~bma / journal / tags / rant

Cycling home yesterday I was overtaken by a taxi in a bus lane, which was unexpected (I was one lane to the right, approaching Charles Cross roundabout). When I got home, I did a bit of googling to find out whether taxis are allowed in bus lanes (apparently yes, depending on the bus lane). While doing so, I came across this site.

The page is titled “How to appeal unfair bus lane tickets”, which seems perfectly reasonable. However, as far as I can tell, the actual meaning is “How to get out of paying perfectly legitimate tickets”. Some examples of “non-compliant bus lanes” are given, including one where the sign is invalid because the bus doesn’t look right (actually, it looks like the sign has been vandalised, so some of the bus’s windows are missing), and one where the road markings are incorrect because it says “bus and cycle lane” which is only permitted for contra-flow bus lanes.

Now, I’m sure some people who get ticketed for driving in a bus lane honestly thought that it was permitted – another example they show doesn’t have a sign at all (though it still has the bright red road markings), so I’ll accept that people make mistakes. On the other hand, I would’ve thought people would err on the side of caution, and not drive in the bus lane unless they know it’s permitted; I suspect that anyone who resorts to arguing “oh but the cycle symbol and the word taxi were the wrong way around on the sign” (another of their examples) knew they weren’t permitted to drive there and are just trying to wriggle out of their punishment.

Another example they give is of yellow lines, which apparently must end in a bar at 90 degrees to the line. Apparently, one person who tried to appeal a ticket on the grounds that the line did not end in a bar and was hence invalid, lost his case; the adjudicator stated that “it cannot possibly be said that Mr Minier or any other motorist would be misled or confused by the absence of T-bars”. Ticketfighter replies: “Confused or not is not the point, the line does not comply with the regulations and so therefore is not valid.” Yet another example is of Controlled Zone signs, where apparently the words must be above the No Parking symbol – “Most people wouldn’t even realise something so simple would be grounds for an appeal!” Yes, because it’s trivial and petty.

If the ticket is unfair, by all means appeal. As far as I can tell, though, this site is aimed at people who want to ignore the rules but get upset when they’re punished for it.

To anybody writing a web form that asks for my country – or, for that matter, anybody else referring to it in any way:

I am a citizen of, and resident in, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is perfectly acceptable, and even encouraged, to abbreviate this to "United Kingdom". (Historical note: before 1927, it was officially the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; in practice, the Irish Free State was independent from 1922.)

I am not a citizen of Great Britain. There is no such country, and has not been since 1801.

I am not a citizen of England. There is no such country, and has not been since 1707.

Of course, Great Britain still exists within the UK, and England within Great Britain. They are not countries, though. Americans, especially, should take note that referring to the UK as "Britain" has been wrong for almost 208 years.

No part of Ireland has ever been in Great Britain. Referring to Northern Ireland as part of Great Britain is always wrong, both geographically and politically. It’s not likely to win you any friends, either.

No part of Scotland or Wales have ever been in England, with the exception of minor border changes. Referring to them as such is (almost) always wrong, and also unlikely to win you any friends.

Finally, there hasn’t been a king or queen of England since 1604, when James I/VI changed the title to "…of Great Britain". Technically, after that point both England and Scotland were ruled by the King (or Queen) of Great Britain, though they remained seperate countries until 1707 (in personal union).

Not difficult, is it?

From an ad in Computing magazine: "BT and the NHS are teaming up to improve the quality of London’s community healthcare blah blah blah."

What for? Since when does London have a lack of adequate healthcare? The NHS site for Cornwall lists three hospitals with A&E departments – two of which aren’t even in Cornwall (Barnstaple and Plymouth). The only one actually in Cornwall is the Royal Cornwall Hospital in Truro. Devon’s not much better: apart from Barnstaple and Plymouth, there’s Exeter and Torquay – and another listed which is in Taunton. I didn’t check Somerset, but I doubt they’re much better off.

There’s plenty of places in Devon and Cornwall that are thirty or forty miles from an A&E department, yet London needs better healthcare. Hmm…

Okay, usually I ignore Student Union politics, since it rarely gets anywhere useful. However, one poster in the union caught my eye–Darren Jones, Presidential candidate, you are a pillock.

The policy of his to which I am referring is "Cheaper Membership to Clubs and Societies". Now, I’m not going to say that there are no societies which are overcharging for membership. I do know, though, that many societies get a substantial amount of their annual income from membership fees; TermiSoc, certainly, is always trying to find the balance between charging as little as possible for membership, and charging enough that we have money for maintenance and hardware repairs. I suspect that other societies have similar–or, likely, greater–problems, and mandating a maximum membership fee is just going to make things worse unless societies are provided with a reasonable income from the union (all societies, that is, not just the ones who bring prestige to the union–i.e., a couple of the sports teams).

This is yet another case, I suspect, of someone proposing changes that are bound to be popular with the majority of students, without actually looking into the situation and considering the consequences.

So I happened to visit the website of my old school, St. Aidan’s RC School and Language College. They have a nice fancy graphic at the top of the page which includes their motto, "We believe that God has created each person to celebrate life to the full".

Or rather, "to celeberate life to the full". I realise that standards are dropping, but this is just embarrassing – especially considering their status as a so-called "language college".

Update 2008-05-14: I emailed them last night, just after posting, and they seem to have corrected it pretty sharpish.

It’s that time of year again; I’ve got two exams coming up, plus one I’ve already taken. Not as many as some people, but still. Of course, life would be much easier if not for the fact that the only way to find this out was by getting the list of exams and grepping for modules I’m taking. Despite having spent craploads of money on the new portal, the exam timetable is a big HTML file containing a list of every exam in every faculty. Last year, it was an Excel spreadsheet. Is this progress?

The thing is, the portal knows what modules you’re enrolled on; surely there’s some way of telling it "this module has this exam", and then having it notify people as appropriate?

Apparently, Muslim scientists (and clerics, of course) want to make Mecca, rather than Greenwich, the timezone around which the others are calculated. Their reasoning: Mecca is the "true centre of the Earth", because it’s in perfect alignment with the Magnetic North Pole.

Now, unlike the person who brought up that last point, I’m not a geologist, but even I know that the Magnetic North Pole moves. It just happens to be in line with Mecca now.

Aside from that, GMT no longer exists–the international time reference has been UTC since 1972, which is based on TAI (which you can blame on the French). I would expect "scientists" throwing a hissy-fit about it to at least get the terminology right.

The most pertinent question, though, is why? The article says that "it’s about time that [the situation] changed"–but why? What good would it do, other than making your religion feel important? The prime meridian isn’t just a case of time, but of geographical measurements too, and without a good reason to move it it’s easily more trouble than it’s worth. "Our way would be better" is not a good argument when a) it’s only subjectively better, and b) the benefit is minimal and the detriment is vast.

Also, I object to the flagrant misuse of the terms "English" and "Britain", though I don’t know whether this is the article’s fault or the fault of the person being quoted. England was never a "big colonial power"; Britain was, and so was the United Kingdom; GMT dates from 1847, so UK would be correct (the article tries both England/English and Britain/British, both of which are wrong). However, if you must be wrong, be consistent: make up your mind whether you’re talking about England and the English, Britain and the British, or the UK and the UKians.

The next website to tell me that an email address with a plus-sign is invalid is going to get an extremely nasty email with a copy of RFC2822 attached.

Pursuant to this, I would like to recommend that Dr. Williams be removed from any and all positions of authority and seek psychiatric help. A perfect example of someone whose beliefs are crazy–suggesting that people should, basically, be able to pick and choose whether they follow the secular law or their religious law.

Uh, no. Everybody follows the laws of the country they are resident in. If they also choose to subject themselves to religious law, that’s their problem, but that doesn’t excuse them from also following the secular law. If I was to start a religion that required adherents to perform human sacrifice, even the most ardent proponents of religious tolerance would not try to prevent my prosecution, and rightly so. The fact that it’s a religious requirement does not change the fact that some things are just wrong and/or crazy.

(Note that I have no problems with anybody choosing to follow Sharia law, Jewish law, or anything else, assuming that it’s entirely within British law. However, given that Sharia law apparently requires the death sentence for certain crimes, I don’t believe that it’s possible.)

More generally, the fact that some people "do not relate to the British legal system" is something only an utter lunatic would use as justification for excusing said people from the law; usually, people who do not relate to the law are referred to as "criminals". (Of course, if the law is wrong, then it’s justifiable; an example would be laws against homosexuality. There is, however, no evidence given that the laws are in any way unjust; it’s merely that some people don’t want to follow them.)

In essence, it appears that although non-religious people have to respect Christian rules (the supposed "sanctity" of marriage and of life, as far as same-sex marriages, abortion, and euthanasia go), religious people don’t necessarily have to respect secular laws. This is heading worryingly close to noted Christian nutjob Mike Huckabee, and his claims that it’s necessary "to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards…".

Update: An interesting reply to Dr. Williams’s comments.

Okay, a few things that I’ve heard about recently have pissed me off.

First, Bruce Schneier talks about security versus privacy, making the point that the dichotomy is a false one. He argues the point very well, but it’s something he quoted that inspires me to rant:

"Privacy no longer can mean anonymity," says Donald Kerr, principal deputy director of national intelligence. "Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguard people’s private communications and financial information." Did you catch that? You’re expected to give up control of your privacy to others, who — presumably — get to decide how much of it you deserve. That’s what loss of liberty looks like.

Earlier in the article, Schneier uses the term "Orwellian" [1]; it’s this quote, though, to which the term could really be applied. Ignoring the poor grammar, what the director is doing is redefining a word to suit his (or rather, the US government’s) purposes. Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four is scary not because it’s a depiction of a totalitarian regime, but because most of the inhabitants don’t even realise it is; the Party’s eventual goal is to make rebellion literally unthinkable, by altering the meanings of, or removing altogether, any words that might lead to "thoughtcrime". This is exactly the same: redefining "privacy" so that people don’t even realise they no longer have the rights they did in past decades. The hypothetical future regime will argue that its citizens still have the right to complete privacy, and that it respects its citizens rights in this regard (and, it is entirely possible, others), and it will be absolutely true, for a given value of "private".

Leading on from this is a debate I had with Carl and Ed regarding the police’s powers to investigate someone without evidence. It started as a discussion of TV licensing, in which the point was made that, if I didn’t have a TV, I wouldn’t allow the TV licensing people into my house to confirm the fact; rather, I’d expect them to have actual evidence that I’d committed a crime, and to get a warrant first (since, if they have evidence, a warrant should be easy to get). The discussion went on to random breath tests; I’d consider myself perfectly within my rights not to submit to one unless the police had actual reason to believe that I might be drunk. The problem is not that the invasions of privacy are particularly onerous, but that there’s a slippery slope; accepting one invasion of privacy makes it harder to justify your refusal to accept the next.

My final point is unrelated, but I’ve just finished reading Dawkins’ The God Delusion (review forthcoming). It hadn’t really occurred to me before (though I’ve certainly encountered enough in the past few weeks) that people actually believe that the Bible is literally true. Respecting other peoples’ beliefs is all well and good, but there comes a point where it’s necessary just to say "No! You’re wrong! Your beliefs are crazy, stop it now!". That point is usually the point when the leader of an extremely powerful nation claims that God talks to him and tells him what to do.