him now that Blair has gone did he feel New Labour could progress or, given that he had never voted against him and that he and Gordon Brown were just as responsible for government policy, did he feel implicated and that his and the government's days were numbered?
His reply was pure Bart Simpson - 'I wasn't an MP when the war in Iraq started (no one saw me . . )' . . phew! Got out of that one easy enough, except my question wasn't particularly about Iraq. Given Balls' craven approach to leadership it's highly likely he 'couldn't possibly vote against Blair or else would be out of the cabinet' (sic) and therefore by that rationale would have voted; same as the missus
(maybe not and the reason they have two houses . . ? 4)

He gamely soldiered on giving some tenuous muse about leadership - the leadership that he and Brown's cabal craved for a decade and now want some 2-3 more years to develop. Blair's decade may be looked back on as "the good old days" (and him maybe due a return) and now we get some very awkward teenage years.

Balls does well with doublespeak - whilst giving the kids lessons in emotional well being he gives plenty to be angry about. Perhaps lessons in financial management should start with an analysis of his hand in the most costly of our affairs? On top of robbing us left, right and centre he urges wage restraint and leads by example - Wakefield's socialist MPs have opted for a 1.9% pay increase but Balls n missus claim £300,000 in expenses and more if they want to - nice work if you can get it 5).

Hold on to your piggybanks, kids.
(And get out your wellies.)

1)Young inventors aim to save the planet.
2)Moneyweek
3)Dear Ed and Yvette . . .
4)Ed Balls claims £27,000 subsidy for 2nd home.
5)Kerching!

*Also known as South-to-North Water Diversion Project but also discussed in negative terms as a conduit for invasive species.

Is recycling a waste of time?

I must admit to recycling (even have it on good authority that one or two of my learned anti-green colleagues do) even though, as is, it’s a waste of time, effort and resources.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with recycling – a point made by Julia Hailes at the 2007 Battle of Ideas with her jam jar and aluminium foil and remark that Thomas Deichmann considered nuclear waste recycling as viable. She did omit Deichmann’s retort that if it’s worthwhile then the best solutions would be engineering ones - he can claim an interest here as he is an engineer.

In engineering works things are usually worked down to a minimum of effort - certainly in larger, heavier industry. There's still much room for improvement as much still relies heavily on the craft and graft of skilled and experienced employees; this a point brought home when China originally turned down buying MG Rover as this highly robotised factory was deemed 'old fashioned'. I took a look around the 'cutting edge' factory worked in at the time.
Hmmm.

Recycling’s 'feelgood factor' reminds of when I had my own fabrication business - at times of stress (nearly always) I’d sort into small piles screws, washers, nuts n bolts that were actually quite worthless – but it provided ‘something’ to do and stopped dwelling on more urgent tasks. Ms. Hailes, who, admittedly, held out very well in a joint batting with Julie Hill, attested to this therapeutic value of even a small effort helping us feel connected to part of something bigger.
Occasionally therapeutic, perhaps, but not as an all encompassing policy.

'Recycling' is likely a natural part of our nature inasmuch as we see further utility in many things. In steelworks offcuts are used for all manner of things but you wouldn't want household or garden items that look like they'll last forever, or heavily compromised in their use.

An example that ought be familiar (and one that ‘sparked’ this piece) was washing out a milk carton. Nothing too bad about that as it’s usually done at the end of a normal wash (no dishwasher – yet) with waste water (or used, or abused if you want to get caught up in pc semantics). Ok enough if that was the end. But, oh no, the milk oft leaves a residue that requires a flush out with hot water and a squirtette of washing up liquid; after all, when washed n squashed the bottle rim collapses and any unwashed milk begins to stink – not nice inside the house or out. This time of year cooler weather keeps any smells down but the stuff ends up blown all over the streets – as do the bins, of which more later.

I’d already wondered whether the cap and bottle were of the same plastic or whether to separate them before thinking that the label would be difficult to peel off but I better had because it may clog up whatever machine was going to clean up these bottles later, or not.
A retired couple tell me that they cut all their plastic bottles down and compact them as much as possible - whether many of us go that far is questionable but imagining just part of the above scenario replicated by x million seems woefully inefficient.
Long by then I’d begun to question what actual worth was in this bottle – smelt a bit like those coupons with a nominal value of 0.001p and energies to reclaim it far outweighed.(1)

This seems a sad and sickening waste of people’s time; doing little more than patronise effort, inflate the egos of our so-called leaders and give further rein to darling eco-worriers. It may provide succour to the likes of Ms Hailes but surely we have better things to do?

Perhaps we ought to take a step back - much of the ‘excess’ packaging is borne of health n safety or hygiene reasons; or because it protects, aids handling or presents the product. The latter mayhaps a case in point but there’s many an eco-worrier (not to mention politicians) reliant on packaging and dodgy 'science'.

Further to that though is the relatively abundant wealth we can can amass; and here is likely the crux of the matter – our consumption and often more how we reproduce it. It is likely there’s some underlying message to our actions inasmuch as we know the effort we require to purchase items only to see them superseded and our expensive buy worth less. We may decry the process yet we all have our once luxury and now commonplace items and products generally improve.

On the whole we don’t seem to mind recycling – even if the occasional discussion at ‘the bins’ is sceptical. I daresay that should we all put in the effort then those that command it wouldn’t be able to cope. Stories abound of sorted rubbish going to landfill, incinerator and shipped to the Far east. Someone seems to be pulling a fast one as it seems that recycling is largely for ‘feelgood’ reasons (as much as EU diktat (2). It should be noted the propaganda useage of people giving up iron railings and all manner of pots and pans only for them to be stored in warehouses or dumped in the sea during WW1 + 2.

A case could be made for better waste disposal (even how we organise our labours) but does recycling actually do anything of genuine, practical value? I’d argue not and that its major proponents are guilty of simplistic narcissism. Simplistic as argued above re resources but also as this would not be the way to save the planet from apparent impending doom - that can only come about from greater technological development and even more mastery over natural events; narcissistic because ‘those that do’ elevate themselves above 'those that don’t' and berate the very people and processes that make society operate; their feeling good about themselves is largely parasitical on the wealth created by the rest of us.

It should not be forgotten that recycling started out as a nice-as-pie voluntary idea and within a short space of time has become compulsory, with fines and increased charges. That's not nice and what ever happened to public service? Disgruntled binmen,likely feeling the squeeze on their jobs, now leave our bins obstructing pathways; in fact, they can be out for the bulk of the day should the round not arrive until afternoons and during windy weather end up getting blown all over- no cheers for the council.

One wonders how long nice-as-pie rain, bath and god knows what else water recycling becomes enforced due to sewers largely built in a relatively more industrious era and now past their sell by date . . .



(1) a TV advert states that a computer can be ran for x minutes using ‘energy’ tied up in waste bottles – try as I might I can’t find the slot on mine where they are fed in.
(2) At a Leeds City council meeting considering waste incineration I was told by a labour councillor that 'our hands were tied due to EU regulations'. Not so when it comes to opting out of the 48hrs working directive, eh?

See also - Recycled rubbish kept in storage because no one will buy it.
Daily Mail Nov 2008.

Fuck 'em