Has BBC Wales forgotten what its purpose is?

I read with the interest the call by BBC Wales for actors to be given an exemption from the smoking ban in Wales, so that they may be allowed to smoke on set in the interest of 'historical accuracy' - see Smoking ban could force dramas out of Wales, BBC warns

The question is - is 'historical accuracy' that important to such a detail?

There are a lot of things we know people did in the olden days that society in general do not tolerate these days - take language for instance, they are certain words common place in the past that we would not tolerate being used today...and it should be the same with smoking.

Smoking is bad for you, and not only to you but those around you - the link between passive smoking and cancer is beyond doubt. See Cancer Reaserch UK

Which brings me to the purpose of the BBC and it's Royal Charter which says:

3.The BBC’s public nature and its objects

(1)The BBC exists to serve the public interest.

(2)The BBC’s main object is the promotion of its Public Purposes.

And its Public Purposes are (inter alia):

(a) sustaining citizenship and civil society; 

(b) promoting education and learning; 

(c) stimulating creativity and cultural excellence; 

Not forgetting BBC responsibility to protect the health and safety of its employees.

Therefore the BBC purpose is to serve the public interest, and to promote and educate - in example a healthier lifestyle.

Which begs the question has BBC Wales forgotten its purpose? - Is it really necessary for 'historical accuracy' to see someone actually smoke on set? - even when the consequences of smoking are integral to the storyline....of course it isn't.

Would not seeing anyone actually smoke in a period drama make it better or worse, or would the fact that you noticed no one actually smoked mean it was a poorly written drama in the first place?

After all smoking in films and on television does have an affect...the Centres of Disease Control and Prevention in the USA says regarding movies:

Exposure to onscreen smoking in movies increases the probability that youths will start smoking. Youths who are heavily exposed to onscreen smoking are approximately two to three times more likely to begin smoking than youths who are lightly exposed

If it's a choice between promoting public health and protecting employees from passive smoking and so called 'historical accuracy' then public health should trump every time.

A fall in household finance

I suppose we all know it, the Markit Household Finance Index™ on Monday said that [a]round 31% of respondents noted a deterioration in their financial situation, compared to 6% that saw an improvement.

Though when compared to last year those asked were shall we say less pessimistic at the start of this year - The headline Markit Household Finance Index (HFI) picked up to 37.7 in January, from December’s seven-month low of 36.8 - with neutral threshold being 50.

The key points of the Markit Household Finance Index™ for January are:

• Squeeze on household finances weakens in January…
• …and respondents are the least pessimistic about year-ahead outlook since September 2012
• Sentiment regarding ease of access to unsecured credit is least downbeat in four-year survey history
• Appetite for major purchases falls at slowest pace since October 2010
• Least marked drop in job security since the start of the survey in early 2009…
• …but activity at work stagnates and income from employment declines at fastest pace for six months

See also: Reuters - Households slightly less gloomy on finances in January -survey

UK says no to 'Right to be forgotten'?

Do you remember the proposal for a new European Law that would give consumers the right to be forgotten?

As reported by the Telegraph in January 2012 "Embarrassing, inaccurate or simply personal data will have to be deleted from the internet and company databases if consumers ask, under a new set of European laws."

What is less reported is the British Governments opposition to such a law.

The New York Times reported on Friday, 18 January 2013 that "...[d]uring an informal meeting in Dublin, the ministers expressed reservations about elements of the proposal, which would impose new limits on data collection and profiling and give national regulators the ability to levy hefty fines equal to 2 percent of sales on companies that failed to comply...."

And

"..According to [a] memo [and summary of the meeting seen by the International Herald Tribune], representatives of Britain, which has one of the largest advertising industries in Europe, repeatedly objected to many elements, citing concern for how the measure would affect the Internet’s development."

As we have known for a long time when it comes to consumer protection versus business interests - business interest will always have the trump card.

To read the full New York Times article: Ministers Express Doubts on Expanding Data Protection Law

The Council of Europe

As we wait for that 'landmark speech', I think again that it's important to distinguish between the European Union (EU) and the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe was set up following the Second World War and a desire in all nations for lasting peace.

The following is an extract from the Statute of the Council of Europe:

The Governments of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the French Republic, the Irish Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Norway, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,

Convinced that the pursuit of peace based upon justice and international co-operation is vital for the preservation of human society and civilisation;

Reaffirming their devotion to the spiritual and moral values which are the common heritage of their peoples and the true source of individual freedom, political liberty and the rule of law, principles which form the basis of all genuine democracy;

Believing that, for the maintenance and further realisation of these ideals and in the interests of economic and social progress, there is a need of a closer unity between all like-minded countries of Europe;

Considering that, to respond to this need and to the expressed aspirations of their peoples in this regard, it is necessary forthwith to create an organisation which will bring European States into closer association,

Have in consequence decided to set up a Council of Europe consisting of a committee of representatives of governments and of a consultative assembly, and have for this purpose adopted the following Statute.....

See also Council of Europe

And as we know the European Court of Human Rights is part of the Council of Europe and not the EU. The Council of Europe was founded on 5 May 1949 by the Treaty of London, and in a speech at the University of Zurich on 19 September 1946, Sir Winston Churchill said:

I must now sum up the propositions which are before you. Our constant aim must be to build and fortify the strength of the United Nations Organization. Under and within that world concept we must re-create the European Family in a regional structure called, it may be, the United States of Europe. And the first practical step would be to form a Council of Europe. If at first all the States of Europe are not willing or able to join the Union, we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and those who can. The salvation of the common people of every race and of every land from war or servitude must be established on solid foundations and must be guarded by the readiness of all men and women to die rather than submit to tyranny. In all this urgent work, France and Germany must take the lead together. Great Britain, The British Commonwealth of Nations, mighty America and I trust Soviet Russia - for: then indeed all would be well - must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its right to live and shine.

Therefore I say to you: let Europe arise!

Building a prison on Anglesey would be stupid!!!!

Putting aside that super prisons don't work....talking to BBC News....Andrew Coyle, University of Essex emeritus professor of prison studies and a former governor of Brixton Prison, has "a real feeling of déjà vu" about the latest plan. [The former Labour Government in 2009 scrapped proposals for three 2,500-capacity "Titan" jails.]

He points out that while in opposition, Conservative minister Dominic Grieve criticised Labour's prison proposals as akin to building "giant warehouses".

"We have clear evidence from the chief inspector of prisons and others that the ideal size for a well operating prison is about 500 - to go beyond that and you do begin to warehouse," Prof Coyle warns.

He says the move to giant prisons could "make the situation much worse" for prisoners already spending "too much time in their cells".

The possible locations of a super prison and the relocation of prisoners away from their communities is also a concern.

Mr Coyle says: "There are not 2,000 people in prison in north Wales. And if it is to be built in London, then the cost of both providing the land and building on it is going to be astronomical.

If you asked the question where would you build a prison in North Wales, and a super prison at that, then logic says that the only place to build it would be in Wrecsam. After all North Wales depending on whom you believe has a need for a 500 to 800 capacity prison, which means 1,200 to 1,500  prisoners from England. And surely as the case for a prison in North Wales is the travelling distance for relatives as well as logistics, then it would be rather silly if we then build a prison that would increase the travelling distance for what would be the majority of relatives.

On Anglesey two sites have been suggested, one at Rhosgoch...the former Shell oil terminal.  Sorry, but whoever suggest that site as a suitable location for a prison of any size must be really, really, and I mean really thick...mad utter bonkers.

The other proposed site is Anglesey Aluminum at Holyhead.....well it does have a direct link into the national grid for the electric chair I suppose.

But seriously, I suspect even Holyhead with its rail link and A55 connection would a be logistical no go area for a super prison, not forgetting the cost of clearing the site in the first place.

Now don't get me wrong I don't have any problems with prisons per say, after all travel to Shrewsbury on  train and when you disembark you're within walking distance of the prison, and it doesn't seem to deter tourist....you know seeing how we should always think of the tourist, apparently....

So please can we stop this utter nonsense - whilst there is a case for a prison for North Wales prisoners in North Wales, in my opinion there is no logical argument that can be put forward that supports a case for a prison on Anglesey.

As for the former Rhosgoch Shell depot, I suggest we turn it into a solar park, akin to the one recently approved at Bodorgan Estate (see BBC News) to bring some income into the Council at least.

Our colder summers and Greenland

Last year we had a cold and wet summer, relatively speaking, in fact for the months May to July total max temperatures have been falling year on year as shown in the chart below:

Now as we have discussed before one reason for last years colder weather was the jet stream that stalled see:  Is this the summer of our futures?

And a possible reason for the jest stream stalling was a high pressure that parked itself over Greenland.

The above maps are from ClimateWatch Magazine's article - Summer weighing heavily on Greenland Ice Sheet, which explains:

'The map on the left shows the difference from average pressure at the 700 millibar pressure level from May-July 2012 compared to the 1981-2010 average. Gold colors indicate higher-than-average pressure. A large dome of high pressure camped over Greenland and the Northwest Atlantic this summer. The influence on temperatures (map on right) was dramatic. Temperature anomalies at the same altitude were as much as 11 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than average over Greenland....

[And]...Research published earlier this year found that since the late 1950s, the 6 warmest summers and 5 of the 6 largest melt years in Greenland have occurred since 2000. A similar “dome” of persistent high pressure was common to each of the episodes, but it is probably not the sole cause of the unusual warmth and melting.'

Conservative dogma flies against facts

Manchester International Airport

The Welsh Conservatives; at the Welsh Assembly this Wednesday, will hold a debate on the current bid by the Welsh Government to purchase Cardiff International Airport. A private company would then run the airport on behalf of the Welsh Assembly, on what I take it would be a not for profit basis.

The Conservative following their long held dogma against anything in public ownership oppose the purchase. Conservative transport spokesman Byron Davies said to BBC News "I don't believe nationalisation is the way forward," [....]

"There is no current reason to believe their ownership of Cardiff airport will be anything but another financial calamity."

Although facts really don't hold up that argument, as most of the worlds best airports are in public ownership.

In 2012 in the World Airport Awards the top 5 where, with majority shareholder shown:

1. Incheon International Airport (Government of South Korea)
2. Hong Kong International Airport (Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region)
3. Amsterdam Schiphol Airport (Dutch Ministry of Finance)
4. Beijing Capital International Airport (Chinese Government)
5. Munich Airport (Free State of Bavaria)

And the winner of the Europe Regional Award was Hamburg Airport with the City of Hamburg being the majority shareholder.

And as we have discussed before the award winning Manchester International Airport is another good example of a public/private partnership see.. The Thursday Quiz - Regional Airports.

Also as argued by Neil Clark writing for the Guardian in December 2010 'Why we should nationalise our airports', 'the failure of BAA to deal with recent snowfalls has exposed the price we pay for having our infrastructure in private ownership.'

And the private ownership of Cardiff International Airport cant be said to be a success can it? - surely if we are to encourage international business to invest in Wales we need an international airport to be proud of, something we don't have currently, and as we know public/private run airports can be successful as proved throughout the world.

Finally some airport trivia - did you know that a major shareholder in Bristol Airport with approximately 49% is Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan.

Meanwhile in 2012 the USA sizzled in the heat...

So we here in the UK had a wet and grey 2012,  meanwhile over in the USA it was a bit warmer.

According to ClimateWatch Magazine:

'By a wide margin, 2012 was the United States’ warmest year on record

According to the latest statistics from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the average temperature for the contiguous United States for 2012 was 55.3° Fahrenheit, which was 3.2° Fahrenheit above the twentieth-century average and 1.0° Fahrenheit above the previous record from 1998. The year consisted of the fourth-warmest winter, a record-warm spring, the second-warmest summer, and a warmer-than-average autumn.The map above shows where the 2012 temperatures were different from the 1981–2010 average. Shades of red indicate temperatures up to 8° Fahrenheit warmer than average, and shades of blue indicate temperatures up to 8° Fahrenheit cooler than average—the darker the color, the larger the difference from average temperature.'

And the New York Times in a report on Tuesday 8 January says:  It’s Official: 2012 Was Hottest Year Ever in U.S.:

'......Last year’s weather in the United States began with an unusually warm winter, with relatively little snow across much of the country, followed by a March that was so hot that trees burst into bloom and swimming pools opened early. The soil dried out in the March heat, helping to set the stage for a drought that peaked during the warmest July on record.

The drought engulfed 61 percent of the nation, killed corn and soybean crops and sent prices spiraling. It was comparable to a severe drought in the 1950s, Mr. Crouch said, but not quite as severe as the Dust Bowl drought of the 1930s, which was exacerbated by poor farming practices that allowed topsoil to blow away.

In addition to being the warmest year since extensive records for the contiguous United States became available in 1895, last year turned out to be the second worst on a measure called the Climate Extremes Index, surpassed only by 1998.

Experts are still counting, but so far 11 disasters in 2012 have exceeded a threshold of $1 billion in damages, including several tornado outbreaks; Hurricane Isaac, which hit the Gulf Coast in August; and, late in the year, Hurricane Sandy, which caused damage likely to exceed $60 billion in nearly half the states, primarily in the mid-Atlantic region......'

Are we part of the EU - of course we are!

Edward Heath,  a distinguished Prime Minister

You may have heard of the 'Heath Conspiracy', which in short alleges that in 1972, and the passing of the European Communities Act 1972 that the then Prime Minister Edward Heath committed 'high treason' and that somehow the bill was null and void etc etc....just Google 'Heath Treason'.....there was a letter about in the Daily Post in the last few days.

Part of the conspiracy argument; which I think involves the Monarchy, subsequent Prime Ministers, Parliaments and the Police, is around the English Bill of Rights Act 1689. Now this Bill shouldn't be confused with what we now know these days as a  'Bill of Rights'

The 1689 Bill of Rights does not constitute what is generally understood as a modern “bill of rights”, if by that term one means a document which defines and guarantees the basic human rights of individual citizens. Nor is it, on its own, the equivalent of a written constitution....

The Bill of Rights was an historic statute that emerged from the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688-89, which culminated in the exile of King James II and the accession to the throne of William of Orange and Mary. Its intentions were: to depose James II for misgovernment; to determine the succession to the Throne; to curb future arbitrary behaviour of the monarch; and to guarantee parliament’s powers vis a vis the Crown, thereby establishing a constitutional monarchy. (extract from House Commons Library - for full text see Bill of Rights 1689)

It should also be remembered that in 1689 not many people had voting rights.

In early-19th-century Britain very few people had the right to vote. A survey conducted in 1780 revealed that the electorate in England and Wales consisted of just 214,000 people - less than 3% of the total population of approximately 8 million. In Scotland the electorate was even smaller: in 1831 a mere 4,500 men, out of a population of more than 2.6 million people, were entitled to vote in parliamentary elections. Large industrial cities like Leeds, Birmingham and Manchester did not have a single MP between them, whereas 'rotten boroughs' such as Dunwich in Suffolk (which had a population of 32 in 1831) were still sending two MPs to Westminster. The British electoral system was unrepresentative and outdated. (extract from National Archives - Getting the vote before 1832.)

The section of the Bill of 1689 most referred to is:

...that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm.that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm.

But if you look at the full text:

And that the oaths hereafter mentioned be taken by all persons of whom the oaths have allegiance and supremacy might be required by law, instead of them; and that the said oaths of allegiance and supremacy be abrogated.

"I, A.B., do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to their Majesties King William and Queen Mary. So help me God."

"I, A.B., do swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest and abjure as impious and heretical this damnable doctrine and position, that princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope or any authority of the see of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or any other whatsoever. And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God."

Of course those who might be required to take the oath is dependent on the law, which could and can be changed and has been since, after all who swears an oath to King William and Queen Mary these days?

Those who claim 'high treason' are I think.....saying that before the then Prime Minister, Edward Heath sought a vote at both Parliaments on the passing of the European Communities Act 1972 he should have either held a general election or a referendum to seek the consent of the people, or otherwise it was unlawful because it gave away power to Europe without the consent of the people.

But if that is the case surely the same could be said of Prime Minister Winston Churchill when he signed the Treaty that created the Council of Europe and subsequently the European Court of Human Rights in 1949?

Also it couldn't be high treason because high treason according to Wikipedia  is

High treason [in England and Wales] today comprises:

Treason Act 1351:

• compassing the death of the sovereign, or of the sovereign's wife or eldest son and heir
• violating the sovereign's wife, or the sovereign's eldest unmarried daughter, or the sovereign's eldest son's wife
• levying war against the sovereign in the realm
• adhering to the sovereign's enemies, giving them aid and comfort, in the realm or elsewhere
• killing the King's Chancellor, Treasurer (an office long in commission) or Justices

Neither in my humble opinion did Edward Heath commit treason, if treason is thought of as giving away Parliament sovereignty ...after all the European Communities Act 1972 says in Section 1:

3)If Her Majesty by Order in Council declares that a treaty specified in the Order is to be regarded as one of the [EU Treaties] as herein defined, the Order shall be conclusive that it is to be so regarded; but a treaty entered into by the United Kingdom after the 22nd January 1972, other than a pre-accession treaty to which the United Kingdom accedes on terms settled on or before that date, shall not be so regarded unless it is so specified, nor be so specified unless a draft of the Order in Council has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament. (my emphasis)

(4)For purposes of subsections (2) and (3) above, “treaty” includes any international agreement, and any protocol or annex to a treaty or international agreement.

Which I think preserves the sovereignty of the Houses of Parliament.

In any event in 1975 following the General Election of 1974; where Labour in their manifesto had promised to renegotiate the terms of the treaty and hold a referendum on continued membership of the EEC, the then Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson partially satisfied with the new terms of the treaty did indeed; as many of you may recall, call a referendum on the continued membership of the EEC.

Its an inconvenient truth for those who peddle 'UK not part of EU' -  that in 1975 67% of those who voted in the UK said they wanted to remain part of the EEC.

In my book a referendum called by a properly constituted Parliament and supported by the majority of  those whom voted trumps legislation that is over 300 years old drawn up by a Convention Parliament which  in no way was representative of the opinion of the people of Great Britain.

Don't get me wrong the Bill of Rights 1689 is sort of important in the development of UK democracy; but it's not what some would wish - for ever overriding subsequent legislation,  for this bill re-established the sovereignty of both Parliaments over the Crown.

Whether we should remain part of the European Union, albeit on the sidelines, is of course another matter, and for what its worth in my humble opinion we would worse off in the long term if we did decide to end our membership - but as they say that's another story..... 

Are we heading for a 3rd recession?

Things are not looking good for the UK economy.

The latest Markit/CIPS UK Services PMI® says the UK service sector activity fell in the final month of 2012.

The key points are:

• First reduction in service sector output since December 2010 
• New business volumes post second successive monthly reduction 
• Confidence unmoved on November’s 11-month low

Chris Williamson, Chief Economist at survey compilers Markit said: “The first fall in service sector activity for two years raises the likelihood that the UK economy is sliding back into recession. The services PMI follows an equally disappointing construction survey for December, leaving manufacturing – which accounts for just 10% of the economy – as the only bright spot. Taken together, composite data from the three surveys posted its worst quarterly performance for three-and-a-half years, and are consistent with the economy contracting by approximately 0.2% in Q4.

“Bad weather is likely to have played a role in dampening service sector activity in December, but the fact that incoming new business dropped for a second successive month suggests that underlying demand remains very weak and that activity may continue to fall in the New Year.

“The service sector is also cutting employment in the face of weak demand and an uncertain outlook suggesting unemployment may soon start to rise again as private sector lay-offs add to public sector job cuts.”

See also:  Reuters -Surprise fall in UK services activity raises recession risk