Our county is very green. If you don’t like green you had better not come. I am not referring to politics but to the many woods and green pastures we have. That said our communities try to be green and wood burners of various types are popular. Likewise growing your own vegetables and trying to confine shopping trips to either market days or the local shops are other green habits. Although 25% of the nation’s gas passes us by just a few miles away, we don’t have mains gas. Electricity arrived up here in 1963 so solid fuel, especially wood and coal for Rayburn Regents was very popular. There contemporaries are usually oil fired now with bottled gas and electricity being the other choices. We have several heating and cooking facilities. We have storage heaters for background heating, a Clearview wood burner which provides the bulk of our space heating and a fifty year old York Stove. We also have a solar panel. All these sources will soon feeding a five foot tall heat store which has two Economy 7 immersion heaters for times when one or more of the other inputs are not working. We are hoping that our plumbing system which was installed 50 years ago when we had a gravity fed system from a well across the fields will now make more sense. Ever since we went onto the mains in 1977/8 it has been rather eccentric.
The Yorkist was designed to burn house coal, not anthracite, and will heat water, run a main oven, a warming oven, and will convert to an open fire from a closed stove when it has a hotplate. We have a lot of soup and stews in winter as a result. This very efficient miracle was installed before the electric came and when Welsh coal was available. Unfortunately, coal is no longer cheap and has never been green and so we now burn well seasoned wood and dried shredded hedge cuttings. The only problem is keeping it in at night, especially when a strong westerly is blowing. The solution is to use about 250 kilos of coal per winter, but the guilt weighs much more. There are wood fuels manufactured from waste wood but these are still very expensive (barbecue premium really) and so until the price comes down we will still burn a mix of wood and coal in extreme weather.
For this winter we will be trying some Forest of Dean coal. It is a bit greener in that it won’t have come far, unlike some coal which could, it seems, have come from anywhere on the planet. For years I have been searching in vain for any statement of origin on house coal bags. I can hear the less compromising green folk tut tutting from here and I don’t like using even this small amount, much like I am sure many of you don’t like using gas from Quatar or Oil from Alaska, Nigeria and anywhere else. Not to mention the coal fired power stations and nuclear plants that account for much of your electricity bill. But until a good slow burning recycled product arrives at a reasonable price, we have little alternative for our much loved stove when there is a high wind coming at us from off the hill.
It is estimated that some 70% of our woodland is not being managed and that present supplies could be increased by 2 million tonnes. Although wood is not supposed to go to landfill, there is still a lot of wood being wasted. It is particularly distressing to see developers’ and foresters burning timber rather than putting it into the green energy market. We have a lot of such fuel going to waste and such is the stupidity of the system, if you want to make arrangements to collect such material from factories etc you will have to buy a licence to keep within the law.
Meanwhile, as all kinds of alternative fuels are sough, thousands of old houses are wasting fuel and the costs of doing something about it are a major discouragement to occupiers. The answer lies not in meeting demand per se but in reducing it along with reducing waste. This involves both avoiding wasted heat and wasted potential fuel. But all the promoters of environmental tokenism can do is promote wind and nuclear power, while cutting grants and increasing the complexities and costs for those of us who would like to be micro generators. Even simpler, would be a wide spread subsidy for all types of insulation, including double glazing. However, this is unlikely while environmental tokenism stalks the corridors of Whitehall and bankers’ bonuses need to be paid. Even worse, nothing much is said of the water power which powered so many industries before the shift to fossil fuels and the path to global warming was taken.
Dacier
Friday, 28 August 2009
Monday, 24 August 2009
More on English Devolution: the Foreign Policy Snag from Scotland
Having made the claim that it is time to take English devolution seriously, the current debacle over the Lockerbie Bomber shows one of the dangers with changing the British Constitution. All kinds of changes are being proposed. Many have already been implemented. The difficulty lies in the fact that no one actually designed the system but it has evolved over the centuries with a series of settlements which have emerged from civil conflict and/or compromise. As a consequence many of the details have been left open to leave room for flexibility or because delving into the detail would re-open old arguments.
In the case of Scottish devolution the present arrangement can be seen as having been a major shift of Scottish affairs away from the Westminster Parliament and Whitehall ministers, with a consequent enhancement of the exercise of power through an elected Scottish Parliament. This devolved the exercise of the powers previously exercised by the Secretary of State for Scotland. The assumption has always been that Foreign Policy and Defence would l remain with Westminster and, more realistically, with the Secretaries of State for Defence and Foreign Affairs within the Cabinet, togther with their attendant ministries filled with experts to support them.
No one seems to have foreseen that Scottish policy on Criminal Justice could hold such dangers for UK foreign policy. It is hard to imagine a Home Secretary or a Minister for Constitutional Affairs being left to pursue a policy of this kind, even though it is quasi-judicial in nature, without attracting the attention of Foreign Secretary. They would be well within their range of influence, to which would added the influence of the [Prime Minister, except in this instance the PM, Gordon Brow, is still, for some reason, still on an extended holiday. Even before devolution Scotland had retained its own judicial system, but the Secretary of State for Scotland sitting in the Cabinet would have been directly within the sight line of the Foreign Secretary. Whilst the exercise of this influence might contravene the constitutional proprieties, is somewhat naive to think that ‘words would not be had’. As far as one can see, if there was any influence coming from Whitehall as to UK Foreign policy it did not get through.. Even if such influence might be seen as improper, an independent Minister would surely have to take into account the wider public interest, which in pre-devolution days would have been the UK’s interests. Were such interests within the considerations of the Scottish Minister for Justice? I think not, and in any case, it might well have served the Brown government to let things run their course. It was after all, nothing to do with them.
As a result British/American relations have taken a knock, with threats of trade boycotts and talk of holiday makers being advised to go to Ireland rather than the UK: just the sort of thing that our regions and struggling rural economies could do without in a recession. The other result is that it shows that any constitutional changes need to be carefully thought through as to their consequences. House of Lords reform seems to be stuck in the oven half baked; the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law no longer seems to convince the government that brought it about, while the undermining of Cabinet Government in favour of the presidential model continues by unabated stealth.
The case for English devolution, or the existing devolved arrangement, is not weakened by the present embarrassment. It reminds us of the subtleties of the British Constitution and warns us that tinkering with the system within the short term mentality of politicians is dangerous, and with the wrong combination of factors, it could be disastrous for the values of liberty which our system is supposed to embody.
In the case of Scottish devolution the present arrangement can be seen as having been a major shift of Scottish affairs away from the Westminster Parliament and Whitehall ministers, with a consequent enhancement of the exercise of power through an elected Scottish Parliament. This devolved the exercise of the powers previously exercised by the Secretary of State for Scotland. The assumption has always been that Foreign Policy and Defence would l remain with Westminster and, more realistically, with the Secretaries of State for Defence and Foreign Affairs within the Cabinet, togther with their attendant ministries filled with experts to support them.
No one seems to have foreseen that Scottish policy on Criminal Justice could hold such dangers for UK foreign policy. It is hard to imagine a Home Secretary or a Minister for Constitutional Affairs being left to pursue a policy of this kind, even though it is quasi-judicial in nature, without attracting the attention of Foreign Secretary. They would be well within their range of influence, to which would added the influence of the [Prime Minister, except in this instance the PM, Gordon Brow, is still, for some reason, still on an extended holiday. Even before devolution Scotland had retained its own judicial system, but the Secretary of State for Scotland sitting in the Cabinet would have been directly within the sight line of the Foreign Secretary. Whilst the exercise of this influence might contravene the constitutional proprieties, is somewhat naive to think that ‘words would not be had’. As far as one can see, if there was any influence coming from Whitehall as to UK Foreign policy it did not get through.. Even if such influence might be seen as improper, an independent Minister would surely have to take into account the wider public interest, which in pre-devolution days would have been the UK’s interests. Were such interests within the considerations of the Scottish Minister for Justice? I think not, and in any case, it might well have served the Brown government to let things run their course. It was after all, nothing to do with them.
As a result British/American relations have taken a knock, with threats of trade boycotts and talk of holiday makers being advised to go to Ireland rather than the UK: just the sort of thing that our regions and struggling rural economies could do without in a recession. The other result is that it shows that any constitutional changes need to be carefully thought through as to their consequences. House of Lords reform seems to be stuck in the oven half baked; the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law no longer seems to convince the government that brought it about, while the undermining of Cabinet Government in favour of the presidential model continues by unabated stealth.
The case for English devolution, or the existing devolved arrangement, is not weakened by the present embarrassment. It reminds us of the subtleties of the British Constitution and warns us that tinkering with the system within the short term mentality of politicians is dangerous, and with the wrong combination of factors, it could be disastrous for the values of liberty which our system is supposed to embody.
Sunday, 23 August 2009
Black Hill and the Black Mountains from 60 Miles away: Visual Amenity as Inspiration
Following on from my blog of 11th August ( Windmills etc: Visual Amenity, What’s it for?) I must tell you of one of the highlights of our latest trip when our caravan came to rest in the Clent hills, in the Black Country: the place where the great wealth of our nation started to be generated from the 18th century onwards. From Coalbrookdale to climate change is such a small step but there is much still to be done to reverse this deadly drift, as G.K. Chesterton puts it, ‘before we go to paradise by way of Kensal Green’.
Having made the climb to Clent summit the views are magnificent, from city sprawl through to Housman’s ‘blue remembered hills’ of Shropshire, and of Worcestershire, Herefordshire and Gloucestershire. For us it was the view to the west which meant the most. Sixty miles away among the haze was our part of the world. At the top of this list was Hay Bluff, Black Hill and the line of the Cats Back with the Sugar Loaf insisting on being seen in the far distance. For such a comparatively easy walk this must be the most rewarding climb in the region.
Whilst taking in the contrasts of rural and industrial landscape I got talking to an elderly, sprightly gentleman who was a life member of the CTC. He had lived all his life in Sutton Coalfield and said he valued the contrasts of his region. Looking towards Hay Bluff, this veteran t recounted his cycle ride as a young man to Brecon with his fellow CTC members. The traditional meeting place was the Temple of Remembrance in the city centre, with an 8 am start on a Saturday morning. Instead of the route the crow might take from Clent, the cyclists route would be winding and lengthy. The first section was to Hereford and then out along the Brecon Road, crossing the river at Bridge Sollars and on to Hay-on-Wye from Madley via Hardwicke.
We both recalled the methods of cycling in large groups in the fifties and how the occasional vehicle was assisted in passing several dozen cyclists by making sure that there were ample gaps in the column for the overtaking car or lorry. A Tail Ender cyclist would warn of an over taker with the call, ‘Oil Up’, while a leading rider would call ‘Oil Down’ for one coming in the other direction.
Main road cycling in the fifties at weekends was rarely a problem, and my veteran friend told me that he was still riding on main roads up until the early seventies. By then the speed and volume of the traffic had reduced the pleasures of the open road while increasing the risk. I think cycling in some towns has now reached that point with added risk of being knocked down as a pedestrian by cyclists in pedestrian precincts!
Having passed through Hay-on-Wye, the Brecon YHA was reached just after 5pm. Returning by a different route on the Sunday ensured a varied, affordable and refreshing weekend for the cyclists of his generation. For the present generation of cyclists it is probably wiser to avoid busy roads as much as possible and support segregated cycle routes whenever possible.
This meeting so inspired Sian that she has decided that I should upgrade from my 1957 Dawes Clansman to something a bit lighter. I collect it, still a Dawes, from Master Craft Cycles of Hereford on Tuesday and we plan to make use of cycle routes beyond the reach of the car and lorry whenever possible. The car cycle rack has been retrieved from the shed ready for our next. Possibly the National Cycle Route along the Kennet and Avon Canal. See where a good view can end up.
Having made the climb to Clent summit the views are magnificent, from city sprawl through to Housman’s ‘blue remembered hills’ of Shropshire, and of Worcestershire, Herefordshire and Gloucestershire. For us it was the view to the west which meant the most. Sixty miles away among the haze was our part of the world. At the top of this list was Hay Bluff, Black Hill and the line of the Cats Back with the Sugar Loaf insisting on being seen in the far distance. For such a comparatively easy walk this must be the most rewarding climb in the region.
Whilst taking in the contrasts of rural and industrial landscape I got talking to an elderly, sprightly gentleman who was a life member of the CTC. He had lived all his life in Sutton Coalfield and said he valued the contrasts of his region. Looking towards Hay Bluff, this veteran t recounted his cycle ride as a young man to Brecon with his fellow CTC members. The traditional meeting place was the Temple of Remembrance in the city centre, with an 8 am start on a Saturday morning. Instead of the route the crow might take from Clent, the cyclists route would be winding and lengthy. The first section was to Hereford and then out along the Brecon Road, crossing the river at Bridge Sollars and on to Hay-on-Wye from Madley via Hardwicke.
We both recalled the methods of cycling in large groups in the fifties and how the occasional vehicle was assisted in passing several dozen cyclists by making sure that there were ample gaps in the column for the overtaking car or lorry. A Tail Ender cyclist would warn of an over taker with the call, ‘Oil Up’, while a leading rider would call ‘Oil Down’ for one coming in the other direction.
Main road cycling in the fifties at weekends was rarely a problem, and my veteran friend told me that he was still riding on main roads up until the early seventies. By then the speed and volume of the traffic had reduced the pleasures of the open road while increasing the risk. I think cycling in some towns has now reached that point with added risk of being knocked down as a pedestrian by cyclists in pedestrian precincts!
Having passed through Hay-on-Wye, the Brecon YHA was reached just after 5pm. Returning by a different route on the Sunday ensured a varied, affordable and refreshing weekend for the cyclists of his generation. For the present generation of cyclists it is probably wiser to avoid busy roads as much as possible and support segregated cycle routes whenever possible.
This meeting so inspired Sian that she has decided that I should upgrade from my 1957 Dawes Clansman to something a bit lighter. I collect it, still a Dawes, from Master Craft Cycles of Hereford on Tuesday and we plan to make use of cycle routes beyond the reach of the car and lorry whenever possible. The car cycle rack has been retrieved from the shed ready for our next. Possibly the National Cycle Route along the Kennet and Avon Canal. See where a good view can end up.
Thursday, 20 August 2009
Tokenism and the Bus Pass
In an earlier blog, Popular Policies are Doomed, I was making the claim that whenever something becomes popular in the UK it has to be curtailed. The Bus Pass is one of the recent victims of its own success. In the12 months I have held a senior persons bus pass I have yet to use it in Herefordshire. The reason for this is that it is a 3 mile walk to the nearest bus stop with a useful service, although I cant expect to get a bus back after 6pm.
Our other services don’t operate out of school terms and only run one in the morning and one back in the evening. The two market day buses give little time before they return from Hereford and Abergavenny respectively. I have used the pass in Birmingham a few times and once on a park and ride in Kent. I could go to Cardiff and back for nothing, but without a toilet break I don’t think the two hour trip would be much of an outing. It does of course involve a five mile drive to pick the bus up in the first place. Consequently, for me, it doesn’t add up to a hill of discarded tickets, but for others it is a liberating opportunity.
It’s these ‘others’ who are therefore causing the Association of Local Authorities to winge. Local authorities have to fork out the cost of reimbursing the bus operators. This would not be a problem but the promised reimbursement from central government has been falling short of the actual cost. The local authorities are now saying that people who have a car should not be entitled to a free bus pass especially when they could afford to pay proper fares anyway. The Government, having made the gesture are now quite happy, or so it seems, to see the idea of free bus travel for the older citizen to gradually fade away while the local authorities can be blamed. The scheme has already been withdrawn from limited stop services, park and ride and city sightseeing tours. This latter category, it could be argued, is hardly travel anyway, but these are just the start..
What the local authorities don’t seem to realise is that they should be encouraging people to get onto public transport and they probably wouldn’t disagree with this, until they have to pay for it. The same can be said of central government if they are reneging on the undertaking to reimburse local authorities. The withdrawal of park and ride from the scheme really shows how seriously this claimed encouragement to get us out of our cars and onto public transport is taken. Not much.
Having been scarred by commuting for 13 years by the poisonous combination of Great Western and Thames Trains I am reluctant to risk my valuable leisure time by travelling by train, usually at great expense. By buying a train ticket you have decided to forgo the expense already incurred by keeping and running a car. Your tax and depreciation costs are still being incurred while your car stands idle. No recognition of this is given. Instead you have to take on the double whammy of paying a high train fare as well, and in my experience, a huge gamble as to whether you will have a pleasant journey due to poor management of the system and a total failure to understand the phrase, ‘customer care’. In any case, subsidised travel should be extended to everyone if there is a genuine determination to reduce car journeys. The other poisonous combination of John Major’s Thomas the Tank Engine privatisation and Tony Blair’s failure to think a joined up thought on the topic has meant that the public transport system outside the big cities is very patchy and practically non-existent for evening travel. If I stop using my car I give up the only reliable transport I know at the moment. This of course suits all the token environmentalists in government well, because I not only pay the full costs, the taxes I pay for the privilege leaves some cash free to spend on all kinds of other daft token schemes which are supposed to make us think that New Labour is environmentally sound. The current thinking is about as joined up as a transatlantic bus service.
Dacier
Our other services don’t operate out of school terms and only run one in the morning and one back in the evening. The two market day buses give little time before they return from Hereford and Abergavenny respectively. I have used the pass in Birmingham a few times and once on a park and ride in Kent. I could go to Cardiff and back for nothing, but without a toilet break I don’t think the two hour trip would be much of an outing. It does of course involve a five mile drive to pick the bus up in the first place. Consequently, for me, it doesn’t add up to a hill of discarded tickets, but for others it is a liberating opportunity.
It’s these ‘others’ who are therefore causing the Association of Local Authorities to winge. Local authorities have to fork out the cost of reimbursing the bus operators. This would not be a problem but the promised reimbursement from central government has been falling short of the actual cost. The local authorities are now saying that people who have a car should not be entitled to a free bus pass especially when they could afford to pay proper fares anyway. The Government, having made the gesture are now quite happy, or so it seems, to see the idea of free bus travel for the older citizen to gradually fade away while the local authorities can be blamed. The scheme has already been withdrawn from limited stop services, park and ride and city sightseeing tours. This latter category, it could be argued, is hardly travel anyway, but these are just the start..
What the local authorities don’t seem to realise is that they should be encouraging people to get onto public transport and they probably wouldn’t disagree with this, until they have to pay for it. The same can be said of central government if they are reneging on the undertaking to reimburse local authorities. The withdrawal of park and ride from the scheme really shows how seriously this claimed encouragement to get us out of our cars and onto public transport is taken. Not much.
Having been scarred by commuting for 13 years by the poisonous combination of Great Western and Thames Trains I am reluctant to risk my valuable leisure time by travelling by train, usually at great expense. By buying a train ticket you have decided to forgo the expense already incurred by keeping and running a car. Your tax and depreciation costs are still being incurred while your car stands idle. No recognition of this is given. Instead you have to take on the double whammy of paying a high train fare as well, and in my experience, a huge gamble as to whether you will have a pleasant journey due to poor management of the system and a total failure to understand the phrase, ‘customer care’. In any case, subsidised travel should be extended to everyone if there is a genuine determination to reduce car journeys. The other poisonous combination of John Major’s Thomas the Tank Engine privatisation and Tony Blair’s failure to think a joined up thought on the topic has meant that the public transport system outside the big cities is very patchy and practically non-existent for evening travel. If I stop using my car I give up the only reliable transport I know at the moment. This of course suits all the token environmentalists in government well, because I not only pay the full costs, the taxes I pay for the privilege leaves some cash free to spend on all kinds of other daft token schemes which are supposed to make us think that New Labour is environmentally sound. The current thinking is about as joined up as a transatlantic bus service.
Dacier
Tuesday, 18 August 2009
The Scandal of Car Clamping: a tentative legal opinion
Not to be relied on as an accurate statement of the Law
Please send comments and corrections so the opinions expressed can be amended and eventually validated
If you ever take a chance and park on waste ground make sure you look out for notices which might tell you the consequence. You should do this wherever you park, even in your friendly local supermarkets such Asda, Aldi and Netto to name but a few. Number Plate recognition will be used to log your entry into the car park as well as your exit and if you out stay your welcome you will get a threatening letter demanding you pay a ‘fine’ or else you can expect the bailiffs to come round and take your life away. Some Supermarkets have permitted areas as short as 30 minutes, Aldi 1hour 30 minutes. At the last named store we were 10 minutes late leaving their Leominster branch having had a major shop and having eaten some of their sandwiches we had bought before setting off. We have not shopped in an Aldi store since. I must get round to telling them that we have managed to do without them for14 months. The good ne2ws is that these systems do not involve clamping but they are given access to your details through the DVLA on payment of a fee. Yet another privatisation of civil liberties?
This blog is about what I shall call thug clamping operations. Alternatively you could call them protection rackets, demanding money with menaces outfits or opportunists blackmailers and extortionists. Such firms will rent a bit of waste land that may have been used for parking by the owner or tenant but the clamping firm comes along and offers an attractive rent so that they can run it as a non-car park. That is, a location for the entrapment of unsuspecting drivers who erroneously think that few minutes stay will not matter. It won’t if you don’t mind parting with a £250 ‘fine’ and a recovery vehicle charge of £100. Seems a great business opportunity, because that is what the Security Industry Act of 2001 calls such firms: ‘immobilization businesses’. These firms are separate from local authority run schemes which have the benefit of a detailed legislative framework. As far as I can see The Security Industries Act 2001 is the only legislation which applies and is naive and ineffective as things currently stand. (Although further research might prove me wrong on this, although I doubt it!). The Act seems to leave in place the common law as to what the clampers can charge for at civil law within the law of contract and assumes they will act within the law as to trespass to property and the person. If they step outside what may be lawfully done by a landownner when dealing with a trespass, or a breach of contract, the clampers are still liable in the same way as anyone else. All the Act seems to do is require them to have a licence if they want to clamp a car, with exceptions for disabled drivers and emergency services etc.
The ideal place is somewhere near a facility which does not have parking and where people will call in for a temporary stop. The whole operation is based on the misleading use of the word 'Fine'. One of the great difficulties people have in legal matters is keeping civil and criminal law apart. The word ‘fine’ refers to a criminal penalty for which criminal procedure will usually apply although the rise of the fixed penalty ticket has blurred the edges.( Possibly now to be extended to careless driving!) Thug clampers operate in most of our city centres so be careful
If a civil claim is being made against a driver then all that can be claimed is damages for the loss suffered. This can be done in advance by agreeing in the contract a reasonable amount which is supposed to reflect any anticipated loss, but it cannot be an arbitrary sum. Calling the fees claimed 'fines' is just part of the intimidation process which is based on the belief that most decent people will pay up for a quiet life. The phrase ‘civil penalty’ is nearer the truth, but can still have the same effect in a drivers mind.
This sum is only enforceable if it is 'reasonable' and can only be contractual damages if there is a properly displayed warning notice. The damages are in theory linked to the value lost by the loss of the parking space. If a clamper is present and starts to clamp the vehicle before the driver has even got out of the car the loss to the occupier would have been very little had the clamper simply told the driver to leave. Since these operators are not really trying to make money from parking fees, but by entrapping people, that is the last thing they want. To detain the vehicle and demand money in such circumstances could amount to blackmail. To simply pluck a sum out of the air is not a true attempt to assess the damages in advance and amounts in my opinion too an unenforceable penalty at civil law. Contract law does not allow penalties, it only allows 'liquidated damages 'i.e., the genuine attempt to assess damage in advance, as explained above.
If there is no notice reasonably displayed then the law which applies is trespass and damages can again only be reasonable. Usually damages for trespass to land can only be nominal i.e., small, what is some disturbed gravel worth? Unless specific loss can be shown the best remedy for trespass is better fencing or eviction by request or reasonable force.
By clamping a vehicle the clampers are seeking to seize the vehicle as security for payment of the ‘fine’. A car repairer can hold onto a car against payment and this would be a legal lien. Holding onto an entrapped car where it is done immediately is probably an illegal lien as it is not need. Trespass could however apply to the clampers themselves if their actions are unnecessary. They will commit trespass to goods when they interfere with the car or trespass to the person if they purport to detain the driver, or reasonably give that impression. This would amount to the civil wrong of false imprisonment. If the driver is put in fear then this could be the civil wrong of assault. If the driver is restrained then this makes these civil wrongs easier to show. Consequently the driver could claim damages for these trespasses.
Whether the money with menaces was used in the context of either contract or trespass any money paid above what is reasonable can be claimed in an action for money had a received, sometimes known as a claim for unjust enrichment. In such an action the driver might be able to claim that his losses were aggravated by the trespass to his goods and/or person, and would be entitled to ask the court to award punitive damages where the clampers actions were oppressive. This gives the civil courts an opportunity to show that they think the behaviour is unacceptable and should be punished.
These sites have little to t do with parking but amount to protection money rackets which if it is not prohibited by any legislation should be. A Government consultation exercise finished at the end of July but publicity only seems to have been attracted just before the closing date.
Clamping fines might well be a breach of our human rights but they are more importantly probably a breach of several of our own common laws. The firms rely on the citizen’s ignorance of the law and/or their reluctance to take on the clamping bullies, knowing full well that ignorance of the law is no defence as well as knowing that it is a business opportunity well worth exploiting with the support of the pathetic Act of 2001 piece of legislation.
PLEASE COMMENT: if you think this statement of the law is wrong and/or can be improved. Also, keep an eye out for any draft legislation that emerges out of the consultation process. This could be very helpful as I am helping a victim of clamping at the moment and it would be good to have a strong case and get some publicity against these firms.
Case law needs to be researched further with full citations and any statutory points missed out need to be dredged up.
If you have had a bad ‘clamping experience’ in the UK then please leave your story.
Please send comments and corrections so the opinions expressed can be amended and eventually validated
If you ever take a chance and park on waste ground make sure you look out for notices which might tell you the consequence. You should do this wherever you park, even in your friendly local supermarkets such Asda, Aldi and Netto to name but a few. Number Plate recognition will be used to log your entry into the car park as well as your exit and if you out stay your welcome you will get a threatening letter demanding you pay a ‘fine’ or else you can expect the bailiffs to come round and take your life away. Some Supermarkets have permitted areas as short as 30 minutes, Aldi 1hour 30 minutes. At the last named store we were 10 minutes late leaving their Leominster branch having had a major shop and having eaten some of their sandwiches we had bought before setting off. We have not shopped in an Aldi store since. I must get round to telling them that we have managed to do without them for14 months. The good ne2ws is that these systems do not involve clamping but they are given access to your details through the DVLA on payment of a fee. Yet another privatisation of civil liberties?
This blog is about what I shall call thug clamping operations. Alternatively you could call them protection rackets, demanding money with menaces outfits or opportunists blackmailers and extortionists. Such firms will rent a bit of waste land that may have been used for parking by the owner or tenant but the clamping firm comes along and offers an attractive rent so that they can run it as a non-car park. That is, a location for the entrapment of unsuspecting drivers who erroneously think that few minutes stay will not matter. It won’t if you don’t mind parting with a £250 ‘fine’ and a recovery vehicle charge of £100. Seems a great business opportunity, because that is what the Security Industry Act of 2001 calls such firms: ‘immobilization businesses’. These firms are separate from local authority run schemes which have the benefit of a detailed legislative framework. As far as I can see The Security Industries Act 2001 is the only legislation which applies and is naive and ineffective as things currently stand. (Although further research might prove me wrong on this, although I doubt it!). The Act seems to leave in place the common law as to what the clampers can charge for at civil law within the law of contract and assumes they will act within the law as to trespass to property and the person. If they step outside what may be lawfully done by a landownner when dealing with a trespass, or a breach of contract, the clampers are still liable in the same way as anyone else. All the Act seems to do is require them to have a licence if they want to clamp a car, with exceptions for disabled drivers and emergency services etc.
The ideal place is somewhere near a facility which does not have parking and where people will call in for a temporary stop. The whole operation is based on the misleading use of the word 'Fine'. One of the great difficulties people have in legal matters is keeping civil and criminal law apart. The word ‘fine’ refers to a criminal penalty for which criminal procedure will usually apply although the rise of the fixed penalty ticket has blurred the edges.( Possibly now to be extended to careless driving!) Thug clampers operate in most of our city centres so be careful
If a civil claim is being made against a driver then all that can be claimed is damages for the loss suffered. This can be done in advance by agreeing in the contract a reasonable amount which is supposed to reflect any anticipated loss, but it cannot be an arbitrary sum. Calling the fees claimed 'fines' is just part of the intimidation process which is based on the belief that most decent people will pay up for a quiet life. The phrase ‘civil penalty’ is nearer the truth, but can still have the same effect in a drivers mind.
This sum is only enforceable if it is 'reasonable' and can only be contractual damages if there is a properly displayed warning notice. The damages are in theory linked to the value lost by the loss of the parking space. If a clamper is present and starts to clamp the vehicle before the driver has even got out of the car the loss to the occupier would have been very little had the clamper simply told the driver to leave. Since these operators are not really trying to make money from parking fees, but by entrapping people, that is the last thing they want. To detain the vehicle and demand money in such circumstances could amount to blackmail. To simply pluck a sum out of the air is not a true attempt to assess the damages in advance and amounts in my opinion too an unenforceable penalty at civil law. Contract law does not allow penalties, it only allows 'liquidated damages 'i.e., the genuine attempt to assess damage in advance, as explained above.
If there is no notice reasonably displayed then the law which applies is trespass and damages can again only be reasonable. Usually damages for trespass to land can only be nominal i.e., small, what is some disturbed gravel worth? Unless specific loss can be shown the best remedy for trespass is better fencing or eviction by request or reasonable force.
By clamping a vehicle the clampers are seeking to seize the vehicle as security for payment of the ‘fine’. A car repairer can hold onto a car against payment and this would be a legal lien. Holding onto an entrapped car where it is done immediately is probably an illegal lien as it is not need. Trespass could however apply to the clampers themselves if their actions are unnecessary. They will commit trespass to goods when they interfere with the car or trespass to the person if they purport to detain the driver, or reasonably give that impression. This would amount to the civil wrong of false imprisonment. If the driver is put in fear then this could be the civil wrong of assault. If the driver is restrained then this makes these civil wrongs easier to show. Consequently the driver could claim damages for these trespasses.
Whether the money with menaces was used in the context of either contract or trespass any money paid above what is reasonable can be claimed in an action for money had a received, sometimes known as a claim for unjust enrichment. In such an action the driver might be able to claim that his losses were aggravated by the trespass to his goods and/or person, and would be entitled to ask the court to award punitive damages where the clampers actions were oppressive. This gives the civil courts an opportunity to show that they think the behaviour is unacceptable and should be punished.
These sites have little to t do with parking but amount to protection money rackets which if it is not prohibited by any legislation should be. A Government consultation exercise finished at the end of July but publicity only seems to have been attracted just before the closing date.
Clamping fines might well be a breach of our human rights but they are more importantly probably a breach of several of our own common laws. The firms rely on the citizen’s ignorance of the law and/or their reluctance to take on the clamping bullies, knowing full well that ignorance of the law is no defence as well as knowing that it is a business opportunity well worth exploiting with the support of the pathetic Act of 2001 piece of legislation.
PLEASE COMMENT: if you think this statement of the law is wrong and/or can be improved. Also, keep an eye out for any draft legislation that emerges out of the consultation process. This could be very helpful as I am helping a victim of clamping at the moment and it would be good to have a strong case and get some publicity against these firms.
Case law needs to be researched further with full citations and any statutory points missed out need to be dredged up.
If you have had a bad ‘clamping experience’ in the UK then please leave your story.
Thursday, 13 August 2009
The Case for English Devolution
I raised this issue in company a few months back. The discussion was brief as it was clear that the idea was seen as rather eccentric, even coming from me. Devolution for every other national part of the United Kingdom is now seen as common place, but for England, it is seen by many who live there as somewhat comic. This all comes back to the ‘West Lothian Question’. Why should Scottish and Welsh MPs be allowed to vote on issues which are already dealt with within their devolved powers for their own national area. In other words, why should they votes on matters which apply only to England? Its no longer any of their business. I suspect its all to do with the distribution of MPs from across the borders. If that’s the case then it looks like vote rigging.
As a starting point why not replicate a bundle of devolved powers for England, the English Assembly could see Parliament at Westminster revert to an English Parliament for such measures. There would have to be some adjustments with regard to the Cabinet for English matters, whilst non-devolved powers (these still vary as between Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) could be dealt with by the Westminster Parliament acting as the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Foreign policy and defence would be the principle among these. For the English regions the Regional Assemblies, (whatever they do) could be scrapped, and the role of Local Government revised to give it more local meaning.
Surely to stake a claim for English Devolution is not eccentric? To have the British Cabinet heavily influenced by non-English MP’s and a second chamber that is neither one thing nor the other, is far dafter. The problem with ‘Englishness’, whatever that is, is that the ‘English’, whoever they are, are too embarrassed to discuss such matters. This of course, is very English.
Dacier
As a starting point why not replicate a bundle of devolved powers for England, the English Assembly could see Parliament at Westminster revert to an English Parliament for such measures. There would have to be some adjustments with regard to the Cabinet for English matters, whilst non-devolved powers (these still vary as between Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) could be dealt with by the Westminster Parliament acting as the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Foreign policy and defence would be the principle among these. For the English regions the Regional Assemblies, (whatever they do) could be scrapped, and the role of Local Government revised to give it more local meaning.
Surely to stake a claim for English Devolution is not eccentric? To have the British Cabinet heavily influenced by non-English MP’s and a second chamber that is neither one thing nor the other, is far dafter. The problem with ‘Englishness’, whatever that is, is that the ‘English’, whoever they are, are too embarrassed to discuss such matters. This of course, is very English.
Dacier
Popular Policies are Doomed!
Have you noticed that if ever something turns out to be popular, the powers that be will try to curb our enthusiasm? You name it, it’s been cut back or made more expensive once people see what a good idea something is. Peace, for example, usually has to be seen as an expensive thing to protect and usually has to be fouled up by some governmental idiot or two taking offence or taking liberties. But I digress.
University education was seen a good idea back in the sixties, so much so that quite generous grants were available for some of us of mature years together with some pretty flexible entry requirements.The latter might still be the case but the grants are gone, debts are the alternative, and degrees from anywhere other than Oxbridge or the Russell Group are rubbished, usually by people from such universities. The real underlying motive is resentment that all these ‘Johnny come Latelies’ are muscling in on their nice cosy elite and would rather only see clones of themselves running higher, or even higher and higher, education. Sharing their resources would spoil it for them, while they seek to spoil it for others by asking for higher and higher fees and hoping that not too many comprehensive types get in under the wire. Getting over it would be out of the question of course.
Legal Aid is always a popular idea with ordinary people but always under threat because people use it. In the late seventies the system was improved, became popular and has been the subject of more and more cuts ever since. Once upon a time we were encouraged to take our bikes by train. This was clearly a good idea because loads of people did it so very quickly leaflets started to appear stating the complicated restrictions and where fares had to be paid. This was just a holding operation while they abolished the guards van to be replaced by small cupboards where our newly created ‘conductors ‘ could hide when things got a bit overcrowded or, more usually, late.
There are many other areas where this British disease can be observed. Decent pensions, retirement at 65, housing improvement grant, mortgage interest relief, subsidised transport, civil liberties. At a lower level grants for energy saving and even bus passes are too popular and must either be restricted or preferably made meaningless lotteries. All these ideas are apparently too expensive for the, allegedly, 4th richest economy in the world.
Is it just me but are their no good ideas which will be kept despite their popularity? Now that we are heavily in debt as a nation are we still so rich? Do we have that many great things worth defending? The National Health Service would be at the top of most people’s list, but even that is constantly under threat, as are our traditional liberties and freedoms. These don’t come cheap either. If there is no great list of great achievements to glory in, then what are we defending? Someone somewhere still thinks that there must be. Do these people have safe jobs, good incomes and final salary pensions I wonder? They probably are and will also make sure that we buy some nice new nuclear weapons on the ‘never never’. ‘Some new helicopters that work? Now that’s not quite so easy old boy’.
Dacier ( I feel better now)
University education was seen a good idea back in the sixties, so much so that quite generous grants were available for some of us of mature years together with some pretty flexible entry requirements.The latter might still be the case but the grants are gone, debts are the alternative, and degrees from anywhere other than Oxbridge or the Russell Group are rubbished, usually by people from such universities. The real underlying motive is resentment that all these ‘Johnny come Latelies’ are muscling in on their nice cosy elite and would rather only see clones of themselves running higher, or even higher and higher, education. Sharing their resources would spoil it for them, while they seek to spoil it for others by asking for higher and higher fees and hoping that not too many comprehensive types get in under the wire. Getting over it would be out of the question of course.
Legal Aid is always a popular idea with ordinary people but always under threat because people use it. In the late seventies the system was improved, became popular and has been the subject of more and more cuts ever since. Once upon a time we were encouraged to take our bikes by train. This was clearly a good idea because loads of people did it so very quickly leaflets started to appear stating the complicated restrictions and where fares had to be paid. This was just a holding operation while they abolished the guards van to be replaced by small cupboards where our newly created ‘conductors ‘ could hide when things got a bit overcrowded or, more usually, late.
There are many other areas where this British disease can be observed. Decent pensions, retirement at 65, housing improvement grant, mortgage interest relief, subsidised transport, civil liberties. At a lower level grants for energy saving and even bus passes are too popular and must either be restricted or preferably made meaningless lotteries. All these ideas are apparently too expensive for the, allegedly, 4th richest economy in the world.
Is it just me but are their no good ideas which will be kept despite their popularity? Now that we are heavily in debt as a nation are we still so rich? Do we have that many great things worth defending? The National Health Service would be at the top of most people’s list, but even that is constantly under threat, as are our traditional liberties and freedoms. These don’t come cheap either. If there is no great list of great achievements to glory in, then what are we defending? Someone somewhere still thinks that there must be. Do these people have safe jobs, good incomes and final salary pensions I wonder? They probably are and will also make sure that we buy some nice new nuclear weapons on the ‘never never’. ‘Some new helicopters that work? Now that’s not quite so easy old boy’.
Dacier ( I feel better now)
Tuesday, 11 August 2009
Windmills and Watermills: (P.1) Visual Amenity, what’s it for?
This title conjures up images of quaint rural scenes from another age. The mill race and slowly turning wheel, the sails of the wooden structures that ground corn or pumped water. Where they survive they are a much valued visual amenity.
Wind farms can evoke feelings of anger because of their impact on the landscape. For the moment I would like to argue that not everywhere which has the right wind speed is right for a wind farm. Some, away from centres of population in little visited bleak landscapes, may be seen as acceptable, but even these will be seen as a desecration of a wilderness. On a democratic level it can be argued that whilst such areas may be appreciated by a small number, this is not enough to override the need of the majority for electricity.
Already some will be beginning to wince at the thought of miles of moor land being covered by such spinning monsters. The line of argument I would like to unravel now, is purely a case for visual amenity.
Having lived at the very centre of a provincial county town, and in various London districts, as well as Liverpool 8, I remember the feelings of getting away from the noise and bustle to somewhere more peaceful, dare I say, a bit more civilized. Often it was the dream that sustained, rather than the journey to the distant hills.
I think there are few who would argue against the value the Peak District has to the people of Manchester and Sheffield and the vast conurbations which are now within easy reach due to the motorways. Ewan McColl’s song, ‘A Rambler from Manchester Way’ proudly claims, ‘ I might be a wage slave on Monday, but I am , ‘a free man on Sunday’. Granted things have changed but many of those who feel trapped in their various occupations, be it in a call centre, factory or office, sometimes for not much more that the minimum wage, can still have those feelings and a need for fresh air, and an absence of concrete. So my visual amenity argument is based on the idea that we must not deny the people in the towns the right to see from a distance a reminder that wild places do exist and where mans engineering activities have not despoiled the natural environment. If they want to visit, then so much the better.
To see the clean lines of Cats Back and Hay Bluff from the top of Birdlip Hill, before descending into the sprawl below, is evidence that the built environment is not the only choice.
Dacier
Wind farms can evoke feelings of anger because of their impact on the landscape. For the moment I would like to argue that not everywhere which has the right wind speed is right for a wind farm. Some, away from centres of population in little visited bleak landscapes, may be seen as acceptable, but even these will be seen as a desecration of a wilderness. On a democratic level it can be argued that whilst such areas may be appreciated by a small number, this is not enough to override the need of the majority for electricity.
Already some will be beginning to wince at the thought of miles of moor land being covered by such spinning monsters. The line of argument I would like to unravel now, is purely a case for visual amenity.
Having lived at the very centre of a provincial county town, and in various London districts, as well as Liverpool 8, I remember the feelings of getting away from the noise and bustle to somewhere more peaceful, dare I say, a bit more civilized. Often it was the dream that sustained, rather than the journey to the distant hills.
I think there are few who would argue against the value the Peak District has to the people of Manchester and Sheffield and the vast conurbations which are now within easy reach due to the motorways. Ewan McColl’s song, ‘A Rambler from Manchester Way’ proudly claims, ‘ I might be a wage slave on Monday, but I am , ‘a free man on Sunday’. Granted things have changed but many of those who feel trapped in their various occupations, be it in a call centre, factory or office, sometimes for not much more that the minimum wage, can still have those feelings and a need for fresh air, and an absence of concrete. So my visual amenity argument is based on the idea that we must not deny the people in the towns the right to see from a distance a reminder that wild places do exist and where mans engineering activities have not despoiled the natural environment. If they want to visit, then so much the better.
To see the clean lines of Cats Back and Hay Bluff from the top of Birdlip Hill, before descending into the sprawl below, is evidence that the built environment is not the only choice.
Dacier
Tuesday, 4 August 2009
Magna Carta 1215: New Labour in Breach! Outrageous Silence
Clause 38 ‘In future no official shall bring anyone to trial on his own unsupported statement without producing trustworthy witnesses to the alleged offence.
Clause 39 'No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions ... except by the lawful judgment of his peers and according to the law of the land.'
Clause 40 'To no one will we sell, refuse or delay the operation of right or justice.'
Why is it that the myth of Magna Carta is promoted as a great document but the sad truth is that it is ignored. New Labour is not alone in ignoring the simplicity of Magna Carta, claiming to prefer the more complicated provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. But this still allows our civil liberties to be cast aside on grounds of expediency, knowing full well that private citizens for the most part do not have the resources to challenge an abuse of power. Anyone who knows anything about our system of government will soon realise that the people get their rights by a trickle down from above and the trickle is governed by the tap the Government chooses to turn on and off at its whim.
Judging by the terms of Clause 40 the law is open to all. It is: like the Ritz Hotel, to quote the old joke. Just try to challenge a delay or denial of justice in the courts and you will soon find out that it is not free. Indeed access will be barred due to costs alone let alone trying to find a lawyer to act or a provision the legal aid scheme which will allow you to be funded. In any case, if you are moderately well off, you are on your own mate!
The present Government, like its predecessors have been squeezing the legal budget for years and now its looks as though the solicitors who are in the front line are going to be like the farmers. They must do the job for less than cost. They will cut corners of course but if they go too far they will lose their franchise. The result? More lawyers will withdraw from the scheme, more firms will not train lawyers and the big cats will move in to asset strip the lucrative assets of old firms, close down unprofitable sections and put their fees up.
Against all of this the Government assures us that it wants to make the professions less elitist. I don’t know how they are going to achieve this with students leaving university with huge debts and facing huge bills for professional examination courses, and with little prospect for the majority of finding a training position. Coming from a generation of politicians who had a lot of help to get where they are; grammar schools, public schools and university grants etc, Jack New Labour must be running out of ladders to pull up. Some hope for Magna Carta. .
Dacier.
See Spaghetti Gazetti by The Editor on 02/08/09
Clause 39 'No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions ... except by the lawful judgment of his peers and according to the law of the land.'
Clause 40 'To no one will we sell, refuse or delay the operation of right or justice.'
Why is it that the myth of Magna Carta is promoted as a great document but the sad truth is that it is ignored. New Labour is not alone in ignoring the simplicity of Magna Carta, claiming to prefer the more complicated provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. But this still allows our civil liberties to be cast aside on grounds of expediency, knowing full well that private citizens for the most part do not have the resources to challenge an abuse of power. Anyone who knows anything about our system of government will soon realise that the people get their rights by a trickle down from above and the trickle is governed by the tap the Government chooses to turn on and off at its whim.
Judging by the terms of Clause 40 the law is open to all. It is: like the Ritz Hotel, to quote the old joke. Just try to challenge a delay or denial of justice in the courts and you will soon find out that it is not free. Indeed access will be barred due to costs alone let alone trying to find a lawyer to act or a provision the legal aid scheme which will allow you to be funded. In any case, if you are moderately well off, you are on your own mate!
The present Government, like its predecessors have been squeezing the legal budget for years and now its looks as though the solicitors who are in the front line are going to be like the farmers. They must do the job for less than cost. They will cut corners of course but if they go too far they will lose their franchise. The result? More lawyers will withdraw from the scheme, more firms will not train lawyers and the big cats will move in to asset strip the lucrative assets of old firms, close down unprofitable sections and put their fees up.
Against all of this the Government assures us that it wants to make the professions less elitist. I don’t know how they are going to achieve this with students leaving university with huge debts and facing huge bills for professional examination courses, and with little prospect for the majority of finding a training position. Coming from a generation of politicians who had a lot of help to get where they are; grammar schools, public schools and university grants etc, Jack New Labour must be running out of ladders to pull up. Some hope for Magna Carta. .
Dacier.
See Spaghetti Gazetti by The Editor on 02/08/09
Sunday, 2 August 2009
Where paths of History Cross (pt 2).
One summer weekend about ten years ago my wife’s cousin visited. Our family reunion was interrupted by a telephone call from our neighbour who wondered what he should about a piece of ordinance he had found hidden up on the top of a wall plate in an out house. It was about 6 inches long and about ¾ of an inch thick, with a pointed end. My wife’s cousin happened to be an Artillery man so we all trotted down the lane to inspect the object. Observed from a distance the expert opinion was soon being voiced that it was clearly live, lethal and could by now, be unstable. With such things it is always better to fear the worst and do the best, in this case calling bomb disposal. Things moved quickly, even on a sleepy hot afternoon. A truck arrived and the dangerous object removed.
By contrast, Christmas Day 1944 was foggy and most families were sitting round the wireless listening to the Kings Christmas message. In one farm house two girls were playing upstairs and granny was downstairs in the kitchen. A loud thump suddenly broke the quiet of the farm, and one or two other farms in the area. ‘Will you two girls behave yourselves, and stop jumping off that bed. You’ll have the plaster down!’
Even these two fit country girls could not have made such a crash, for crash it was. A bombing mission over Germany had ended on our common a few yards from another occupied farmhouse. The farmer had been called in from tending his cows to hear the Kings Message and the cows he would have been tending were killed when an American Liberator Bomber came to earth. The crew had bailed out in two stages. The flight deck first as the plane was on fire. They landed in Germany, but due to a break in communications, the fire now out, the rest of the crew remained on board. A brief inspection had shown the flight deck empty, the plane on automatic but all the dials on danger. They jumped over France. Bold Venture lived up to its name and flew on, ran out of fuel and its unsupervised glide path passed over RAF Madley to its crash site. The policeman who had arrived first asked the village boys to take a quick look to see whether there were any crew on board, as they were more agile and smaller. As a result various souvenirs were brought home before a round the clock guard was mounted and the wreckage cleared. You guessed it; some shells went home with the boys. Their reward was a good walloping by their concerned dad. It would seem that someone had hidden one shell before the rest were returned to the wreckage.
And the other path of history that crossed that glide path? It was into the same airspace from RAF Madley that Deputy Fuhrer Rudolf Hess took off in October 1946, to face trial in Nuremberg before serving a Spandau Prison. He died on 17th August 1987 only to leave this world with yet another puzzle at the end of a puzzling life. Did he hang himself or was he strangled?
Dacier
(With acknowledgements to The Hereford Times 22/12/2004 where a full account of the crash can be found)
By contrast, Christmas Day 1944 was foggy and most families were sitting round the wireless listening to the Kings Christmas message. In one farm house two girls were playing upstairs and granny was downstairs in the kitchen. A loud thump suddenly broke the quiet of the farm, and one or two other farms in the area. ‘Will you two girls behave yourselves, and stop jumping off that bed. You’ll have the plaster down!’
Even these two fit country girls could not have made such a crash, for crash it was. A bombing mission over Germany had ended on our common a few yards from another occupied farmhouse. The farmer had been called in from tending his cows to hear the Kings Message and the cows he would have been tending were killed when an American Liberator Bomber came to earth. The crew had bailed out in two stages. The flight deck first as the plane was on fire. They landed in Germany, but due to a break in communications, the fire now out, the rest of the crew remained on board. A brief inspection had shown the flight deck empty, the plane on automatic but all the dials on danger. They jumped over France. Bold Venture lived up to its name and flew on, ran out of fuel and its unsupervised glide path passed over RAF Madley to its crash site. The policeman who had arrived first asked the village boys to take a quick look to see whether there were any crew on board, as they were more agile and smaller. As a result various souvenirs were brought home before a round the clock guard was mounted and the wreckage cleared. You guessed it; some shells went home with the boys. Their reward was a good walloping by their concerned dad. It would seem that someone had hidden one shell before the rest were returned to the wreckage.
And the other path of history that crossed that glide path? It was into the same airspace from RAF Madley that Deputy Fuhrer Rudolf Hess took off in October 1946, to face trial in Nuremberg before serving a Spandau Prison. He died on 17th August 1987 only to leave this world with yet another puzzle at the end of a puzzling life. Did he hang himself or was he strangled?
Dacier
(With acknowledgements to The Hereford Times 22/12/2004 where a full account of the crash can be found)
Journalists have a go at Twitter! How’s that for a headline?
Journalists see themselves as cutting out the wittering. Where does that leave the rest of us? I cant remember when I last saw a journalist writing poetry. Their haikus seem, even in war-time, .to consist of “Gotcha!”
Anything popular is often seen as unworthy. Do I smell a rat, or is it the smell of fear that someone else other than the ‘highly trained’ wordsmiths might actually produce something worth reading. Having a go at the ‘proles’ who use Twitter seems to me rather like criticising the electorate for choosing the ‘wrong party’, fearful that there is a chance of democracy actually working. A 90% turnout would not be much of a story.
Graffiti artists were once seen as grubby nuisances but Banksy seems to have elevated it to ‘worthy art’. The same goes for expressing yourself in words. Everyone has to start somewhere. Those who call Twitter wittering must be reading the wrong tweets. Don’t these journalists see they have to apply some judgement?
Everyone is entitled to report on their own lives or voice their opinions. Look out journalists, Here Comes Everybody ! Get a life, have the wit to twit!.
Sian
For a Book Review of Here Comes Everybody ! see earlier Blog.
Anything popular is often seen as unworthy. Do I smell a rat, or is it the smell of fear that someone else other than the ‘highly trained’ wordsmiths might actually produce something worth reading. Having a go at the ‘proles’ who use Twitter seems to me rather like criticising the electorate for choosing the ‘wrong party’, fearful that there is a chance of democracy actually working. A 90% turnout would not be much of a story.
Graffiti artists were once seen as grubby nuisances but Banksy seems to have elevated it to ‘worthy art’. The same goes for expressing yourself in words. Everyone has to start somewhere. Those who call Twitter wittering must be reading the wrong tweets. Don’t these journalists see they have to apply some judgement?
Everyone is entitled to report on their own lives or voice their opinions. Look out journalists, Here Comes Everybody ! Get a life, have the wit to twit!.
Sian
For a Book Review of Here Comes Everybody ! see earlier Blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)