UK Financial Recovery and Election

Well the general election is this week, and its decision time about who to vote for....

As I have the right to vote I really strongly believe in using it. But I even more strongly cannot back any of the parties.

Rightly the economy is the biggest factor for the electorate at present. So where is that up to? My facebook friends will have seen my various tweets about this, that I ought to expand upon here.

I have my eyes and ears on one man for my economic advice. His name is David Blanchflower CBE who is a Professor of Economics. When I mention David below I mean Mr Blanchflower, not the tory leader. The reason I listen to him is he is the one voice that knew this recession was coming. He has a regular weekly column in New Statesman which I await each week with bated breath. He is also an economic adviser to the government, and sat on the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee for a brief period, who he recently wrote have 'lost the plot'.

The recession and the UK economic recovery

So the UK is now out of the worst recession in decades by the skin of its teeth. A recession is commonly defined as a period of negative GDP growth for two consecutive quarters. GDP is the economic output of the country. Growth for the quarter just gone was provisionally 0.2%, and 0.4% the previous quarter. All the signs, such as consumer confidence, private business spending, money supply, the housing market and unemployment are all still unfavourable. For instance unemployment statistics show that the period each claimant is unemployed for is increasingly larger. Money supply to businesses and property buyers is still next to non-existent. The cheap 95% LTV (Ie 5% deposit) mortgage is consigned to the history books. A standard Buy-to-Let mortgage now requires a 40% deposit.

We are recovering from the recession, but this recovery is still at a clearly fragile stage. Any mistakes in economic policy today could end that recovery, and cause a double-dip recession. Avoiding a return to a recession should be of utmost priority. The only priority.

UK Government borrowing

Secondary to the above, but also important is the country's borrowing. UK borrowing is now approximately £167bn. This is a lot of money. An eye-watering amount. This will have to be brought under control and repaid. The Bank of England governor was recently quoted as saying in private that whoever has to make the cuts to repay it risk being out of power for a generation. Really tough cuts are coming and are unavoidable regardless who wins. Expect more stikes and large public unrest. The cuts needed have been summarised as equivalent to a 6p rise in income tax.

Any government has a tough balancing act between spending to prop up the economic growth and money supply, or making cuts to address the borrowing. As has been seen in Greece lately, unaffordable borrowing can be disastrous. If experts and investors feel a government cannot afford its level of borrowing, a country's official credit rating can be reduced. Greece was downgraded to junk status a couple of weeks ago.

So what if UK's rating is downgraded? We are currently enjoying the best possible credit rating. A downgrade would not be good. To consider the effects of a downgrade, my expert quotes yields on government bonds. UK bonds are currently trading about the same price as Italy. He notes that Italy's official credit rating is four 'notches' below ours. This he says is evidence that the bond markets have already priced a downgrading into their prices. So if a downgrade were to actually happen it would have a moderate effect on us. In summary, a return to recession should be a much larger concern than having our credit rating reduced by a notch or two.

The other effect of a country's finances being out of control is the sterling exchange rate. At the start of the storm about Greece a few months back, Sterling was still loosing ground against the Euro, which I saw as a very bad sign for Sterling. This again suggests that the level of our borrowing has already been priced into the markets, and a downgrade to our rating would not have a major effect. A weak sterling could even help stimulate demand for UK exports which become cheaper in real terms.

It is for these reasons David argues that securing growth is more important than repaying our debt at the present point in time.

Inflation and Deflation

The next issue is inflation. UK inflation has officially been 3% in February and 3.4% in March, well above the official target of 2%. However David believes these are a temporary blip due to energy prices, and the end to the 15% VAT holiday, and that inflation will drop back down to around zero very soon. The worst thing that could occur is know as deflation - negative inflation. This is bad because everyone will stop spending as officially goods will be cheaper in real terms if one delays spending. To try to avoid deflation UK interest rates are at a record low of 0.5%, and predictions say they will stay low for a while to come. Low interest rates help stimulate inflation, and vice-versa. Also a medium-term rise in inflation would not be a totally bad thing as it would make repaying the government borrowing easier, as the real cost of the debt would drop. As such, when inflation returns the government could allow it and increase their official target. I need to add that steady, and relatively low inflation is the ideal, and it was a real problem years back when it was 15%.

Again, securing growth will help raise inflation over the long term, and hopefully completely avoid deflation. Cuts too early will stifle demand, and consequently lower inflation.

So to summarise the above, the government borrowing is not an issue. Yes it will have to be paid for and reduced over the next five years. Yes we should have been saving money during the good times. But escaping the recession, getting the economy working properly again and protecting jobs should be the priority.

To summarise my summary, I support Labour's policy on handling the economic recovery. The tories plan of making cuts immediately with an emergency budget are very dangerous. Looking back through history, one will note that the great depression of the 1930's was caused by inappropriate government austerity measures during a fragile recovery. They caused a far worse recession.

Rise in National Insurance for businesses and employees, or rise in VAT

Labour are planning to raise £6bn by an increase in National Insurance. Tories have promised to scrap the increase. This money has to come from somewhere. Labour is already trying to raise billions by 'efficiency savings' and trying to find another £6bn is not realistic. This money will have to come from a rise in VAT instead. Or to put it another way if the money is not raised from businesses it will all be raised from you and I. On this subject I note many prominent economists (over 100) support the labour view, and many non-FTSE100 businesses (Ie no economic experts at all) support the tory policy.

Also at a time when government finances are this tight, I cannot see justification for such a huge increase in the inheritance tax threshold which Mr Cameron is proposing. Currently the limit is £325k and the tories want to triple this to £1,000k.

There can be absolutely no justification for such expensive tax cuts at the present time. Especially when arguing in the same breath for immediate and very serious spending cuts elsewhere based on the argument that it is a priority to pay back the borrowing today.

Other issues

Another issue for me is air travel. I'm not refering to the recent volcano in Iceland. Although this will possibly have an impact on our economy, I am refering to availability of flight slots. I am referring specifically to the extra runway at Heathrow, which Cameron opposes. We need more flights from more airports. International companies rely on them when choosing where to base their international offices, and when choosing where to host business meetings and conferences.

At present London is a very attractive proposal internationally, and we need to keep it that way! Please don't let all the environmentalists destroy this, on the basis of an unproven theory about climate change. No-one knows if it will happen, or what the effects of it would be with any certainty.

So three main reasons I can't vote tory:

1. Handling of the present economic recovery.
2. Scraping raise in National Insurance, and most likely having to raise VAT.
3. Anti air travel policy.

However, there are a few strong reasons I could not vote Labour. I did say I agreed with their handling of the present economic recovery, and I also have to agree Gordon Brown did keep inflation under control as chancellor. But as any reader of some of my previous posts will know, I strongly dislike Gordon Brown. He has the worst record for raising back-door taxation. He can also be blamed for poorly preparing our finances for the recession. All world leaders seem to hate him, damaging the standing of our country with other world powers.

So for all that I strongly believe as I have the right to vote that I should use it, I even more strongly believe that I cannot vote for anybody.

Chris

OS Wars.... Microsoft have just shot themselves in the foot.

If I was the IT Director of a large company with a large user base running Microsoft Windows, I would be very concerned at the moment.

I would have looked at the cost of upgrading to Vista a couple of years back, considered what benefits it would bring and made a decision about whether to invest in upgrading all my users to Vista. Most large companies decided that Vista is far more resource hungry than XP meaning a large proportion of their existing computers would struggle to run Vista. The specialist applications a company uses would be thoroughly tried and tested, and the users are happy with them. These applications in all probability would need upgrading or replacing to run on Vista. And the benefits to upgrading are ...... transparent windows!

So to make my first sentence more specific, I would have a large user base running Microsoft Windows XP. I had no compelling reason to rollout Vista.

Don't get me wrong here - I know Vista and have been running Vista on my home PC for about 18 months. My advice to my next door neighbour would be if they had enough power and memory to run it, and if all the programs and hardware you use work I would recommend switching to Vista. But I would not buy a new PC just so I could have Vista.

So most large corporations with thousands of PCs decided that Vista would be a waste of money that they did not need. So they didn't. This is no secret and Microsoft are well aware of this. I have lost count of the number of times XP's support life has been extended.

For some reason, Microsoft has now actually switched off support for XP. It officially went end-of-life on April 14th 2009. What this means is Microsoft are no longer helping people with problems, or writing patches to resolve issues that are still to be discovered.

This is not a situation a large corporation should find itself in. The IT director and board made the correct decision not to upgrade. What does Microsoft expect all these companies to do now? Upgrade to Vista for a few months until Windows 7 is launched? Run unsupported until Windows 7 is released *and* has had chance to be tested?

If it were me, I would be saying that we are seriously exposed, and must take steps to avoid being in this situation again. How? Well now we have to upgrade everything in the next 12 months, I would be evaluating the other options beside Windows. In fact I would be very seriously looking for an option other than windows so Microsoft cannot do this to us again.

Linux is now much easier to use - it is much more plug-and-play. Mac OS is growing in the size of its installed user base, and all Macs now have Intel processors, which makes it much easier to run Mac OS on a standard PC (I have it running in VMWare and it runs a treat! VMWare Fusion on the Mac lets users run Mac OS as a virtual machine. And the PC can run with a couple of little tweaks!) Google are working on a new operating system. I think in the next 12 months we will see cheaper alternatives to windows that are actually viable! I forgot to mention the unreliability of Windows. People just think it is normal to wait when a PC freezes, normal to restart apps, or to reboot to fix odd problems.

If I were Microsoft I would not have switched off XP support until Windows 7 was starting to be taken up on a large scale. Because they have I would have a very good argument to try and move away from Microsoft desktops!

Chris

Update: Today Microsoft are officially concerned about competition to the desktop OS.

I wasn't racist, but I am now....

I consider myself to be a fair person, and am against discrimination of all sorts. My dictionary defines this as 'to single out for special favour or disfavour; to distinguish between'.

Our government has made great strides into promoting equal opportunities for all.

The problem is that some people or groups will take advantage of what they can gain from a situation. It is next to impossible to make a case that this is happening, and to change policy to stop it.

For example, if I receive poor service from a black employee of a company I feel reluctant to complain or make a fuss about this person for fear it will construed racist. I am not. I just expect to be able to contact a company providing services in the UK, be able to talk them in my normal language, and be understood and provided with a good standard of service. When a customer service employee is trying to sell me something I don't need, and is unable to speak good enough english to explain the difference to me of two products I, like most people, may get annoyed.

Consider the very public case in the London Metropolitan Police Service where a senior commander Mr Ghaffur made allegations against Sir Ian Blair that he was passed over for promotion because of his ethnicity. It was obvious why he was not promoted from the way he conducted himself in public. Another example, I went into my local Spar and asked the muslim cashier if they had bacon because I could not find it. He took offence!

This sets a precedent. Foreign people with poor english, or that are not suitable for a job are promoted for two reasons. One so the interviewer is not accused of racism, and two so a company can brag about being an equal opportunity employer.

Why am I not able to ask a company to speak to an english representative? Our public services go to great expense translating all their information packs to every language. Why are foreigners allowed to request that they are seen by helpers of a similar religion or origin, but I am racist for asking to speak to someone who properly speaks the language of my home country at home?

You try doing this - and you will be the one on the end of the discrimination! This is so ridiculous and is enough to turn anyone racist and make you feel like discriminating against foreigners in the future! It is intolerable to be forced to accept substandard service in my own country in the name of racial equality!

These people have chosen to live in our country, there should be an implicit expectation on them to work to fit in, and to make an extra effort to get on with the 'locals'. To be honest I believe most do. The ones that make no effort and expect us to accommodate them DO need someone to complain about them. Not for their skin colour but for being unable to do their job.

BTW: I have some good friends from various ethnic backgrounds, and am more than happy to accept services from anyone that can do their job to the standard I expect.

Chris

There is a reason pubs serve alcohol...

I have been considering a post about this subject for some time, and have been prompted to write it today as Scotland have now announced plans to introduce a minimum price for alcohol to outlaw 2-4-1 drinks promotions.

Over the last year or so I have seen politicians, scientists and doctors voicing various opinions about the extent of alcohol related crime and health problems. The majority of comments have singled out supermarkets and pubs that sell alcohol on promotion. Recently a club in Newport was criticised for selling unlimited drinks to customers - even though the event was run responsibly and there was no trouble on the night.

I have attended events similar to this in Manchester before. The detail is that you are given a wristband and a ticket when you go in. Swap the ticket for your first drink. Once empty return to the bar to swap it for a full one. Each time your wristband is ticked. The barmen know how much you have drunk from your band, and are able to refuse to replace your empty once you are too drunk or if you are consuming too many.

To start, it is my opinion that pricing of drink has no bearing on the amount of consumption. To refer to the principle of elasticity of demand, people will always want nights out with friends socialising and drinking. They will do this regardless the cost. Most people who drink would just pay the extra if the price went up. Note the treasury presently levy a high tax on alcohol - whenever they raise this tax, customers continue to buy the same quantity of alcohol and just stump up the extra few pounds. Historically raising the price of alcohol via taxation to reduce drinking has had minimal effect.

If on the other hand, someone is struggling financially, they may look to cut the amount they spend on alcohol. I deliberately worded that sentence to say that they do not cut the amount of alcohol they consume! When times are stressful an evening drunk becomes more important to someone. Occasionally being drunk has many positive benefits - such as helping you escape your worries, relax, socialise and enjoy yourself!

Remember the old christmas booze cruise to France? This is no longer necessary because supermarkets have cut their prices. Were laws brought in to raise the price it would only inconvenience people as they would just buy it from somewhere cheaper. I have had some reports that beer should be priced around £10 a pint. This would definitely effect demand!

So, similar to my last post, lets look at the bigger picture. The real question is do we want:

1. everyone to have fun a few times a month out with friends in the pub? or
2. people to be stressed financially from going out once a month, and importing large amounts of alcohol and staying at home drinking? or
3. Let's even assume the politicians are successful and no-one ever drinks anymore?

Could you imagine how much fun a pub would be if everyone was sober? We have all been the sober one in a group of friends who are drinking! People would spend less time in face to face contact with friends and communicate using other means such as the internet or telephone.

Taking this question one step further .... do we want a nation of hermits with no social skills? I refer you to recent statements that lack of face to face social contact with other humans is bad for someone's health, and impedes proper development. See Online networking 'harms health' and 'Mental risk' of Facebook teens .

My argument is that there is a very good reason why pubs serve alcohol! Pubs were invented as a place people could go to socialise. The benefit of alcohol is that it is a social lubricant. Once people are drunk they have reduced inhibitions and are less worried about approaching new people, or saying something that may make them look stupid. Without alcohol in everyone's life people would most likely have less casual friends, and share less experiences with other humans. I argue that a world without alcohol would be a worse place to be!

On the subject of anti social behaviour there are always going to be some idiots who cause issues (when they are drunk or sober) - lets deal with this minority and not let them spoil things for the properly behaved majority. People do need to be allowed to take responsibility for their alcohol consumption and behaviour, such as was allowed when later bar licensing was introduced.

Finally I think Tony Blair has done a lot to prepare pubs for the future. Introducing flexible later licensing and making pubs a smoke free environment were bold policies and I personally enjoy the benefits of both. Things are changing rapidly in the industry anyway. Due to the global recession, like everyone these businesses are facing a hard time. For the consumer price competition is good. Don't go stopping this at such a difficult time.

I will be off out for a drink because these proposals are not for England where I live !!

Chris

Update: Will be quicker getting that celebratory drink next time.  Not had it yet and now another headline Governments top medical advisor has drawn up some daft plans -Cries-

More 'World is flat' moments.

Anyone who has read any of my previous posts will be aware that I do not believe in all the hype about human emissions causing global warning, or that there is anything we can do to prevent a 'climate' from changing, as it will by definition.

I have also had a rant in the past about bio fuels - the government's hot potato for a couple of months.  What no-one considered was that forests would be destroyed in order to farm crop for bio fuel as they earned the land owner more money.  People are starving becuase the price of food has soared - farmers are selling grain for fuel and making more money than selling it to feed people.  The net result is that bio fuel farming is causing more damage to the environment when the bigger picture is considered.  

This is the purpose of this post - people are making conclusions within their own scientific fields, politicians are believing them and throwing money at the causes these scientists have created - the net result being these scientists are kept in work.

Some 'experts' have decided they can predict the world's weather in a timescale of 100-500 years.  Should we believe them when they cannot predict the weather over the next 24 hours with any reliability?  I don't.

Where I am heading with this is that current knowledge cannot predict or understand today's weather patterns.  This is why extra hypothesis are being tabled blaming things like carbon dioxide (hypothesis = unproved).  When making the bio-fuel argument, no-one thought of the bigger picture about the possible consequences.

So how would I explain our inability to understand the earth's weather systems?

Please think back 100 years.  There was no electricity.  There was no television.  No telephones.  No microwave cookers.  Our world is an order of magnitude different because of scientific inventions and discoveries that they did not have.

So why does no scientist, politician or journalist ever think that in another 100 years man will be looking back on today in disbelief about what the world was like without all the then current technology?  Hence the title of my post - I will guarantee we are gonna have more 'World is flat' moments.  Things we look back on and laugh about once we have more understanding.

My final point is about attempts to understand the working of an animal's brain.  Nothing we know about chemistry or electronics can explain or come close to emulating the processing and storage power of our brains.  Things we remember are stored somehow in our brains.  It must therefore be possible to remove the brain from a dead person and read some of this information.  But if someone asked you to do it where would you start?

As I have shown about predicting weather, and our knowledge of the workings of an animals brain there are plenty more forces at play in our universe that we have yet to discover.  Maybe someone should suggest these as an explaination to some of the political hot potatos!!

Chris

Manchester says no to the con charge.

Enter Davina McCall:

The votes have been counted, verified and indepedently checked and I can reveal the next person to leave is.....

(Stupidly long pause)

The congestion charge!

To explain the formal process... the way the voting worked is that Manchester was split into 10 districts.  The result for each district was announced.  For the TIF proposal to carry, 7 of the 10 districts had to return a yes vote.  A yes vote would mean the proposal would be sent to the government for their consideration.  As was made clear at the Labour conference, even if it was submitted there was no guarantee it would actually happen.

EVERY SINGLE district returned a No.  And not just any no, but by a massive majority of approximately 20% for and 80% against in every district.

This referendum was being watched the world over as it is the first time this kind of proposal had been put to a public vote in the world.  A few reporters even dared declare the concept of congestion charging dead in the water.

So what are the implications?

1) Businesses can continue to locate themselves in central manchester and be able to attract the best talent.  With the charge these people would have moved offices, or got jobs away from the city centre.  I think it makes the city centre far more attractive.

2) Our leaders will have to look somewhere else to pay for the maintenance of our transport system, a large amount of which is essential and must be completed.  How they can charge such high fares for our trains and trams and not be self financing is beyond me?

3) My favourite politician - Gordon Brown - now has a bloody nose.  Westminster now know that they cannot blackmail local authorities into congestion charging in return for essential public transport funding.

4) As for congestion, the charge was only designed to change the time people travelled, not to reduce traffic in the city centre - as such pollution would not have changed if the charge was introduced, and will not change now it has been axed.

I will be raising a glass to our councillors for giving us the chance to have our say!  And Gordon no trying anything devious to sneak this in through a back door like you usually do - just give us the cash for our transport!

Chris

Google Chrome - web 2.0 starts today....

Back in April 2007 I wrote a blog post about all the hype around web 2.0. My opinion was "You can't call something Web version 2 without changing some infrastructure (Ie hardware), protocols (Ie http) and/or browsers."

Well today Google have launched a new browser, named Google Chrome!

If anyone knows anything about the Internet, where it is going and how to make it better this company does.

The browser is simple, well designed and has a new architechture to protect our computers from the nasties on the net. And I believe it (unlike when Microsoft make the same claim with every new release of their software).  Each web site and plugin is in a process of its own, which is a kind of virtual box. Whatever happens inside that box only affects the box.

This is my shortest post ever because the software has been released within the hour. Get this browser now. Today the internet has changed. I need to add this browser is still in testing and is classed as Beta, but Google always do this. I'll bet a Google beta works better than any Microsoft final release!

I have never been so excited about the future for computing. What with the Apple iPhone which will be expanded into a laptop form building on the success of the touch interface, and now Google evolving the web browser which could morph into a replacement for Microsoft Windows.

Chris

Update: I use this for normal surfing, but there are more than a few sites that are not properly compatible with this browser.  If you like a browser to store your logins for all the websites, Chrome is poor in this area.  Unfortunately one still needs to use Internet Explorer for some tasks.

Europe - the Irish have saved the day!

Today the results of a referendum on the EU 'treaty' in Ireland have been announced. The 'treaty' must be ratified by all 27 member states to succeed. In 2005 the French and Dutch voted the 'constitution' down. It has since been reformated and called a treaty. Every review body (including the government's own) who has studied the treaty has concluded it is the same as the constitution, but renamed and reformated to be un-intelligible. The 'constitution' would have thrown away the existing European constitution and replaced it with a brand new constitution. The 'treaty' achieves the same end by taking the existing constitution and amending any lines that are different between the old and new constitution. All governments have tried to force it through without a vote, except for the Irish.

There was a very high turnout and the result was a very strong 'No'. Respect to the Irish!!

One: to the government for fulfulling their promise to hold a referendum before handing over control of the country to Brussels.

And two: for the electrorate "not following the wishes of their leaders" as the Financial Times put it.

Maybe I misunderstand the world, but I always thought in a democracy the leaders ask the electorate and follow their collective instruction. If the leaders issue orders and force the population to follow them regardless of their opinion I would call it a dictatorship.

Can someone please explain this to Gordon Brown, or his successor who takes over in a couple of months!

Labour were elected on the basis of a referendum. Apparently 80% of the population wants a referendum, but we are not given one because the government expects it is unlikely to win. That is a very seriously worrying reason for refusing a vote in a democratic country.

To make my position clear on Europe I do not believe a one-size-fits-all European government would benefit our country. We are one of the most technologically advanced nations in Europe which requires a very different way of government to a developing country like most of the rest of Europe. Financially we are already getting a bad deal from Europe. (See my blog post from November 2007 for more)

At past summits the demands of our country have been badly received by a lot of our peers. Our demands have appeared as a nuisance and not been given proper consideration.

I was reading the sport supplement of the Times a couple of weeks ago. There was an article about Britain's bid to host the 2018 football world cup. A senior international figure Jack Warner is quoted as saying "Nobody in Europe likes England.", "For Europe, England is an irritant"

Then take a look at the results from the 2008 Eurovision song contest where voting was clearly political and nothing to do with the actual songs and we received zero votes.

These may be about football and the Eurovision, but I think it would be foolish to dismiss the comments completely.

I am seriously concerned that without a veto we will get a seriously bad deal by joining Europe. We will also loose our seat on the UN Security Council. If we cannot get a majority vote in the proposed new Europe we will have absolutely no say in domestic or international matters any more. The red lines we apparently had put in to safeguard our national interests can legally be overruled at a later date on the whim of Brussels due to a 'ratchet clause'. Additionally our government who we elected will be stripped of all powers to govern our country. Instead we will be at the mercy of European MPs over whom we have no electoral power.

I will be raising a glass in thanks to the Irish for halting the devious and underhand attempts of European leaders to force the abandoned constitution through the back door! That's shut too now guys!

Chris

New Satellite TV launches in UK - Freesat

In my last post I mentioned that a new TV service in the UK would be launching soon. This launched on Tuesday. This service is available to most households in the UK via a satellite dish.

The name of the new service is Freesat. This is extremely confusing because there was already a free satellite TV service available from Sky with the same name. The Sky offering is normally now referred to as 'Freesat from Sky'. The new Freesat service is owned by the BBC and ITV. I am amused the word Sky is completely absent from the Freesat website and literature!!

If you have a Sky dish you can buy a Freesat set-top box (STB) at most large electrical retailers and just plug it in. Both systems use the same satellite signal for receiving channels. Freesat do have their own TV guide and interactive services that are completely separate from Sky.

In my last post I concluded the new service was a branding exercise and that it was pretty pointless. There have since been a couple of developments.

1. ITV HD will not be available on the Sky HD service. It will be exclusive to Freesat.
2. There will soon be televisions on the market that can receive Freesat without a separate STB.

Sky have been complaining about Freesat saying they already offered such a service and the new one is a waste of money. Given that Sky holds 17.9% shares in ITV it is very interesting that ITV HD will not be on Sky. The chairman of ITV was quoted as saying 'they would not give the channel to Sky for nothing'.

A number of broadcasters have been complaining about Sky's monopoly and business practices. Recently Sky withdrew their Sky One channel from the Virgin cable network because Virgin would not pay a massive price increase for the channel. Some small channels have been challenging the cost levied by Sky for carrying their channel.

There is more to this than meets the eye!

I would love to know how much is payed and in which direction for the channels on the Sky service. My hunch is Sky is used to charging content produces to transmit their channel on the Sky network. And ITV HD have told them to get stuffed! Sky is now playing catchup because their status as the only network with all available HD services is at risk. They are getting a taste of their own medicine! As a Sky HD customer I hope this is resolved and ITV HD will be on Sky soon.

The game I think ITV are playing is to get access to channels that have an exclusive contract with Sky - namely Channel 4 HD and Five (Both of these are absent from Freesat). Sky are going to be in trouble when they come to re-negotitate most of their contracts with content providers now they have competition! They are already at the limit of what most customers will pay to view a subscription TV service.

Where I really believe the new Freesat is justified is that anyone can make receiving equipment for the new service. The Sky receivers were only available from Sky. It was not possible to integrate these with televisions and recorders. This was a real headache if you did not subscribe to Sky+ - recording a weeks programmes meant setting your Sky receiver and your video device for each programme. The Sky programme guide is locked and can only be decoded by Sky - whereas the new Freesat system will be open to all.

Today the free service from Sky is better than the free service from Freesat. If both STBs cost the same I would choose a Sky one because I then have the option of paying for TV channels if my needs change.

If any more channels go Freesat exclusive Sky will have problems. I hope we don't get to a situation where consumers will need a STB for the Sky service and an STB for the Freesat service in order to get all the channels they want - not a desirable situation.

Chris

UPDATE: My imagination has been running on high since I wrote this article. Think of all the possibilities now there is an innovative new TV service. While the Sky service works - there have been no innovations from them for years. While the HD receiver has a network port and numerous USB ports - like the interactive card slot featured on all systems since launch they don't do anything.

Imagine if the new Freesat service allowed you to access your recorded shows as you wished? Maybe the box could have a built-in DVD burner? You could copy programmes onto an iPod or a PSP to watch on the move. You could watch live TV on your PC by connecting a web browser to your satellite receiver. You could manage all your recordings from anywhere on the internet! I hate having to turn my TV on just to set a show to record.

At present on Sky all the time-delayed and Hi Def versions of normal channels exist as separate channels. Imagine if the box could merge them into one. You press a button to switch between the current or the 1 hour delayed version. If there is a recording clash the system could automatically pick up one of your programmes from the time delay channel if possible. How user friendly would that be?

Also your satellite receiver could stream video files from your PC, and could connect to all the new TV over IP services such as the iPlayer or BT Vision.

Lastly what if more channels that are currently subscription only on Sky changed their business model as numerous newspapers have? If they gave them free they would have more viewers and could charge more for advertising. More and more choice of free TV channels would be wonderful!

Global warming???? Yes please!

It is the first week in April and the UK is experiencing sub-zero temperatures and snow. Over the last 12 months we have had more serious floods than I can remember in the last 30 years.

I have worked out why. Because everyone is driving round in puny 'green' modern cars that have low carbon emissions. Everyone has got to do their bit to prevent global warming! Jeremy Clarkson sums the problem up well in his latest video 'Super car showdown' where he races the environmentally friendly G-whiz against a table. And the table wins :)!! He concludes the reason the weather in the UK is so bad is because people are buying these unsafe and slow vehicles.

I don't buy this latest political crap about preventing carbon emissions for 3 reasons:

1. Every living creature on the planet turns Oxygen into Carbon Dioxide. I am waiting for a rationing system where we are all told which day(s) of the week we are permitted to breathe! Soon it will be politically incorrect to have children because they breathe and the whole human race will die anyway!

2. All the hippies are wanting us to stop using oil and switch to biofuels. I have just read an interesting article in Time about how much DAMAGE biofuel farming causes to the climate.
Have you noticed how food prices have risen lately? This is because farmers can make more money selling crop for biofuel production than food. This in turns means more people will die of hunger. "The grain it takes to fill an SUV tank with ethanol could feed a person for a year". The Amazon is being cleared to make way for growing grain for biofuels. These forests would have removed carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. There was a flaw in the science reports about how green biofuels were - "It was as if the science world assumed biofuels would be grown in parking lots". It is actually now believed it is greener to leave the forests and burn oil rather than biofuel.

3. Looking back through history at recent climate change reveals that the temperature rose prior to 1940 but unexpectedly dropped in the post-war economic boom, when carbon dioxide emissions rose dramatically.

I think all these climate change advocates should learn about the 'Muller' principle! So much pleasure where is the pain? All the inventions in the last few years that will save the world turn out to cause more problems when you look into their complete lifecycle. For example how much energy is needed to make these low energy bulbs that contain a significant amount of poisonous mercury?

The climate will change anyway and there is nothing we can do to control nature. Leave me alone to light my flat and drive my car! I had a good drive this weekend so if the weather warms up and we have lots of sun - please blame me.

Chris

Update: One more point - the UK is a very small country. Our contribution to world carbon levels is negligible at present. Even if our country emitted no carbon at all this would have no effect on the global carbon levels.

MP pay and expenses

This post has been inspired by the latest newspaper reports that MPs are demanding their salary increase from £61k to £100k instead of generous expense allowances which are currently in the spotlight. Part of this increase is justified by them because they will loose £15k of that increase in tax.

I'm not saying the job of an MP is an easy one - regular travel between their constituency and parliament is a long journey for some MPs. However when you look at the qualifications, experience and knowledge required to be an MP I feel they are presently overpaid. The sole skillset of the job is being able to speak in parliament to represent the views of their constituents in parliament. This is supposedly how a democracy works. If I have an opinion I tell my MP. If a large number of people have the same opinion that is the opinion my MP must speak for in London.

In practice this does not actually happen. I am strongly against our country being governed by Brussels. Most of the population have spoken to demand the referendum on the European treaty. Our government and MPs have failed to respect the wishes of the population. The votes in parliament on this issue were a farce - with the lib dems asking for a different referendum and then ensuring that the vote for a referendum was lost. I feel let down by the whole system.

There are so many really daft laws passed by parliament. I use the law about using a mobile phone while driving as an example.

Using a hand-held mobile phone while driving is now illegal. If I am driving 100% safely what is the problem? Let's break this down. It is OK to talk to passengers. So the concentrating on a conversation not driving argument is false. It is OK to smoke. So the one hand on the wheel argument is false. I know what I would rather drop in an emergency out of a cigarette or a phone! It is OK to take your eyes off the road to dial and text if the phone is in a holder, so the dialing or typing on keypad argument is false. What really takes the mick is that if you are stationary at lights or in a traffic jam it is illegal to hold your phone, maybe to check for a missed call or send a quick text. If a vehicle is stationary that is the most safe state it could possible be in.

Were all our highly paid and extremely important MPs asleep the day this law was scrutinised?

Anyway now Brussels has control of our statute books, we can lay off our 646 MPs as soon they will be left without any power over our country. And then the money can go to more deserving causes like medical staff and police pay.

Chris

Update: The other thing I meant to say about the daft mobile phone law is the unintended consequences. 1: If I need to use my phone when driving I will now hold it on my lap and have to take my eyes off the road. As things were I always held the phone up high so it was easier to look at the phone and watch the road. 2: If I am driving and witness an accident or a crime there is no way I will go to the trouble of reporting it. The reason is because I could predict if I did I would be prosecuted for using the phone regardless that making that call could save someone's life or catch a criminal.

Death of Chief Constable Michael Todd

I am saddened to read of the tragic apparent suicide of Manchester Police's Chief Constable. Reports of his coroner conclude he walked up Snowdon on a very cold day and deliberately let himself freeze to death.

Before this incident I would not have been able to name our Chief Constable - which is a great testament to his work.

The chief constables you can name such as Richard Brunstrom are the ones that are in the press for doing a bad job, or outraging the public. This guy lives on a different planet and has become a one man force against minor speeding offences and has been very outspoken about legalising drugs.

I have unfortunately had to contact the police a few times since moving to Manchester City Centre. On every occasion I have been impressed with their sensitivity and professionalism. Much work has been done by Mr Todd to improve links between the police force and the communities of Greater Manchester.

There are many 'liaison' officers assigned as the face of the police force to meet with the community at a local level and ensure the police are delivering a satisfactory service.

It is for this that I will remember and miss Michael Todd. May his team continue focusing on this aspect of policing in his honour.

I also wish to take this opportunity to say how terrible the mental health services are in Greater Manchester. As I mentioned in my previous post I have needed treatment for depression myself. When I lived with my parents I had treatment from the North Wales Health Authority. They were fantastic. I was offered regular help from senior doctors.

I have tried to access services in Greater Manchester. My GP agreed I was in need of similar help within Manchester and tried to make a referal but I was ignored and left with no help or support at all. Were such services available to people in need, more lives may be saved and deaths due to depression and suicide such as Michael Todd's may be prevented.

Chris

Developing medication such as Seroxat

Have read today that our stupid government who have now signed our whole country over to Europe are thinking of making it even more difficult for large drug companies to produce new treatments.

The current system of regulation is extremely thorough. The costs involved in taking a drug to market are phenomenal and the process takes years.

I have taken Seroxat. It is an anti-depressant. Claims an anti-depressant can cause suicide are utterly stupid. A number of people that take anti-depressants do so because they are seriously depressed and are on the brink of suicide. Without such medication a large proportion would probably attempt suicide. Saying that with the medication a few still do does not point the finger of blame to the medication. Think of the large number that make a proper recovery. Any GP will tell you they have seen drugs like Seroxat successfully treat plenty of patients.

The proper question to ask is should these large companies be discouraged from their work? Definately not! Advances in modern medicine are amazing. People need to ask where would we be if no-one took the risk of making new treatments. They should be assisted not hindered in their noble work.

Chris

HD Format War Over

We have a winner in the format war to be the next DVD! It will be official next week.

HD-DVD, the format designed and promoted by Toshiba is dead and buried. Rumours surfaced last week that Toshiba will be launching a range of Blu-ray players shortly.

Blu-ray designed and promoted by Sony is the winner. And mostly because of the Playstation 3. There are about 10 million of the beasts in people's living rooms, compared to about 100,000 other Hi-def players.

In terms of sales the HD-DVD separate players have sold better, solely because they are cheaper than Blu-ray separate players.

Numerous studios and more importantly large retailers have thrown their support behind Blu-ray since the new year. Their selection has been driven solely by consumer demand. Blu-ray movies are significantly outselling HD-DVD movies.

According to What Hi-Fi the Playstation 3 is the best Blu-ray player on the market. It won all their reviews on the basis of picture quality. It also supports the latest version of Blu-ray. Lastly it is the cheapest Blu-ray player. You basically get the games and media console for free!

If you are buying a Blu-ray player make sure it can be upgraded to the latest version of Blu-ray compatibility. As the versions evolve better interactive features are becoming possible. If you are after a damn good player for normal quality DVDs there are some absolute bargain HD-DVD players out their that will do a brilliant job!

Chris

Search engine wars.

This week Microsoft has made a generous offer to buy Yahoo. This has been described as a shotgun wedding with Google holding the gun!

I remember back in 2004 Microsoft launched a massive campaign to promote its own search engine MSN Search. Aside from lots of prime time TV adverts they claimed to index millions more pages than Google (8 million vs Google's 2 million). Within a week the number of pages Google claimed to index rose to 10 million!

Ask Jeeves has also been working to boost its service. They have some great features on their page. When they launched they cornered a niche in the market - that you could ask them a question and they would find the answer. This contrasted Google's approach where you had to ask the answer to get confirmation you were right. Now they want Google's business they have rebranded and tried to compete as an alternative to Google.

Google differentiated from Yahoo when it launched because every result at Yahoo was part of a category. After a search you had to zoom into the right category to find related results.

I'll give Microsoft some free advice. All that matters for a search engine is that I find what I am looking for. First time and every time!

When I saw the ad campaign in 2004 I did go to MSN search. I ran a search and could not find what I wanted in the top results. I went to Google and found what I wanted in the top 3 results. Needless to say I havn't been back since.

MSN is absolutly awful at finding what you want. What takes the mick is last time I needed software for my Microsoft Mouse I couldn't even find the correct page on the Microsoft search site.

One let down like that and they lost a customer for a long time. The beauty of the web for a customer is there is never any tie-in to a certain site or system. If one day you find better answers on a different site you just make a new favourite and never go back.

Finally coming back to the larger picture could you imagine the world if Microsoft was running the most successful and popular search engine? They already have the most successful desktop operating system with an extremely large momentum preventing any competition. Do you reckon they would abuse their power if they could control everyone's search results and internet usage?

My last thought is could this determination to make a bigger impact on the Internet be a sign they are worried about the future of their operating system monopoly? I am currently running Vista SP1 and will report how I find it soon!

Chris

Privacy vs Safety on the Internet

I am sick of reading about all the different organisations complaining about our lack of privacy in the 21st century. Apparently our human right to a private life is being eroded.

And why? Because the authorities want organisations to keep a log of what each computer does on their Internet sites or services.

I wish to draw an analogy to the real world. Every day you walk along the streets. You pass other people, some on foot, some in cars and some in offices or shops. They have eyes and a memory. They can easily see what you look like. They might remember what you look like, where you were and at what time. Is this an assault to your privacy? Is this infringing your human rights? No.

In Britain's cities there are more and more video cameras being installed. I love this. If I were robbed or assaulted there would be indisputable video evidence that could be used to bring the offender to justice. I cannot understand why anyone has a problem with video cameras unless they are up to no good?

If I were to walk down the street wearing a padded jacket and a balaclava so my face and body shape were disguised what would the reaction be? I would have 5 police officers pointing a gun at my head. Do you think the argument you were entitled to privacy would cut any mustard?

Assuming I was dressed normally, and I snatch an old lady's handbag she would shout and people would look round. They would witness the event and the police would have descriptions from numerous people as to who attacked the old lady and how.

Returning to the subject of the Internet there are no witnesses, and no faces to recognise. When I visit a website I have no idea who else is on the site at the same time. The owner of the website has no information about people who visit the site. In terms of privacy this is far more private than even the scenrio with the balaclava. This is a criminal's dream come true.

Say this old lady who had her handbag stolen went to report the crime and the police refused to record details of the offender because it infringed his right to a private life. Can you imagine the public outcry?

Now that I have won that argument, let us ramp up security on the Internet. When I send and receive information on the Internet, the only way I can be identified is by the unique number my computer uses to enable replies to be received from other computers. This is my IP address. Technically with my IP address, date and time this can be traced to my internet line - usually a telephone number and address. In practice this is nearly impossible. Even if this is accomplished there is no way to prove who was using the computer. There is no physical description of the person. By the time the address is located the computer could be removed or destroyed.

My point is I want more logging of activities on the Internet. I want more technology to link Internet activities to a real person. Without it cyber-crime will continue to soar. I don't see how having all my activities on the Internet logged is an issue - so long as I am not doing anything illegal.

The worst aspect of all this logging is that the logs are sometimes used to directly target marketing to certain demographics. If the logs record you accessing BBC News online this could be of interest to a Financial Times salesman. The salesman would be happy to pay good money for this information.

To the people who have a concern about this:
1. We are permanently bombarded with advertising every day of our lives. It doesn't stop us watching television for example. We are all capable of simply ignoring it.
2. We get so many valuable services on the Internet for free. If users of the service do not pay at point of use the providers need to obtain an income to support the service somewhere. As the consumer has come to expect so much for nothing on the Internet this is a situation of our own making - and to be honest - I would rather read an advert than part with hard-earned cash!

To conclude - we need to markedly increase security on the Internet for the protection of the community. I don't believe it is any less private than walking down the street. If I am abiding by the law I don't see what the problem is with my activities being recorded.

Chris

Commercial Interests vs New Technology

I often wonder what the world of computers and technology would be like were it not for commercial companies making sure their user's choices are restricted to their own products, and were it not for all the law suits due to infringing patents that defy common sense.

Competing techinical products are great - if only the winner was the one that proved to be technically superior as opposed to the one whose inventor had the biggest pockets.

It is an ongoing joke in the web programmer circles as to how Amazon managed to get a patent for a One-Click shopping service. Most shopping websites allow customers to create a profile holding their address and payment details to make repeat shopping easier. So I am browsing a shopping site, I have logged into the site so they know my identity. If such a site allows me to click a 'Buy' button and my order is created this infringes an Amazon patent.

Another example is the iPod. On it I store music - each track having properties such as Genre, Artist, Album and Track name. The obvious way for me to choose what to play is to select the property I wish to use, then to look through a list of all music sorted by said property. This is patented by Creative Labs. How else am I meant to choose my music? Any 10 year old asked this question will come up with the same answer. How can a commercial company patent something that is not a serious invention?

These patents causes competing products that cannot afford to pay for a patent license to deliberately design some inferior interface. How is this good for the user?

Quite often a company has a successful product that people like. It gets an established user base. As the product and technology evolves this company makes some bad decisions that lead to a worse product. Users are then stuck with a dilema and have to choose to put up with the new inferior product, or deal with the upheaval and problems of switching to an alternate and incompatible product.

I get so annoyed when features are removed as products evolve and users are forced to buy a second add-on product or upgrade to get the features back.

A final issue is when companies set rules and restrictions that govern how other companies can create products to integrate with their products. So often these are designed to prevent integration and cause users inconvenience to limit the user base that embrace the competitors product.

Havn't I done well not mentioning Microsft and Apple in the above article??

Maybe this is one area where I should be grateful to the regulation fanatics that run the EU? They have taken on Microsoft for uncompetitive practicses. The problem with fining a company for bad practices is that they simple pass the cost of the fine on to the end user. When you buy your next Windows think how nice it is that some of that price paid the record breaking EU fine they incurred! I await to see if the EU ruling actually improves the user experience.

Chris

Reforming Europe

Mr Brown is still resisting calls for a referendum on the latest EU Constitution - oops I meant minor reform treaty!

I really thought when he came to power he was refusing so he could eventually make a U-turn and call the referundum telling everyone he had listened to them and subsequently improving his popularity. We were promised a referendum, and his case against one is extremely thin. I can't see any harm by calling one. And by the electorate saying no.

I feel a couple of everyday analogies will best illustrate my opinion about the governance of the EU.

First I will use Object Oriented Programming. The programmer is given a complete set of standard libraries to perform operations such as creating windows and making them function. Say for example in one application you need to change the appearance of your window by putting the popup menu on the bottom instead of the top. You can then write your own routines for displaying the popup menu. There are now two procedures for the same operation - the one that came with the computer by Microsoft and the custom one you wrote for your own application. It is my application and I am responsible for writing it so my own version will override the Microsoft one. But the parts of the default Window library that I am happy with and have not overridden will still apply. I only have to re-write the parts I wish to customise.

As a second example I refer to the structure of any company. The top boss and the board of directors will determine general company policy - for example the normal working day is 9AM to 5PM. However the IT department may have 24 hour operators so the standard working day for this team is different from the rest of the company. There is a specific policy for one department because the standard policy would not be suitable. That department manager has authority to deviate from the company standard when appropriate, and I don't know of many CEOs that would object to this scenario.

What our government is going to do within Europe is the opposite of the above. I approve of the single market so our companies can easily trade with customers in Europe. The argument for Europe having a single larger voice in international affairs is great. Having a united front is fine if it is united. Unfortunately discussions at every European summit come across as anything but united. What benefit to us is a larger voice if it doesn't say what our electorate thinks it should? But common sense has gone out the window in allowing Brussels the last say on British policies and laws.

What I strongly disagree with is our country being governed in the same way as all the other countries in Europe. The UK is one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world. The majority of members in Europe are developing countries. France is a socialist state. Governing a third world country or a socialist country is very different to governing an advanced capitalist country. One size fits all never works. Did we not learn anything from the collapse of the ERM in 1992? I also note even with Maggie's rebate that financially we gain nothing as we are one of the main net contributors to EU finances. It is daft that 40% of the EU money is wasted subsidising French farmers.

Lastly the government in Brussels is not elected by or accountable to the UK electorate in any way. They know very little about the operation of our country. Some European figureheads have even specifically been rejected (Neil Kinnock, Peter Mandelson, William Hague). The UK government that is elected and that understands the operation of the UK will become completely powerless. This is dangerous.

At present we have plenty of EU laws imposed on us. I question the benefit of many of these. After this treaty things will be much worse.

As this current treaty stands we would be better staying away and forming similar agreements with the Europe that is created as benefits us. I would rather be a United State of America with whom we have far more in common. There have been too many times over the last few years where Tony Blair has taken a different stance internationally to Europe and I have agreed with him on most of them.

I have written to my MP for an explanation exactly what the benefits are of being in Europe and adding my voice to the calling for the referendum. Will post here when/if I get a comprehensive reply.

Chris

UK economic problems.

In the last week there has been a severe failure by our government and regulatory bodies to calm jitters in the UK economy.

I saw the treasury select committee MPs grilling the head of the Bank of England, but can't help but feel they missed the point.

Northern Rock is in serious difficulty. Their balance sheet is comprised mostly of mortgage lending with a small proportion of deposits. Because of the fallout from the recent US sub-prime mortgage lending crisis the cost of inter-bank lending (which NR was more reliant on than was prudent) has risen sharply, with banks much more reluctant to lend one-another money for fear that the securities offered for the loan may be overvalued.

The select committee seemed to focus entirely on the Northern Rock situation which I see as the symptom, not the actual problem.

Northern Rock had been looking for a solution for its problems for about a month before the issues bit. The problems were directly caused by fallout from the economic problems in US. These pleas had fallen on deaf ears and the problems left to grow.

In my opinion this is what went wrong:

1) The Bank of England took an extremely hard line. They were aware of the situation with the interbank lending. Banks were keeping all their cash in case they hit problems in the near future. The Federal Reserve in America noticed a similar problem and they took action. They injected cash into the system promptly, offered banks a reduced borrowing rate and have since dropped the main interest rate by two 'notches'. Our bank sat there and did nothing. Had they improved access to short term funds I feel none of the current problems with Northern Rock and the banking sector in general would have happened.

2) Northern Rock asked the Bank for a 'lender of last resort' loan. This request was immediately made public. Mr King informed the Treasury Committee he would have rather used 'covert' lending so the bank could sort its problems without causing the large public panic causing queues of savers withdrawing their savings. Covert lending was made illegal by the EU Market Abuse Directive. I wait for the day I hear of an EU directive that is in our best interests.

3) Approximately a week before the crunch hit, Lloyds TSB wanted to buy Northern Rock. From what I have read they pulled out becuase the Bank of England refused to extend the terms of loans to Northern Rock to a buyer.

Today it looks like the Rock is struggling to find a buyer at any price! It is looking increasing likely the government will have to support it over the longer term.

Fortunately last week the B of E woke up and intervened by guaranteeing no depositors of NR would lose any savings and to offer £10 billion funds to lubricate the markets. Such a U-turn was well overdue. The Bank of England definitely neglected one of their core duties to ensure market stability. The MP committee forgot to ask them why.

Chris

Is it your fault or 'theirs'?

I have just read in disbelief about a clown booked to perform in Leeds for Tesco. He has recently been prevented from getting insurance unless he stops using a bubble machine in case it drips soap on the ground and someone slips. Now he has been banned from using any balloons because 'some children may be allergic to latex'. Have you ever heard of a latex allergy from a distant balloon? Why has an allergy affecting about 2 people taking precendence over the remaing 99.99% of kids enjoying a show containing balloons? Maybe someone is allergic to the clown's face paint. I'll bet a few people have died or injured themselves laughing. Should this mean all entertainment must stop?

This post isn't about saving a clown. It is a wider issue. If people get drunk and cause trouble it is the fault of the pub for selling alcohol! There is regularly uproar about violent computer games, and more specifically recently about the setting of such violence in Manchester Cathedral. The authors claim it is just a fantasy and is not real - so its OK. Problem is now graphics and consoles are improving games are starting to look and feel much more realistic. To pass levels on games you have to keep trying, and honing your gut reactions to beat your opponents and win. After a day playing Ridge Racer I actually find myself thinking about taking corners much faster in my real car. I have decided to stop playing the game because it could put me in danger. Most other people would probably not be so sensible, and would practice in the real car so they could improve on the game. But because of this should the game be banned from the public? Is it the game author's fault for encourauging dangerous driving in a game where there are not the same consequences?

Additionally the Lords committee has recently published a good report into the future of personal safety on the internet. I like it because one of the key points they attack is current software 'license' agreements. For some reason the person who created the software is not responsible for all the flaws in the software. It is my fault for running the software! Also they suggest holding Internet Service Providers responsible for viruses etc sent from their network. I actually don't agree with this - the person responsible in my view is the one who created the virus. Any changes to make net users reliably traceable in the real world would let us nail em up!

When I buy a car do I have to sign a license? If, for example, there is a fault with all BMWs that a wheel falls off at 80mph and kills the driver would such an agreement exempt the designers from responsibility for the fault? I think the charge would be corporate manslaughter earning someone a jail term.

These issues I have mentioned are all very different issues that may seem unrelated, but my point is about who is responsible for how much? Where does a supplier's responsibility end and a consumer's responsibility start?

Can someone sell me software that exposes my credit card details to the world without me being aware and it not be their fault? Can someone sell me a program to hone my reactions to make me a more dangerous driver and claim it is my fault for using it and applying it to my real life? Can an unusual allergic reaction in one person be enough to ban all balloons from the country? Or should that person expect a clown to have balloons and avoid his show?

You know now this is composed I realise I have already written a post about this same issue. I called it Religion and racism about the racism row with Shilpa Shetty on Celeb Big Brother.

Someone in government needs to take this issue on board and establish some uniform guidance that can be applied across the board. Exactly where does a supplier's or consumer's responsibility begin and end?

Shockingly I can't begin to answer that off the top of my head. Information Technology rules are definitely too soft on supplier's. The Lords report hit that nail on the head! I also feel broadcasting rules are too hard on their supplier's. Might come back to this one.

Perhaps the answer is nowhere - both are responsible. But we need to keep the compensation lawyers on a leash! Maybe compensation laws are partly responsible for this problem?!

Chris