Community Policing - Medieval Style

Now, I'm not one to advocate vigilantism or the creation of any citizen retribution against criminals - I'd even go so far as to defend the right of sex offenders to retain their privacy so long as they have served their sentence and are not judged to be a threat (after all, how else are they meant to rehabilitate?)

But when Anti-Social Behaviour Orders are clearly failing to deal with community problems, and under-resourced police forces cannot bring criminals to justice, I can sympathise with this return to old-fashioned methods to deal with criminals in the community. Assuming that he is in fact a drugs dealer (and that's a big if), then I'll bet this deals with the problem far more effectively than any ASBO ever could.

Technorati Tags: Politics

Perceived Risk

Thanks to Matt for the chance to Go Ape yesterday. This aerial assault course involves swinging around between the tops of the fir trees, and provided a much-needed adrenalin hit.

Of course, the actual danger level here is zero. The safety training lasted nearly an hour, and courses got progressively harder over the 2 hours in the trees. You know it can't be dangerous because there's no need to wear a helmet or hi-viz vest (either that or H&S haven't been to visit yet). At any one time you have at least one, and normally two, connections to the safety lines. But that doesn't stop the experience of standing on a small platform 60ft above the ground from inducing a very healthy amount of fear, and the risk certainly feels very real at that moment.

The last time I did anything like that was in 1991, at the French Infantry School in Berlin. Of course, on that course there were no safety lines, no sand traps, it was dark, and we were in full kit - ah, the good old days of no Health & Safety and a conscript army. Which will explain why my knees don't work properly any more and the British army was spared my presence in later years :)

Technorati Tags: Off-topic

Health and Safety - Rock n Roll style

I was lucky enough to hear the Rolling Stones play at the O2 last night (KEEF! KEEF!) and had a few inspirational Health and Safety moments:
- watching the lighting monkeys climb 100ft+ rope ladders into the gantry about the audience with no visible safety ropes in case they fell from the ladders;
- then being informed that I couldn't take the lid of a 500ml plastic water bottle from the bar "for Health and Safety reasons". Inevitably the bottle got spilled (I will add that this was for the wife, I was on something a little stronger). Will someone kindly explain the danger of a bottle top? Choking hazard? Trip hazard?;
- and KEEF and Ronnie lit up on stage, which was clearly an outrageous flouting of the anti-smoking laws, and obviously endangered the 23,000 present with their wicked second-hand smoke. The O2 has quite rightly been fined for this, and I trust that Messrs Richards and Woods have learned their lesson and will be better behaved in future, or I'm sure they will soon find themselves very skint indeed. Hem-hem nuff said.

KEEF's rendition of Satisfaction will live with me for ever...

Technorati Tags: Off-topic

We're all doomed

John Redwood MP has raised a conservative proposal to cut 'red tape', including the Data Protection Act. Since when, exactly, was civil liberties legislation considered to be 'red tape'? The Tories seem to be hell bent on some particularly daft policies at the moment: steadfast opposition to the principle of Identity Cards - rather than to the existing Identity Cards Act - demonstrates a dramatic failure to understand societal requirements for identity assurance. And some recent questions about computer forensics and investigations - which I'm not at liberty to discuss here - included some of the daftest technology questions I've ever heard, and were evidence of an astounding failure to grasp the issues involved.

Can we please have an Opposition that knows what it's talking about? Let's get some speeches from the same folks that wrote George Osbourne's excellent piece on Open Source. And if John Redwood stops trying to invent policy on Data Protection, I'll promise to avoid inventing economic policies.

Technorati Tags: ID Cards, Identity, Privacy

Fun in the sun

How could you want to drive anything other than a 1954 Series One Land Rover in weather like this?

Sorting out urban 4x4s

What with all this cycling I've been doing recently, I've been thinking more about my loathing of urban 4x4s - if there's one group of drivers (after horse-boxes, white vans and caravans, obviously) most likely to swipe you off your bike, it's around-town 4x4s.

Of course, knocking 4x4 drivers is like shooting fish in a barrel, 99% of them have no justification for an off-road vehicle. I have to declare an interest here - I own a 1954 Land Rover and a Subaru Forester (which is a 4x4 but is the same size and height as a compact estate) - but I agree that it's time to deal with the menace of oversized, overpowered, wasteful vehicles driven by individuals who are not competent to safely control them.

Let's start by cutting through the cr@p - the anti-SUV lobby correctly argue that SUVs are too big, inefficient and unsafe. But transit vans are too big for domestic use, and plenty get used for that at weekends; and big executive saloons swan around drinking copious amounts of fuel, so once again this is not a problem that is unique to 4x4s. The real issue here is large vehicles with 'pedestrian-unfriendly' bonnets and bumpers (when was the last time you saw bull bars anywhere? They've already disappeared from our roads) being driven too fast in urban areas. Frankly the issue of them colliding at speed on the open road is irrelevant, a head-on at 70mph is going to be bad news regardless of what type of vehicle is involved. Likewise, if a driver rolls their 4x4 by cornering too fast, well they should know better than that. No, the fact is that the place we want to see these things gone from is the middle of our towns and cities, outside of our schools and playing fields, and hogging parking space by the side of the road.

And the problem drivers? No, it's not the farmers, rural inhabitants, 4x4 enthusiasts or tradesmen in their Land Rovers, Toyotas and Nissans. It's the mums taking kids to school in Guildford in Range Rovers; sales reps cruising around in Landcruisers; families going shopping in Warriors. They could just as easily go in fuel-guzzling Jaguars, big BMWs or high-visibility Galaxys, but none of these are guaranteed to kill a child in a pedestrian impact, and all of them will stop when you press the brake pedal.

The problem with these owners is that they will never go off-road (sorry, the edge of the school playing field doesn't count). Yet they have a powerful SUV, and no training in how to use it either on- or off-road. This makes them a liability - many don't understand (or care about) the issues arising from a vehicle that is heavy, has a high centre of gravity, and a completely different transmission from anything they've driven before. I recently attended a shoot in which a lady Land Rover Discovery owner managed to get the vehicle stuck in an inch of mud, and then popped her head out of the window and asked of the assembled crowd 'does this have 4 wheel drive?'

Banning the vehicles, or radically increasing their road tax, is simply not fair on the many 4x4 drivers who need them, or at least can justify owning a 4x4 without being a menace. And there is a way to get these vehicles off the roads without unfairly punishing legitimate owners. Can you drive a lorry without a proper license? No. Can you drive a motorbike without a proper license? Certainly not. So why should 4x4's be allowed on the roads in the hands of people who have not been trained to use them?

Here's my reasonable, equitable, and sure-to-succeed plan:

1. Introduce a new driving license classification for '4x4 Utility' vehicles, that covers all large 4x4s. Anyone who wishes to drive a 4x4 without this classification should have 'L' plates on the vehicle and a competent passenger.

2. To qualify for this new classification, the driver must first pass a theory examination in which they demonstrate familiarity with the workings of a 4x4 transmission, the safety issues associated with the weight and centre of gravity of the vehicle, how to drive off road, how to recover a stuck vehicle, how to tow another vehicle etc. - all the things you need a 4x4 for.

3. The driver must then attend a one-day off-road driving course, in which they put all of the above into practice in an environment that is wet, muddy and generally suited to off-roaders. Most importantly, they must complete the course *IN THEIR OWN VEHICLE*. Not a school vehicle, or an instructor's vehicle. This is essential: it will weed out all of the unnecessary 4x4's that are geared for the road, and all of the unnecessary drivers who would hate to scuff their Guccis or break a nail.

4. Anyone who can demonstrate a legitimate commercial or domestic need for a 4x4 should be able to take the test for free. The cost to everyone else should not be subsidised by the taxpayer. The requirement for the new classification could be phased in over a three-year period.

This should very quickly deal with the problem of urban 4x4's without financial prejudice against those who genuinely need the vehicles. Then I can carry on cycling without getting side-swiped by the wing mirror of some maniac in a Land Cruiser with half a dozen screaming kids in the back and a mobile phone clamped to their ear.

Technorati Tags: Bike, Off-topic

London to Paris Publicity

The team is on the front of the local paper!