Archive for category Rants

Unless you’ve been living in a vacuum, you’ll probably have seen Raoul Moat’s exploits being mercilessly devoured by the British media. The former bouncer got out of prison after serving a short sentence for assault and promptly went after his ex-girlfriend, who had told him she didn’t want to continue their relationship and that she was now seeing a police officer. The following day, staff at the prison called the police and warned them that his girlfriend, Samantha Stobbart, was at serious risk of being assaulted by Mr Moat. The police did their usual excellent job, and shortly after Raoul Moat did indeed assault Miss Stobbart… with a gun. He shot her twice in the stomach through the living room window of her parent’s home.

Sadly Chris Brown, her boyfriend (of just one week), ran out of the house armed with an iron bar, and Raoul Moat shot him dead. There’s probably more to this than has been reported in the media - I can’t imagine anyone being foolish enough to take on an angry gunman with just a metal bar for protection.

Then the following day, Raoul shot police officer David Rathband through the window of his vehicle whilst he was on duty, after calling the police to tell them that they weren’t taking him seriously enough. Shooting a police officer certainly got their attention if the previous murder hadn’t, and there ensued an enormous man hunt at a cost of many millions of pounds to the UK tax payer.

Raoul Moat was finally tracked down on the 9 July, where a long stand off with the police resulted in Raoul being tasered (electrocuted with a stun gun) at least twice, before he finally “shot himself” in the early hours of the 10 July. At least, that’s what the police tell us and we’ll probably never know if that’s completely true or not. Interestingly, the taser guns used had yet to be approved by the Home Office.

I can’t envisage any scenario where tasering a man who is holding a gun to his neck could ever be considered a good idea. Electric shocks cause involuntary muscle contractions - not ideal if the person receiving the shock has their finger poised on the trigger of a firearm. In any case, how did they manage to taser him twice without actually managing to subdue and take him into custody? Why not use a tranquiliser dart instead?

It seems like extraordinarily harsh treatment of a man who clearly had severe mental instabilities, that would only ever have had one outcome. Some people are upset at the way this has been handled and as a result a Facebook group in sympathy of Raoul Moat has emerged, which David Cameron has rushed to denounce and is seeking to have Facebook remove the group. He may well have been getting all chummy with Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook founder - report here) recently, but I think he’s barking up the wrong tree here. Facebook is hardly about to start censoring its users’ activities - not unless they are in breach of Facebook’s terms at least.

In fact, it’s pretty outrageous that Mr Cameron or anyone in the UK Government should be seeking to stifle free speech in that way. Raoul Moat is certainly not a “legend” (as described on said Facebook group) and he may well have been a “callous murderer” (as Cameron put it), but I think some of the sympathy being shown is not necessarily for the actions of the man, but the way he came to a miserable end that might well have been avoided. The more sensationalist comments are no doubt posted by people who are simply hoping to provoke a reaction. Regardless, free speech and free thought are essential foundations of civilisation. We are not robots. We are not all the same. Some people say things that we find vulgar, offensive and distasteful, and we must let them say what they will because that is their right. Allowing them to say their piece, however unpleasant, is not the same as condoning or supporting their beliefs. The UK Government has no right whatsoever to police the Internet or freedom of speech - though of course they keep on trying.

In any case, much sympathy must go to Mr Moat’s family (who are completely innocent sufferers), to the family of Chris Brown and to Samantha Stobbart and Pc David Rathband as they start on the slow road to recovery.

Perhaps in future, the police might take more notice of proffered advice from their colleagues in the prison service.

Shopping has changed. No more do courteous sales assistants ask you if you would like a bag. You are either expected to remember to bring your own, or buy a “bag for life”. Enter the acute discomfort of asking for a bag, only to be met with a frown from the eco-sensitive sales assistant, or an additional charge.

This is all part of some Government mandate that shops cease to provide plastic bags. As per usual, no sensible thought or recourse to proven science has been applied before shoving out pointless legislation. Indeed most of the data and statistics that exist regarding plastic bags and their damage to wildlife, ecology and marine habitats, are widely inaccurate or mis-reported.

The reality is that plastic companies had produced both bio-degradeable (degrades in the ground) and oxo-degradeable (degrades in the air) plastic bags long before this nonsense was introduced. Taking Tesco as an example, their plastic carrier bag will start to degrade after about 18 months and will be completely degraded in 2 years. I can confirm that this is 100% accurate. I have an old Tesco carrier bag in my garage that is starting to degrade and it literally disintegrates if you touch it. If one of these bags finds its way into the environment, it will degrade. This has significant benefits in particular for marine mammals. Fair enough, the oxo-degradeable bags won’t degrade in landfill, but that’s not really the point.

On the other hand, the big plastic/vinyl bag for life carrier bags are neither bio-degradeable or oxo-degradeable.

Sometimes I remember to take bags with me when I go shopping. Certainly, when we do our major household shopping each month, we take our own bags. But if you’re out and about and need to buy a few items for lunch, you may well be in need of a bag, and you shouldn’t be forced to pay for one, or be treated like an eco-villain for taking a fresh one.

These new degradeable plastics use very little energy to produce, when compared to the bags with the supposed longer life. They are made from a by-product of oil refinement that would be otherwise burnt off. They are easily recyclable, completely re-usable, not to mention lightweight and strong. If we all used plastic bags, and recycled them properly, this would be an ecologically sound proposition.

The problem is human laziness and the propensity of the powers that be to deliver over-the-top legislation that simply bludgeons the problem and turns it into a slightly different problem. It’s nothing more than an over-reaction to inaccurate data, rather than a well thought out and scientifically relevant policy. I will continue to use, re-use and recycle my plastic bags, thanks very much.