Archive for the ‘Annoyances’ Category
In Oxford, Police are calling for taxis to display ID numbers on their roofs. They claim that criminals occasionally use taxis and it would make it easier to track such taxis by helicopters and maybe the new UAVs.
There is so much wrong with it. Firstly, it’s worth mentioning the name of the Police sergeant responsible, Det Sgt John Linsdell, because normally such stupidity gets hidden behind anonymous committees. If he is to have his name linked with an idea he must also be taught that you have to think about the idea thoroughly otherwise you get pointed out as being a bit of a nitwit. He’s personally come across two occasions where a criminal got into a taxi and because the taxi didn’t have a number on its roof it took time to track down the car.
If taxis are used occasionally by criminals then because criminals will occasionally use buses and cars and motorbikes then all of these will need to carry an ID on their roof (don’t know how that’s going to work with bikes, but a civil servants think of more stupid things so I’m sure they can work some method out). Why not just remove the registration plate from the front and back of cars and put it on the roof. ANPR cameras are already high up and so can easily be re-configured to scan the roofs of cars.
Why not just go a step further and put a number on everyone’s head so that UAVs continually flying overhead can easily track everyone so that if someone is occasionally a criminal they can easily be tracked down.
And a nice quote from the article “He also said CCTV in the city did not always pick up number plate details.” So not much use for having CCTV then. Why not just put more policemen on the street instead of filling out forms in triplicate on triplicate on every interaction with a member of the public (the enemy to the average policeman).
From http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/03/great-moments-in-snow-removal/ a comment by agimarc:
“The one size fits all EPA clean water rules lead to some real bizzaro local solutions to the new costs. There is an EPA rule that waste treatment plants must remove 30% of organic waste from incoming sewage. This is a problem if your incoming water is very clean, as it is here in Anchorage. Around 20 years ago, the requirement was going to lead to a $135 million new treatment plant, which we couldn’t afford. So the local solution was to dump fish waste from commercial fishermen into the inbound stream so the existing treatment plant would meet the 30% requirement. EPA was just fine with that solution.”
This is why state enforced national rules and guidelines don’t generally work.
He doesn’t take into account any cost benefit analysis. Only that everything must be modified for the disabled no matter what the cost to the public purse even in this strained times. Not public not private, they don’t expect to pay a dicky bird towards the modifications they demand.
It would be cheaper if people like Jody had free taxis everywhere they go than modify the tube network.
All this modification for disabled is fine, but sometimes it doesn’t make much difference anyway.
For instance building regulations means that you have to have a downstairs loo in a new house with a wide door to allow a wheelchair access amongst many other rules. How many households have wheelchair visitors? Very very few. How many households have wheelchair occupants? Even less. How many new houses are being built compared to the overall housing stock? A tiny proportion. So the likeyhood of a disabled person being able make use of the downstairs look is extremely small.
It would be cheaper to remove all the legislation about disabled access from building control and fund the odd conversion where necessary totally from public funds. All disabled people will have very individual needs so it would be better to make their house totally suited to their particular needs than make all new houses just about ok for the disabled and not suitable for the minority disabled who have exceptional needs and then have even more changes made to the house for them.
This in relation to a CEO (Civil Enforcement Officer) putting a parking fine on a car and then finding a dead person in the back.
He said: ‘I heard the call come in on the radio. He is really shaken up by it. The thing is, we are not allowed to wake people up in their cars if they are asleep in case we give them a heart attack.‘
Someone’s been thinking too much without actually using their inteligence (they probably have none) or has probably seen a film where this happens. In real life someone sleeping in their car will never get a heart attack from a minor surprise to someone knocking on the car window. It’s not surprise that tends to cause heart attacks, it’s stress and over exertion.
So Ann Widdecombe think that Strictly Come Dancing is an entertainment show and not a dance show. She says if it was a dance show it would be on BBC Sports. It’s entertainment because of the people like her in it.
But I say it is a dance show which provides entertainment as the audience watches the celebrities learn how to dance. The reason the likes of Ann Widdecombe and Paul Daniels are in the show is to allow them to be kicked out early whilst giving the other celebrities a chance to actually pick up some useful skills.
However, I will agree with her on one point. The audience is liking her antics and are voting to keep her in so it is democracy in action. Though the reason she is being kept in is so that the audience can laugh at her. But since she knows that and is happy with that then all you can say about her is that she just wants publicity, any publicity, now that she is no longer a politician able to command publicity whenever she wants.
As is mentioned many times on Strictly Takes 2, it’s the journey that is the important thing with all participants.
Outside broadcasts by reporters. What’s the point?
A waste of money in many cases. Basically they duplicate what is in the studio already used by the newsreader and put it in a location in the middle of nowhere.
Sometime the OB is useful. There could be a situation and the reporter on the ground can speak directly with police or other authorities to get immediate information. But this is very rare as in most case the information is sent up the chain in the police (or other organsiation) and then deciminated by the PR department. This is then received by the news organisation and then then sent back to the man on the ground who then tells the audience.
Many times the pointlessness of the OB is obvious, especially when the reporter is standing outside an empty office block in the dark, cold and wet spouting out about the news that was news at the start of the day but not at 10 at night.
BBC Breakfast had this story about volunteers manning speed traps and how it’s a Big Society topic. They use handheld speed cameras and note the details of any speeding motorists and pass on the details to the police. Mention was made that a number of drivers had been fined or arrested for various driving offences.
But if they aren’t police, then the evidence they collect is invalid in court. So what’s the point in having them as cheap PCSOs if they don’t do anything, except maybe act as a bit of a deterrent.
And it’s not a Big Society issue either. Upholding the law should always be done by the police.
See BigBrotherWatch for their take on it.