Follow the Money

From the Scotsman

MORE than 50 victims of ­Jimmy Savile’s decades of sexual abuse plan to bring compensation claims against the BBC, the NHS and the former DJ’s estate, their lawyer has said.

That's "alleged victims"

Liz Dux said the number of people coming forward is still growing. “All the victims that we are representing are wanting to pursue civil claims,” Dux said. “Compensation is the only thing we can really do for them but that is not their particular motivation for doing this.”

Oh, of course. By the way, Liz Dux is working for a legal firm that's bringing these cases.

“It is for getting their stories out there to get them believed and to prevent it from happening again. You don’t do it for the money. All of them have claims against Savile’s estate, and in addition the BBC and various hospitals and so on where the abuse took place.”

Well, that isn't going to happen, is it. If the BBC or ITV cough up, it'll have a gagging order so that the victim can't tell anyone, The last thing the BBC want is grubby stories coming out about them, and they'll pay for it because it's not their money. In the unlikely event of the BBC or ITV calling their bluff the cases will probably collapse as the evidence ain't going to be there.

The full scale of the late presenter’s abuse was revealed in a report published on Friday. His crimes spanned six decades, from 1955 to 2009, his entire career at the BBC, and included sexually touching a teenage girl at the final recording of Top of the Pops in 2006.

"alleged abuse", "alleged crimes."

Meanwhile, Mark Williams-Thomas, who presented the ITV documentary that first exposed Savile, has said the number of victims could yet double, with current figures “a mere drop in the ocean”.

Unlikely as Savile is dead.

Rail Fare Rises

From the Guardian

Rail fares have risen again above inflation, sparking protests nationwide. The government claims it's a 'complicated issue'

Really, it's not. It's a simple matter of maximising revenue. If you can fill a train with people paying £120, why would you fill it with people paying £110? Arguably, it would be better to allow the companies to remove the cap and just find the right price they want to charge.

Well, There's a Shocker

From the FT

Hotel occupancy rates suggest the Olympics also failed to act as an advertisement for London as a tourist destination after the games. Jeremy Hunt, the then culture secretary, said in August that the games would “turbocharge” the tourism industry on the back of “a globally enhanced reputation”.
Yet in both London and the regions, occupancy rates in September and November have been flat year-on-year, according to hotel consultants PKF.

So, are any of the supposed benefits still standing or is that it?

Olympic Success

Steve Redgrave in the Telegraph:-

The 29 gold medals – not to mention the dozens of silvers and bronzes – won by Team GB not only defined the most spectacular year of sport I can remember, but completely overhauled how we are perceived as a nation.

Sure, like everyone thought that East Germany was so great.

Gun Laws

This might be a long and rambling post which is itself driven by the events of Newtown Conneticut. Before I write anything else I will acknowledge the following:-

• The shooting was a terrible tragedy by a crazy man
• The shooting probably wouldn't have happened if there had been gun control (like the UK)

This should put me in with the gun control lobby, but the following quote by Thomas Jefferson puts me on the other side

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

One of the differences between the United States and the United Kingdom is that the US has a designed government system. Men like Jefferson sat and worked out what you had to do with government to make it work and implemented it.

So, they have a constitution, which is full of hard-to-change stuff. Some politician can't go trampling all over freedom of speech because of something like tabloid phone hacking. The process to change the constitution is long and requires a considerable majority in support and the time creates cooler minds. They have a court that defends this constitution made up of senior judges. They have a process for how those judges are elected (by politicians).

This was all designed to stop tyranny, but what Jefferson recognized is that no system is perfect and that the final defence of freedom is force. That if somehow the system has a fault, and a tyrant gets elected, the people need guns to deal with him, because that's what he will send at them.

This is described by many as "crazy".

The UK's approach to dealing with a tyrannical government is to have the army reporting to the monarch. Which then isn't a system relying on self-interest but the goodwill of one individual to help others, which is irrational, but understandable considering the bizarre cult-like adoration that people have in a rather average group of aristocrats.

Now, you might say "but there is no tyrant in the Whitehouse, so let's not worry" which ignores the risks of the future. Making policy based on freak events is nearly always a bad idea, and in the case of school shootings this is also the case. If a tyrant took over the Whitehouse, the number of deaths would be far, far more than the total of all school shootings (Pol Pot: 2m, Mao: 40m, Hitler: 66m, Stalin: 20m).

Is it a price worth paying? I'd rather it wasn't but I think it is. Most importantly, I'd like people to understand that there's a serious side to the pro-gun debate. That it isn't just about hunting or gun fetishism, but about protecting the rights of the people, including those of us that don't want to own a gun.

The South East Myth

I've often heard this sort of thing, in the past, even from someone in Wales, but it's good to see it in print so I can finally dissect it...

Sick and tired of subsidising folk from the rest of the country?
You belong to a select club – the club of the hard-working, clever and creative people living in London and the South East who single-handedly are giving the rest of the nation a standard of living they can’t, or won’t, create for themselves.

The problem here is that it depends what is meant by the word "subsidising". Unemployment benefit? Income support? Absolutely. People in the South East are subsidising the rest of the country.

But, let's consider the word more broadly, in terms of the transfer of wealth around the country. Not just unemployment benefit and income support, but every single time that someone pays tax to the exchequer, where it goes.

So, let's start with the easy stuff like arts, where the 12.5% of people in London receive 32% of the UK's arts subsidies. Then there's lottery money that was spent on building the Dome, the renovation of the Royal Opera House.

We could move onto the £3bn in subsidy that London Transport receives each year. There's also other transport subsidies in recent years like Crossrail, St Pancras and HS1.

Then the £11bn on the Olympics, the major museums, the embassies (and all the security jobs for them).

Then there's the subsidy for higher cost government jobs that comes from the rest of the country, via London weighting which means that Londoners get cash from the rest of the country.

Then there's the bill for housing benefit for London. Now, you might say that Kelvin McKenzie doesn't get housing benefit, but the thing is that many of the people who serve him in shops, restaurants or whatever else do. Therefore, it's still a subsidy.

Then we can consider just how much of government is in London, from parliament, to Whitehall to numerous quasi-governmental bodies and quangoes like the FA and the BBFC.

And all of this subsidy creates jobs, and distorts the economy towards the South East. A parliamentary lobbyist is going to be based near parliament. They're going to take a minister out to a fancy restaurant near Westminster, not Pitlochry. A government launch is going to use London-based caterers, not Liverpool-based caterers. National newspapers are based in London because they need to be near to parliament. If parliament moved, so would the national newspapers.

On top of that, a lot of this feeds into the South East. The people working in London often live less than an hour away. Companies serving governments or people with government contracts are often no more than an hour away (you can move programming to India, but you can't move things like user liaison).

I've worked with people all over the country: Glasgow, Manchester, Cardiff, Wiltshire, Bristol, Reading, London, Southampton and Exeter, and honestly, the people in the South East aren't any smarter. The best software teams I've worked in have been in rural Oxfordshire which is barely on the edge of the South East (and I think it's because they get a lot of fresh meat graduates).

It has become fashionable for all parts of the UK to seek home rule. I support Scotland’s desire to go it alone, not least because I would be delighted to get them off the payroll.
Why should the good people of Guildford have to fund the unhealthy habits of Glasgow? So the Southern Party might even include in its manifesto home rule for London and the South East.

I once tried to explain this to someone calling for Welsh rule, that all this UK government departments that had been placed in Wales no longer would be as they currently are. Wales would still need a DVLA, but it wouldn't be serving Wales and the rest of the UK. The number of jobs would shrink.

If the South East split off, the BBC wouldn't get £4bn of money, most of which flows through London. It would get around £1bn. The other £3bn would be spent on a UK BBC outside.

And that's why people in London with expensive housing should pay more tax. Because those values aren't created by them being clever, they're created by government spending money there.

Oh Really, Phil?

On publication of the "no significant warming for no 16 years" from HADCRUT 4:-

Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions

From a ClimateGate memo (07/05/2009) from Phil Jones:-

Bottom line - the no upward trend has to continue for a total of 15 years before
we get worried.