I have decided to add this page to keep the best of the soapbox articles I have written. I feel I'm writing these articles, and some of them are good, but I'm not getting noticed. So someone out there notice me, because surely I've got a future in writing newspaper columns. Or maybe I'm dreaming.

As I've said on the main soapbox page, all the items on this page are my own personal points of view, and do not represent anyone else.

Best of Soapbox 2006 (Jan-May)
Best of Soapbox 2005 (July-December)
Best of Soapbox 2005 (Jan-Jun)
December 2004 - Householders rights
December 2004 - Safer Britain
November 2004 - Bullying
November 2004 - Smoking in Pubs
November 2004 - The plight of the IT employee
October 2004 - The Price of a Pee
September 2004 - Conkers Bonkers
September 2004 - Terrorism
August 2004 - Road tolls and Public transport
August 2004 - The Music Industry
July 2004 - Speeding
June 2004 - Speed Cameras
April 2004 - Yobs

December 2004

This weeks soapbox follows on from last weeks (below), safer Britain.

There's a lot talk from the politicians about the rights of householders to defend their property. Obviously, the Tony Martin episode is relevant here. Did he have the right to defend his property with the use of a gun?

Once again, I dont claim to know the full facts about the law or the Tony Martin incident, so I apologize if I get any of the facts wrong.

Firstly, regarding Tony Martin, I dont condone his actions, but I totally agree with his right to defend his property. Its just the means used were excessive in my opinion. Where do you draw the line though?

Hypothetical situation time. Your house has been broken into several times, a couple times while you and your family (wife and two daughters) were asleep. Youd called the police, but for whatever reason they weren't able to attend the scene quick enough, meaning the perpetrators had got away. Although the police go through the motions, they admit to you that there is not much hope of catching the burglars.

Even if they do catch them, what happens? They go to court, plead a deprived childhood, their parents had split up, got into drugs, etc., etc. Prison? Not a chance. Youve been a naughty boy, slapped wrists, dont do it again.

Either way, the victims never see justice to be done. Is it any wonder that people get disillusioned with the police and justice system?

This is fairly tame example at the moment. Lets take it a step further. Drugs play a part in some of these crimes. The people taking the drugs need to fund their habit, and will go to any means to achieve this. They break into your house. You hear a noise, and see them go into your daughters bedroom. What do you do? Call the police and hope they dont wake your daughters? If your daughters do wake up while youre making the call, and scream when they find an intruder in their rooms, whats he going to do? What are you going to do? You already know the answer to that. You are not going to stay on the phone while your daughters are screaming are you? Youre going to go in there and use whatever means necessary to protect your daughters. Maybe violence will be the result. You dont care about the consequences, you want to get this person in a position where they cannot harm your family.

What happens next? You end up in court, and prison (just remind me whos the victim again?) for assault. The burglar, what about them? Prison? Not a chance. Youve been a naughty boy, slapped wrists, dont do it again. Oh, and well throw in a drug rehabilitation programme as well.

And you know the really sick thing. The burglar claims compensation from you for the injuries you cause them. And the doo-gooders, civil liberties people think this is right (generally)!!!

The fact is, it doesnt matter what the crime is, the system favours the criminal. It always appears that no one gives a damn about the victim. The system seems to forget that if they didnt break into your property, none of the resulting actions would occur. YOU ARE NOT IN THE WRONG. The burglar is!!!!

Ask yourself this. Faced with the above situation, would you kill someone who is using and threatening your children in order to get what they want? Maybe kill is too excessive. Would you use excessive violence against them? Put them in hospital. Im sure your answer is the same as mine.

The only argument I can see against any of the above, is if you up the ante the criminals will do the same. Maybe so. But surely the law is supposed protect the citizens, not the criminals.

The other point I'd better make is that while the media reports on the cases that show how the system is failing, I'm sure that there are cases where the system works. They just don't get the publicity though. (I wonder why Ozzy Osbourne wasn't charged when he tackled the burglar who raided his home?).

Youve probably guessed I feel strongly about this. Its another example of how this country is on a downhill slope, with the promises made by the politicians to solve these problems never resulting in any actions.

But all of the above is a total fabrication isnt it? Because we live in safer Britain dont we !! (See below).

Let's have a look at this. I'd better say before I start, that all the points in this soapbox are based on what I've read in the papers and overheard on the radio, so I apologise in advance if I get any of the facts wrong.

Firstly, let's look at terrorism. We have gone to war in Iraq (rightly or wrongly), as part of the war on terrorism, or was that because of the weapons of mass destruction. Anyway, regardless of the reasons behind this, the main point is that we are now a frontline target for the terrorists. This war has made all the innocent citizens in Britain targets for these terrorists. Now don't get me wrong. Britain has always been near the front of the line as a target of terrorism. However, we have now moved up to the front alongside America.

Now, as I've said previously on this soapbox, I don't condone the actions of any party in disputes like these, but the methods employed by the terrorists tend to be stronger and more direct than any of the actions we may take. The reason behind this is to get the cause publicity.
 
One final point on Iraq. We removed an evil dictator who persecuted his citizens. Im sure words to this effect have been used by the politicians. What about Zimbabwe (allegedly)? (A topic for another soapbox I think).

Back to safer Britain. There are now more police officers. Wonderful. No more cutbacks. The link between the number of police officers and crime statistics has been made. As crime increases, you need more police officers to deal with this crime. If you cutback, does crime cutback as well? You know the answer to that. Its a pity the courts dont punish the criminals as they should though. The naughty boy, slapped wrist, dont do it again approach seems to be employed. This again falls under the wing of another soapbox (Crowded jails, intimidated witnesses, criminals being let off or so it seems, etc.).

So its nice to see all these extra police officers on the beat isnt it? What do you mean you havent? Take a look at all the traffic police with speed cameras. (Sorry, couldnt resist that one).

But seriously, have you seen more policemen back on the beat? Need I say anymore.

One final controversial suggestion on this. Police resources do tend to get put into sports events and town centres for alcohol related crime. Is there now an argument for putting a tax on sports tickets to pay for the police presence? Should the tax on alcohol be raised to pay for the police presence? Do you think that the taxes you pay should pay for policing at these occasions, or would you rather see an officer on the beat deterring the crime on your street?

Back to safer Britain. Violent crime is on the increase (I believe). Only today, a banker was stabbed in Chelsea, in front of his young daughter. Some reports even said that teenagers were involved. If Britain is safer, why is violent crime on the increase?

Now it might seem by this soapbox Im having a go at our wonderful Labour government. Not so. I dont believe any other political party would have made any difference to the points made above. However, I believe the claim that Britain is safer doesnt add up. This applies to any party that may get in at the next election.

I could go on for hours and hours about this, but Ill leave it here. This subject is bound to raise its ugly head again, and the other points made will unfortunately no doubt find there way on to this page again in the future.

November 2004

Apparently, its anti-bullying week this week (last full week Nov 2004). I may be completely wrong about this, but I thought Id tackle bullying anyway on this soapbox.

Bullying comes in many forms. Its starts at school, and continues into adult life through domestic violence or bullying at work. A survey said 1 in 3 people has been bullied.

I was bullied at school. Ive also had my life threatened at work by a bullying boss (fortunately I was already working my notice at this firm). Pity I didnt think to sue the pants off them at the time.

My wife has been bullied, both at school and in her adult life.

Heres the worst part. My six year old daughter has also been bullied at school. She was first bullied at the age of four. How sick is that? I wasnt bullied until secondary school. My daughter was bullied the in the first year of her school life. Shes been too scared to go in some days.

At the end of the day, this just shows how todays society has changed. If you read this soapbox on a regular basis, youll know how often the lack of respect todays youth seems to have gets a mention. So what are the reasons behind this? Ill concentrate on school bullying here.

Well, in my opinion, a lack of discipline in society, both in the home and outside the home is partly to blame. Compensation culture also plays a part. What was wrong with the village bobby (whats one them I here you say) giving a clip round the ear hole to youths that have got out of hand? So much as breathe on a child today, and their up in court being sued. And whats happened to the slipper/cane at school (provided it was only used as a last resort).

Smacking is now being clamped down on. Now before I spout off here, I agree that excessively smacking (another form of bullying) is out of order. But how on earth do all these interfering do-gooders expect us to discipline our kids otherwise. Shouting at them only gets you so far. A stubborn child can rule the roost. You ground them. They go out anyway terrorising neighbourhoods. You read about it in the papers. You withhold there pocket money. They take the money out of your wallet. Or, as a worst case scenario, tell the authorities youve been abusing them. You get labelled a child abuser for their lack of respect/discipline. Extreme examples, or proof that todays society has created an environment where children can do what they want. What can parents do all you know-it-alls? (Fortunately our daughter isnt at that age yet). Whats worse is the Peter and the Wolf syndrome this sort of action can result in. If children can make up stories like these, they wont be believed if it ever happens for real. It also wastes resources that could be used for genuine cases.

At the other end of the scale are the parents who dont care? Let your kids do what they want. Anyone complains about them (the kids), give them a mouthful of abuse, and hit them if they dont go away. Wonderful world we live in.

Im going a bit off the subject here. Going back to our daughter, fortunately she isnt constantly being picked on. However, it does raise its ugly head now and then. Weve actually been told at one point that our daughter will have to toughen up if shes to survive. So if shes picked on, she should hit back. Two wrongs obviously make a right.

To be fair though, the school has always tried its best to nip it in the bud when it occurs, and Im sure it can be hard getting the point across to children at this age.

Do the bullies at school become the bullying husbands/wives/managers of the future? Who knows? These areas of bullying are more suited to another soapbox.

The fact is, there are no easy answers. Something needs to be done soon however. And its about time the government saw this.

Now before I start, I'd better say that myself and my wife are both non-smokers. So your probably going to jump to the conclusion that I'm all in favour of this move. Wrong. Read on.

I believe this is a move too far. I don't want to breathe other peoples smoke at work, or when I'm out for a meal. However. when I go for a drink with the lads, I don't object to them smoking. It's part of the social culture.

So I'll ask the question, why is it not possible for the eating areas to be non-smoking and the bar area to be for smokers? Okay, theres an argument to say the people working in the bar might not want to passive smoke. Possibly there's an argument for the ban in the serving area. Or maybe, the person applying for the job in the bar area should be made aware that they could possible passive smoke. Or does this open the floodgates for all workers in all jobs (i.e. office workers as well)? How do non-smokers working in the tobacco industry manage?

One point that I will make is that the smoking lobby is powerful and has friends in the government. Another point that can be made is that if a lot of people give up smoking then the government will loose a lot of income from tax. Where is the shortfall going to be made up? Yes, you've guessed it, the likes of you and me who don't smoke.

Basically, if people want to kill themselves by smoking, let them. It's their choice. If they want to give up, by all means help them. But if not, it's a free world (debatable?), let them smoke. Just make the tobacco companies pay for their medical treatment in the future. And don't let them sue the tobacco companies for compensation if they do get a serious smoking related illness (compensation culture again!!). They know the risks.

There are a probably more points that can be made on this subject. However I'll end it here though. I'm sure your ready for a ciggie break by now.

At the moment there are a lot of people who used to work in IT unemployed. Believe it or not, the employers are complaining of a skill shortage as well. Hmm. Something doesn't add up there.

Anyway what are the reasons behind this?

Well firstly, ageism. Basically, when you reach the age of 30 you're obviously too old to work a computer, and therefore unemployable. Your brains had it, you can't keep up with technology, and bascially youre useless. (How all you silver surfers manage I don't know?).

Now don't get me wrong. I'm sure this doesn't apply to all employers. But I'm also sure the majority do apply this rule.

I fall into this category. I'm over 30. Fortunately I'm employed (at the moment). Am I employed because of my technical knowledge? No, I'm employed for my product knowledge. Anyway, I'm getting into areas that could cause me trouble there.

The other thing with over 30s is they are likely to have a family. They've got commitments. They cannot work 12 hours a day without any notice. They will not allow themselves to be walked all over. By this time they know when theyre being treated badly by management. They wont stand for it when the management crosses the line. Theyre troublemakers!!

Secondly, there's education. Employers today are looking for graduates. Obviously, graduates are better employees than non-graduates. (Not much hope for me then!!). What about the people who make this rule. Yes, you've guessed it. Theyre graduates themselves. So skills mean sweet FA, its education thats the important factor.

Now hold on a minute. There's a skills shortage. There are unemployed IT people with the skills. Why not give them the jobs? A revolutionary idea I know. Who said I was past it? Shit. I forgot. They're over 30 and not graduates. Damn. B&Q for us all then.

Thirdly, there are agencies. I lot of jobs are still advertised through agencies. Agencies shortlist people for the employers to interview. Let's take a hypothetical example:

VB programmer required. Must have experience in VB6, SQL Server and full development lifecycle. Any knowledge of .Net, ASP and XML would be advantageous, but is not essential as training will be given. Graduates preferred.

Lets see how an agency would read that:

VB Programmer required. Must have experience in VB6, SQL Server, full development lifecycle, .Net, ASP, XML. Must be a graduate and under 30. No one else need apply.

Exaggerated example. Maybe. The point is, unless youve got all the experience being asked for, you havent got a chance. Agencies recognize that employers are ageist and prefer graduates. They will only put people forward who most closely match the job description. That is, they have all the experience being asked for and education wanted.

Fourthly, theres outsourcing. This is a worrying trend these days. People in call centres and IT development should worry about this one. In fact, it probably applies to manufacturing as well.

The fact is, and has always been that companies over in India, China and the Eastern block can do the work at a lower cost due to cheap labour. The monthly wage of an IT person in India is around £300-£350.

Now Im not going to get into the call centres and manufacturing sections of this point. Lets just deal with IT development. Are the people in these countries doing a better job than the people over here? Well yes is the answer to that (in most cases).  Why? Because the labour is so cheap over there, the companies can afford to train there people up to the highest standard. Do UK companies get this saving passed onto them? Not always (they still have to pay for the training don't they?). They just get a better quality of work (possibly debatable). This trend is set to continue.

So what can you say? If a person was to ask me if IT development was an area to get into today, Id say no. Forget it. Youre going to have to be a graduate and someone who wants to progress into management. IT development is not a career for life!!

A recent report said that a third of IT people were moving out of IT into other areas of employment, such as plumbing and electricians. Most said they were glad to be out of IT, and they were a lot happier in themselves due to the lack of stress in their new careers. Good for them I say.

The real shame is that employers are too blinkered. People over 30 have a lot to offer. From a management perspective, surely you would rather have an employee who speaks up when he thinks your wrong instead of a yes sir, your right sir, lick your boots sir employee (a creep).

There are more points I could make on this subject, but I won't. All I will say to you all, particularly if your in IT, is take a look to the future. Watch the market. And if you get the chance to more into another career, consider it seriously.

October 2004

I thought I'd write about a trend on our high streets this week. The price of a pee.

On visiting Llangollen last weekend we discovered that the public toilets there were now charging 20p to use the facilities. So if there's five of you, thats £1 for the privilege of relieving yourself (maths was always my strong point).

Now don't get me wrong, Llangollen isn't unique in this respect. Numerous public loo's in this country are now going the same way. The reason behind this. The councils can't afford to keep them free (allegedly). Obviously, without the extra income, they wouldn't be able pay for the upkeep of the toilets (just remind me why we pay our taxes? It's also funny how they always have enough money for their pay rises isn't it? Meow!!).

Now normally, we would then go to the Llangollen Steam Railway station and use the loo's there. Not this day. It was a Thomas the Tank engine day. No one was allowed on the station platform without a train ticket. (Your lucky your not the subject of this soapbox). Now it's not as if the railway would have lost out by letting us use the loo's. Whenever we do use them, we always buy something in the shop. You lost out that day though didn't you.

Anyway back to the toilet situation. By now the family is doing the ministry of funny walks. I've tied a knot in it. The wife's put a cork in it. No choice. 40(pee) lighter we get to use the facilities.

So what do you get for your money. A proper toilet seat? Loo roll? Not a f**king chance. Two bits of wood screwed to the bowl. Nice to know the extra revenue is going to improving the facilities.

Anyway, it makes you wonder how long it will be before they start putting meters on our loo's at home? 10 pence a flush (Toilet Tax). You think I'm just taking the piss don't you?

September 2004

Conkers Bonkers. Sounds like a headline from the Sun newspaper. In fact, this weeks soapbox is prompted by a story in the Sun. Could also be called Political Correctness gone mad. Or Compensation Culture.

A council in the UK, I can't remember where, has cut all the branches off a Horse Chestnut tree so that kids wont climb it to get the conkers. Reason for this. They don't want to be sued if the kids were to fall.

Let's sit back and think about this for a minute. 1...2...3...........59...60. What can you say? I mean, I don't even need to rant and rave about it. It's just too stupid to even get mad about.

Is this the world we live in? We elect people to make stupid decisions like this because they are frightened money-grabbing parents are going to take them to court if their child climbs up a tree to get conkers and gets injured. The council is responsible for this. The tree has been around for decades producing conkers like it does every Auterm, and yes, kids have climbed up it or thrown sticks at it to get conkers, and probably they may even have hurt themselves. It's part of the fun of getting conkers isn't it. Suddenly this year, it (the tree) can't do what nature intended of it, and produce conkers because bureaucrats who have far too much time on their hands can't think of anything better to do than worry about kids getting hurt while trying to get conkers. The kids have done this for years. The tree has allowed the kids to do this for years. What's wrong now?

Conkers are banned at some schools. Why? The schools are frightened of getting sued if a kid got injured playing conkers. Where does it end? What about school sports? Is rugby banned? Is cricket banned? No it isn't. Which do you think is more likely to cause an injury? Football or conkers? Uproar if football was banned.

10....9....8....7....6....5....4....3....2....1.... Deep breathes.

We live in a stupid society. The lawyers have taken over. Compensation culture rules.

Don't get me wrong. I would be gutted if my daughter got hurt while climbing a tree. However, I would also be asking her what the bl**dy hell she was doing climbing a tree. Kids will be kids. You can't wrap them up in cotton wool. You just do your best by them, and hope they'll turn out okay.

Has anyone noticed how they put a foam coating around scaffolding now. Is this because they don't want people to sue them if they walk into the scaffolding? When are they going to put the same around lampposts and bus stops?

Does anyone remember an advert for Softmints? Mr Soft walked down a street that had padding on everything. The fence, postbox, cars, etc.. Is this the society we are moving to?

On this soapbox I'll tackle a more controversial issue, terrorism. This is probably one of the most controversial subjects I've ever tackled on this page.

Now before I start, I don't claim to know the full details of any of the issues nor am I going to condone the actions on any side in any dispute.

However, we all thought that a new low had been reached on 9/11 when those planes were crashed into the twin towers. Why do innocent people have to pay for the actions of their government and made to suffer by the perpetrators?

We were wrong. The events in Beslan proved that. How anyone can see children as a legitimate bargaining tool to further your cause beggars belief. What worries me is what will be the new low after this.

The family decided to visit Manchester City Centre last weekend. When we got to St Annes Square we found a 2 demonstrations taking place. From what we could tell, the Palestinians were demonstrating against Marks and Spencers, and the Israelis were demonstrating against the Palestinians. We never really got to know the full details, because both sides were getting a bit heated at times, hence the police presence.

Now I don't want to get into the Israel vs Palestinian argument. I also don't want to get into the Chechen or al-Qaeda arguments. This doesn't mean I condone their actions. Far from it. But I really don't have the full picture to make an informed judgement.

However, I do want to make a few points from a different tact, and please don't think I'm trivialising any issue.

Firstly, a call to all groups around the world. Remember, not all people condone the actions of there governments. Why make them suffer for these actions?

Secondly, humans are supposed to be an intelligent race. Are we? An intelligent race would know killing to promote a cause is wrong. An intelligent race would get around a table and talk, shout and argue there points. All sides would listen. Common ground may be found, and a compromise reached. You don't know until you try. Sometimes you feel like banging there heads together.

At the end of the day, we've all got to live on this world together. We should make more of an effort to get on. All parties involved should forget the posturing, flexing the muscles and pride. It's not a sign of weakness to provide a secure future for our children by talking.

Remember, two wrongs don't always make a right. Enough said.

---

August 2004

The news recently has contained a story about road tolls. The plan is to charge people anything from 2p-£1.40 a mile on primary roads. The amount charged will vary according to the time of day you travel. So basically, if you travel at midnight it will be 2p a mile, and if you travel at peak times it will be £1.40 a mile. This will reduce congestion as people will either share cars or switch to public transport.

Today (21 July), it was announced that the Metrolink Tram system extensions in Manchester would be scrapped. Also today, the government has rejected plans to upgrade the tram system in Blackpool.

Hmmm........ Okay. Step back a minute. The government wants to reduce congestion. Use public transport they say. Right, fair enough. Then they scrap 2 schemes (possibly more) to improve public transport. Am I the only person who can see that something doesn't gel here?

Right here goes. Who are these people who make stupid f***ing recommendations like these? You can't force people onto a public transport if there isn't a public transport system to switch too. I've been down this road on this page before. Has any of these idiots actually used public transport these days?

We had the joy of a visit to London this week. Nothing has changed. People are still herded onto the underground like cattle. They pay for the privilege as well. Travel in London before 9:30am is expensive (good value off-peak though). These people who crowd into underground trains think nothing of it. I hate to think what would happen if an accident happened on one of these trains.

Second point. Is the government trying to make travel a rich mans perk only. Look after your own you might say. Let's assume I want to visit my parents in Stockport on a weekday. Let's assume the road toll is 70p a mile (half the maximum amount as an average). Stockport is about 45 miles from Mold. 90 miles total. 90miles @ 70p a mile. That's £63. The trip currently costs at worst £22 for fuel, and let's say £1 road tax (higher amount than actual cost). Sorry Mum & Dad, I'd like to see you but at £63, not a chance. I'm not the Royal family or a lottery winner who can afford that sort of money. Well done transport advisors. You've now split me off from my family. Day trips to tourist attractions. Not a chance. I'm not paying 50p a mile, never mind £1.40 a mile to visit them. Well done transport advisors, why don't you just destroy the whole economy.

We wouldn't be charged Road Tax or Fuel Tax though. Oh whoopie do!! You don't care, you've just forced me and lot's of other families off the road. We'd have to sell illicit substances to be able to afford that sort of money.

And then you have the bloody cheek of pulling the plug on public transport systems. Have the aliens landed and removed their brains? Is the invasion starting? Brilliant idea eh?

Wake up!!!! Can you not see how stupid you look? Get real. Get the facts. Don't destroy this countries transport system. Improve public transport, yes. Build toll roads like the M6 toll where needed. (Not the stupid suggestion for a 4 carriageway motorway from Birmingham to Manchester). Don't force people who want to see this wonderful country of ours off the road. Don't make it a rich mans perk.

Deep breathes. 1....2....3....4....5....6....7....8....9....10.

Bit of good news if you live in London though. The government will help fund the Crossrail scheme in London. Is this the north-south divide showing again? Another soapbox I think. Better stop now.

As some of you may be aware, a number of legal music download services are springing up on the web now. Mycokemusic, iTunes and Napster (the cat is back) are a few I could mention. All have different rules and formats for downloading, but at the end of the day, one thing is generally common among most of them, the music is limited or protected. Digital rights management (DRM) has been introduced.

Now I don't claim to be an expert on mp3 players, music or DRM. Technology has left me behind in that department. I might develop software, but technology in all areas is moving on. Anyway, my understanding of DRM is that the music can be rented, and/or only played on a particular computer, and/or can on be written to CD a certain number of times. Other protection may also be involved.

Well hold on a minute. If I buy a song, I want to own it. I want to play it on my CD, computers CD, DVD video. I want to own it. I realise I'm not allowed to copy it, but it's mine, I payed the money for it. so I should be able to listen to it when and where I want. (Get an mp3 player I hear you say).

Remember cassette tapes. The BPI (British Phonographic Industry) was up in arms when they were launched. The death of the music industry they said. People could record there vinyl records on to cassette and listen to them anywhere (like in the car). The fact still remains, that if those people paid for the record, then surely they should be allowed to listen to it where they like. I'd love to see a portable LP player that doesn't jump when your jogging. Anyway, I seem to remember a sort of solution being provided. Each blank cassette would be taxed with the extra money going to the BPI. Not a government tax, but some sort of agreement between the cassette makers and the BPI. Forgive me if the facts are slightly off the mark, but I think that was the gist of the agreement.

CD's come along. Then cd writer drives and CD-R's. We can now copy Audio cd's. BPI starts to worry again. Then comes internet downloads. BPI and American music industry reacts and starts legal proceedings against these internet sites. Couldn't some agreement have been reached, similar to the one above where a small percentage of revenue from CD-R sales and internet downloads went to the music industry. It seems not.

Now, don't get me wrong. The BPI has the right to defend the people it represents. And I certainly don't believe selling copied music CD's at the local car boot sale is right.

But it's about time the music industry accepted the new technology, and spent less money fighting costly legal suits, instead spending this money on embracing the new technology and bringing down the cost of music to the consumer.

On a final note, I have about 100 LP's up in the attic. A lot of them will probably never be reissued on CD. The point is that if I copy them from the vinyl to CD, then I've broken to law. If they are reissued on CD, then would I be allowed to trade in my vinyl for a discounted CD. I don't think so either. I'm stuck. I've got all this great music of LP's that I cannot legally transfer them to one of todays formats. WHY NOT? I've paid for them. The bands involved have spent my money on wrecking hotel rooms or drugs by now. The music industry has spent their share on the lawyers.

BPI and music industry. Open your eyes!!!! I want to be legal but you won't let me.

One final point. Is anyone else out there as sick as me of buying cd of 60's/70's hits thinking there getting some classic hits, only to read the small print which says tracks by groups may only contain one of more of the original lineup. You listen to it, and it sound nothing like the original. You think you've bought some music from your youth on one of todays formats, only to be disappointed by the crap remix. Thank you for nothing!!!

July 2004

Another driving related soapbox about speed this week generated by a business trip to Norwich and Ipswich.

Firstly, following on from my previous soapbox (below) about speed cameras, no where is this more prevalent than on the A14 between Huntingdon and Cambridge (and a couple at Kettering as well). These cameras are the ones that point at you as you drive towards them, thereby meaning you cannot slow down in time, although I already knew about them and wasn't speeding. I never speed (ahem).

Just on another sidepoint, I usually drive a Ford Fiesta. It's cruising speed is around 70mph. Not a problem. This week I was in a Mondeo. I don't think I discovered it's cruising speed. Nice car. Too fast. My eye's weren't just on the road but on the speedo as well. Hope you can see the point I'm making.

Anyway, this weeks soapbox is about the idiot's I encountered while travelling. The one's who see you doing around the speed limit, and decide to kiss your bumper, flash their lights, and try to intimidate you out of the way. Obviously I'm talking about single carriageway roads, and not dual carriageway roads where passing slower traffic is safer.

You can see them cursing in your mirror (I deliberately stick to the speed limit when I encounter one). Road rage at it's worst. They own the road. You have no right to be in their way. They are better than you. Not just at driving, but in life, in bed, financially. You know what I mean.

They don't care whether it's in a town, semi-rural or in the country. That couple of minutes saved makes all the difference. There lives can make use of that couple of minutes. They can have a pee without worrying about being late.

Then they make there move. Not on the straight stretches of road where they can see what's coming. No, that's too safe for them. They're in charge. The bend is approaching. Who know's what's around the corner coming the other way. A bus with schoolchildren. A tanker. An elderly couple (if it's a Sunday). They don't care. That couple of minutes is all that matter's. So they overtake you. A vehicle comes around the corner in the other direction. Acceptable risk in their eyes. They speed up more, cut in on you, kill the bird that was on the road that they couldn't see. The driver of the other vehicle is flashing his lights. F**k them. There not important. You have to slow down because they've cut in front of you. There off. Mission accomplished. Two shaken drivers, but they don't care. They've saved that couple of minutes.

I only hope that someday your dangerous driving will get the recognition it deserves. You'll apologise in court, and probably get away with it (another soapbox). You may not even get that chance. Neither will the people that you killed with you.

June 2004

I've been visiting Bristol this week, and, apart from the European elections, one story made the front page of the local paper, the Bristol Evening Post. Yes, it's the curse of all motorists, the speed camera.

There has been a 13% reduction in injuries at speed camera sites in Avon and Somerset. This rises to 40% nationally.

Local and national publicity regarding speed cameras has featured a lot in main news programs. We've got Captain Gatzo on a crusade to rid the roads of these devices, although I do wish to say that I don't condone vandalising them as the right way to fight them. I don't think vandalism of anything is right, but that's another soapbox. Other methods of protest should be considered.

Firstly, can I say, like most drivers, I believe speed cameras are a necessary evil, and at the right locations, such as by schools, the benefits of reduced accidents outweigh the argument of allowing a motorist to save a couple of seconds driving time. The figures above prove this. A also believe that cameras within built up areas can also be justified to a degree, where they are signposted and clearly visible to road users. Only a complete idiot would drive through one of these at speed.

Whether the introduction of speed camera's at accident blackspot's (outside built up areas) is another matter. Is a camera an easy option? Are all the facts being considered? Surely when a driver gets in a car and fails to negotiate a bend properly resulting in an accident, then that driver is at fault.

Now obviously at times, this accident could be due to mechanical failure with the car. Mind you, wherever a mechanical fault does occur, an accident is a very possible, and other road users need to be aware of this and be prepared. So all you tailgaters might get a nasty shock some day. I have witnessed the result of drivers tailgating. But again, that's another soapbox.

Basically, what I'm saying is that if a road has a history of accident's and speed is the underlying cause of the accidents, then maybe a camera is then justified at that location. But to place one at a location where numerous joyriders, people using mobile phones, or people driving tired, etc.... have had an accident is not a valid excuse for a camera. It's would be interesting to see what percentage of these camera's are there to reduce accidents, in opposition to raising funds for the police/government. (I can't really say where the money goes as I don't know, so I apologize if I'm wrong). I bet it's a considerable percentage.

To balance the argument it is worth pointing out that drivers who stay within the limits have nothing to fear. Fair enough.

I'll finish this soapbox with a couple of points. Firstly, no amount of speed cameras or reduced speed limits are going to stop joyriders/criminals from speeding. Secondly, like the law says, I also believe that anyone who is driving at over 30mph above the speed limit deserves everything they get. No exceptions!!! No hardship arguments in court!! No 'I might lose my job' arguments!! NO EXCEPTIONS!! A ban. No other option.

Finally, we have to accept sometimes the camera gets it wrong. You may have heard about the motorist in South Wales who was clocked at 420mph by a speed camera in an Austin Allegro (I think). I believe that motorist did query it (Can't think why?). Another friend of mine received a speeding ticket in Dorset when he was in North Wales on that particular day. After querying it, the police admitted it was a misread number plate on the photo. We're all human at the end of the day.

April 2004

I was reading the local paper today, and two stories stood out from the rest, and they were both on the front page.

Firstly, teenage yobs (not my words, but the newspapers words) were pelting nesting swans with stones. (That's a good game isn't it. Must try it with them sometime, and see how they like being on the receiving end!!). Just to maintain a balance, I'd better add that the police did have a word with them, and they insisted they weren't throwing stones at the swans, although they're hardly going to admit it if they were are they? (Oops, there I go again)

Secondly, yobs have been vandalising allotments and threatening people who use them. Another fun game isn't it?

So, what can be done. Well basically nothing if you look at todays do-gooders society we live in. Any cases that do get to court, the youths in question just have to say they come from a broken home, and judge will let them off with a slapped wrist. What happened to wrong is wrong, and should be punished?

The same thing has happened in our schools. Unruly children play truant, and the parents get punished. So the parents see their children into school, and these unruly children then disrupt classes meaning the children who do want to learn can't. And god forbid you try and discipline them in school. A teacher only has to breathe on them and there up in court for assault (exaggeration I know!!).

So what's the answer? Certainly not taking them on holiday to Africa (remember that for one young tearaway in the papers a few years back? I know, I'm off again). It just gets me angry.

There has to be respect. Not just from the teenage yobs, but from the adults as well. It's got to work boths ways. Respect for people, animals, and property. And if you step out of line, you get punished, and I mean punished, not a namby-pamby slap on the wrist. Until this society gains a respect, it's going to go further into oblivion.