Monthly Archive for September, 2006

Page 3 of 3

Nikon release impressive D80

Published on 9 September 2006 in Photography and Snippets. 0 Comments Tags: , , .

Nikon has released the D80, as an upgrade to the D70s. The specs look pretty neat. Ken Rockwell thinks its 95% of the high-end D200 in a plastic case… Tempting!

(0)

Coleman caught with pants down (metaphorically!)

Published on 9 September 2006 in Barnet and Transport. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , .

For some years now Cllr Brian Coleman has stubbornly campaigned against any measures deemed ‘anti-car’. As a dinosaur on the Conservative GLA group he remains resolutely opposed to the successful Congestion Charge. More locally, he was a vociferous opponent of the previous Labour administration’s policy of introducing speed humps in Barnet and, with his Conservative friends who now run the Council, has been responsible for digging up all the roads (again!) just to take the humps out.

Now we know why.

Last week’s Hendon Times contained the story Safety Councillor banned for for speeding (for some unknown reason the article is not available in the online edition so I can’t link to it). Apparently Brian Coleman managed to lose his license after being prosecuted (twice!) for driving too fast. What makes this selfish and arrogant behaviour particularly shameless is that, as the Cabinet Member for Safety, Cllr Coleman has presided over Barnet gaining the dubious honour of having amongst the highest road death rates in London (particularly for children).

I should clarify that I understand road humps are no panacea. Often they can be counter-productive. But these decisions should be made on an individual, road by road, basis, not by pro or anti-car dogma. The previous Labour administrations were perhaps over-zealous in putting them in whenever a road needed resurfacing. But the Tories have been wasting money digging up otherwise perfectly good surfaces, just to remove the humps. In doing so, they’ve often been riding rough shod over public opinion.

Cameron might be successful in achieving a makeover for the Conservatives nationally, but in London too many of them are still bonkers. No wonder they can’t find anyone credible to be their candidate for Mayor.

I hope Cllr Coleman is suitably embarrassed. If he’s not going to change his selfish pro-car ways I hope he realises it would be best for him to be replaced by new blood at the next election (both Borough and GLA).

Foreign Policy, Muslim leaders and that letter

Published on 5 September 2006 in Islam and War on Terror. 4 Comments Tags: , , , , .

A few weeks ago there was a bit of a brouhaha over prominent Muslim politicians’ letter to the Prime Minister (rightly) bemoaning British foreign policy and clumsily linking it to the threat of terrorism against the UK today. The political and media response was entirely predictable, and correct in the central point (i.e. that foreign policy should not be surrendered to terrorists). At the time I did feel a desire to write an article giving them a wrap on the knuckles for being so politically naïve, though managed to restrain myself. Nevertheless, I did say to myself that I would write an analytical piece about it, in the fullness of time [sic].

under|progress has, however, beaten me to it, with a very well argued essay, Policy, profiling, poverty. A very well recommended read for everyone. Here’s a snippet:

For too many people the explanation of terrorism in Britain stops at this point about foreign policy. That is, the foreign policy is a shambles and therefore we can expect some kind of response from would-be defenders of the people who suffer from Blair’s delusions of grandeur. But the argument fails, or is higly limited, on several points. It does not offer a ‘root cause’ explanation. As far as I am aware, no Iraqi or Afghan has decided to attack Britain for its role in the two invasions and subsequent occupations (instead some living Britain have made there way to Iraq to fight). Only, by and large, British-born, English-speaking Muslims. The simplest refutation of the foreign policy argument is that, despite anger Blair’s foreign objectives, there are Muslims who do not engage in such acts of violence. Is their anger or concern any less than those who take to bombing tubes and buses? Further, such an explanation is actually an insult to Muslims who don’t feel the need to engage in such acts or find such actions against their religio-moral principles. This explanation says Muslims are unable to rationally deal with the situation and that their only response is bound to be a violent one. This is, plainly speaking, rubbish.

Quite right! (Even if he failed to spell check it before hitting publish! :-) )

Whoever he is, he’s going on the blogroll.