SMUG BUILDER (4)
I finished a wall today. There used to be a horrible lean-to shed round the back of the house, which I demolished a couple of years ago. I am now in the process of breaking up the concrete floor and dividing the area into two; a small terrace and a flower bed. The low wall is the dividing line between the two.
In a couple of weeks, after it has completely dried, I will paint it. Then I will fill in the smaller area with sand and put paving stones down for the terrace.
Needless to say, I was pretty pleased with myself. Photos in due course once I have finished.
Walter Blotscher
Friday, 31 August 2012
Thursday, 30 August 2012
U.K. HOUSING POLICY (3)
Net migration into the U.K. in 2010 was 252,000. The Government thinks that figure is way too high, both in itself and (just as importantly) in relation to the number of new houses being built, and so has vowed to reduce it to the tens of thousands (i.e. under 100,000) by 2015. That may be a politically sensible aim, but it also looks rather pie in the sky. New figures show that net migration in 2011 was 216,000, which means that there is still a long way to go.
The target may also be economically short-sighted. The drop was more than caused by a reduction of 75,000 (21%), to 282,833, in the number of student visas issued. Despite increased tuition fees (a maximum of £9,000 a year from this academic year), British educational institutions rely to a large extent on income from foreign students in order to make ends meet; fewer students will, therefore, automatically result in tighter budgets. The economy will also be hurt later on by reduced income from students who would otherwise have chosen to stay on and work in the U.K.
Governments often want income without the people who generate it. Unfortunately, they tend to go together.
Walter Blotscher
Net migration into the U.K. in 2010 was 252,000. The Government thinks that figure is way too high, both in itself and (just as importantly) in relation to the number of new houses being built, and so has vowed to reduce it to the tens of thousands (i.e. under 100,000) by 2015. That may be a politically sensible aim, but it also looks rather pie in the sky. New figures show that net migration in 2011 was 216,000, which means that there is still a long way to go.
The target may also be economically short-sighted. The drop was more than caused by a reduction of 75,000 (21%), to 282,833, in the number of student visas issued. Despite increased tuition fees (a maximum of £9,000 a year from this academic year), British educational institutions rely to a large extent on income from foreign students in order to make ends meet; fewer students will, therefore, automatically result in tighter budgets. The economy will also be hurt later on by reduced income from students who would otherwise have chosen to stay on and work in the U.K.
Governments often want income without the people who generate it. Unfortunately, they tend to go together.
Walter Blotscher
Wednesday, 29 August 2012
Tuesday, 28 August 2012
SINGING IN GERMAN
I tend to listen to Schleswig-Holstein pop radio in the car in the morning, it's an easy way of keeping my German comprehension up to speed. It also makes me thankful I don't live in Hamburg. 15 kilometers of "Stau" on the A7 to the Elbe Tunnel this morning.
Most of the songs are in English, but every now and then the presenters throw in a German one. Which always makes me think that German is not a language which is suitable for modern music. Wagnerian opera, that's one thing; pop songs, no.
It's not as if I dislike German as a language; I went to school in Germany and speak it pretty well. But it just doesn't seem to mix well with electric guitars, drums and bass; and when they do, you get this dreadful "schlager" stuff. Perhaps it's because of all those relative clauses and verbs at the end of the sentence.
I think that Germans themselves secretly realise this. When Germany won the Eurovision Song Contest a couple of years ago, the winning song was in English.
Walter Blotscher
I tend to listen to Schleswig-Holstein pop radio in the car in the morning, it's an easy way of keeping my German comprehension up to speed. It also makes me thankful I don't live in Hamburg. 15 kilometers of "Stau" on the A7 to the Elbe Tunnel this morning.
Most of the songs are in English, but every now and then the presenters throw in a German one. Which always makes me think that German is not a language which is suitable for modern music. Wagnerian opera, that's one thing; pop songs, no.
It's not as if I dislike German as a language; I went to school in Germany and speak it pretty well. But it just doesn't seem to mix well with electric guitars, drums and bass; and when they do, you get this dreadful "schlager" stuff. Perhaps it's because of all those relative clauses and verbs at the end of the sentence.
I think that Germans themselves secretly realise this. When Germany won the Eurovision Song Contest a couple of years ago, the winning song was in English.
Walter Blotscher
Sunday, 26 August 2012
CRIMINAL INSANITY
Is there a difference between insanity for criminal purposes and insanity, as meant by the man in the street or doctors? The answer is yes, as two recent cases have demonstrated.
The first was the trial of Gu Kailai, wife of the disgraced Chinese politician Bo Xilai. After admitting that she had murdered British businessman Neil Heywood, she was given a suspended death sentence instead of the normal (for China) execution. Although this was no ordinary trial, she had pleaded in mitigation that she had suffered a "mental breakdown". Suspended death sentences in China are often converted into long prison sentences, and it is even possible that Ms. Gu may be released at some point in the future.
The second was the conviction last week of Norwegian Anders Behring Breivik, who had admitted murdering 77 mostly young people last July. Most people would consider Breivik more than a bit of a nut. But the Norwegian court judged that he was sane at the time of the attacks, thereby enabling him to be sentenced to ordinary imprisonment instead of being put in a secure medical institution.
In common law jurisdictions such as England and the U.S., criminal insanity is governed by the so-called M'Naghten rules, as amended. In 1843 Daniel M'Naghten shot and killed at point-blank range the secretary to the then Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel. It was generally assumed at the time that he was intending to shoot Peel himself, but had got the wrong man. At his trial for murder, he was acquitted on grounds of insanity, and committed to a mental institution. Following the trial, the House of Lords asked a panel of judges a series of questions about the insanity defence, and the answers have become the cornerstone of this area of the law.
The crucial part is that "it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong". The disease of the mind formulation can give rise to problems. Crimes committed by a diabetic having a fit because of a lack of insulin would lead to a charge of not guilty by reason of insanity; but those committed by a diabetic having a fit because he had taken too much insulin would be ordinary crimes (the insulin is an external factor, not a disease of the mind). Crimes committed while sleepwalking would also be covered by the insanity definition. Because of the stigma of insanity, some defendants of this kind have chosen to plead guilty, even though the insanity defence would have been open to them.
Medical knowledge of mental illness has increased hugely since 1843, so it seems odd to base modern decisions on something so old. Judges would undoubtedly - and rightly - say that changing such a controversial and long-standing set of rules should be the duty of Parliament, not them. Sadly, Parliament does not seem minded to try.
Walter Blotscher
Is there a difference between insanity for criminal purposes and insanity, as meant by the man in the street or doctors? The answer is yes, as two recent cases have demonstrated.
The first was the trial of Gu Kailai, wife of the disgraced Chinese politician Bo Xilai. After admitting that she had murdered British businessman Neil Heywood, she was given a suspended death sentence instead of the normal (for China) execution. Although this was no ordinary trial, she had pleaded in mitigation that she had suffered a "mental breakdown". Suspended death sentences in China are often converted into long prison sentences, and it is even possible that Ms. Gu may be released at some point in the future.
The second was the conviction last week of Norwegian Anders Behring Breivik, who had admitted murdering 77 mostly young people last July. Most people would consider Breivik more than a bit of a nut. But the Norwegian court judged that he was sane at the time of the attacks, thereby enabling him to be sentenced to ordinary imprisonment instead of being put in a secure medical institution.
In common law jurisdictions such as England and the U.S., criminal insanity is governed by the so-called M'Naghten rules, as amended. In 1843 Daniel M'Naghten shot and killed at point-blank range the secretary to the then Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel. It was generally assumed at the time that he was intending to shoot Peel himself, but had got the wrong man. At his trial for murder, he was acquitted on grounds of insanity, and committed to a mental institution. Following the trial, the House of Lords asked a panel of judges a series of questions about the insanity defence, and the answers have become the cornerstone of this area of the law.
The crucial part is that "it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong". The disease of the mind formulation can give rise to problems. Crimes committed by a diabetic having a fit because of a lack of insulin would lead to a charge of not guilty by reason of insanity; but those committed by a diabetic having a fit because he had taken too much insulin would be ordinary crimes (the insulin is an external factor, not a disease of the mind). Crimes committed while sleepwalking would also be covered by the insanity definition. Because of the stigma of insanity, some defendants of this kind have chosen to plead guilty, even though the insanity defence would have been open to them.
Medical knowledge of mental illness has increased hugely since 1843, so it seems odd to base modern decisions on something so old. Judges would undoubtedly - and rightly - say that changing such a controversial and long-standing set of rules should be the duty of Parliament, not them. Sadly, Parliament does not seem minded to try.
Walter Blotscher
Saturday, 25 August 2012
LANCE ARMSTRONG
Was he doped? The question has been around since at least 1999, when he came back from testicular cancer to win the first of his record-breaking seven consecutive victories at the Tour de France. Since then, the questions have become ever more persistent, as both competitors and teammates from that era confess to doping. Yet Armstrong, probably the most tested athlete in history, has never tested positive for anything. Federal agents, investigating whether the U.S. Government was defrauded (Armstrong's team for most of those victories was sponsored by the Government-owned U.S. Postal Service), turned over stones for more than two years, but eventually had to drop the case earlier this year.
At which point it was taken up again by the U.S. anti-doping agency USADA. They have apparently amassed a large dossier of evidence against Armstrong, his then team manager, and various medical staff associated with him, much of it in the form of testimony from past teammates. USADA believes it sufficient to warrant a lifetime ban for Armstrong, and the stripping of all his titles back to 1998. They gave Armstrong the right to challenge the evidence by going to arbitration. However, Armstrong, normally quick to litigate against anybody daring to suggest that he is not 100% clean, declined. Which means, in effect, that USADA's claims stand. The most successful stage cyclist in history risks being stripped of his seven Tour de France victories.
Lance Armstrong has always been a controversial figure; basically, you are either really for him or really against him. For what it is worth, and bearing in mind that I have never seen the results of any of the myriad of tests which he has provided during his career, I have always thought he was doped. My reasons are as follows.
1. All of his major competitors took drugs, and he beat them. Notably Jan Ulrich, a product of the former East German sports system and winner of the Tour in 1997 at the precocious age of 23. Ulrich was Olympic champion in 2000 and world time-trial champion a couple of times, but was still beaten by Armstrong at the Tour. Ulrich rode for the Deutsche Telekom team for most of that time, many of whose riders have since admitted to doping. That includes Danish sporting hero Bjarne Riis, winner of the Tour in 1996, who adamantly denied taking drugs for more than a decade before finally admitting it in May 2007.
2. Nearly all of his teammates took drugs, and have since admitted it. They include Tyler Hamilton, Olympic time-trial gold medallist in 2004, and Floyd Landis, who won the 2006 Tour before being stripped of his title for failing a drug test during the race. Both of them have said that they had to take drugs in order to stay on the U.S. Postal team. Furthermore, a large part of USADA's dossier is supposed to come from other former teammates of Armstrong, who have subsequently confessed.
3. It is true that Armstrong has never failed a test. But there are rumours of a cover-up following a negative test at the Tour of Switzerland. It is also true that drug-takers are often one step ahead of the regulatory authorities. When a new test emerged to detect EPO, the authorities were able to go back and retest earlier samples that they had considered suspicious, but could not prove because the tests did not exist at that time. Again, USADA is supposed to have done that with some of Armstrong's samples.
I accept that the above is circumstantial, but not proof. For me, the most compelling evidence is somewhat different. In seven years at the Tour, or almost 150 days of racing at the highest possible level, Armstrong never had one bad day; no crash, no flu (cyclists are very susceptible to colds and asthma), no going dead on a mountain, not even by 20 seconds. Secondly, and more specifically, when he won his first Tour in 1999, the key stage finished on Alpe d'Huez. Armstrong stood up on the pedals at the bottom and blew away Jan Ulrich and Josef Beloki by more than two minutes. What was incredible was that he pedalled the whole of the 14.4km (average gradient 8.1%) standing up! When you stand up on a bicycle, lactic acid forms in the legs, and it quickly begins to hurt. When Carlos Sastre won the 2008 Tour on the same mountain, he had two standing-up bursts of 500 metres each at the bottom in order to burn off his competitors, and then sat down the rest of the way. A fully-fit professional can keep it going standing up for more than 500 metres, but 14.4km sharply uphill is quite simply unbelievable.
Armstrong is still protesting his innocence. That in itself proves nothing; Riis. Hamilton and Landis were all in denial for many years, and Landis even raised US$500,000 from the general public in order to pay lawyers to help him prove his innocence (this week he agreed to repay the money within three years, otherwise he will go to jail for fraud). And I suspect that many will take the view that Armstong is guilty. Although cycling is still not squeaky clean, it is definitely much cleaner that it was. The best evidence for that is that average speeds are not increasing year after year, and that riders do have a bad day every once in a while. The chances of someone today repeating Armstrong's seven Tour victories in a row are, in my view, nil.
Walter Blotscher
Was he doped? The question has been around since at least 1999, when he came back from testicular cancer to win the first of his record-breaking seven consecutive victories at the Tour de France. Since then, the questions have become ever more persistent, as both competitors and teammates from that era confess to doping. Yet Armstrong, probably the most tested athlete in history, has never tested positive for anything. Federal agents, investigating whether the U.S. Government was defrauded (Armstrong's team for most of those victories was sponsored by the Government-owned U.S. Postal Service), turned over stones for more than two years, but eventually had to drop the case earlier this year.
At which point it was taken up again by the U.S. anti-doping agency USADA. They have apparently amassed a large dossier of evidence against Armstrong, his then team manager, and various medical staff associated with him, much of it in the form of testimony from past teammates. USADA believes it sufficient to warrant a lifetime ban for Armstrong, and the stripping of all his titles back to 1998. They gave Armstrong the right to challenge the evidence by going to arbitration. However, Armstrong, normally quick to litigate against anybody daring to suggest that he is not 100% clean, declined. Which means, in effect, that USADA's claims stand. The most successful stage cyclist in history risks being stripped of his seven Tour de France victories.
Lance Armstrong has always been a controversial figure; basically, you are either really for him or really against him. For what it is worth, and bearing in mind that I have never seen the results of any of the myriad of tests which he has provided during his career, I have always thought he was doped. My reasons are as follows.
1. All of his major competitors took drugs, and he beat them. Notably Jan Ulrich, a product of the former East German sports system and winner of the Tour in 1997 at the precocious age of 23. Ulrich was Olympic champion in 2000 and world time-trial champion a couple of times, but was still beaten by Armstrong at the Tour. Ulrich rode for the Deutsche Telekom team for most of that time, many of whose riders have since admitted to doping. That includes Danish sporting hero Bjarne Riis, winner of the Tour in 1996, who adamantly denied taking drugs for more than a decade before finally admitting it in May 2007.
2. Nearly all of his teammates took drugs, and have since admitted it. They include Tyler Hamilton, Olympic time-trial gold medallist in 2004, and Floyd Landis, who won the 2006 Tour before being stripped of his title for failing a drug test during the race. Both of them have said that they had to take drugs in order to stay on the U.S. Postal team. Furthermore, a large part of USADA's dossier is supposed to come from other former teammates of Armstrong, who have subsequently confessed.
3. It is true that Armstrong has never failed a test. But there are rumours of a cover-up following a negative test at the Tour of Switzerland. It is also true that drug-takers are often one step ahead of the regulatory authorities. When a new test emerged to detect EPO, the authorities were able to go back and retest earlier samples that they had considered suspicious, but could not prove because the tests did not exist at that time. Again, USADA is supposed to have done that with some of Armstrong's samples.
I accept that the above is circumstantial, but not proof. For me, the most compelling evidence is somewhat different. In seven years at the Tour, or almost 150 days of racing at the highest possible level, Armstrong never had one bad day; no crash, no flu (cyclists are very susceptible to colds and asthma), no going dead on a mountain, not even by 20 seconds. Secondly, and more specifically, when he won his first Tour in 1999, the key stage finished on Alpe d'Huez. Armstrong stood up on the pedals at the bottom and blew away Jan Ulrich and Josef Beloki by more than two minutes. What was incredible was that he pedalled the whole of the 14.4km (average gradient 8.1%) standing up! When you stand up on a bicycle, lactic acid forms in the legs, and it quickly begins to hurt. When Carlos Sastre won the 2008 Tour on the same mountain, he had two standing-up bursts of 500 metres each at the bottom in order to burn off his competitors, and then sat down the rest of the way. A fully-fit professional can keep it going standing up for more than 500 metres, but 14.4km sharply uphill is quite simply unbelievable.
Armstrong is still protesting his innocence. That in itself proves nothing; Riis. Hamilton and Landis were all in denial for many years, and Landis even raised US$500,000 from the general public in order to pay lawyers to help him prove his innocence (this week he agreed to repay the money within three years, otherwise he will go to jail for fraud). And I suspect that many will take the view that Armstong is guilty. Although cycling is still not squeaky clean, it is definitely much cleaner that it was. The best evidence for that is that average speeds are not increasing year after year, and that riders do have a bad day every once in a while. The chances of someone today repeating Armstrong's seven Tour victories in a row are, in my view, nil.
Walter Blotscher
Friday, 24 August 2012
A LEGAL MONOPOLY
If you live in another country for a while, as I have done, then every once in a while something crops up, which is surprising. Not just surprising in the sense of "not what we do in my country", but surprising in the the sense of "not what the other country is supposed to stand for". Today's Danish surprise was when I learned about the Kammeradvokat.
The kammeradvokat (literally the chamber lawyer) is an office founded way back in 1684 by the then King Christian V. His role was as a counsellor, who worked exclusively on state business. In 1936, the post was given for the first time to someone who was allowed to retain his existing private legal practice. Nothing wrong in that; though there could have been conflict of interest issues. The real problem is that the private practice in question has retained the kammeradvokat post, with its monopoly of Government business, ever since. With the growth of Government since then, it now brings in an income of some kr.280 million (roughly £30m) a year. A nice little monopoly.
This is not the way that things are done in the U.K. However, and more fundamentally, lucrative monopolies are not something I associate with the modern Danish state. After 75 years, the politicians seem to have woken up to the problem. The office of Kammeradvokat is to be put out to tender later this year. I might even bid.
Walter Blotscher
If you live in another country for a while, as I have done, then every once in a while something crops up, which is surprising. Not just surprising in the sense of "not what we do in my country", but surprising in the the sense of "not what the other country is supposed to stand for". Today's Danish surprise was when I learned about the Kammeradvokat.
The kammeradvokat (literally the chamber lawyer) is an office founded way back in 1684 by the then King Christian V. His role was as a counsellor, who worked exclusively on state business. In 1936, the post was given for the first time to someone who was allowed to retain his existing private legal practice. Nothing wrong in that; though there could have been conflict of interest issues. The real problem is that the private practice in question has retained the kammeradvokat post, with its monopoly of Government business, ever since. With the growth of Government since then, it now brings in an income of some kr.280 million (roughly £30m) a year. A nice little monopoly.
This is not the way that things are done in the U.K. However, and more fundamentally, lucrative monopolies are not something I associate with the modern Danish state. After 75 years, the politicians seem to have woken up to the problem. The office of Kammeradvokat is to be put out to tender later this year. I might even bid.
Walter Blotscher
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
