Death by dangerous driving is murder

I have just read an article of how two people were killed by a lorry driver, Ethen Roberts, this took place on the M62 in West Yorkshire, in 2012.  The sentence for killing two people with a lorry is apparently not much at all. Just a mere 5 years.  It is called death-by-dangerous-driving when in fact it should be called homicide-by-motor-vehicle. Time and time again innocent people are killed by motorists and the sentence is pitiful. In this particular case Mr Robers was reading a text while at the wheel, he lost control and his lorry jackknifed, it somehow fell and crushed to death Mr and Mrs McHale. She was a primary school teacher and her husband the owner of a beauty salon. No child will ever be taught by her again.

In some countries death by vehicle beings with the charge of murder, as the circumstances are revealed the gradually this is changed and reduced to a lesser sentence. Maybe the British legal system has some misguided belief road traffic accidents are just another form of accident and these things happen. So it begins with the predicate "it's an accident." This is totally and completely wrong. When an individual gets behind the wheel of an vehicle they become liable not just for their life but those of fellow travellers and certainly pedestrians. Yes there may well be occasions where certain deaths could not be avoided. But I am without doubt for this particular offence, responsibility and liability should fall first on the driver's shoulders. If a driver is distracted their distraction can cause death, if they are incapable of driving by being on drugs or alcohol then they to should be considered as responsible and liable.

This is very, very wrong. However I am sure there will continue to be stories in the press in years to come where the same thing happens. Had Ethen Roberts been aware of a law meaning he would be liable for murder would he of acted differently? It's hard to say, but he would of had the choice to not read his text, or to stop and catch up with messages when on his break. How lucky you are, at least you'll be breathing for the next five years, unlike the McHales.

Computers and Accountants lie

An accountant is someone who reconciles finances, a computer is a machine which runs programs, both have a beginning and an end in their task, even if the task is iterative. Both have a trait which is overlooked and denied. They both lie. A computer is only as good as the information and variables put into it, it is only as good as the programmers who input the code, a computer therefore is fallible. Either to the extent of it's creators or it's users. In the end what is churned out is then interpreted by a human (highly fallible). Accountants are interested in the bottom line only, the figures they are given and then the process of reconciling those figures. If you were to think there was only one way to add things up and to subtract them you'd be wrong. There are multiple ways depending on how they are to be interpreted. Which may have been something arising from a term called creative accounting. There is nothing artistic about it, rather it's about defining variables. 

The lie is in not knowing how the data was collected and the stories behind the data. Consequently the saying:

"lies, damned lies and statistics"

I know a lot about statistics, or more accurately, I used to know a lot about statistics. Their frequent use as a tool by politicians is like the double edged sword of discovery. Every new thing in the world which is made or discovered has at least two purposes of use. A use for good or a use for bad. Nuclear energy for example. As a source of energy for the population or as technology used in the deadliest of bombs. In this same way politicians pick and use specific statistics to make arguments which they generalise.  They bolster their own image of themselves and try to fool the populace into thinking things are going well. Sometimes it may work, but a lot of time politicians are now being understood for what they are, and it is not as saints. Yet when I pick up a newspaper and read it the paper will have a biased view of the world and also deliver articles leaning in the same direction. There is no neutral ground. When I've wanted to read pure news with less bias, I'd purchase a financial newspaper. Yes, it happens maybe once every couple of years. You can tell it's a financial newspaper because of it's orange colour. However, like accountants and computers financial papers fail to provide the human element. The story behind the figures, the story which motivates the figures.

Where there is human interaction fallibility exists and always will exist, but to believe there is such a thing as pure facts, such as those from a computer or an accountant is grossly ignorant. I used to read company reports. These were wonderful financial statements of loss and profit, the reports are always keyed to give the impression although the environment is tough the company is fairing well. There would always be a statement by the CEO to this effect. They can not give a pessimistic statement by their very nature, if they did then they would not be CEO for long, shares in the company would drop like a stone and it could then no longer exist. The reports are compiled by accountants, they are signed off as true and valid by qualified accountants. Yet there are companies who have given out glowing reports of their future and have become failures. A lot of story telling has taken place. It is only by knowing the human element a better Gestalt like view can be understood. The human element is always missing.

Politicians do not give speeches on how the unintended consequences of a law or action they took resulted in poverty of injustice.  They will elaborate on all the good points. Even if those good points are insignificant. A policy statement comes out and the repercussions for the country are enormous, yet two or three years pass and the policy has been ineffective. This is proof it was a lie from the start. But they would not of know it at the time. They hoped it would work and have the effects they hoped. Unfortunately hope is not a variable used by computers and accountants. Hope is an emotion or desire a human being holds. Something can therefore only be measured by the end result, but again only providing the figures for the end result have used all of the relevant and even some of the irrelevant details.  An interesting book called Freakonomics by Levitt and Dubner gives examples where unplotted variables were plotted by an economist and how these unrelated items had huge end result effects.  They were not things which politicians had done either.  So it goes to say, you can not make sense of things unless you have all the facts. Accountants don't, therefore they should not be put on high stalls and kowtowed, or worshipped.

The MPs committe enquiry on Universal Credits

It was interesting to watch Ian Duncan Smith and his side kick croany Lord Freud take questions before an MPs committee on the development of Universal Credits. The video is on a government web site which makes democracy more open and viewable. The fact of the matter is UC is still in it's infancy and the software can only cope with simple claims. Their cohort is the easiest set of claimants possible. Those on Job Seekers Allowance, just clean simple no hassle claims. The committee panel had a variety of MPs from different parties which was both good and bad. It's going to be predictable a fellow Tory MP will support another Tory under pressure and not ask too many probing questions. They of course want to look good. IDS reminded the panel how they had listened to the last panel and decided on the pathfinder trial first before bringing in the full UC program. It was as though he was looking for praise and recognition in what is actually just a simple basic and logical thing to do.  The original plan for UC did not have pathfinders. It was in effect a Titanic which was going to be launched by the and immediately hit an iceberg. Fortunately for them they listened and fortunately for welfare claimants they did as well.

The answers from IDS's team were along the lines of software would be developed continuously over the next year or so. Agile development was in place. They would start simple and the numbers would increase, with an expected 1.5 million people predicted to be on UC by the end of 2014 or perhaps early 2015. Although I must say there wasn't a great deal of confidence in their answers. It was like they were even surprised by the questioning as the were surprised by the enormity of the task in front of them. Every single member was learning how playing with the Welfare benefits system is an incredibly complex and difficult thing to do. I noticed how Lord Freud used colloquialisms to try and describe the process, "niggling" and "clunky" were amongst the words. It was like they were grasping for a way to describe something which they didn't understand. Equally I thought the panel were not quite up to the job but possibly on the right tracks. The way IDS spoke was as if the numbers would suddenly accumulate in the transition process to UC at a massive rate. But as anyone will tell you the law of 80/20 states, 20 per cent of claims take up 80 per cent of the time to deal with. At the moment UC is trying it's best to cope with getting on board the 80 per cent and sod the difficult cases. One thing I thought they hadn't considered was the multiple changes of circumstances which can happen in a household. Claimant's are not just static and unchanging creatures, they are after all human beings and prone to change. The use of Real Time Information RTI is a feather in an IT cap, but it is not the be all and end all of claim assessment issues. The heavy manual labour comes in determining something which is complex and decision ladden to an extent a computer program is incapable of dealing with, especially the spirit and intention of law, which is rife in the Welfare claims system.

There was no explanation of how Local Authorities would be funded in order to provide local services for people who needed to see another human being. There is a great reliance on IT to do everything. IDS and colleagues stated the more vulnerable members of society would go onto UC last, they needed to get it right and when they did transfer to UC everything would be fine. Of course this is a story or fairy tale explanation they'd give. LA's are not expected to get funding to do what will be transferred to central government. It was as if the pathfinders were only just discovering what welfare benefits were about, they were excited and learning a lot, especially staff at Job Centre Plus JCP.  However, why did they not use people who already knew the benefits systems, people who could tell them of what the pitfalls are, these people already exist in LAs in every borough. Well those which hadn't tendered out their services. Ultimately UC is about central government wrestling back the purse strings of funding and cutting it at the same time.  It was Glenda Jackson who put IDS on the spot and asked him about the cohort and small sampling. IDS spoke over her, his tone was bullying, he was putting down her line of questioning. But it seemed clear to the viewer IDS and his acolytes have bitten off something way too big. I can certainly see Howard Shiplee (66 years old) lead for the delivery of UC holding a pretty big get-out-of-jail card. He'll simply retire when it all goes south, considering Lord Freud is also supposed to have retired (55) his role is also suspect.

It's a difficult job for sure, one which may lead to their entire downfall. God help the rest of the country with the fall out from it. Maybe next time they are asked a few questions they may even have some answers. Hey no, they are politicians after all.

Prescription: legalised death by Liverpool Care Pathway

The Liverpool Care Pathway is a doctor's prescription to allow a patient death.  Like anything else the Devil is in the detail of death, it is how the LCP is administered which matters.  Therefore taking this decision is not a light choice.  LCP is the conscious withdrawal of medication, liquid and food for someone considered to be hanging on to life but would not have much of a life if they were fully compis mentis, who has little chance of recovery. Morphine may be given, which will conveniently keep the patient on an opiate high and prevent them from acting in a concerned disagreeable manner.  After all anyone working or visiting would not want to be greeted by a dying person who in pain is doing nothing but moan and groan. They should die in piece.

If a patient has life, has some kind of mental ability even comatose, LCP should not be taken.  An example is seen in stories of comatose patients who have come to consciousness after a time, possibly weeks or months.  To be awake and conversant with those around them, when nearly everyone had given up.  In addition to this it is remarkable how the human body can survive when it is not fully functioning. Only having one lung, half your body or more paralyzed, the late Christopher Reeve comes to mind.  There are individuals walking about, talking, laughing, contributing to the world who physiologically are well below par, but they are part of it, they are here, their ability to communicate is probably what stops them from being put directly into a morgue.

Secondly, is the conviction with which a decision is made, the confidence and consensus of the decision. To take this choice immediately becomes part of the grieving process. Also if I were the patient in these circumstances I'd not want the decision to be made by most of relatives. Some of whom I am surprised can get up in the morning and make their own breakfast. These are people who are walking, conscious and alive but might as well be dead with the way they live their life and the constant pain of their existence. Just as it is a pain to accept they are my own family.  They may know me but they are not qualified to make a decision about my life or certainly my death.

Thirdly, and importantly is the type and amount of care which takes place after the decision is made to use LCP, or any other form of end-of-life prescription.  For this should be with compassion and dignity, some palliative care is given to make the patient comfortable.  Giving them washes, water when needed, soothing ointments which stop pain from continuing illnesses which are painful but don't kill. A rash, a bee sting, arthritis etc etc.

With the state of the NHS as it is, there is always a need for beds to be free to be taken up by another patient. Everything has a cost as well. Hospitals cannot afford for lingering deaths to happen, it is to their advantage to allow LCP decisions to take place. They may not be entirely neutral in the advice they give.  OK there may be an alleged oath they give to save life, to heal, to give hope, but to believe this without question is naive. Everyone has a right to question, the problem is being emotional and overcome by devastating thoughts and consequences takes the edge off.  To then ask questions, to disagree with medical professionals becomes a difficult task.

Then lastly there are stories of hospitals who use the LCP in a callous way, stories of relatives who have seen their loved ones die in pain from uncaring authority figures who are no more than providing the statistics politicians ask for. But what has to be done, just has to be done. These are the people who should be in court, facing a judge, and considered murderers.

Making the poor even poorer

The Tory government as always proves it is in government for the rich.  They vilify those who get welfare benefits, picking on a few extreme examples to stir up scape goat feelings against all the poor. They have hit Tax Credit payments and so reduced the income for 70 per cent of working families. The minimum wage is still kept excessively low and has not increased in line with real inflation. It is now considered lower than a living wage, the minimum wage is in fact a pauper's wage and less. The Tory party have been careful not to anger pensioners and kept their welfare benefits and incomes sacrosanct. There is good reason this has happened as it a fact pensioners vote more than any other part of the nation. However, there are rich pensioners who claim benefits they don't need to actually receive. Just as there are pensioners who have not contributed to society by working their entire lives. Just as there are people quite capable to work who have chosen not to work and continue to receive benefits.

If the UK continues on this course there are some inevitable consequences.  The poor will continue to get poorer. Crime will increase, the toll on the NHS will get higher, state pensions, state welfare, state education and income will all reduce. The deficit we are told is going down, but the word "deficit" is used to describe the amount of money still being lent by the UK to survive.  The future fuel energy costs of the UK will increase as there is no sustainable plan to encourage green energy. In winter people will die in their homes because they are unable to heat them. The building projects of the future do not exist.  The UK needs homes. So those who own property will see the values increase but will not be able to move home because the costs of a new home would be too high. Proportionately fewer and fewer new mortgages will be taken up. Over crowding in properties will increase. Landlord's will maximise the income of properties by illegally converting them or building sheds in gardens. Ghettos will grow and gentrification of the better places will increase. Society is gradually becoming segregated by choice and poverty.

Here is a fact. Poor people spend more money than rich people do. Poor people have no choice, because they are poor the proportionately spend higher amounts. This in turn goes back into the economy instantaneously. It is the poor who create liquidity, not the rich. Yet this is not recognised. Certainly not by the Tory's.  The future is very bleak if another term of Tory takes the ballot box. Given the hubris of the entire present cabinet I cross my fingers and truly hope they don't.

Horrors of Open Plan Offices

Whoever invented the open plan office needs a good kicking. I'm sure they are probably hiding under a table somewhere, in a conventional office. Because if they had any brains they'd realise there was a hit list and this is one individual who must be near the top. If not on the top, even, in doing a Google search there is some vagueness as to the original inventor. The word "architect" crops up.  Yes those people who design things for others but don't give a damn about the results, otherwise they would of designed them better in the first place and worked or lived in the places they designed. The hypocrisy is they don't.

Open plan offices are a cauldron of noise, they are unbelievably difficult to concentrate in, because there is always some idiot who speaks up loud or because of their own insecurities and psychologically unbalanced mind desperately seek attention. In the open plan office they can get all the attention they want.  Whether this is in talking about what they saw on TV, their pets, their family, sports.  The subject is irrelevant.  This is probably the biggest bugbear of any open plan office. Some employees need for silence to do calculations, read, or undertake any complex task requiring concentration it's essential. The open plan office takes this away.  Those individuals who have these difficult tasks are then under stress and strain, not just to do their work but also not to make mistakes. It's not like they are colouring in a picture by numbers, what they are doing is difficult and their need for clarity is essential.  Therefore mistakes happen and in business those mistakes can cost money.  Whilst an employer may see the advantage of cramming in employees tight like battery hens, they rather not consider these other costs.

It is mind boggling how employers mix functions of office workers under the open plan office. When mixed all out office war can take place. For example, a group of people who are constantly on the telephone should not be put next to a group who barely use the phone.  It is as though the telephone users intentionally want to stop or harass the non users from doing their work. Their job involves communication, not thinking and there is a blindness to understanding someone else may need to concentrate. They talk normally or loudly, they don't try to subdue their voice.  They fail to understand or see the effect of verbal diarrhoea.

In an open plan office individual's are more likely to be interrupted while they work. They are seen not just as sitting at a desk and getting on with the job, they are seen as available to others. Available to be spoken to, when they would rather just get on with it.  Some people also can not help but talk while they work, and try and engage others in what they are doing. Like the telephone employees it's as though they are looking for approval, as they discuss items or work. By discussion they take away their own decision making process, they share it. If uncomfortable in making a decision or because they don't have confidence in their own abilities. These people are a hindrance as they are being overpaid, and not doing the job they should be doing. But they are human beings, and it could be the personal need for social contact which makes them this way. Especially if they don't get the chance to speak to others outside of the workplace.

Hot desking. This is another useless concept bought in by employers with the advent of open plan offices in a way to reduce costs. No office worker has a dedicated desk, they may have an area but not a dedicated desk. Unless it so happens they have a disability. Then they do have a dedicated desk. However, by dedicating a desk to this individual there then becomes less choice for the remaining hot desking employees to sit anywhere else.

Windows. In the open plan office when one person opens a window the draught is felt fifty metres away in another part of the office which may be quite a bit cooler. On account of convection currents and sun light streaming through the window. Further to this some office workers like a little bit of air and may have a high body temperature, whereas those who like as much warmth as possible because they enjoy a hotter climate don't like the window open.

It is with a great deal of irony how open plan office may even be cited with architectural awards. Awards for all kinds of reasons, the most natural light, the most eco friendly, the most sociable, however the one thing they should be given an award for they are not. This is as suitable places to work in. The employees end up facing the brunt of it them.  This especially goes for the newer offices. The ones where the toilets never work properly, the air conditioning is ineffective or only effective in a certain part of the building so every other employee is baked like a jacket potato, or worse frozen. Lets not forget to mention how it is employers think when a lot of their employees are crammed into an open plan office those employees will require less stationary, or less toilet roll than they did previously.

The resounding effect of open plan offices is a great deal more stress and a reduction in productivity. You can tell the employer to you are blue in the face, but they don't hear.  At which the whip is cracked and you're asked why an urgent piece of work has not been actioned.  Oops, as you think back to a piece of paper which happened to be handy while sitting on the crapper.

Truthfully, open plan offices stink, in more than one way.

The British Class System

There has always been a class struggle in the UK. To state otherwise is being blind. The worst part about this struggle is how the entire British population are blamed for the sins of only a select few. What always comes to mind is the old colonial British Empire. The lust for greed and riches from far off lands wasn't something the general British people wanted to do. It was a sense of dominance carried by the upper-class elite. It was also these person who reaped the benefits of pillaging the British Empire. Not ordinary working class struggling Joe Bloggs. When I look at the way some continents view the UK I can see their envy and hatred. It is deep seated in how the British came to their lands and took. Yet, were they to see the poverty suffered by the lower and working classes of the UK at the time there might be some sympathy.  To imagine a hundred or two hundred years ago the general populace of the UK were ill educated, poor and mere plebs to the rest of society. We were no more enlightened than the general populace of say Pakistan or India now. Or even those poor subservient classes of China.  It is only those who see themselves above the rest of us who gained by keeping everyone in their place. Like the Indian caste system. A very similar societal norm was indigenous to the UK. But this is not elaborated on in history books and clues can be gathered from political history. From the Labour movement, from equal rights and one vote for each adult, regardless of gender.

So in today's modern UK we see a threat from terrorists and extremists who perceive us as rich, slovenly and  decadent, but are so wrong. Were they to know and understand how tough it has been for common society and the worker, the poverty stricken they might feel different.  Education can be a leveller, just as can be winning the lottery. Unfortunately for the most of us the common threads of society, NHS, education, politics are all being butchered.  Eaten away by economic cuts, moves to the centre ground and meddling politicians who think they know better how to organize something than the experts. Lastly not forgetting the cauldron of religion which acts to segregate the peoples further. Multi social groupings don't work, multi culturalism is a fragile concept which again can be torn to pieces by the want of poverty and a voice.

Maybe the ideals of communism would be an answer to it all. But then maybe not just as Animal Farm portrayed. Inherently human beings are selfish, whether they're on two legs or four.  An societies are divided by classes, classes which will always be salient and tangible.  The class system is here to stay regardless of what is ever thought, written or deliberated. Accept it and get on with it.