Nor is it a shock that the BBC should have sought an injunction to prevent the disclosure of Stig’s identity. “The Stig” is not the same as Ben Collins the man. Rather, “The Stig” is a character and the intellectual property of the BBC (and its license payers), and Mr Collins presumably agreed to play along with the secrecy element of the character. The BBC should not be prevented from protecting its assets, provided such preventative action is sensibly priced and with good cause, simply because it is license payer funded.

All that said, I don’t really think this is as much of a disaster as Top Gear’s Andy Wilman asserted in his recent blog post. As he put it himself:

“Everyone who’s ever worked on Top Gear has kept the Stig thing a secret, and the person who wears the suit has signed confidentiality agreements to do the same. So talk about what you like in your own life, but not the bit you agreed not to. Your word is supposed to mean something.”

So where exactly is the problem? Mr Collins has surely breached contract, therefore the contract is at an end. It is time for white suited Stig to be shot off the end of an aircraft carrier in a knackered old Jag, and for a new Stig to arrive in a new colour suit (red or silver maybe?). The Top Gear viewers will love it! In fact, Ben Collins has just written half an episode of the new series for you, and generated huge amounts of publicity for the show.

Really, whilst it must be hugely irritating for the TG team, everybody wins. Ben and his publishers HarperCollins may well be cashing in the BBC’s IP, but the BBC has the opportunity to re-invigorate the show with a new Stig and move on… until the new Stig decides to publish his memoirs that is.

Now, regarding the new Stig - my suggestion would have to be Valentino Rossi, if you can tempt him away from Ducati and stop him doodling on the helmet of course…

When a saw a friend’s HTC desire, I was hugely impressed. The large, bright, high resolution screen, excellent app support and good build quality certainly appealed, but it was the impressive 1GHz processor that sealed the deal. I’m sick of sluggish phones, and the HTC Desire is certainly not sluggish.

There are certainly areas where the Palm WebOS is better, and it’s probably not as intuitive to use as an iPhone, but my first impressions are that as an overall package it beats the competition hands down.

I’ve only had mine for a few days, so I’ll do a more in-depth review when I’ve lived with it for a little longer.

Anyone want to buy a slightly used Palm Pre?

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.

This is a problem experienced by a website development company local to me recently - one I once worked at. The dominant personality there is the MD, a man with strongly held opinions. There’s nothing wrong with that of course - we’re all entitled to our own opinions. Sometimes though, it’s best just to keep your opinions to yourself. The aforementioned MD, thinking he was having a private email conversation, expressed some particularly strong opinions (in a somewhat unfortunate way), and sadly for him, the email correspondence found its way to a national newspaper and received copious amounts of negative press coverage.

Whilst I was working for this guy many years ago, I recall recommending that he kept his strongly held opinions to himself and desisted from publishing them on the company website. He ignored my advice, but I still stand by it, and am perhaps somewhat vindicated in light of recent events. Strongly held opinions, particularly those of a political or divisive nature, are best kept totally separate from a company website, lest a potential client’s opinion of your company be coloured by their distaste for your personal viewpoints.

However, I have worked with many clients who have enjoyed success by personalising their company websites to some extent. People like to deal with people, and the Internet hasn’t really changed that. When you make an order with an online shop, don’t you like to know that there are real human beings at the end of a phone line who can help you in case something goes wrong? What better way to humanise a company online than feature a staff blog, or some staff profiles? For single owner and small businesses, it’s really not worth trying to pretend your business is something else. I once worked for a very small company that advertised numerous regional phone numbers and tried to give the impression of a huge operation when it was anything but. I’m just not convinced this has any benefit. Why not embrace your small business status and advertise that fact by personalising your company website. Just don’t get too personal.

The moral of the story is to ensure that anything personal presented on your company website has been duly sanitised. If you’re not sure, seek the opinions of others or just don’t publish. And remember, email is one of the most insecure forms of communication, so never use it for really confidential messages, and never commit anything to writing that can be misconstrued, used against you, or cause offence if the wrong person saw it.

In light of the recent abject failure of the England team at the 2010 World Cup, the English public deserves answers to a number of questions. I suspect that these answers will never be forthcoming as all involved hurry to cover their collective arses and appoint an official England scapegoat. Who shall it be this time? The manager?

Fabio Capello
Why do you persist in appointing foreign coaches to the England job? Mr Capello can barely speak English, so how can he possibly deliver a stirring team talk to the players? Where is his track record of working with English players and teams? Are you seriously expecting England fans to believe you are incapable of selecting a suitably qualified English manager for the role? What about Harry Redknapp, Sam Allardyce, Roy Hodgson, Terry Venables, Stuart Pearce et al? And why the hell did you give the man a 4 year contract without even seeing if he could do the job?

Clearly, Mr Capello is at least partially to blame for the dismal performances. His stubborn refusal to build his team around the best players has drawn confusion from the fans, the media, the pundits and even foreign players. There are tribes of people deep in the Amazon jungle as yet untouched by civilisation, and even they know that Gerrard needs to play behind Rooney and not on the left wing. Mr Capello picked his stupid old fashioned 4-4-2 system and doggedly stuck to it in spite of the clear evidence that it simply wasn’t working.

I may not be a FIFA qualified coach, but it’s plain to see by looking at the world’s best teams, that you build the team around the key players, and not around a system. England’s best players are Wayne Rooney, Steven Gerrard and John Terry (although you’d be forgiven for mistaking them for Sunday League amateurs based on performances at the World Cup), and the team should be built around these players. John Terry should be allowed to play in the exact position he plays for his club. Why would any sane manager make him swap sides to a less familiar position for a crucial game against Germany? Why is Gerrard constantly pushed out to the left wing in order to accommodate Frank Lampard in the team? Gerrard is the better player, put him in the middle behind the strikers where he knows how to play. Lampard can play behind or sit on the bench when needed.

Rooney has been hyped up mercilessly by the media. Sure the guy has talent, but he is not Ronaldo or Messi, and he needs decent service, from say, Gerrard playing just behind him?

And who is England’s best goal scorer at the moment? Peter Crouch. Why did he barely feature at the World Cup? Instead, we played Emile Heskey - a great player, don’t get me wrong, but not a striker or goal scorer. We already have a guy who can play off the strikers - Gerrard. Crouch would have given more alternatives and more goals than Heskey.

So Fabio is definitely culpable here.

The Players
All the players should take a long hard look at themselves and their contribution at the World Cup. With the exception of David James, not one of them can hold their head up high. If I was in charge of England, I would sack the lot of them and bring through the youngsters. In 4 years’ time, they will be a more cohesive and dedicated team than this bunch of overpaid underachievers could ever expect to be.

Fans paid thousands of pounds to be in South Africa to support England, and in return the England players simply couldn’t be bothered. As one of the German pundits aptly expressed, if England has some of the best individual players in the world, why can’t they win anything as a team.

The FA
The players don’t play as a team because money gets in the way of the pride that should be on display when they pull on that shirt. Money in the Premier League prevents the team from getting together as often as they should. Look at how many games the South American national teams play compared to the few miserable friendlies England arranges (usually against hopeless opposition, and usually with two completely different teams in the first and second halves, ensuring no team spirit is ever built and nothing is ever learned). The vast sums of money the players earn ensures that they need never worry about winning a national game. The FA could never supply a win bonus of sufficient size to motivate any of these players.

Young English players can never progress through the ranks because the Premier League has become a bloated corporate animal having very little in common with the actual game. The influx of foreigners is embarrassing. How about investing in the English youth? Why not limit the number of foreigners included in games? Why not make it mandatory for every Premier League and Championship club to field 1 or 2 home grown under 21 players in every game?

You are responsible for the collapse of English football. You created the conditions in which the game can only flounder. You employed the overpaid foreign managers, who will never have the passion of a home grown manager. You ruined our World Cup and shamed a nation.

The senior members of the FA, the manager, and the senior players must all resign. Bring in people that actually give a toss. Change must be brought in. Without this, England will forever be a footnote on the history of the game.

Not good enough.

In the meantime, we have finally got around to updating our website, so please have a look and let us know what you think: www.highersites.co.uk

I will get back to writing soon…

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.

The part of the bill which bothers is me is that Internet users accused of copyright theft (note “accused” not “convicted”) can have their connection de-activated. This is not a step forwards at all. It is loosely aimed at preventing file sharers from sharing illegal content, but it will not prevent it from happening at all. What will actually happen is that innocent Internet users will be targeted by criminals in much the same way that senders of spam operate. Computers will be hijacked by a virus and become part of a botnet controlled by the criminals. The unsuspecting user will then begin hosting illegal files without any knowledge of it happening, and end up with having their Internet access removed.

Another problem is insecure WiFi networks, and there are still loads of these around. The hacker can sit in a car outside your house, hop on to your WiFi and download whatever they want, in your name.

The bill is cobbled together and has no protection for innocent users. It has been rushed through without due democratic process. It’s the same with all of these things: the Government proposes some piece of idiotic legislation; the people object; the Government does it anyway. Some democracy!

The Internet and the World Wide Web has been built by the people of this planet, for the people of this planet. It owes its life to numerous clever programmers who have devoted their time, often free of charge, to making it better for everyone. For the UK Government to suddenly decide they have the right to govern the Internet in the UK, is just as disturbing as the Chinese Government’s approach to controlling Internet use.

I don’t know how to stop copyright theft, but the kind of ill-considered approach set out in the Digital Economy Bill is not the answer.

The Digital Economy Bill is, in my opinion, nothing more than a sinister attempt to start monitoring and policing our Internet use without due cause. As per usual, the people that get burned as a result won’t be the actual criminals at all. Piracy and copyright theft will not disappear. The people that want to do this stuff will just invent new cleverer ways to circumvent the authorities and the real problems will remain unaddressed.

A sad day for the Internet.

Required Skills - we will only consider candidates with the following:

• Advanced object oriented PHP5 skills
• Intermediate to advanced SQL with MySQL
• Good customer skills and the ability to visualise projects from the user’s viewpoint
• Good CSS skills
• The ability to write well structured and tidy code
• Able to work as part of a team, showing initiative and commitment to deadlines
• At least 2 years’ commercial experience
• The ability to hand-code a whole page with nothing more than Windows Notepad (we don’t expect you to work like this, we just like to know that you can)

Preferred Skills - we will give preference to candidates with the following:

• Good Javascript and experience with MooTools, jQuery or similar
• OS agnostic - happy to work on Mac, Windows or Linux
• ZCE qualified
• 4 years or more commercial experience

Salary commensurate with experience.

Please email david at highersites dot co dot uk to apply or call Rob or myself on 01935 426958.

This is hardly just an issue affecting bikers. Poor road surfaces increase the dangers to all road users and increase the damage inflicted upon our vehicles. Sadly, the powers that be choose to spend their time and money focusing on speed limit reductions and enforcement that have no discernable impact on road safety. Even as we speak, there is a campaign afoot to reduce the speed limit on rural roads to 50mph. Given that the majority of road traffic accidents on rural roads occur at speeds below 50mph or above 60mph, this change will make no difference to accident statistics. Rural roads will likely be difficult to police anyway, unless (as I suspect) the change is just an excuse to bang up a load more speed cameras. All this limit change will do is cost money and ruin our landscape. At the moment rural roads are by default set at National Speed Limit (60mph for car or motorbike), whereas if they are set at 50mph, there will need to be vast numbers of speed limit signs installed. This represents a vast expense and an unnecessary blight on our beautiful countryside. In most cases, the roads themselves dictate the naturally safe speed limit and this is often well below 60mph.

The Asphalt Industry Alliance (AIA) believes there to be more than 1.5million potholes in need of repair on UK roads. This figure has been dramatically affected by the recent cold weather, and is only likely to increase as winters become more extreme, and funding for road maintenance continues to be cut. As with many things in life, prevention is far cheaper than the cure. This is certainly true in the case of road re-surfacing, where basic re-surfacing costs about £14 per square metre, whereas full reconstruction costs a whopping £70.

How much does the government net from road tax? £47billion! More than enough to maintain our road networks in exemplary condition and vastly reduce the number of road deaths and accidents as a result. The problem of course is that most of this money goes nowhere near the roads.

When will you sit up and take notice of the sad state of neglect of our rural roads? Will it be before you round that corner on your bike only to be met with a giant pothole that sends you and your bike sliding down the road or into oncoming traffic? Will it be before you hit that broken surface in your car and are unable to brake effectively causing a collision with another road user?

Why is the transport network so low on the agenda?