ThunderDragon Blog

Bloody hell, the government really is just crap at looking after our data, isn’t it!

My details were almost certainly among those lost, and I am by no means pacified by Ruth Kelly apologising for “any uncertainty or concern” caused, especially since sorry seems to be the easiest word for Labour minister to say under Brown.

They were lost in May for crying out loud! Why did they not at least tell us that they had lost it? This isn’t however the fault of Ruth Kelly, who was only informed of this on 28th November. Stephen Ladyboyman most certainly can be, however, as he was told of this loss of data on June 4th, and whatever he did didn’t tell people like me whose details are more than likely to have been lost and potentially in the hands of fraudsters. What is staggering , however, is that even though nothing had been done about this loss of data on the government’s behalf, they only told the new Secretary of State after the government had lost the details of 25m other people.

I wonder, if that hadn’t have happened, would she - let alone us - ever have been told?!

What this does is demonstrate categorically that the State cannot be responsible for any more of our personal data than absolutely essential. Even what it currently holds is too much, and certainly even the thought of this incompetent bunch of morons ever getting hold of enough information to make an ID card should make all intelligent people very, very scared.

UPDATE: Ladyboy defends doing bugger-all about this because he “assumed the new minister would’ve been told about it.” Why didn’t you do something about it yourself? Or would that have meant that you would actually have to had earned your pay? Read Mr Eugenides’ comments on this issue.

I’ve just seen a report on TV saying that police drivers shouldn’t pursue criminals because some cause deaths. This is utterly wrong. The police should always give chase to suspects unless it is obviously extremely dangerous to do so for themselves and innocent passer-bys.

The fact-file that comes with the report says that there were between 11,000 and 19,000 police chases in 2005/6 in England and Wales, of which approximately one in eleven led to a death. Whilst this is obvious tragic for the individuals and their families concerned, it is usually the suspect - who is running away from the police - who dies. So, really, I can’t see it as much of a problem. If they hadn’t ran away, they wouldn’t have died.

If the police are restricted in the way in which they can give chase to criminals, then the criminals win. All they have to do is break the speed limit or do something considered dangerous enough to force the police not to pursue and they get away with it. This is obviously unacceptable. We cannot get into a position of policing by numbers, whereby criminals know all they need to do in order to escape the police is to run a few red lights.

Taking precautions to ensure that as few deaths as possible occur in police chases is obvious - but only so many can be taken. Such as training all police officers who drive patrol cars as highly as feasible, and have guidance on what sort of pursuits to continue, and which to back off from, but with the knowledge that these are guidelines not hard-and-fast rules. Also, helicopters could be employed - but they are expensive. But not everything can be done - for example, the skill of the driver being chased is, obviously, impossible to change.

But criminals must know that the police will pursue them. Otherwise they will have the ability to offend with impunity - so long as they have access to a car and are willing to take a few risks.

Source: BBC - article 1, article 2

Ha!

That is a transparent attempt to lessen the damage to his reputation.

So does he now consider himself a “serial potential killer”? Or is that definition just for the likes of us non-parliamentarians?

So even though he helped make the law, he decided to break it anyway!

If he was talking before he started driving - why? If he answered the phone whilst driving - why? There is no justification for it. If he was talking before he started driving, then he did so willingly, and if he answered the phone whilst driving he couldn’t have known that it was definitely an “important deportation phone call”.

He has no defence, and his attempts to manufacture an excuse out of an impossible scenario just shows that he won’t even accept real wrongdoing, despite calling others who do it “potential serial killers”. I think we all know who the potential killer is now.

Source: BBC

I can’t even act shocked at this:

Cycling is dangerous because motorists don’t pay any attention to them. The number of cars who have come so very very close to knocking me off my bike is legion, and buses are just as bad - if not worse - since their very size makes them far more dangerous when driven badly. As too many are.

It really doesn’t help that most cycle lanes are next to useless. They are almost all in the wrong place, plonked down where the road is wide enough for a bike anyway, just so that the council can claim to have this much cycle lane. This means that the areas in which cycle lanes are actually needed rarely have them. The worst kind of cycle lanes imaginable are those that go onto the pavement - dangerous both to the pedestrians and, since they are almost always designed about as well as a two-legged tripod, to the cyclist when he tries to regain the road.

Also, cars rarely leave enough space for a cyclist to get down the inside whenever there is a traffic jam - like in every rush hour - forcing cyclists to take risks by cycling on the right hand side or taking to the pavement. And then there are the idiots who park in cycle lanes.

Of course, it’s not all the fault of motorists. Cyclists have to look out for their own safety - and jumping a reed light is an annoying and potentially fatal habit of many. Cyclists need to use their own brains and take responsibility for their own travelling.

I don’t blame motorists, but do I think that, as a whole, they need to be more considerate of cyclists. Remember that they can’t move as fast as you. Pay attention to them - we move around drains and potholes that you can’t even see. And be courteous - you can make up any time you lose behind a cyclists in seconds. We can’t make up the time we lose because you’re too damn inconsiderate to leave enough space for cyclists to pass you in a queue.

Source: The Times

… hence I’m middle-class?

I’m amazed by the huge difference - richest fifth cycling 2½ times as far as the poorest fifth! It’s quite shocking. Why don’t “poor” people cycle? I wouldn’t have thought that the possibility of being considered “socially inferior” would prevent people from cycling. It seems absurd to me. Cycling is an efficient, healthy, and environmentally friendly form of transport.

I cycle everywhere. I have to. I can’t drive [and couldn't afford a car anyway] and hate the inefficiency, expense, and general crapness of public transport. Thus the only choice I have is to walk or cycle - and walking takes too long.

… and another for the rest of us.

So just because she’s a minister she doesn’t have to obey the law like everyone else? If she has broken the law, she’s broken the law, and should be dealt with in exactly the same way as everyone else!

It is truly disgraceful that she should be allowed to get away with not paying any of the extra fine. The excuse that “she forgot to pay the fine because she was busy campaigning to become Gordon Brown’s deputy at the time” is nowhere near good enough. Everyone has busy periods in their lives, and they get charged the extra fine for not paying within the 28 day time frame.

That she got away with this is truly disgraceful and stinks of hypocrisy. The law must apply to everyone equally, whoever they may be, or there is no point in having it at all.

via Guthrum
Source: Daily Mail

What this shows is that whilst speed cameras do have a purpose and a benefit, it isn’t as much of one as the government claim. Yes, you can say that “injury is better than death” etc. and that “you only get caught if you’re breaking the speed limit” but the extent to which speed cameras are used - and the amount which they generate in revenue - is excessive, and has led to the accusation that they are greed - rather than speed - cameras.

This undermining of the justification for the excessive use of speed cameras just strengthens that argument.

Speed cameras certainly shouldn’t be got rid of, but more thought and optimisation needs to be put into where they are positioned.

Source: The Telegraph

Drive in a green way!

Lessons in “eco-driving”? What the hell is “eco-driving”? And why should the government give people lessons in it anyway?

Why won’t they just leave us all alone? Trying to force us to drive in a “green” way, though driving lessons, has just got to be counter-productive in terms of carbon-output anyway, since the amount generated taking these lessons is bound to more than that saved by “eco-driving” itself. Not to mention that the Commission for Integrated Transport probably used more carbon in researching and making their report than will ever be saved by it. We’d probably all be environmentally better off if they hadn’t done anything at all. We’d certainly be better off in every other way.

Source: The Times