Archive for February, 2008:
Written on February 29th, 2008 by adminno shouts
It is always sad to see a life lost when it could have been avoided. I have just been reading about a 19 year old cyclist who was killed by a young woman who was both speeding and sending a text on her mobile phone at the time of the accident. She has been sentenced to 4 years in jail. A penalty which will send a strong message to all drivers.
What shocked me most about the story was that the cyclist had gone through a red light. There is no question the woman driver who hit him was driving recklessly but if the cyclist had obeyed the traffic laws he would still be alive today. If he had been driving a truck then it might have been the young woman who had been killed.
Many cyclists seem to think they can ignore the rules of the road and I can understand, from my own experience of cycling why they would want to but it seems harsh to blame the person who was doing the less dangerous action. Would anybody dispute that to drive through a red traffic light is an extremely dangerous and hazardous action?
Speeding can be dangerous though so much depends on the particular situation of the road, traffic and weather conditions. It is a total lie when the police spew out their standard line that speed kills. If that were true we would all be dead because our planet is speeding through space at the most incredible speeds. According to the police we should all be dead just from the astronomical speeds we are all travelling at even as we sit still.
Speed is relative and a simple, blunt, statement that speed kills is just plain wrong. It is shameful that any police force or person should promote what is so clearly a lie. Speed relative to a situation is a very different thing and doing 45 mph in a 30 mph limited area sounds very excessive and dangerous.
Texting on a mobile phone whilst driving is very distracting, no one would dispute that and if you are distracted then you are paying less attention to your driving. On todays busy roads we all need to keep our wits about us. We need to remain focused on driving and texting on a mobile phone is not something you should be doing.
So there is no question that the young woman was driving carelessly and perhaps dangerously but to say that it is her fault that the young cyclist died seems to be stretching the point. On a scale of 1 to 10 of dangerous things to do on the roads then driving through a red light has to be right up there at number one. If you drive through a red light you stand a fair chance of being killed or seriously injured and anybody who does it should surely be aware of the risk they are taking.
I have enormous sympathy for the family of the cyclist. It is a sad and unnecessary loss of life but I would argue that he knew he was taking a risk and was flouting the law. He should not have been in front of the car that hit him.
We should encourage cycling. It is of benefit to the cyclist from a health point of view, it is beneficial to the local area because it reduces traffic problems and it benefits our planet because of the reduction in carbon emissions compared to using a car. We should be doing much more to make it easier and safer for cyclists to travel around.
If we had a system of roads just for cyclists that were seperate from traffic there would be far more people prepared to cycle. There could and should be a real national network of cycle routes that are well maintained and safe to use. It would be an expensive undertaking and have an initially high carbon footprint but over the long term it would save the healthservice money, benefit the environment and we might all lead healthier and more enjoyable lives.
Politicans pay lip service to such schemes and there are around 10,000 miles of designated cycle routes around the country but only about 30% are on routes free of cars and trucks. If we are serious about helping cyclists we need priority for cyclists where they and other road users meet. Cyclists and cycling need to be supported and encourage and most importantly of all, protected from other road users.
I am sad to hear of the death of this young cyclist but it should not be accepted that cyclists can or should feel the need to cross a red traffic light it is an incredibly dangerous thing to do. We have to find a better way promote cycling and keep cyclists safe.
Written on February 28th, 2008 by adminno shouts
The head Metropolitan Police Chief, Sir Ian Blair, has written to the Commons Standards Commissioner to ask why the case of Derek Conway MP was not referred to the police. Derek Conway MP apparently paid his sons for ‘research’ for which he was unable to provide any evidence proving it to have been carried out. Even more significant was the amount he had paid them -£40,000.
If you are a single mother claiming an allowance that some suit in the civil service deems is inappropriate you will suffer the consequences. You may be hounded if there is any suspicion that you might be claiming allowances they are not entirely genuine. There is a clear case of ‘Us And Them’ and though the government and parliament continually go on about transparency and they enact laws which require complete honesty and disclosure in all sorts of areas, they continue to somehow see themselves as different and above such requirements.
They may consider every citizen guilty until proven innocent. the latest example being Jaqui Smiths plan that anyone arrested for drug dealing should have their assets seized even though they have not been proven guilty of anything and are supposed to be considered innocent at that time.
Perhaps one of the most obvious examples of different rules of law for MPs was several years ago when Peter Mandelson , then a government minister, had obtained a mortgage without full disclosure of other money he had borrowed privately to assist with his purchase of a property. If you are an MP it is apparently only a minor misdemeanor to neglect to mention a loan of over £300,000 when you apply for a morgage but if you or I did it there is every chance we would be charged with fraud and end up in court if not in prison. Peter Mandleson lost his cabinet post but he never appeared in court because, apparently, he ‘forgot to mention’ the borrowed money so somehow that made it all ok.
The Ninth Report of the select committee on Standards & Priviledges reported that…
“Whilst there are some inconsistencies in the information given to us, as a result of our investigation (not least from our interview of Mr Mandelson) we have concluded that Mr Mandelson did not have any dishonest intent at any relevant time and did not consciously mislead the Society.“[8]
10. We agree with the Commissioner that the terms of the mortgage offered by Britannia were not in themselves concessionary. Nevertheless the mortgage was obtained without the disclosure of all the requisite information. A non-Member in the same position would have been treated in the same way. We were told that Mr Mandelson’s application was dealt with commercially at all times.[9]
11. As to whether the loan had been obtained improperly, the Commissioner states in her report that “Mr Mandelson, unknown to the Britannia Building Society, received his mortgage on a different basis from that which would properly have applied to other members of the public”. (Emphasis added.)
12. Mr Mandelson ought to have given full and accurate information to Britannia. Under Britannia’s general conditions his solicitor, who was acting as Britannia’s agent, should have fully disclosed the change in the funding arrangements for the purchase of the property prior to Mr Mandelson’s taking up the mortgage.
13. Mr Mandelson said that in omitting to inform the Britannia Building Society of three material facts in connection with his mortgage application, namely the mortgage on his house in Hartlepool, the loan from Mr Robinson and the delay in the sale of his London flat, it was not his intention to mislead Britannia. We accept that the Herbert Smith report (Project Offenbach) presents a fair assessment of issues surrounding the mortgage application and the subsequent allocation of the mortgage. Mr Mandelson’s solicitor, who suffered a family tragedy shortly before the transaction started, has acknowledged that his management of the transaction fell below his usual standard, and that he should have thought to inform Britannia of the arrangement with Mr Robinson. We consider that Mr Mandelson acted without any dishonest intention.
- We recommend that no further action be taken.”
He may have acted without dishonest intention. People are in court every day who acted without dishonest intention but the law makes little allowance for that for members of the public.
I have no particular axe to grind with Peter Mendalson. He has gone on to become a significant player in Europe and appears to be doing a good job for us and for Europe but this surely is the point. To make a mistake does not make you a bad person and the same rules should apply to both MPs and members of the public.
MPs may wonder at the low public esteem in which they are held. Is it really any surprise when there are cases such as these? What we need to see is the full weight of the law brought down on MPs who break the law, are deceiving and dishonest if that is the treatment that members of the public would receieve. Until MPs are seen to suffer the effects of the laws they enact, as the rest of us do, we the electorate will have no reason to have any respect for them. If they really care about public opinion they can do something about it. We want to see equal treatment for MPs and members of the public. When we see a few more MPs in court when they appear to have acted dishonestly we might start to have a better opinion of MPs in general.
Written on February 26th, 2008 by adminno shouts
News that school truancy figures are at their highest since 1997 are disappointing but should we be surprised?
With all the attention on the National Curriculum there is little room for teachers to make education interesting or comprehensive. It has always been hard to motivate and interest some children in learning and education. If teachers are denied the opportunity to adapt lessons to match their pupils interests it is little wonder that some children lose all interest in attending school.
Being compelled to go to school when there is nothing of interest to a child is the equivalent of a prison sentence. A time to be endured rather than feeling empowered and encouraged. It seems obvious that for some children education more rellevent to their needs and desires would be a far more valuable benefit than being forced to learn things that are unlikely to ever have any bearing on their lives.
Education is not just about learning facts and figures. It should be a preparation for dealing with life and feeling valued for their individual abilities whether they match government targets or not.
Older Posts »
