Friday, 9 December 2011

Friday Fungus: 2011 Vintage!

This year's vintage looks especially fine thanks to Kathryn who did the labels and hats (or whatever we're supposed to call those cloth covers over the lids).

Mushroom ketchup - the original ketchup - is lovely stuff, more subtle that its tomato-ey offspring. It's also really easy to make - and what great Xmas gifts for mushroom loving friends and family!

The recipe is here.

...

Thursday, 8 December 2011

Do we need a jogging tax?

****

On the logic that people should be discouraged from engaging in lifestyle choices that damage their health - that these things should be "denormalised" - we should take action about jogging. Especially given the burden such inconsiderate activity places on the the NHS.


MRI scans on 40 athletes training for challenging sporting events like triathlons or alpine cycle races showed most had stretched heart muscles.

Although many went on to make a complete recovery after a week, five showed more permanent injuries.

The researchers told the European Heart Journal how these changes might cause heart problems like arrhythmia. 

I know the industry - let's call it "Big Gym" - says these are minor considerations and that "endurance training isn't unhealthy" but surely something must be done.  And remember that it's not just this increased risk of heart disease, there are over 250,000 admissions to hospital resulting from sports injuries in the UK alone.

Perhaps we should set up Exercise Concern?

....

Wednesday, 7 December 2011

Well done those Councillors...

****

The planning fraternity have in recent times taken to using all sorts of threats and such to prevent Councillors from voting differently from the recommendation of those planning officers. However, it appears that, despite the system being stacked against local determination under our Blairite planning rules, almost a third of "large" housing developments refused by members against officer advice have that refusal upheld by government inspectors*.

So cue the planning fraternity turning the screw a notch further:

"However, the down side is that councils have to pick up the tab for the fees of advocates and, increasingly, external witnesses, employed to defend refusal reasons.

"The volume of these cases must also be a concern to the inspectorate, particularly given the predicted increase in appeals and government plans to speed up the system including the proposed 12-month planning guarantee."

 Keep up the good work councillors, keep challenging officers and keep refusing permissions where you think it right to do so. And never forget that you're elected to think for yourself not simply to implement the recommendations of supposed "experts".

*This "research" wasn't very scientific and involves just 28 applications - treat it with caution

....

Even Cancer Research UK admit alcohol consumption is falling?

****

Among all the media excitement about how fags, booze and burgers are giving us cancer it appears that the rather nuanced nature (other than on smoking - actually smoking not passive smoking) of the Cancer Research UK work is somewhat overlooked. However, I was struck by this bit (see I've read it - rather than just the CRUK press release):

In fact, data from the national General Lifestyle Survey (Robinson and Bugler, 2010) show that the average number of units of alcohol consumed in a week rose in the 1990s to a peak in the period 2000–2002 of around 17 units for men, and 7.5 units for women, but has fallen since that time in both sexes. The proportion of men and women drinking more than the recommended maximum (21 units a week in men and 14 units in women) has also been falling. The fall in consumption occurred among men and women in all age groups, but was most evident among those aged 16–24. It is quite possible, therefore, that the burden of alcohol-related cancers is around its maximum at present, and will fall in future.

Got that folks.

And get this - two-thirds of cancers are NOT the result of smoking, drinking or bad diet. That's a thought, eh?

....

Tuesday, 6 December 2011

Things that are wrong with local government...

****

I attended a meeting of Bradford's Corporate Overview & Scrutiny Committee today where we looked at the new "Sustainable Communities Strategy" - incidentally something we no longer have to produce. I asked what I thought was a pretty straightforward question - how much did the strategy cost to produce.

I was informed that this couldn't be answered as it was all officer time and any way we'd probably have to do most of the work regardless. Appalling.

Not only did we have a strategy without quantified objectives, indeed one majoring on generalised wishy-washy 'outcomes', but the extensive process of producing the strategy is uncosted. The whole exercise involved hundreds of meetings, rooms filled with paper and thousands of hours of officer time (and not just from the council but from our 'partners' too), yet no-one thought to keep track of these costs and assess whether the benefit of producing the strategy outweighs the expense of that production.

So when they bleat about cuts in Bradford, perhaps you should ask why this pointless process was undertaken while swimming pools were closed, libraries shut and disabled works made redundant.

This really is typical of local government, not just in Bradford but everywhere,

....

Double standards?

****

The racist tram lady was in court today:

A woman accused of launching a vile racist rant on a tram is to spend Christmas behind bars after she was remanded in custody for her own safety.

And the race relations industry was having its say:

What, I wonder does the response, to the YouTube clip show? Is it just prurient interest? Is it shock or is there a degree of acceptance of the validity of her comments if not actions? Twitter comments in the days after suggest all of the above and more!

Racism is still a blight on the face of Britain. Sweeping it under the carpet, failing to resource counter measures will not create cohesion but will only serve to sow discord in all our communities. As soon as we realise that racism lies everywhere then we start to tackle discrimination where someone is judged by ethnicity or nationality, by colour or by creed. That day cannot be achieved by putting our heads in the sand.

At the same time that race relations industry made no mention of a far worse case of racism – this time accompanied by violent assault:

A gang of Muslim girls who repeatedly kicked a young woman in the head walked free from court after a judge heard they were 'not used to being drunk' because of their religion.

The group screamed 'kill the white slag' while kicks raining in on 22-year-old Rhea Page as she lay motionless on the ground, the court heard.

The attackers - three sisters and their cousin - were told by a judge that normally they would have been sent to jail.

However, he handed the girls - all Somalian Muslims - suspended sentences after hearing that they were not used to alcohol because their religion does not allow it.

There is no doubt at all that this was racially aggravated – possibly racially motivated – assault unless “kill the white slag” has taken on a different meaning recently. Yet not a word from the “Equalities & Human Rights Commission”, no endless condemnation from the regular horde of left wing commentators on diversity matters.

But then, officially it wasn’t racially aggravated:

The women, who are all Somalian Muslims, were not charged with racial aggravation.

One wonders, had this been say four white skinheads wrapped in union jacks beating up a black youth while crying “kill the black bastard”, would the CPS have charged them with mere assault? I doubt it, those white skinheads would have got the full set of racial crimes laid on them (and quite rightly).

So why not these Somali women?

And why are the Runnymede Trust, the Equalities & Human Rights Commission and the usual collection of righteous MPs, columnists and "charities" more interested in that stupid woman on the tram (who hurt nothing other than feelings) than this violent racial assault?

.....

Newspeak?

****

...or what?

Human resources director Rita Colucci and health services staff were scheduled to meet with a sampling of students yesterday to gauge their interest in a smoke-free campus. While there are no other meetings planned, Magazu said the school might do more public vetting around campus if the idea gains traction.

...a "sampling of students"!

Not this sample, I guess...


Some students on campus yesterday — even non-smokers — weren’t supportive of curtailing smoking, though.

“I don’t even notice it,” said senior Michelle Beecoff, who doesn’t smoke. “A couple of my friends are smokers – I know they’d be pretty pissed.”

“We’re in college,” said junior Alyssa DeAngelo, also a non-smoker. “They shouldn’t be banning it.”

Let me guess what happens!

....