political point-scoring

sculpture st. pancrasJust came across a petition that called for teachers not to have to pay the congestion charge. Why should teachers be excempt from polluting our streets?

There are other petitions who ask to restore all perks for travel card excemptions, including all-day free travel for pensioners and fully free travel for all pupils.

Lets just try and be sensible and petition for things that actually have a chance to make good policy.

If you go out into the country-side, all regions have policies that enable pensioners to travel free on public transport at all times with the exception of rush hours.

Our public transport systems gets more and more congested in busy metropolitan areas and need to be kept useful for those who deliver our vital services.

I fully support that children need to be able to travel to schools free of charge. Not all areas deliver the same educational services any longer and choice of quality education must come first.

The u-turn

Yesterday the Prime Minister announced that all who can should go back to work but walk, cycle or use cars and avoid public transport.

All that caution about carbon emissions has been thrown to the wind for the sake of personal breathing space whilst in a car.

It’s all about direct transmissions; the government is not concerned about long-term health effects.

I remember when my kids went to Primary. In Primary, kids often get sick, the younger the more sick they got because they caught all type of germs from each other. Yet teachers preached day in and day out that the 100% attendance is very important for children’s education and ability to achieve good grades.

Now Jeremy Corbyn warns that it is not safe to get back to work and especially schooling because transmissions are rife.

The only difference is that the childhood illnesses could not be caught my teachers but Corona can.

Is there anybody making any sense?

First we were told that the government will use existing health apps to monitor the spread and potential infection risk whilst yesterday I got an email from my Covid-19 app that they have to cease operation unless they get voluntary donations to continue.

The new rule from Wednesday people who usually live together can sunbathe, play games and go on outings, using cars together. Who is going to check whether the people usually live together if enforcers are faced with lots of groups of people. A lot of people flat-share these days.

It is obviously discriminating to only allow those who have cars to travel for leisure whilst public transport is off limits but to those working.

It’s almost back to normal with the excepton of children not being allowed to school. This knock-on effect stops many people from going to work. Also I’ve heard little about sports clubs and events and training in clubs and gyms and pools.

Using Corona virus as excuse

Today Tfl announced station closures over Corona Virus. Redbridge is listed as one of the stations, despite Redbridge having one of the lowest numbers of confirmed cases at only 4 at date of publication.

The desperate time government

vehicle driving on freeway towards wind turbines

Hard shoulders are used as driving lanes on many motorways now. Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

They call it gender discrimination but in the times when women stayed at home to look after the kids, we could manage when a school closed. Now all are drafted in as workers and when the workers fall ill, there is nobody to run services and nobody to look after children.

Not even in an equalised society, lets say dads or mums can stay at home any longer because parents have to work when a child is 5 now, and can no longer wait until they reached the age of 13.

woman wearing blue jeans

Photo by Luis Quintero on Pexels.com

If you have people idling around, they can be seen as potentially spare workers but if the country already uses the last man standing to work on, then in a crisis, we have no reserves left and start to panic.

The removal of hard shoulders on motorways, showed all drivers that the non-contingency policies lead to serious problems. If a car breaks down on a lane on a motorway where all lanes are in use, emergency vehicles cannot reach them.

If all parents are working and schools need to close, then who is going to look after the children? Or if workers need to stay at home with children then who is going to do the work?

Supermarkets are our best friends, because they charge the same price whatever the demand. In some unregulated remote, local shops, owners just double and treble prices, during the Corona Virus crisis,  because they just want to make as much as they can out of a crisis.

But what is disturbing, is that quantities are not regulated and those unfortunate enough, not being able to get to a supermarket at 7am in the morning will find empty shelves.

At the Sainsbury’s superstore, there were exactly 8 loaves of freshly baked bread in the shelve at 7:15AM. There was no pasta, no toilet paper at all.

Amazingly people do not opt for the fresh foods. Salads, fruits and veg are the only thing you can do to strengthen the immune system. Eat them regularly to stay healthy.

Were bendy buses good for London?

Having read that Birmingham wants to stop through-traffic for their city centre, I thought that the articulated buses the former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone invented were probably just about right to do that job.

Yes those buses slowed down traffic but as it happens, that is what we now need. The route-masters, replacing the bendy buses has turned out to be a romantic notion for better travel.

The original route masters had only a back jump on and off platform and then Boris Johnson used that concept for buses with three entries and without bus conductor, which of course was shamelessly exploited by many.

The idea now is to only allow entry at the front on a bus with 3 entry and exit doors.

Is that going to work? I think not. I regularly see people get into the buses at the back entrance without paying, even on routes, that already introduced the front entrace scheme only.

On this morning’s program the BBC was very busy to promote Boris Johnson and let him lull us with his sincere and relaxed sounding bariton voice into thinking that it will all be alright.

With now the third airline, Flybe, serving the UK in trouble again, I fear that Britain’s commuters have problems, which will not be mended with the consistent refusal of our Conservative government to nationalise transport.

Does it really help that we keep on getting entrepreneurial firms coming up with new, expensive solutions, rather than putting a great national structura into play that actually works?

 

 

 

 

 

Setting international standards

What humanity needs is an international set of professional standards, that enables all communities of the world to set rules of human interaction.

Even the smallest indigenous communities have standards that are set to enable the community to thrive.

Depending on location and environment, the more primitive societies made the most of what they had but set moral standards to prevent sexual exploitation or unhealthy live styles.

Most major religions are centred around the unquestionable servititude towards a divine being – a God –  and the rulers in charge identified themselves as being a direct descendant of that God. Of course that developed through from ancient times via the Greeks, Romans, then Christians in the west and Muslims in the East.

Through international communications it becomes clear that a lot of such communities exist world-wide, communities who teach their children, that their God is the only true one.

Conflicts are created when one community teaches their followers that they can exploit anybody who is not part of their religion as for example Daesh or Isis did. They said it was OK to exploit anybody sexually who was not a strict Muslim.

This principle leads to tribal conflicts on smaller area disputes as they can happen in African tribes for example, who roam wild areas and conflict with each other over territorial disputes.

Modern gangs, even in western societies use the rape of another gang’s members as a tool of control and stamping on authority. The rape of the women in other tribes is also an ancient method of destroying other cultures.

Religion started off as a moral code to regulate personal and family life to restrict behaviour to acceptable standards to avoid disease transmitted by sexual activity for  the members of any particular community.  Where later on science came in was when ‘doctors’ found  cures for common illness through scientific research, developing medications that could be administered and also by finding hygiene rules to avoid water contamination for example.

Setting a commonly accepted code of standards is important to avoid local and wider conflicts and to enable humanity to develop.

Whilst primitive cultures enslave their followers by simple dicatatorial rule, e.g. everybody must follow the laws of the leader, modern society exploits the poor by having rules, which create dependency. Universal Credit is a nodern example of that because it drove recipients into prostitution or they could not afford to live.

Other countries developed away from religious Gods and became Communist, again using strict dictatorial rules to regulate society.

A lot of states now have nuclear power and use that as a threat to keep foreign influence away.

I really do not think it matters what type of rule a society has, it just matters that each member of any society can live with a freedom of choice and without having to loose dignity.

Yes, the ability to choose aslo depends on intellect and brain function. This can vary from individual to individual. Yet professional standards should regulate good standards of living and enable everybody to contribute to the best of their ability.

Unfortunately much of modern society is determined by venture capitalism, a form of control over people, by making those with the most money privileged. Whilst it doesn’t matter how people gotten rich, they do not loose their wealth, even after they have been found to supply humanity with dangerous products.

Using advertising and mass-media, any producer of any goods can use streaming to attract people to buy their products and get rich, may that be cigarettes or e-cigarettes, alcohol or petrol cars.

Modern societies life-styles have been driven by a desire to have comfort in the home and use less physical activity.

People are required to use their energy to work for an employer and then have little time for their personal lifes. Laws force any person to work for any employer who will give them a job, not allowing the individual to choose.

This produces a downward social spiral. Dismantles family life and the ability of the individual to choose a healthy profession over an unhealthy one.

Earth warming has now become the biggest threat to humanity but the mechanisms that drive international trade, which is mainly responsible for earth warming, are not being dismantled.

When I say international trade I also mean the goods that are being traded and the production of which causes a big carbon foot print.

Wars and conflicts have an enormous carbon foot print. The use of fossil fuels, which also produce petrol, diesel and plastics is a major source of carbon.

Unfortunately many societies cannot exist unless they engage in trade because all services and labour are distributed due to a GDP calculation that is established. GDP stands for General Domestic Product.

Societies, countries rely on tax collections to provide services for the inhabitants.

Unless governments make a stand and refuse to accept taxes from bad companies, we cannot progress.

We need to exercise control over venture capitalism and control goods and services for their beneficial impact on society before we produce, advertise and sell them.

Keeping level-headed

81345182-1905041525+-+London+Regional+Summer+Championships+2019I was helping para-swimmers during the London Regional Swim England Para Championships at the London Aquatics Centre yesterday.

Whilst I had planned to watch the TV debate about the forthcoming Brexit date and had an invite to attend the huge demo in central London, I had completely forgotten that I had signed up to help out with the swimming event.

That is what’s really important that we keep services for people going and not disrupt everything like Extinction Rebellion obviously think is the right way to go about things.

Whatever somebody wants to achieve, the main objective always needs to be that whilst there is a long-term goal, we always need to be able to let those on the ground to get about their daily business.

Thankfully we have great laws and good rules in place, which prevent from crash-outs and catastrophic failures of our services.

Making sure there are food supplies, people can stay save, health care, education and communications stay in tact, are just a few of the things, which do not seem important but they really, really are.

Protest as a fashion accessory

Just as I didn’t know what to watch after Wallace and Gromit, I switched to the remainder of the Liberal hustings to hear the end of the discussion. It went like this:

Question: “Do you think we should curb internal flights?”

[Answer: “I don’t think that is feasible at the moment, we need to invest in transport infrastructure. But I went to protest with my  5-year old with Extinction Rebellion over the weekend”]

Policitians who make decisions about this climate emergency have no fear of delaying immediate action to stop environmentally unfriendly behaviour and most likely commute a lot by car and plane but do go to Extinction Rebellion demos, block traffic for others, to have a bit of fun on the weekend.

So I do not bother going to those demos to say there is a climate emergency. I rather live environmentally friendly, it is not a weekend fashion for me, it is important.

What really should be done by our politicians, they should immediately make the money available to build the infrastructure and not think of investing in the future at some point in the future.

Climate change is happening now, a dangerous heatwave is hitting the US, lakes are drying out, we need to change now.

We won’t find any entrepreneurs putting money into saving the environment, it has to come from governments spending money on saving the environment everywhere.

Enlightenment

I love a book full of statistics. It saves me compiling them and luckily there are always plenty of published number crunches to relate to.

When I started reading Steven Pinker’s book Enlightenment Now, I started to feel, he was a little too simplistic and tries to make a case that the rich make the live of the poor easier and better.

I do however like the slant on Humanism in the under-title. And whilst I am now on the Environment chapter, I am starting to get interested.

Frightening though the samples Steven Pinker gives by quoting Paul Watson who wants to radically reduce humanity to fewer than one billion.

sand desert blue sky egypt

Photo by David McEachan on Pexels.com

I think that is a very dangerous approach. I belief that the Egyptian Pharaoh culture simply died because the Egyptians spent too many of their scarce resources  on building the pyramids. With the technology available at the time, most of the human labour available must have gone into shaping those stones and putting them into the triangular shapes that built the Pyramids. People didn’t have enough time to spend on planting, harvest and dealing with environmental emergencies or attacks from other forces. Nor did they have the time to develop better technogies.

If we reduce humanity to the bare existence level, we will suffer similar consequences by not being able to sustain technology, which was only able to develop because we have gotten so much spare resources laying around.

Our lifestyles now are becoming increasingly inflexible. We rely more and more on the same habits to do all things each day. We regulate every spare niche of our lives with increasingly complicated laws. This inflexibility in itself is a major hindrance on making real progress. We cannot possibly maintain all that technology with few people.

person holding save our planet sign

Photo by Markus Spiske temporausch.com on Pexels.com

We cannot possibly change our world by leaving it the way it is and try to reduce our carbon foot prints alone.

The fact that Amazon rainforest countries demand the right to develop their lands puts a big dampener on our enthusiams, which rely on the existence of the rainforest.

We need to come to an international agreement that we either re-settle all peoples who reside in current rain forest regions and settle them in other nations. Or another possibility is forcing all nations to have a certain amount of forest areas within each country.

The latter option will require a lot of loss of sovereignity of each nation on the planet. Whilst we cannot even cope with Europe at present, how are we going to enter world-wide agreements?

One major source of pollution is travel and air travel causes more air pollution than previously thought.

We need to radically change values and the calculation of wealth from purely being a plus in the bank acount to being a whollistic view on positive contribution to global wealth including the health of the planet.

Humanism is the best way to achieve this because we cannot continually kick each other’s backsides but believing that God loves us all whilst we destroy each other and the planet. For what, a better afterlife? The Egyptians beliefed in a great afterlife.

 

the rainforest

Is without question one of the most importent assets of our planet. It is concentrated on various geographical locations. Lets take Brazil here as an example.

green leafed trees under blue sky

The typical British countrydise, cleared of forest, ready for farming. Photo by Lisa Fotios on Pexels.com

Of course us developed nations we have already cleared a lot of our forests and developed our lands. We in Britain even talk about becoming self-sufficient farming-wise to justify us leaving the EU without a deal.

For that of course we need to farm the land and clear probably even more forest.

We really do love to rely on the rain forest. The untouched and virgin rain forest, that same rain forest that saves our planet.

But what about those nationas that are couched within the rainforest areas. Nations like Brazil. Do their citizens not have the right to farm, to develp the land, to get skills-based jobs that are based within their national borders.

scenic view of rainforest

Rainforst    Photo by Arnie Chou on Pexels.com

Whilst we here in Britain demand that we can become independent of others, we do expect nations within the rainforest regions to leave that forest and just not devleop, to depend on others, help others, so that we developed countries can stay developing ourselves.

What are the nationals within the rainforest countries supposed to be doing?

Nobody has thought about this and I think that just shows how stupid our privately educated politicians and business leaders are because all they can think of is themselves.

It is an international problem and it needs nations to work together. But of course our political leaders only think about Brexit and becoming indendent from Europe and use the resources of other nations to bolster our own wealth.

The rainforest? The rainforest is depended upon that it stays as it is. So what about putting that thinking cap on?

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 53,735 hits