Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Dangerous Dogs

Caydee-Lee


The death of any child is a tragedy. It is a particular tragedy for the parents and other family members, though the public can often be moved, quite rightly, to empathy.


Lee Burchell and his girlfriend Amy were looking after a pub, The Rocket, in Leicester and their daughter is dead. It's difficult not to feel distraught for them.


The Times reported: Neighbours said that the Glaze’s dogs, Bess and Bruno, were a familiar sight, prowling the roof of the building to discourage burglars.

One mother, Amy Grimbley, said: “Most adults are terrified of them, never mind kids. I’ve got a three-year-old and I don’t feel at all safe walking past them.

The dogs are known to be vicious. They are guard dogs. They stay on the roof during the day and whenever you walk past you get the feeling they could just jump down and attack you.

They are very aggressive. Everybody around here is petrified of them. The dogs were never allowed in the pub; they were kept upstairs in the living quarters.”

Please don't bomb my house or attack me in the street, but I'm more upset at the parents and relations of the dead baby than I am with the dogs. These were clearly dangerous guard dogs, trained to guard and attack. What were they doing in a pub in Leicester? Is Leicester a third-world enclave in the East Midlands where vicious guard dogs are necessary to protect the local boozer from roaming gangs of Taliban? And, if, as it seems apparent, the dogs were known to be dangerous; why did the parents of Caydee-Lee even bring the baby into the pub?

It is, of course, easy to be wise after the event. I've no doubt that her parents are suffering everyday with the remorse of not seeing the danger and doing something about it. I've no doubt they will suffer for the rest of their lives. I only wish the media would focus on the real issue.

Apparently, because they were on private property, the dogs were not subject to the Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991. This only applies to dogs in public places. What a crazy piece of legislation. I'm sure the public thought that the Dangerous Dogs Act was there to prevent attacks by dogs. Now we know this is simply not the case. Keeping vicious dogs in your home, pub, or place of business is fine and if they attack someone, well, so what.

It would seem to be little compensation to Caydee-Lee's parents to know that the dogs were being kept perfectly legally. Better compensation might be found in the sensible application of a Dogs' Act – which might prevent property owners from insisting that a grotty pub in Leicester needs the same level of protection from intruders as Fort Knox.

So, who is ultimately responsible? As harsh and uncaring as it may seem, it is the pub owners. Those dogs should not have been in the pub. The owners should have placed them in kennels whilst on holiday. I conclude that, tragically, in an attempt to secure their pathetic premises, the owners, the grandparents of Caydee-Lee, have contributed to her tragic death. I pity them.

Why the Super-Chavs of Leicester should be allowed to name an innocent baby Caydee-Lee is altogether another matter.


Dangerous Dogs


The death of any child is a tragedy. It is a particular tragedy for the parents and other family members, though the public can often be moved, quite rightly, to empathy.


Lee Burchell and his girlfriend Amy were looking after a pub, The Rocket, in Leicester and their daughter is dead. It's difficult not to feel distraught for them.


The Times reported: Neighbours said that the Glaze’s dogs, Bess and Bruno, were a familiar sight, prowling the roof of the building to discourage burglars.

One mother, Amy Grimbley, said: “Most adults are terrified of them, never mind kids. I’ve got a three-year-old and I don’t feel at all safe walking past them.

The dogs are known to be vicious. They are guard dogs. They stay on the roof during the day and whenever you walk past you get the feeling they could just jump down and attack you.

They are very aggressive. Everybody around here is petrified of them. The dogs were never allowed in the pub; they were kept upstairs in the living quarters.”

Please don't bomb my house or attack me in the street, but I'm more upset at the parents and relations of the dead baby than I am with the dogs. These were clearly dangerous guard dogs, trained to guard and attack. What were they doing in a pub in Leicester? Is Leicester a third-world enclave in the East Midlands where vicious guard dogs are necessary to protect the local boozer from roaming gangs of Taliban? And, if, as it seems apparent, the dogs were known to be dangerous; why did the parents of Caydee-Lee even bring the baby into the pub?

It is, of course, easy to be wise after the event. I've no doubt that her parents are suffering everyday with the remorse of not seeing the danger and doing something about it. I've no doubt they will suffer for the rest of their lives. I only wish the media would focus on the real issue.

Apparently, because they were on private property, the dogs were not subject to the Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991. This only applies to dogs in public places. What a crazy piece of legislation. I'm sure the public thought that the Dangerous Dogs Act was there to prevent attacks by dogs. Now we know this is simply not the case. Keeping vicious dogs in your home, pub, or place of business is fine and if they attack someone, well, so what.

It would seem to be little compensation to Caydee-Lee's parents to know that the dogs were being kept perfectly legally. Better compensation might be found in the sensible application of a Dogs' Act – which might prevent property owners from insisting that a grotty pub in Leicester needs the same level of protection from intruders as Fort Knox.

So, who is ultimately responsible? As harsh and uncaring as it may seem, it is the pub owners. Those dogs should not have been in the pub. The owners should have placed them in kennels whilst on holiday. I conclude that, tragically, in an attempt to secure their pathetic premises, the owners, the grandparents of Caydee-Lee, have contributed to her tragic death. I pity them.

Why the Super-Chavs of Leicester should be allowed to name an innocent baby Caydee-Lee is altogether another matter.


Thursday, September 14, 2006

More Male, More Risks


Reading in the paper the other day that the male gene may disappear one day – outlived its usefulness. Could happen, I suppose. Don't hold your breath!


Article was expostulating that because males are prone to risk-taking being male is a risky business and, therefore, not a good strategy for long-term survival. Possibly the article is correct, but we will have to wait a few million years to find out.


It is true that males take more risks. It's in their genetic make-up . And, when you stop to think about it – it makes good genetic sense. Males need to take risks to provide for their families. Exactly the same today as it was 20 thousand years ago – only the risks today are in the boardroom - not the backwoods. Being a man means you trade off the comfortable (genetically speaking) life of a child-bearer for the uncertainty of attracting a mate and keeping her – a risky business. Putting it bluntly: women always know that the child they bear is genetically theirs; men are never 100% sure. That's the facts boys – get used to it.


So, in order to maximize their chances of passing their genes on to the next generation, men take risks to attract and keep a mate – and to provide food and shelter for their mate and their offspring as part of the bargain. I know this doesn't sound very romantic – but then again it probably worked for 1000 generations before anyone “invented” love and relationships, so maybe it has got something going for it!


As men we like to think that we do the choosing when it comes to picking a mate. Wrong. Women do the choosing and the criteria they use hasn't changed much in a very long time. They want a man who will provide for them and stick around! No good fathering children all over the place and abandoning them. Well, no good for women – great idea if you are a man and can get away with it!! Women need men who will stay around and provide. And provide. And provide some more! So, sorry, no commitment – no sex and no children. Simple plan – and it works.


Men pay the price. Because they take risks to attract a mate and risks to provide food and shelter, they may lose everything. They may be gone before they reproduce. That's the trade-off. Men are genetically programmed to take risks. As a way of compensating, mother nature provides about 105 males for every females born.


Don't believe me? Check out: http://www.sixwise.com/newsletters/05/06/22/why_are_more_boys_than_girls_being_born.htm


Globally, there are about 105 – 107 boys born for every 100 girls. And, in the highest sex birth ratio in the United States, which occurred in 1946, there were 105.9 boys born per 100 girls: at the lowest sex birth ratio (in 2001), there were 104.6 boys born per 100 girls. There were 104.8 boys born in 2000 for every 100 girls. Statistically, 1946 was a good year for the boys!


Now, this is interesting. Did mother nature realize in 1946 that a World War had just ended and more men were going to be needed to replace the ones who died in the war? Could the same thing have happened in 1919-20? Could the intervening 50 years of peace after 1946 have fooled Mother Nature into a false sense of security and account for the fall in the number of boys born? Sounds an interesting research problem to me!


Statistically, by about the age of five the numbers even out. Being a boy has risks. Male babies are not as likely to survive infancy as females. They are more susceptible to childhood diseases.


So, next time your young son is found climbing a tree and dangling from a high branch – don't shout too loud. You may frighten him and he may fall – taking your genes with him – and he may just be following a risky biological program which is beyond his power to add or detract.

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Sandstone and Woolly Mammoths


It's almost impossible to pick up a newspaper or watch TV now-a-days without being accosted by some commentator or “expert” giving their alarmist views on climate change. It's good, of course, to bring to the public's attention legitimate areas of concern, but I'm not convinced by the arguments and there is functionally no debate on the scientific merits of climate change. The only debate “allowed” seems to be how much the climate is changing and how fast. That's it.


What is not in dispute is that the climate of the Earth has changed many, many time in the past. Changed - and changed dramatically. Evidence of early humans being driven out of the British Isles by shifting climate has recently been in the news. Our ancestors were here – left – came back – got cold and left again – etc. Some of these climate swings took place in relatively short periods of time – say 50 to 100 years. This occurred long before the advent of burning fossil fuels to power the industrial revolution. The truth is climate changes are a regular occurrence and a natural phenomenon. The problem is: climate change has become an industry and the intellectual property of some scientists who really ought to know better.


For example, consider the Woolly Mammoth. Some of these large herbivores have been found, preserved and frozen almost intact, in Siberia and Alaska. Many people wrongly see these creatures as being adapted to the cold climate of the northern latitudes. This is plainly nonsense. Anatomically the mammoth is very similar to the elephant. They require large amounts of vegetation to survive – in a cold climate they would need even more. The only sensible solution to the woolly mammoth “problem” is to assume they lived in a temperate or savanna type climate. Something very dramatic happened to the world's climate when the mammoth became extinct. And, it happened very quickly. Proponents of rapid climate change would do well to investigate the demise of the woolly mammoth. Their disappearance is recent evidence of rapid and dramatic climate change – and no fossil fuels were involved.


Where do fossil fuels come from? Our gas, oil and coal reserves are the carbon-based remains of plants and animals that lived millions of years ago. Some people seem to think that we “make” greenhouse gases. We do not. Nature makes them. We are simply returning to the atmosphere the carbon that was removed from it many years ago. We are not “making” greenhouse gases and it is nonsense to present the arguments in this way.


Where does sandstone come from? Sandstone is one of the most widely used materials for building. Layers of this rock were laid down during hot, dry periods in Earth's history – sometimes over millions of years. For millions of years the “normal” climate of the Earth was very much hotter than it is now. This is not disputed. Check out this web page for some interesting facts about the Earth's climate:


http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html


Perhaps the most interesting part of this web page tell us that:

Average global temperatures in the Early Carboniferous Period were hot- approximately 22° C (72° F). However, cooling during the Middle Carboniferous reduced average global temperatures to about 12° C (54° F). As shown on the chart below, this is comparable to the average global temperature on Earth today!

Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to average CO2 concentrations today!

Earth's atmosphere today contains about 370 ppm CO2 (0.037%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm

Better read this again!! None of the commentators so concerned by “Global Warming” ever mention this!!

Conclusion: Climate change is part of the natural cycle of the Earth. Man's activities in burning fossil fuels are undoubtedly having some influence on the rising level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but present levels are historically low. It is a myth that rapid climate change has never occurred before. It has – and may well do so again.

In my opinion, we should be devoting just as much time, effort and money to combating population explosion and developing new sources of energy – chiefly fusion as pursuing “pie-in-the-sky” “Green “solutions to a problem we only understand imperfectly.

Friday, September 08, 2006

Wrong Way, Corrigan!!


East Dereham is a strange place. It is quite close to the Twilight Zone – but, incidentally, nowhere near West Dereham! No matter how many times I go to Dereham – I always have an uneasy feeling that I'm just about to get lost. It is very odd and very disconcerting.


Good to know that I'm not alone. Lots of people seem to have problems going the correct way on the A 47 near Dereham. Road was closed again this week as the Norfolk Constabulary vainly attempted to put right the chaos caused by someone merrily driving to their doom on the Swaffham bound carriageway – but going to Norwich. Wrong way, Corrigan!


Why does this happen so often in or near Dereham? Since you ask, I'll tell you. The road network around Dereham is the most poorly designed, ill-conceived nightmare ever constructed in the Western hemisphere. It's that simple. It's no wonder all except the locals find it difficult to drive to Norwich without killing themselves – or others. For example – as you wander around the Dereham one-way system near the town centre – vainly trying to follow the carefully misdirected signs to Norwich A 47 – eventually you reach the east end of town and are (seemingly) directed to turn left into an industrial estate in order to join the main road. Not surprisingly, this seems odd to anyone who does not live in Dereham – or have six fingers. I have driven past this sign many times secure in the belief that this cannot be the turning. It is. (Don't believe me – go to Dereham, if you dare, and look for yourself).


Going the other way is just as bad – but of a different style. Getting off the A 47 you find yourself on the slip road. It is a travesty. It is the shortest slip road in England and has the sharpest radii turn outside of Brands Hatch. I'd love to see the stats on how many accidents there are on this wonder of the road builders art. Think I'm exaggerating: log on to:


http://www.knowhere.co.uk/521_goodbad.html


Here you will find useful info about Dereham – such as the best description of Dereham I have ever seen – Dereham, a cemetery with lights. And, Dereham: The one-way system, you kinda get swept along, like a little fish in a river.


Enough about Dereham. The other really disconcerting and obtuse journey is from Gt Finborough in Suffolk to RAF Wattisham – a distance of about 10 miles. Now, this will make your blood run cold and possibly turn your eyeballs to ice-balls. If you leave Finborough School and turn left you go through Stowmarket and Needham Market and get to Wattisham. I f you turn right you go through the villages of Finborough and Hitcham and Bildeston and still end up at Wattisham? How odd is that? Typical Suffolk if you ask me. There is another more direct way to get there, but it is so confusing that I can not do it. Lest you begin to think I am just a little backward when it comes to navigating – I assure you that this is not the case. I'm very good. It's Dereham and Finborough that are the problem. Try them. You'll agree.






Tuesday, September 05, 2006

Football versus Cricket

Beefy, Baldy and Dennis


In the week where the England football team managed to overcome the might of Andorra – population 26 plus lots and lots of sheep; it only remains for your commentator to stress the stupidity of the football authorities – once again.


Every chance I get I continue to complain about how crazy the organization of football has become. Just occasionally I can get someone to listen and sometimes agree. This week the whole of the football season has to be put on hold (thereby dragging it interminably on and on) so that England can play the sheep-herders and then march gaily on to the bandit country of Macedonia – another football powerhouse. Result? A wasted week removed from the football calendar just as the season is getting underway. Crazy.


What is needed is a two-tier system so that the smaller nations of Europe can have a meaningful competition among themselves and the top teams are not endanger of a coma induced by jet lag or their top international players of being injured playing the Macedonian equivalent of Vinny Jones. Sensible? You bet. Possible? Not likely.


Picking up my EDP yesterday I also noticed that the FA Cup had reached its “preliminary round stage”. Unfortunately for Stowmarket they crashed out 0-2 to Dereham Town in front of 67 of the faithful. Ah – the romance of the Cup. What nonsense! I'm only amazed that 67 Suffolk morons could be tempted into the ground. Perhaps they had all been sucking too much red diesel from the tanks?


How we all love a giant-killing! I'm not sure Dereham overcoming Stowmarket quite qualifies, but it must be close. Surely? Not a chance. What makes it all the more crass and idiotic is that the non-league teams have a competition of their own – the FA Vase. If the Cup was organized on egalitarian lines I might see some sense in it. Imagine if Man Utd were forced to play in every round, not get a bye through to the the third round proper? Dereham Town v. Manchester United – now that's a fixture that would really put meaning into the “romance of the cup”. Likely? Not likely. The FA Cup operates exactly how I'm suggesting the European Cup should do. The big clubs don't have to play until the later rounds. Why not have one cup for the “big boys” and one for the small fry – with promotion and relegation – rather like the Davis Cup? Too sensible.


Conversely, either all clubs should be forced to play all rounds of the FA Cup or only the top 150 clubs in England should be entered. Result? Meaningless fixtures eliminated and the football calendar reduced by weeks. Sensible? You bet.


Which brings us neatly to the title of this post. Beefy is, of course, none other than Ian Botham – a Scunthorpe United player when not engaged in thrashing the Aussies. Baldy, affectionately named, Chris Balderstone who played cricket for Leicestershire and Doncaster Rovers and Carlisle United – among others and Dennis, the incomparable Dennis Compton who played for England and Arsenal in the 1950's.


Impossible to do now-a-days even if you had the talent. Why? Because the football season is now so long that it would be impossible to fit any cricket in. Result? All sports are steam-rollered by the football juggernaut and become marginalised. My solution to bring some respectability to the UK Olympic team for the London Games? Ban football in the two years previous.