You Give me Road Rage

Every day you take a step closer to a serious road rage incident. I do anyway, so many idiots on the roads at the moment. It's not like I live in a city with a lot of traffic, there are plenty cars but it's not too bad except at certain times, generally when I'm not on the road. But there's still a lot of people I'd quite like to talk to. At length.

Earlier today I nearly crashed, was at a crossroads stopped at the lights, they went green car in front went right,  car at opposite side of lights decided to cut right across me as I was about to go through straight on and also turned right. I think I missed hitting it by a couple of feet. There wasn't anyone coming through behind me, they'd have been able to turn 2 seconds later, but no, they had to go through IMMEDIATELY, sod waiting for you with the right of way, I'll risk killing you to gain a second which I'll lose again waiting at the roundabout down the road. Would love to know what you're thinking.

The other thing with this is the might is right argument. The car I nearly hit was a 4x4, would probably have smashed my Nissan and mildly dented their beast. This is common though, people with big cars decide they have the right of way. Attitude seems to be if you have to go on a pavement or in a ditch that's fine, I'm coming through, you step aside. Around where I live it's not narrow streets as much as a lot of residential parking on them, so only one car can get past. And if they have a 4x4 or something very large, it's going to be them. Pavements are for you to go up on to to avoid being smashed, or possibly killed the speed some of them go at. They're generally arrogant, and you can see them looking as if to say move peasant, I've paid big money for this car, get out of my way, I will drive through or over you if I have to. Just annoying beyond belief.

That and the people coming out of turnings, or especially car parks, who edge out just far enough if you're on that side you have to swerve round them into another lane, if there's no oncoming traffic. Or wait if there is, at which point they edge out further, as they're usually turning right and make sure you're stuck until someone coming the other way lets them out. If I want to let you out I'll make sure you know, with a flash of lights or waving to you. If you edge out you can stay there until hell freezes over, I'll never let you out unless I have to, and the gesture won't be a friendly wave.

Last thing is when did they make indicating illegal? I'm still sure you have to let people know which way you're turning, makes things easier. Especially at roundabouts here for some reason, people not showing the way they're going. I no longer trust anyone indicating because of this, I'm never sure what they're actually doing, mostly apparently going straight according to the car, until they nearly turn into you as they go to the last junction. If someone is indicating they're usually not going that way, or if they are it's too rare, and I don't trust it. So I get stuck, until there's a big enough gap in the traffic, because I don't trust anyone else who drives on the roads round here.

Obviously I am the perfect driver, talking about this. Honest. I think I am better than most, although probably everybody does (except my mother, who accepts she's fairly dangerous, although she's never actually crashed badly). That may be ego, but I'm not as bad as a lot I see allowed loose on the roads.

Scottish Labour Leader

They're looking for a new Scottish Labour leader at the moment, once they work out why they did so badly in the last Scottish election they'll pick one. Just to say here and now I'm not a Labour Member, or even voter at the last election so I'm not an interested party to all this, just an observer of it.

Reason for this is that I saw Tom Harris MP on Twitter earlier saying that under current rules an MP can stand, it doesn't have to be an MSP. I don't know if he'd do a bad job, considering he was my MP for a couple of years when I lived in Glasgow I don't actually know all that much about him other than the Doctor Who obsession, which is probably a plus point for him in my eyes, whatever the Independent diaries say.

Getting to a point, one reason I think Labour lost the Scottish election to the SNP was that they don't seem to take the Scottish Parliament seriously. It's not just most of the known names staying in Westminster, they don't really have that many known names in Scottish Labour outside political circles. Or former cabinet members. Sometimes they seem to talk about it as an exaggerated local council, and treat it accordingly. The fact that an MP is prepared to stand could be taken as that, but the alternatives aren't great for them. And Tom Harris attitude that he's only standing unless someone better comes along? Not really inspiring is it? The centre of their world is London, not Edinburgh. Unless they rectify that, they won't win a scottish parliament election again, or even lead it. They will still make up most of the Scottish MPs, probably, but without an attitude change towards Edinburgh they won't gain Scottish power without a major cock up from the SNP.

I know about the referendum that Alex Salmond has promised for independence in 2014 or whenever, I'm prepared to bet that it will be worded in ways not to damage the SNP if they lose, or they will be an option for further Devolution of power to Scotland. We (probably) won't vote for independence in a straight referendum vote, but I'll bet that we'd vote for more power if it's worded well. And it will be, like Alex Salmond or not, he's not a stupid politician.

If Labour want to get power in Scotland they need this review to be better than I expect it to be, and they need to take the Scottish Parliament more seriously than they seem to. This is my view as someone with an interest in politics, not a political party member, any side, and as an ex Labour voter. It may just be a bad impression I get from them, but those can stick.

E-Petitions and Over-Reactions

Last week someone put a petition on the new government website saying that they should send all rioters to the Outer Hebrides. This was later removed after protests from various people including Angus Macneill, MP for the area. So far, no problem. I live in the Outer Hebrides, we know that what he said was rubbish, and it's been dealt with. But there are still comments being made about it, including letters to the local news websites from annoyed locals saying all sorts of things about the author of the petition, about how he thinks we all live in caves, it's a disgrace and so on. Thing is it didn't bother me that much, it went up, it came down, it's been dealt with. And I think that continuing publicity of it is a mistake, which the author of the petition is enjoying, as that was it's purpose.

I don't believe that the author of the petition has no idea about the Outer Hebrides, I think he's using the petitions site to Troll, rather than making a serious point. Basically I don't believe he's serious. I have no idea who he is, he may have a problem with the Outer Hebrides for some reason, it may not even be his real name he's put on there, interestingly there is another rejected petition from a Richard Miller Brown on the site about sending rioters to boot camps rather than here, but if it's the same man I don't know, Richard Miller is not an uncommon name.

I don't think I have a thicker skin than most, I just feel that continuing to go on about this Petition is counter productive, and something in it makes me think that it's written by someone who wasn't trying to suggest this seriously. Maybe I'm wrong and he was, but I'm unconvinced by it. And as it's now been removed it should be left to lie and forgotten about. I don't see what further needs to be or can be done about it now anyway.

Tony Blair, Morality and Riots

Have been reading Tony Blair commenting in the Guardian/Observer on the causes of the riots and the moral breakdown of society everyone is saying was behind them. The comments on an interesting article are worth a read, as it shows people up badly in some cases, and how divisive Blair was as PM. Some still saying blood on his hands etc. I was going to tweet a couple of points but I'll go on too long for that so I'll throw them in here. I'm not going to try to argue for how you resolve the situation, I don't know and I don't claim to know. But it is not a simple answer. He does talk some sense in here, and I think he's right that we're not in the grip of a general "Moral Decline" but some things did irritate me about the piece.

First point that annoyed me was this one:

The police are under huge pressure. If they go in hard, they fear inquiry, disciplinary action and abuse. It's all very well to say that they should just follow the rules. The police need to know they have strong support from politicians and public. When the riots first occurred, they would have been naturally anxious as to how heavy to be....But my experience with the police is they need 100% backing. 

All very well, generally we will support an honest police force, but at least part of the problems have been caused by the fact some police have appeared corrupt and prejudiced, or at least not entirely honest with what they do, this loses them respect and how can you give carte blanche backing to an organisation that appears untrustworthy? If you don't trust the lawkeepers, or the lawmakers (politicians) who are part of the same issue, how can you give them 100% backing. Saying if the police go in hard. What is he suggesting they do? Go in and beat the shit out of various rioters? Is that what you really want, the police as a better armed gang on the streets during a riot? Don't think that will solve any problems, just create more. If the police don't follow the rules, do you think everyone else is going to?


I'm not going to say anything about the society part and the people he calls outside the social mainstream. I simply don't know enough about it, although I don't entirely agree with what he says there, and there's no reason given as to why people are outside the social mainstream, you can't blame it on immigration and people not integrating, if you don't welcome people and allow them to integrate how can they become part of our society?

The last part of this article also annoyed a little, basically he's saying that he'd worked out the solution to all these problems, but no-one followed it through. To me this reads as massively egotistical. Politicians generally do have fairly sizeable egos, the successful ones anyway, but to say if you'd listened to me it would all be fine?  If I was still PM there would be no problems? Nonsense. Blair did some good things, or his government did at least, including the minimum wage, and also some bad things, including bending over backwards for George W Bush. But to say you have all the answers, if only they'd have listened to me? Sorry, don't buy it.

Abdelbaset Ali Al-Megrahi

Al-Megrahi has been in the news again today, now 2 years since he was released by the Scottish Government due to Cancer, and his expected lifetime of 3 months from then. There has also been quite a few comments from various politicians point scoring about the fact he's lived so long. You can read all about this in plenty places, but there is just a couple of points I wanted to make.

First off, I never had a problem with the original release, and I still don't have a problem with the decision that was taken to let him out on compassionate grounds. The reality is that he would be dead, possibly within that original 3 month estimate, if he was still in a Scottish jail. There is no way he would have received the top level treatment he will be getting in Libya if he was still here, apparently including new drugs not available yet in the UK. So do people want him dead? Not a healthy attitude to anyone, whatever they've done in my opinion.

Another point, if you believe he was the only person responsible for the Lockerbie atrocity you're in cloud cuckoo land, it simply is not possible that was done by one person acting alone. I refuse to believe it was. If Libya was responsible for the bomb then the ultimate responsibility lies with Colonel Qaddafi, and we were happy enough to be his friend in return for oil. We've only recently called for anything to happen to him, and it's been for nothing to do with Lockerbie. Oil apparently is justification for all sorts of things. Never forget the prisoner transfer agreement signed by the previous UK government, which could have released Megrahi to Libyan custody. Signed in exchange for oil from what it appears. Money eases a lot of consciences.

We don't know the exact truth about Lockerbie, we probably never will now. There seem to be people hiding information, this may include the Americans and UK government but who knows. Unless if and when Qaddafi is overthrown some document comes to light that tells as I doubt we'll ever know the full truth. There is another story there, Megrahi may have been involved, but he became a scapegoat for others who were also involved. Why? Who knows.

The Glorious Twelfth, The Grouse and the Guga.

Yesterday was the Glorious twelfth, start of the Red Grouse shooting season, described variously as important for the economy, mainly to tourism I think although what kind of tourist comes to shoot animals you decide. Later in August there is a traditional hunt, taking some men from Ness on the Isle of Lewis out to another island in the North Atlantic to kill Gannets (Guga) for food, a tradition that dates back several hundred years, at least to 1549 according to historic records. This letter sent to one of our local news websites discusses the issue of the calls for the ban on the guga contrasting with the silence related to the grouse shoot. I'm not sure I'd refer to the SSPCA as bunny huggers as it is them calling for a ban, along with some other individuals I've seen, but is there a point as to why they're calling for a ban. Publicity reasons? Because they tend not to discuss any other forms of hunting.

I spent a little time earlier today going through the SSPCA Website news section. The call to ban the guga hunt is shown in there, along with stories about individuals mistreating animals, abandoned dogs and also Train Driver Saves Swan. But there is nothing else on there about hunting in the last year that I could find, if you search about this, you find the RSPB referring to raptors being poisoned to protect the grouse numbers and trying to have people prosecuted for that - fair enough in my view. But nothing from the SSPCA. And correct me if I'm wrong but Guga are birds, so why are the SSPCA becoming involved? I appreciate there may be concern about hunting, but they don't condemn any other forms, they go on about cruelty to the Guga being killed, but nothing is said about shooting or fishing. Guga are killed by a blow to the head, done personally by an individual Nessman, and will be dead in seconds at most. As opposed to a bad shot on a grouse moor winging a bird, injuring it and watching it fall from the sky still alive. Which is cruel do you think?

I'm not calling for a ban on hunting, or shooting grouse, I don't have any problem with killing animals for meat. Killing for sport is an issue, but the Guga hunt is certainly not that. Battery farming is an issue, we're told we should eat free range meat, especially Chicken and I do try to, but no-one is making a fuss about that at the moment. Just about a traditional hunt of a sustainable species that has survived it for several hundred years, and will survive it on the numbers allowed for considerably more, without the intervention of those who try to preach about how these things should be done, without personal knowledge of it, and without considering more pressing issues of animal welfare. It just seems to me the Guga hunters are becoming an easy target for people, and if you want a debate on hunting for food, make it a broader one than targeting a small group hunting for a few thousand birds at most. And look at the meat you eat yourself and how it was killed.

We might need the Politicians

I started sending myself insane last night reading a few of the petitions being put up to the new Government Epetitions website. There are some very strange people putting these up there, for example this one includes the phrase "Jeremy Kyle does it, why can't we." Does anyone want anything to do with this? If you do start running now. I'm sure someone could start a petition saying George Osbourne should sit an Economics A-Level and get 100,000 signatures, doesn't mean that should be passed as a law, or debated in parliament. At least one of the others demands a referendum be called for everything. Not practical, not realistic, and just bloody stupid.

There's been a fair bit of comment about the governments holidays last few days, ignoring the people calling for them to return, or some of them anyway due to riots and the financial issues, there have been other comments asking why do we need politicians, Civil servants run the country anyway, polticians are a waste of money, lets ignore them. The problem with this would be when you want something changed, the civil service will keep things ticking over and run on the same lines, but nothing would change. And this would be a problem, at least some of the time. Looking at the petitions people put up apparently in all seriousness you couldn't run referendums for every decision, aside from the cost issues, as who would decide what would be asked? And god knows what would result anyway.

We might want better politicians than the ones we have, on all sides, we might not like what they decide, but they're better than the alternatives. And we can always vote them out eventually, we can't sack the public.