Just a few favourites below:
Monday, 19 November 2012
Photography love
I am so in love with these photographs! In love and impressed.. Gives me a calming effect
Just a few favourites below:
Just a few favourites below:
Thursday, 15 November 2012
Newsnight and Twitter Smears
It was announced earlier that the BBC is to pay Lord McAlpine £185,000 because of the Newsnight programme that carried an interview in which a victim of child abuse said one of his abusers was "a leading Tory politician of the Thatcher era”.
Newsnight did not name the politician, so you may be wondering why it is they have agreed to pay out such a substantial sum. Read this post, which deals with that point better than I can - but as far as I can tell, essentially, they are liable because of the fact Lord McAlpine had falsely and widely been named on Twitter involved before the programme was aired.
I'm a huge fan of the BBC in general. I think they do a superb job. However, a responsible editor would have pulled the story with the knowledge that names were being circulated on Twitter. That said, it's also easy to see this as "damned if you do, damned if you don't". If they had pulled the programme there would have been screams of protest of cover-up and backing down.
There are two other big failings of the Newsnight team which also mustn't be forgotten. A responsible editor would also have put the photograph of the suspect before the victim - that would have led to the central allegation that it was a "leading Tory politician of the Thatcher era" having been cut out of the programme. They should also have contacted the alleged perpetrator to hear his side of the story. They did not do so.
On this occasion the BBC failed badly and they have admitted their mistake. We licence payers will foot the bill.
I perceive BBC conduct as negligent, rather than malicious. In my view, the malicious parties in this instance is every person who gossiped on Twitter with absolutely no personal knowledge of the truth regarding who the person involved was. This includes those who RTd names. It is absolutely no defence morally or legally to say that you are repeating an allegation someone else made. It was an angry, ugly group brandishing their now famous Twitchforks.
At least Newsnight had interviewed the victim and done research, no matter how imperfectly. What those who hit the RT button did was to name someone with no more basis than "someone else said it was him, so it must be true."
If you think none of this matters - so what he's a millionaire Thatcherite - etc, I wish you had heard the interview with Lord McAlpine on Radio 4 today. He is a frail 70 year old man who has a weak heart. He is absolutely innocent of this crime. The victim has accepted that. The BBC has accepted that. It was horrendous to hear him speak, actually with great dignity and a surprising lack of anger considering his life has been torn apart in the last two weeks. If you think it doesn't matter, just put yourself in his shoes, or imagine it is your grandfather. It is a very odd, callous, supposedly caring lefty who says "so what" because they object to his politics, no matter how strongly. How grotesquely inhumane.
Two wrongs do not make a right - they create a bigger wrong. There is a man out there who was repeatedly abused as a boy and now the entire media show is instead concentrated on another wrong. This was caused in large part by the users of Twitter who were so desperate to find a guilty party without a court of law or any due process involved. Do you feel good about that? I don't.
It is actually very, very simple and this is something everyone on Twitter is going to have to learn. Do not spread or repeat serious allegations and smears that can destroy someone's life, without personal knowledge of and/or research into the truth of those statements. It is just demonstrably wrong to accuse someone of something such serious crimes on the basis of blind gossip. It goes against the basic assumptions of being innocent until proven guilty, it removes the protections that exist in court regarding evidence, and it prejudices a fair trial. It is lynch-mob "justice".
Twitter is such a powerful tool, but it can also injure and cause huge harm. I want the issue concentrated back on the abuse that took place: thanks to Twitter I'm not sure that's ever going to happen.
Newsnight did not name the politician, so you may be wondering why it is they have agreed to pay out such a substantial sum. Read this post, which deals with that point better than I can - but as far as I can tell, essentially, they are liable because of the fact Lord McAlpine had falsely and widely been named on Twitter involved before the programme was aired.
I'm a huge fan of the BBC in general. I think they do a superb job. However, a responsible editor would have pulled the story with the knowledge that names were being circulated on Twitter. That said, it's also easy to see this as "damned if you do, damned if you don't". If they had pulled the programme there would have been screams of protest of cover-up and backing down.
There are two other big failings of the Newsnight team which also mustn't be forgotten. A responsible editor would also have put the photograph of the suspect before the victim - that would have led to the central allegation that it was a "leading Tory politician of the Thatcher era" having been cut out of the programme. They should also have contacted the alleged perpetrator to hear his side of the story. They did not do so.
On this occasion the BBC failed badly and they have admitted their mistake. We licence payers will foot the bill.
I perceive BBC conduct as negligent, rather than malicious. In my view, the malicious parties in this instance is every person who gossiped on Twitter with absolutely no personal knowledge of the truth regarding who the person involved was. This includes those who RTd names. It is absolutely no defence morally or legally to say that you are repeating an allegation someone else made. It was an angry, ugly group brandishing their now famous Twitchforks.
At least Newsnight had interviewed the victim and done research, no matter how imperfectly. What those who hit the RT button did was to name someone with no more basis than "someone else said it was him, so it must be true."
If you think none of this matters - so what he's a millionaire Thatcherite - etc, I wish you had heard the interview with Lord McAlpine on Radio 4 today. He is a frail 70 year old man who has a weak heart. He is absolutely innocent of this crime. The victim has accepted that. The BBC has accepted that. It was horrendous to hear him speak, actually with great dignity and a surprising lack of anger considering his life has been torn apart in the last two weeks. If you think it doesn't matter, just put yourself in his shoes, or imagine it is your grandfather. It is a very odd, callous, supposedly caring lefty who says "so what" because they object to his politics, no matter how strongly. How grotesquely inhumane.
Two wrongs do not make a right - they create a bigger wrong. There is a man out there who was repeatedly abused as a boy and now the entire media show is instead concentrated on another wrong. This was caused in large part by the users of Twitter who were so desperate to find a guilty party without a court of law or any due process involved. Do you feel good about that? I don't.
It is actually very, very simple and this is something everyone on Twitter is going to have to learn. Do not spread or repeat serious allegations and smears that can destroy someone's life, without personal knowledge of and/or research into the truth of those statements. It is just demonstrably wrong to accuse someone of something such serious crimes on the basis of blind gossip. It goes against the basic assumptions of being innocent until proven guilty, it removes the protections that exist in court regarding evidence, and it prejudices a fair trial. It is lynch-mob "justice".
Twitter is such a powerful tool, but it can also injure and cause huge harm. I want the issue concentrated back on the abuse that took place: thanks to Twitter I'm not sure that's ever going to happen.
It's Right to Drive on the Left
Anyone wondered why we intelligent Brits drive on the wrong side of the road? You may well have been to other parts of the world and seen it's not just us who have this peculiar habit. I'd like to set out the story here of why we're actually absolutely correct - and naturally the rest of the World (well, much of it) is wrong.
A Scene from Monty Python
Clippity clop. You have to imagine you're on a horse and you're riding down some lane in the Middle Ages. It's pretty much a scene from Monty Python. You spy a stranger coming the other way. Do you veer to the left hand side to pass him, or do you veer to the right?
The answer is obvious. Given that most people are right-handed, you will choose to head to the left hand side. Then your left flank is protected by trees, bushes or whatever else is by the side of the road, and more importantly, you can protect yourself with your right (sword) hand. The stranger will do the same.
This is how it ever was. It's not just in the Middle Ages: we have some evidence that the Romans drove on the left. There is an ancient stone quarry in Swindon in England that show ruts going into them that are less pronounced on the left hand side. The carts went in empty and came out full of stones. The ruts are far deeper on the right (as you face the entrance): ergo, the traffic moved on the left.
Blame the French: They Messed It Up
What a sensible state of affairs! Now who could we possibly blame for messing this up? Well one story says it was the French and that Napoleon changed first France, then the countries he conquered, to the right. Another says it was the Americans and that is was related to large freight wagons where the driver sat not on a seat, but on a horse. For some reason it made it easier to ride on the right with this arrangement.
Whatever the reason, there was a steady drift from traffic moving from the left to the right during the 19th century. Much of continental Europe converted during this time, but it was by no means universal. I've seen photographs of Budapest from 1910 where all the traffic was on the "correct" side. I've visited the spot where Archduke Franz Ferdinand was shot in Sarajevo: his car was travelling on the left when it took its fateful wrong turn.
When the Austria-Hungary Empire broke up at the end of the the First World War, many of the former territories considered it as modernising step to switch their traffic to the right. However, check out the Captain's car in the Sound of Music. It is a pre-1938 model, which was designed to be driven on the left. It therefore has its steering wheel on the right hand side. Only in 1938 was the whole of Austria finally forced to drive on the right after the German Anschluss.
If you go to Prague you will see vintage cars that offer tours of the city. If you want to know which ones are original, and which ones are modern day copies, look where the steering wheel is. The original pre-1938 ones have the wheel on the "British" side, just like the ones below. The Germans forced Czechoslovakia onto the right, just as did Denmark (1940) and Norway (1940).
By the end of World War Two, we therefore have the whole of Europe on the left, with the exception of countries that were never occupied. Sweden and Iceland changed over in the 1960s: in Sweden the traffic switched on 3 September 1967 which was designated as "H-Day". It was a massive endeavour: every road sign, traffic light and road junction had to be changed. Speed limits were temporarily lowered to a snail's pace to prevent accidents. The poor Elks were terribly confused.
This just leaves Britain, Ireland (and former British colonies Cyprus and Malta) on the left within Europe. We stand proud! The Channel Islands, the only part of Britain occupied by the Germans during WW2 and forced to drive on the right, were actually the only place to switch it back to the left the moment the troops had left. We can be terribly stubborn.
The Rest of the World
How about the rest of the world then? Broadly (there are exceptions), anywhere that Britain was the former colonial or dominant power drives on the left. This means Hong Kong, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, India (that tiny country of a billion people), Bermuda, much of the Carribean etc. Even in Canada, where US influence is strong and there is a long land border, four provinces remained on the left until the 20s and Newfoundland was on the left until 1947.
Where France or Spain was the colonial power, they drive on the right. This means much of Africa, South America and some of Asia. Some countries were never under colonial influence: Japan remains on the left.
Sensible Samao and My Dirty Secret
So there we have it. It is not random as to which side of the road you drive on. There is a good historic reason for driving on the left. We can also blame either France or US for this new-fangled driving on the right nonsense, and we Brits can rest assured that it's not just we who drive on the left, as is often thought. In fact 164 countries and territories in the World drive on the right and 76 countries and territories on the left. This equates to 66.1% on the right and 33.9% on the left. One terribly sensible country, Samao, bucked the trend by switching from right to left as recently as 2009. They did so to take advantage of cheap second hand cars from Australia and New Zealand, but never mind, it was a good move anyway.
Where do I prefer to drive? You might have noticed that this piece is a little tongue in cheek. Despite living in Britain and being well-used to driving all round the world on either the left or right, I have a guilty secret. I never find it hard adjusting to driving on the right. It comes naturally to me. I do have more of a problem remembering when I get back to Dover and have to be on the left again. But shh, don't tell anyone, will you?
This piece by me was originally posted on the ACIS Tours Website
A Scene from Monty Python
Clippity clop. You have to imagine you're on a horse and you're riding down some lane in the Middle Ages. It's pretty much a scene from Monty Python. You spy a stranger coming the other way. Do you veer to the left hand side to pass him, or do you veer to the right?
The answer is obvious. Given that most people are right-handed, you will choose to head to the left hand side. Then your left flank is protected by trees, bushes or whatever else is by the side of the road, and more importantly, you can protect yourself with your right (sword) hand. The stranger will do the same.
This is how it ever was. It's not just in the Middle Ages: we have some evidence that the Romans drove on the left. There is an ancient stone quarry in Swindon in England that show ruts going into them that are less pronounced on the left hand side. The carts went in empty and came out full of stones. The ruts are far deeper on the right (as you face the entrance): ergo, the traffic moved on the left.
Blame the French: They Messed It Up
What a sensible state of affairs! Now who could we possibly blame for messing this up? Well one story says it was the French and that Napoleon changed first France, then the countries he conquered, to the right. Another says it was the Americans and that is was related to large freight wagons where the driver sat not on a seat, but on a horse. For some reason it made it easier to ride on the right with this arrangement.
Whatever the reason, there was a steady drift from traffic moving from the left to the right during the 19th century. Much of continental Europe converted during this time, but it was by no means universal. I've seen photographs of Budapest from 1910 where all the traffic was on the "correct" side. I've visited the spot where Archduke Franz Ferdinand was shot in Sarajevo: his car was travelling on the left when it took its fateful wrong turn.
When the Austria-Hungary Empire broke up at the end of the the First World War, many of the former territories considered it as modernising step to switch their traffic to the right. However, check out the Captain's car in the Sound of Music. It is a pre-1938 model, which was designed to be driven on the left. It therefore has its steering wheel on the right hand side. Only in 1938 was the whole of Austria finally forced to drive on the right after the German Anschluss.
If you go to Prague you will see vintage cars that offer tours of the city. If you want to know which ones are original, and which ones are modern day copies, look where the steering wheel is. The original pre-1938 ones have the wheel on the "British" side, just like the ones below. The Germans forced Czechoslovakia onto the right, just as did Denmark (1940) and Norway (1940).
By the end of World War Two, we therefore have the whole of Europe on the left, with the exception of countries that were never occupied. Sweden and Iceland changed over in the 1960s: in Sweden the traffic switched on 3 September 1967 which was designated as "H-Day". It was a massive endeavour: every road sign, traffic light and road junction had to be changed. Speed limits were temporarily lowered to a snail's pace to prevent accidents. The poor Elks were terribly confused.
This just leaves Britain, Ireland (and former British colonies Cyprus and Malta) on the left within Europe. We stand proud! The Channel Islands, the only part of Britain occupied by the Germans during WW2 and forced to drive on the right, were actually the only place to switch it back to the left the moment the troops had left. We can be terribly stubborn.
The Rest of the World
How about the rest of the world then? Broadly (there are exceptions), anywhere that Britain was the former colonial or dominant power drives on the left. This means Hong Kong, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, India (that tiny country of a billion people), Bermuda, much of the Carribean etc. Even in Canada, where US influence is strong and there is a long land border, four provinces remained on the left until the 20s and Newfoundland was on the left until 1947.
Where France or Spain was the colonial power, they drive on the right. This means much of Africa, South America and some of Asia. Some countries were never under colonial influence: Japan remains on the left.
Sensible Samao and My Dirty Secret
So there we have it. It is not random as to which side of the road you drive on. There is a good historic reason for driving on the left. We can also blame either France or US for this new-fangled driving on the right nonsense, and we Brits can rest assured that it's not just we who drive on the left, as is often thought. In fact 164 countries and territories in the World drive on the right and 76 countries and territories on the left. This equates to 66.1% on the right and 33.9% on the left. One terribly sensible country, Samao, bucked the trend by switching from right to left as recently as 2009. They did so to take advantage of cheap second hand cars from Australia and New Zealand, but never mind, it was a good move anyway.
Where do I prefer to drive? You might have noticed that this piece is a little tongue in cheek. Despite living in Britain and being well-used to driving all round the world on either the left or right, I have a guilty secret. I never find it hard adjusting to driving on the right. It comes naturally to me. I do have more of a problem remembering when I get back to Dover and have to be on the left again. But shh, don't tell anyone, will you?
This piece by me was originally posted on the ACIS Tours Website
Tuesday, 13 November 2012
Blood test
Free - in Scotland because I am a student :)
Medicine with prescription is free of charge too! This encourages me to visit the GP more than going straight to a pharmacist, eventhough I might just be having a minor ailment.
Medicine with prescription is free of charge too! This encourages me to visit the GP more than going straight to a pharmacist, eventhough I might just be having a minor ailment.
Monday, 12 November 2012
Insomnia
MY sleeping pattern is such a blunder right now. I can say I only recall one day in Glasgow where I slept like a baby for 8 hours at a decent time too! Other than that day, I sometimes sleep at 12am, 3am, 4am... and wake up by 8am regardless of how late I slept...... Then sometimes during the day I get sleepy.. but there are plenty of things to do so I hardly nap, I do my stuff and then its midnight again......
This means that I am having insufficient sleep till I am tempted to get some drowsy cough mixture to make me sleep.
Maybe its jet lag syndrome??? I mean, when its 12am in Glasgow, it is 7am in Malaysia...... I am so awake at 12am!
Some people might think I am still in Malaysia........
Wednesday, 7 November 2012
The Times They Are A Changin'
I'm on a complete high. Despite predictions of a narrow victory, Barack Obama seems to have swept back to power. The latest results I have is that he won the popular vote by 59,298,913 votes to Romney's 56,801,964. If Florida does go to Obama, as looks almost certain currently, the President will have 322 electoral college votes to 206. It is what I think they technically call a landslide.
There is another big story of interest to me here though, apart from the general rejection of right-wing, conservative philosophy. There are six US states where same-sex marriage is permitted, but marriage equality was achieved either through law suits or by lawmakers, rather than as a result of direct votes by the population.
Last night, the State of Maine became the first US state to introduce marriage equality. It has been joined by the State of Maryland and (subject to finally counting) by the State of Washington. In Mid-West Minnesota, a ballot to introduce a ban on same sex marriage into the constitution was defeated by voters. These smiling young smiling young faces of discrimination who voted yesterday to enshrine prejudice won't be too happy this morning.
This is massive. LGBT people are in the minority everywhere, but voters have shown that they do care about issues outside their own personal interests. Social issues and equality do matter to them.
There will now be 9 US states where same-sex marriage is legal. Federal appeal courts have repeatedly struck down the "Defence of Marriage Act"* and it is likely to end in the US Supreme Court. The President himself took the principled, risky and politically unnecessary step of declaring that he was in favour of marriage equality during the campaign.
Meanwhile, closer to home, yesterday the highest court in Spain declared that same sex marriage is legal and constitutional. This was in the face of an aggressive challenge by the country's conservative party and the Catholic hierarchy. Although mired in arguments, the majority of the population in France supports same-sex marriage and its government is drawing up plans to introduce it there. This will bring to 12 the number of countries with full marriage equality.
Back in May I saw the above tweet. Its words have really stuck with me. The fight isn't over yet, but we will get there. The times, they are a changin'. They are changing faster than I would ever have thought even two years ago. An acceptance that lesbians, gays and bisexuals should have equal rights rather than be classed as inferior is rapidly becoming a reality. The forces of reaction, discrimination and social conservatism are losing.
I don't want to pretend the discrimination I face is anything like that faced by people who have suffered in the past. It isn't, by a million miles. However, this picture sums up beautifully how widely accepted societal norms can change in a very short space of time and how we look back on it with genuine incomprehension now.
Thank you America. Thank you voters in Maine, Maryland, Washington and Minnesota. Thank you Spanish Constitutional judges. History is on our side. Equality is right, it is just, and it is coming.
* Correction: thanks for the comment below. DOMA was penned by Republican Representative Bob Barr and was passed by the Republican dominated Congress. Every Republican but one, in both houses, voted in favour of it. A White House spokesman described it as "gay baiting" but President Clinton, not President Bush, signed it into law.
There is another big story of interest to me here though, apart from the general rejection of right-wing, conservative philosophy. There are six US states where same-sex marriage is permitted, but marriage equality was achieved either through law suits or by lawmakers, rather than as a result of direct votes by the population.
Last night, the State of Maine became the first US state to introduce marriage equality. It has been joined by the State of Maryland and (subject to finally counting) by the State of Washington. In Mid-West Minnesota, a ballot to introduce a ban on same sex marriage into the constitution was defeated by voters. These smiling young smiling young faces of discrimination who voted yesterday to enshrine prejudice won't be too happy this morning.
This is massive. LGBT people are in the minority everywhere, but voters have shown that they do care about issues outside their own personal interests. Social issues and equality do matter to them.
There will now be 9 US states where same-sex marriage is legal. Federal appeal courts have repeatedly struck down the "Defence of Marriage Act"* and it is likely to end in the US Supreme Court. The President himself took the principled, risky and politically unnecessary step of declaring that he was in favour of marriage equality during the campaign.
Meanwhile, closer to home, yesterday the highest court in Spain declared that same sex marriage is legal and constitutional. This was in the face of an aggressive challenge by the country's conservative party and the Catholic hierarchy. Although mired in arguments, the majority of the population in France supports same-sex marriage and its government is drawing up plans to introduce it there. This will bring to 12 the number of countries with full marriage equality.
Back in May I saw the above tweet. Its words have really stuck with me. The fight isn't over yet, but we will get there. The times, they are a changin'. They are changing faster than I would ever have thought even two years ago. An acceptance that lesbians, gays and bisexuals should have equal rights rather than be classed as inferior is rapidly becoming a reality. The forces of reaction, discrimination and social conservatism are losing.
I don't want to pretend the discrimination I face is anything like that faced by people who have suffered in the past. It isn't, by a million miles. However, this picture sums up beautifully how widely accepted societal norms can change in a very short space of time and how we look back on it with genuine incomprehension now.
Thank you America. Thank you voters in Maine, Maryland, Washington and Minnesota. Thank you Spanish Constitutional judges. History is on our side. Equality is right, it is just, and it is coming.
* Correction: thanks for the comment below. DOMA was penned by Republican Representative Bob Barr and was passed by the Republican dominated Congress. Every Republican but one, in both houses, voted in favour of it. A White House spokesman described it as "gay baiting" but President Clinton, not President Bush, signed it into law.
Monday, 5 November 2012
Sperm cooked
If you are a guy, and you and your wife are having difficulties making a baby, it could be because:
- You are a chef ie: the heat from the stove affects the sperms
- You use your laptop on your lap
I read it here: Daily Mail
Hmm maybe thats why guys were not meant to cook lol
- You are a chef ie: the heat from the stove affects the sperms
- You use your laptop on your lap
I read it here: Daily Mail
Hmm maybe thats why guys were not meant to cook lol
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)