Drink and you may die

The lovely Susanna Reid this morning used her most concerned tone to relay the latest propaganda in the War Against Alcohol, which also features prominently on the BBC News website:
The footer of the article points to previous stories on the same theme, and links to the disinterested experts at Cancer Research UK, the British Medical Journal, and Alcohol Concern.

The evidence is apparently so compelling that the BBC couldn't find any opposing viewpoints. So what have we learned?

Drinking more than a pint of beer a day can substantially increase the risk of some cancers, research shows.

A large Europe-wide study in the British Medical Journal found that one-in-10 of all cancers in men and one-in-33 of all cancers in women are caused by past or current alcohol intake.

This research found that individuals who drank more than two standard drinks a day for men and one drink a day for women were particularly at risk of alcohol-related cancers.

I'm not sure what being a miserable git does to your chance of developing cancer, or your risk of death from other causes, but it does tend to dampen your day-to-day existence.

We're all going to die, most of us at a ripe old age (even those who drink). Quality of life is more important than longevity. Whisky and wine, a their best, are sublime — among life's great pleasures. As long as they enhance, rather than diminish, your experience of the other fine things in life, enjoy them!

Nasty NATO bombs friendly tanks

The commander of Libya's rebel forces has said Nato apologised for mistakenly hitting a column of rebel tanks near the eastern town of Ajdabiya.

Rebel tanks?

It started off so simple. Gaddafi had the overwhelming firepower — jets, tanks, artillery — and was using it against defenceless civilians. In a fit of nobless oblige, Cameron ordered the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force to intervene.

Together with other NATO forces, primarily French and American, they destroyed Libya's air defences, and proceeded to attack Gaddafi's ground forces. News reports showed rebels cheering over charred tanks, praising the Western leaders.

The BBC article continues:

The rebels hit in the air strike had been moving a group of tanks, armoured vehicles and rocket launchers near the front line between the towns of Ajdabiya and Brega in more than 30 transporters.

One rebel commander told the BBC he saw at least four missiles land among rebel fighters.
...
There is considerable anger among rebel troops at what appears to have been a terrible mistake, our correspondent says.

They are asking why rebel units were hit, he adds, when they could be seen clearly advancing in a westerly direction towards the front line.

"It is unbelievable," said one Benghazi resident. "Nato, with all the equipment they have - is this the second mistake? Is it really a mistake or something arranged secretly?"

While I hope for a positive outcome, I remain unconvinced that this intervention was wise.

Benefit-in-kind?

BBC News helpfully reports on Buying a car with the taxman's help

Buying a car for a family member is often a necessity, and with recent rises in VAT an expensive one.

There are however several little known options that can ease the pain on your pocket (and the environment), with the help of none other than the taxman.
...x
There are hundreds of thousands of privately-owned companies in the UK.

If you own one of them, you can use the current tax rules to your advantage perfectly legitimately.

Consider the following scenario. Your 18-year-old daughter is off to university, and you want to get her a £10,000 car so that she can visit home.

You have two options: pay for it personally or get your company to buy it.

If it is bought via the company, then in the normal course of events you will be taxed on what is called the benefit-in-kind that you are receiving.

A company car with no CO2 emissions - such as an electric car - accrues no benefit-in-kind tax charge at all.

Am I the only one who thinks this is absolutely barking mad, and an outrageous abuse of the tax system?

The main thing that winds me up is the pretence of "benefit-in-kind". It's obvious to anyone that the per-mile CO2 emissions of your car are in no way proportional to the benefit you derive from it (for which you are ostensibly being taxed).

But setting that aside, and accepting for the sake of argument that CO2 really is the greatest threat facing humanity, we must question whether buying a new low-emission car actually cuts overall carbon output.

Even The Guardian admits the question,

it tends to largely boil down to how far you typically drive your car each year and which models you are comparing. As "Livelight" points out:

I drive my old classic car only about 500 miles per year, so if I swapped it for a new Prius, both I and the car would be dead long before there was any carbon benefit!

The other big, and often controversial, question that hangs over this debate is the issue of "embodied energy": how much energy is required – and CO2 emissions generated – to transform a heap of raw materials, some of which are buried under the ground, into a brand new car parked up in the showroom ready for sale?

This article ends by suggesting we all buy a new Prius, but a more recent Guardian article concludes:

despite common claims to contrary – the embodied emissions of a car typically rival the exhaust pipe emissions over its entire lifetime. Indeed, for each mile driven, the emissions from the manufacture of a top-of-the-range Land Rover Discovery that ends up being scrapped after 100,000 miles may be as much as four times higher than the tailpipe emissions of a Citroen C1.

With this in mind, unless you do very high mileage or have a real gas-guzzler, it generally makes sense to keep your old car for as long as it is reliable – and to look after it carefully to extend its life as long as possible. If you make a car last to 200,000 miles rather than 100,000, then the emissions for each mile the car does in its lifetime may drop by as much as 50%, as a result of getting more distance out of the initial manufacturing emissions.

It is far from clear that the government should be encouraging the scrapping of old carbon-spewing cars in favour of new "green" models.

Various lobby groups have benefited from our government's road tax policy, but don't for one minute be fooled into thinking it is for the 'greater good'.

BBC: Census 'dawdlers' face house call

Another story from the 'you shall comply' department:

Seven million households which have not completed and returned the census in England and Wales are being warned that they face a visit from officials.

Some 29,000 census collectors will begin visiting householders who have not returned their questionnaire to help, or persuade, them to complete it.

Completing the census is compulsory and not doing so could mean a £1,000 fine.
...

The north east of England has seen 75% compliance, compared to London which has the lowest compliance rate at just 60%.

The ONS said it had anticipated that London would be a "challenging area" and almost 6,000 collectors would be door-knocking across the city.

Among those with something to hide, the smart ones have already lied.

Big Brother resumes watch in Oxfordshire

On Friday, The Register reported

Oxfordshire police have turned speed cameras back on as others throughout England switch theirs off, prompting questions as to whether senior police and county council figures are playing politics.

Last August, following the withdrawal of central government funds, Oxfordshire made motoring history by being the first county to switch off its speed cameras. This move is reported to have saved some £600,000 per year.

What was the effect of this switch-off, and why were the police so keen to have the cameras back on?

Figures released today by Oxfordshire Police show that for the seven months from August 2010 to January 2011, the total number of casualties across all of Oxfordshire rose from 1171 to 1179: that’s an increase of eight, or just under 0.7 per cent.

At camera sites themselves, the total number of collisions rose from 60 to 62, with injuries increasing from 68 to 83. Sadly for Oxfordshire’s Speed Supremo, Superintendent Rob Povey, in the press this morning with the assertion that we "know" that speed kills, the entirety of this increase of 15 casualties came from non-serious injuries.

Nationwide figures apparently lend some credence to the claims by police, with a study by Professor Richard Allsopp (pdf) suggesting cameras prevent 800 fatalities or serious injuries each year (KSI):

Professor Allsopp, as most experts in this field, does not disaggregate fatalities, since although the general view is that speed increases total KSIs, the question of whether a particular accident will result in a death is far more complex and related to many factors other than speed.

It may well be that speed cameras in Oxfordshire helped reduce incidents, but the figures provided by Oxfordshire Police – without any analysis by those previously employed as experts – are not, by themselves, enough to draw any serious conclusion. The fact that a senior police officer should claim they [do] tells us more about a lack of Police respect for statistical evidence than anything about what is actually happening.

Run the figures backward, and the actual casualty figures for 2010/11 are very much in line with a long-term trend decline running back to 2001, with blip years in different categories across the period. So, 2004/5 reported overall casualties well below trend, while fatalities in 2006/7 were massively up on the previous year.

The article concludes

But then, it seems likely that this debate was never all that much to do with the evidence. As the BBC reported in November last year, plans to turn the cameras back on were already "under way" then. At that point, it is possible that the police were working, at most, on just two months worth of evidence.

For many police officers, or at least Superintendents, I suspect the real issue is not saving lives, or even making money, but enforcing compliance. They couldn't bear the thought of us exercising judgement, and choosing a speed appropriate speed for the conditions. We are to obey the law, no matter how rigid or unreasonable.

Paying for the tip

BBC Breakfast this morning reported from Crewkerne, where the council is now charging people to use the tip. A corresponding article on BBC News explains

The centres were due to close to save £300,000 a year as part of savings by Conservative-run Somerset County Council.

By changing their legal status they could be kept open as community facilities with people paying to use them.

The town council spokeswoman added that it would underwrite the trial up to a maximum of £10,000 in case there was a shortfall in cash.

"This was agreed at an EGM of the town council on Friday morning. Officers are looking into whether this charge would be subject to VAT in which case it would be £1.20 per visit.

Now, as a libertarian you might expect me to be pleased about this. Unfortunately, waste disposal is one of those very few things that it makes some sense for the government to provide free at the point of use. You need only think of the alternative: fly-tipping, which is obviously grim, and very difficult to prevent.

It's also galling that the County Council would cut this useful service while continuing to provide thousands of non-jobs, and many services that nobody would miss.

According to their 2009/10 accounts, they spent £904 million, 45% of which went on salaries. Their profile on Monster says

With more than 17,000 employees across the region Somerset County Council is Somerset's biggest employer. We offer a huge range of jobs and career development opportunities.
...
We offer all employees a wide range of benefits, some of which are listed below.

• Training
• Flexible working
• Family friendly policies (such as maternity and paternity leave)
• Child care vouchers
• Final salary pension scheme

The accounts also show a pensions deficit of £562 million (Note 4, Table 1) and unfunded pension payments of £1.490 million in 2009/10 (Note 4, Table 9). Staff costs look like their main problem, but Note 4 Table 3 shows they plan to increase salaries at 1.5% above inflation.

Meanwhile, Note 1 shows that the council spent £2.350 million on "Culture and heritage", £2.530 million on "Democratic representation and management", and £2.247 million on "Corporate management". Your guess is as good as mine.

This looks like a classic case of a council targeting a highly-visible, highly-valued service for the axe, so they can play the victim of Coalition Cuts, and justify extracting fees from their already-overtaxed residents, while maintaining cushy jobs-for-life for thousands of useless bureaucrats.

The BBC, as ever, is happy to play along.

R.I.P. Daily and Sunday Sport

Where do you think you might find the following obituary?

The Daily and Sunday Sport, those diligent exponents of tabloid journalism's lower reaches, have folded. Their remains, it can be sensationally revealed with the aid of Photoshop, are located on the far side of the moon.

Having for nearly 20 and 25 years respectively offered a blend of punning headlines, celebrity gossip, soft pornography and, when all else failed, entirely made-up stories, the titles have gone belly, and much else besides, up.

It is an uncharacteristically low-key passing for two newspapers whose content made the Sun's regular Page Three feature look like Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Woman.

Building sites, men's locker rooms, boys' public school dormitories and other such all-male environments may mourn their passing. Feminists and those who prefer their news headlines unaccompanied by depictions of the female anatomy may not.

Got it yet?

A market for such content was, clearly, out there. At its peak in 2005, the Daily Sport's circulation stood at 189,473, while the Sunday edition reached a high in the same year of 167,473.

But friends of the Sport titles may have predicted their demise when the internet made the necessity of shame-facedly visiting the newsagent a thing of the past for consumers of pornography.

After Mr Sullivan sold up, the Sport was relaunched in April 2008. Additionally, former Liberal Democrat MP Lembit Opik was recruited to lend some of his much-respected gravitas by writing a weekly political column.

But the launch of lads mags such as Zoo and Nuts meant extra competition and owner Sport Media Group's financial figures remained an inverse reflection of those of its female models.

No flowers.

Humorous, in its own way, but relentlessly snooty, sanctimonious, and self-satisfied.

Where else but the Guardian opinion columns?

Oh, wait. This is not a light piece from Polly, but the authoritative, anonymous voice of BBC News Magazine.


Licence-fee payers' money well spent?