It’s all go in the Medina estuary and Solent this evening.  The coastguard helicopter has been flying low over the Medina, clearly searching.  The County Press has just reported that someone has gone overboard the Red Funnel Ferry.

It has to be said that it’s pretty hard to accidentally fall over the side of a car ferry, so I think jump or push are the only likely options.

Of course, there could just be a training exercise and some exegerated reporting.  Time will tell.

Update: The search was called off with no reports of a missing person or sightings anywhere.  It looks like a “distressed” passenger was seen on deck one minute and gone the next, and then passenger numbers were down by 1.  The Daily Echo has more info than any other report I’ve found.

Update 2: Ventnor Blog are reporting that the woman has been traced and is alive and well.

]]> http://wightweirdos.co.uk/ww/2010/07/search-and-rescue/feed/ 0 http://wightweirdos.co.uk/ww/2010/06/aitchison-angel-in-a-breakdown-truck/ http://wightweirdos.co.uk/ww/2010/06/aitchison-angel-in-a-breakdown-truck/#comments Thu, 03 Jun 2010 19:29:40 +0000 Martin http://wightweirdos.co.uk/ww/?p=880

On our recent holiday to the Broads we arrived at the boatyard two hours early, so thought we would pootle off somewhere for a couple of hours, have some lunch and then return.  We ended up at the Hickling Broad Nature reserve where we bought some books but decided against going in as it was a bit pricey for all of us for just a fleeting visit.  So we jumped back in the car, only to find it wouldn’t start.  After numerous attempts we phoned the breakdown company (we always have breakdown cover, over the years we must have saved a fortune!) and Susan took the kids into the reserve while I waited.

As we were in the middle of nowhere it took a while for help to reach us, and when it did the news was not good.  The car would need recovering.  Fortunately the firm that had come out went out of their way to help.  They towed us back to the boatyard, helped us unload our stuff and carry it to the boat (def. above and beyond the call of duty) and then recovered the car back to their garage for repair, promising to phone us as soon as they had investigated the exact nature of the fault.

Now, when a garage says they will call me back I don’t hold my breath.  I made a mental note to call them after a couple of days had passed.  Much to my surprise I had a voicemail the next day, and on phoning back I had the diagnosis explained, the cost set out in detail, and was asked if I wanted to go ahead.  I agreed and they advised they had already ordered the part to avoid delay and it should be with them in a couple of days.  The next day I had another call to say the work was complete and that I should ring them when back at the boat yard.  At the end of our week I did this (mid morning on a Sunday) and they promptly delivered the car back to the yard – and at no extra cost.  Oh, and they had washed the car too – which is more than I ever do!

I have used many garages in my time, some good, some bad.  All I can say is they service from Aitchison Vehicle Logistics was exemplary.  Absolutely top draw.  So, if you ever break down in Norfolk, give Aitchison a call on 01493 700222.  I would like to their website but I can’t find one.

Last week as my sister and I were cycling from Newport to Cowes we could see in the distance three people and a dog blocking the entire width of the cycle path. they could see us coming from a fair distance aways and one of the people in their group moved slightly aside so we could pass didn’t try and move their dog, so we continued cycling as the dog was, at this point to the side of the cycle track. We are at this point cycling incredibly slowly so we can make sure we do not run over their do they are not controlling, just as Ruth was cycling through the people the dog runs right in front of her (may i just point at this point the dog was absolutely fine) There was no way Ruth could have stopped to avoid the dog. We did the “oh sorry” thing but then the dog owner started throwing abuse at us saying. “oh you are so stupid, bloomin’ cyclists” I’m sorry but I was VERY annoyed, and I think if i’d have stopped for a few seconds longer I would’ve started yelling things at her (luckily i had already carried on)

1. They should’ve brought their dog to them when they saw we were coming
2. The dog was no where near the tiny bit of path they’d left for us to get past
3. What were they doing taking up the entire cycle path in the first place
4. I know the cycle path is a “multi use” path but it wouldn’t be there without the cyclists. so excuse me I don’t think there’s anything wrong with us “bloomin’ cyclists” using the cycle path thank you very much!
5. the only way we could have possibly avoided this persons dog was if we had got off our bikes walked passed the people and then got back on, which I think is an inconvenience we shouldn’t have to suffer!

I have absolutely no problem with pedestrians using the cycle path and I also don’t have a problem with dog walkers using it, but we try and show as much respect as possible to the people using the cycle path so it would be nice if it was returned, as the party of people could have easily avoided the situation and removed their dog. There really is nothing wrong with cyclists Cycling on a Cycle path.

Anyway onto my minor muttering.

Tomorrow on the ferry while I am going through the wonders of factorisation with the girls Martin will not be playing Shut the Box with Jonathan as I had planned.  Rather he will probably be busy blogging a rant and writing to our MP  about the consequences of the latest attacks on HE.

So once more we are campaigning for the right to continue to HE how we want rather than actually spending the time HEing how we want. And playing maths games on the ferry is what I want to do!

Last night Rebekah and three of her friends (aged 12-14) were waiting at the bus stop in Ryde (I’m told they were sitting and chatting relatively quietly) when they are approached by the police and asked where they were going. At this point my response might have been  <sarcasm mode engaged > “on the bus.”  However Rebekah with much delight told them they were going to a church youth group (in a kind of stick that in your pipe and smoke it manner internally if not externally).  This wasn’t enough to satisfy the police who asked which church they were going to.  One of the girls was about to tell them that her dad was the Street Pastor co-ordinator  - they would have preferred to be stopped by the Street Pastors they might have got free chocolates and flip-flops!

You may think this was 11 o’clock or so and the police were worried about a group so young being out on the streets, but no it was 6 O’clock.  6 o’clock for goodness sake and they are getting questioned for going about their lawful business.  Even worse I expect that the police are perfectly within their rights to ask them what they are doing and if they don’t like it tell them to go away under police dispersal powers.

So now not only can my children not walk around in the day time without the police stopping them because they are suspected of truancy they also can’t go out after school for fear that the police will stop them and question them about where they are going.  When did it become okay in this country for the police to ask people what they are doing and why for no reason at all?

I naturally would have been bringing my children up to know that the police we’re the people who would be there to help you if you were in trouble, my children are learning all by themselves that the police are the people you avoid at all costs.  I’m sure there is something wrong here.

(Police image courtesy of Darren Gange, used under the terms of a creative commons licence)

We'd rather be stopped by Street Pastors, they have chocolate!

Keeping Children Safe - What Balls would like us to believe

I’ve just heard the latest on Kerry Robertson and the thought of social services virtually wrenching her baby from it’s mothers breast leads me feeling numb.  I’m not one for trial by newspaper, especially where the Daily Mail is concerned, but Fife council’s behaviour has all the hallmarks of our current statistic approach to child protection.  Compassion is gone, trust in parents is gone, the state knows what is best for us all.  We have been fed a lie through politicians and bureaucrats  whispering in our ears, demonising those that oppose then and grabbing ever more power for the state by instilling a sense of fear into the population.  Through fear they can control, as they tell us how they will keep us safe.

I’m not saying there isn’t an argument for the state taking a role in child protection.  I simply think it has reached a stage where they are doing more harm than good.  The approach is typified by Graham Badman’s recent comment made to the house of commons committee debating plans to force me to register my children as I can’t be trusted to raise them:

“You ask me why the urgency. My urgency would be very simple: if, by going forward with a registration scheme, we safeguard the life of just one child, it is worth it.”

What a load of tosh.  If your cognitive abilities are so poor that you can’t understand that government should never make policy on that basis then you shouldn’t be within 100 yearsd of parliament.  The fact they let him in the door is evidence of the insanity of the system.  Your urgency isn’t simple, your argument is simplistic.

And yet, this phrase has been trotted out time after time, and many people simply nod, hypnotized.   Think it through people.  You have to think beyond the emotive issue of the life you “safeguard” and look at the bigger picture.  Does the action put a life somewhere else at risk?  What impact does it have on people’s freedom to participate fully in society, to express themselves, to hold differing views? What impact will it have on the quality of life other children can expect?

Trying to distil a highly complex issue down to a crappy little soundbite which tugs at people’s heart strings is little short of evil.

Our system must stop trying to convince us there is greater danger than there really is, it must stop trying to eradicate any line of thinking which does not accord with the PTB’s ideology, must start trusting, and must be prepared to take some risks.  Risk that things will go wrong.  Risks that people will get hurt, physically or emotionally.  Risks that people will die.  We don’t live in a perfect world, bad things will happen.  Government cannot protect us.  Time to give back more trust, more faith in individuals, in parents, in families, in society, let’s take the risk.

Image courtesy of the Department for Children, Schools and Families and used under the terms of a creative commons license

The delightful people at Midland Expressway Limited have come up with an ingenious pricing system.  I looked up their prices online and decided that while they were rather high at £4.70 for a car decided I would stomach the cost for the time saving.  Imagine my surprise at being asked to pay £9.40 (the same as if I was driving an HGV) when I pulled up at the toll booth.  I spluttered and burbled a bit, only to be told that vehicles over 1.3m high were charged differently.  If I had not have been so flustered by this alarming news I might have pointed out that many “normal” cars are over 1.3m (the Ford Mondeo clocks in around 1.4 for example).  However, I simply handed over my credit card (having run out of cash).  On reaching my destination I checked out the website and found that in fact the height measurement is at the front axle.  Now, I drive a Toyota Liteace people carrier, which is quite diminutive in length and width, but on the tall side at just under 2m.  However, because those clever Japanese car makers have made use of all the available  space, the front end is like a cliff, and the driver is sitting almost directly over the front wheels.  So, height and front axle is about the same as maximum height.  Now, if I had say, a Land Rover 130 I would be charged as any other car (my understanding is they meet the 1.3m at front axle).  Said vehicle is 130mm taller than mine, 140mm wider, over a metre longer and weighs nearly twice as much.

Moral of this story?  If you have a compact, lightweight, but van shaped people carrier, avoid using the M6 Toll, the Trolls will get you.

Image: (CC) Amanda Oliver, www.flickr.com/photos/the_amanda/

Image courtsey of wokka

The recently released Badman review of home education makes a number of claims  which don’t appear to be substantiated within the report.  As such a number of home educators have made FOI requests to have the data used to draw some of Badman’s conclusions released.  In addition various other elements of the review have been under scrutiny so other requests have been made for information related to the review.

One would hope that in such a situation DCSF would release all of the information asked of it, in order to show they have nothing to hide about the review, and its recommendations are based on a solid base of research and consultation.  You can probably guess that they aren’t quite taking that approach.

Firstly lots of responses to the review have been requested, particularly those from local authorities.  As far as I can tell these have all been refused “because the information relates to the formulation and development of government policy” – an exemption under S35(1)(a) of the act.  Its an interesting exemption which appears to give them the ability to formulate and develop government policy based on spurious and ill-founded responses from other sections of government, with no ability for people to see if that is the case.  This exemption was also used to withhold all correspondence between Graham Badman and the DCSF.  So we can see the public terms of reference for the review, but not any extra requests made…

The departments responses most recently have taken a bizarre turn.   Responses like this are now commonplace:  “The Department is aware that attempts are being made on the Internet to vilify and harass the author of the review, and others who have participated, in ways which clearly go beyond the bounds of reasonable criticism and debate. It is the Department’s view that, whilst dealing with each request on its merits, this situation will have to be taken into account in dealing with any relevant FOI requests. We therefore consider that section 38 is engaged in respect of your request. The Department is not suggesting that you have participated, or are participating, in such a campaign. As far as we are concerned you are a bona fide requester under the Act and we have treated your request accordingly. It is unfortunate that the activities of a minority of people on the Internet have caused us to engage section 38.”

Now, I have every sympathy for someone whose health is genuinely being put at risk, and I think the FOI having an exemption allowing refusal on such grounds is sensible.  But let’s take a look at this case:

1.  Where is this claimed campaign of “vilification”?   Search the Internet, see what you find.  If you turn up anything which threatens Graham Badman’s health please do let me know.  I’ll post a correction and even send him a get well soon card.

2.  What is vilification?  And when does it impact on someone’s mental health?  Does my little jibe in point 1 count?  Clearly lots of people criticising someone can have an impact on their mental health does this mean all criticism is outlawed?  The report’s author was (presumably) paid by government, he was commissioned by government, he accepted a status as an “expert” bestowed by government, he saw fit to personally make a series of recommendations including that government should legislate to clamp down on home education.  I’m sorry, but if he didn’t expect robust criticism, satire, and expressions of anger then….

3.  How will the information being withheld make this health-destroying vilification worse?  The quote above comes from this FOI request.  What was it asking for?  The cost of the review. 

My personal view is that the DCSF is hiding behind these exemptions to cover up its own disinformation campaign designed to discredit home education.  In the absence of factual information they have used supposition, rumour and such extreme manipulation of numerical information you can’t even call it statistics. Then when we ask to see that information they hide as much of it as possible from us, using their very own Freedom of Disinformation exemptions.

P.S.  At the time of writing the DCSF have failed to respond to one of my Freedom of Information requests within 20 days.  This is a breach of the law.  A routine one though, it happens in in excess of 1 in 10 cases.  I’m not holding my breath.

Part 1 – Introduction

Part 2 – What’s wrong with it?

Part 3 – Who’s the parent

Part 4 – Powers to enter the family home and interview children alone

Part 5 – It won’t cost any more.  Eh?

Part 6 – The danger of defining education

Part 7 – But there’s more support for home educators isn’t there?

Part 8 – Government maths

Part 9 – Where’s the fire?

Part 10 – Death by a thousand plans?