maths

confidence is a funny thing. 

i have always had a problem with maths. when confronted with numbers and mathematical problems my head just goes to mush. i think i can pinpoint when it all went wrong for me. i broke my collar bone playing rugby in the 4^th year at school. it meant i had a few weeks off school. when i broke it we were doing basic trigonometry, when i came back they were doing quadratic equations and i was lost.

from that moment on maths became a nightmare for me. i just didn’t get it. the funny thing is i think maths looks wonderful. it is clean. it is precise. and it looks great.

ask me to work out percentages and i will shit myself. even something like a spreadsheet programme, such as excel, is wasted on me because i just don’t think mathematically.

over the last few weeks i have had to do a number of numeracy and literacy tests – and strangely my results have been alright. admittedly these tests are little more than can you add three numbers together, but they are a start.

so armed with that i decided to do a maths course, it is nothing special and won’t have me doing quadratic equations yet it does build confidence. who knows i might even be able to face percentages, not just yet. 

tickets

more olympic tickets went on sale.
more people are left feeling upset because they couldn't get a ticket. shock! horror!

it is not because there are not tickets available (there are a few million left for the olympic football events) it is just that those who are complaining haven't gotten the tickets they want for the events that they want. of course this doesn't happen for any other event. ever.
music and sport never have that problem - champion's league final: just the right number of seats available for the fans who wanted to go. rugby world cup final: not one disappointed fan. music that u2 tour: the correct number of tickets available for the fans who wanted them. lady gaga: no touts needed because no fan left behind.
strangely we never hear about their major disappointment in the papers - then is seen as more a mark of success - wow they sold out in less than a day. when it is the olympics it is 'oh that is terrible there are not enough tickets' as if the stadiums are like concertinas that can be expanded at will.

“i bet i’m not alone in being unable to get any tickets on 2012 website wasted 45mins and i want them so badly” so says daley thompson (one of the few people i would say deserves to get some free tickets), and he is not alone with complaining that he couldn't get tickets.
of course, as noted, there are football tickets available - so if it is just a case of being part of the olympic 'moment' then tickets are available, but if it is about getting hold of a ticket to one of the premier events what on earth were people expecting this close to the games? that the organisers suddenly found hundreds of thousands of tickets available? or that only thirty people throughout the country were actually going to try to get those last minute tickets?

the news media seems to need to have a 'bad' story to tell. the idea that there are a lot of very happy people who have tickets or that the olympic organisers have done a pretty good job in selling all the tickets that they have done. if there had been a lot of tickets left then there would have been a completely different 'bad' story from the news media.

just celebrate the fact that pretty much everything seems to be working pretty smoothly and that it looks like the worst that is going to happen to the london olympics is going to be the english weather.

checks

the papers are reporting that the security services are doing background checks on everyone who is going to be working or competing at the olympics. as if it is news. i suppose one of the things they seem to be saying is 'isn't it a bit close to the games to be doing this?' well not really as they are still just about employing the last large tranche of people to work the event.

sadly i am not one of those who will be working there.

i know two people who will be working at the olympic park - and they only just recently signed on to do their jobs. so it is not like they could have been checked in advance.
the same goes for the competitors - a lot of them are still trying to see if they can actually make the grade (except of course the saudi women's team that has already been decided - they are staying at home).

probably the biggest area of concern is going to be over those employed (or being offered work placements) as security guards and crowd control marshals. not because they are likely to be some mad crazed terrorist ready to destroy all and sundry at the drop of a hat, but because they will have received little or minimal training.
many of the east london joncentres were offering security guard work at the olympic park and because of the numbers needed they  necessity to have a security industry (sia) licence has been waivered.
we have seen with the recent hoohah at the jubilee over the treatment from 'close protection' of their staff on work placements to see that some of the companies who are going to be involved in the olympic security that training and staff welfare is not top of their list.
most of us have had a run in with overly officious security guards who think their uniform makes them important when they are not - expect to hear quite a lot of that during the olympics - especially when it comes to the rules as to what you can and can't take into the olympic venues.

according to one report only 100 people have been rejected so far.
some see this as being very much a case of closing the door after the horse has bolted type thing - when really all it is saying is two things - firstly that most people in the country are not interested in harming anyone else in the country and all they want to do is get their heads down and do a job to put food on their plates. secondly that any terrorist organisation isn't going to use someone who would fail to be vetted - if they did then they are not very good (which we hope is the case).

there is no question that the olympics is going to be a very tempting target and there is no doubt that the security services are going to be doing their utmost to make sure that any plans to make it a target are thwarted.

in this case the media wants it both ways - they want to complain that the checks that are being done are being done so close to the event, but they also want to be able to complain that security is lax (expect a 'bomb hoax scandal' to appear in the sun any time soon).
the reality is checks will have to be made right up until the start of the games and those that wish the games harm are not going to fall foul of those checks.

what is going to exercise most people is whether or not the tubes will be running in order for them to get to the games on time.

bbc

the beeb comes in for a lot of flack.

boris has wittered on about how the new director general of the bbc should be a tory - because they know how to run things efficiently and effectively. it is true - just ask george osborne. jeremy hunt must have been thinking it was a perfect job for him once he 'left' the cabinet, now that he is safe and secure i am sure he will be advising baroness warsi that he will support her in the same way he did news international.
while boris may not like the beeb - he does like their ex-staff as he keeps hiring them.

the daily mail sees the bbc as the source of all evil in the world, not to mention all future evil. at the moment they are railing against the 'poor' and 'dumbed down' coverage that the bbc did of the queen's diamond jubilee.

over at the sunday times' culture magazine there are always letters saying how poor some, if not all, bbc programmes are. there are never (or rarely) any that say how wonderful sky's programmes are - which is odd when you consider the relationship between the sunday times and sky.

it would be wrong of me to suggest that these three all have ulterior motives for their attacks on the bbc, but they do.

i don't watch much tv these days, but i am an avid listener to bbc radio - there they do a fine job of informing and entertaining. while they may have a few presenters who get on my nerves they are much better than their rvials in news and talk radio - lbc and talksport.

if boris and co have a problem with the bbc they might be better off promoting the services they think are that much better and let the quality of output make the case for them, especially as those supposed  'better services' are the ones that the daily mail and the sunday times are trying to make money from.
so stow the negativity and promote the positive - if it is as good as you say it is!

jubilation

close but not close enough.
i decided i would have a wander down to the river to watch the thames diamond jubilee pageant. i knew it was going to be busy - after all it there has been a lot of publicity for it. i had a theory that if i rocked up east of tower bridge i would be able grab a space by the river to see the tall ships and watch the end of the pageant.

it was a nice plan.
i wasn't the only person to thought of it.
pretty much all of the thames walk that could see tower bridge was rammed with people many of them prepared for the long wait with food, drink, chairs, radios, binoculars. wrapped up against the cold and wet. they were there for the long haul.

oh well i thought. i will try somewhere else.
a forlorn hope.

everywhere was packed. people waiting. expectant. even some of the office buildings had people on their roofs watching.

in the end i settled for a spot on tower bridge road where there was a very large screen that would show the view that i was so close to seeing but unable to see.

lots of people in the same situation. watching the screen. cheering when images of the queen appeared.
even though it was cold and the threat of the rain was apparent everyone was in a good mood, sharing the mood of a special occasion. people with flags, people with union flag hats, people with periscopes, with food, with drink. people taking photos of the crowds, taking photos of the screen, taking photos of each other.

cheers going up as members of the royal family appeared on screen. a few oohs and aahs at the various dresses worn, a few comments about will and harry looking nice in their uniforms.
boos for boris and just what was he doing there?

just as the queen approached the tower the heavens opened up and umbrellas went up. quickly followed by the chants of 'put your umbrella down... put your umbrella down". and down they went.

more cheers.
bigger cheers as the queen appeared (on screen) and tower bridge opened up.

as the whole thing was winding down the heavens opened up and people were soaked.

soaked but happy.

these sorts of events are always odd. most people can never get close enough to actually see the action. yet somehow just being in the crowd is enough. a feeling of being part of something special, something different, something that won't happen again in your lifetime. a moment of history, being part of something. perhaps this is why such events are important and special.

as i walked away from it all soaked and bedraggled i had a light heart, a very large mass of people had come together for something unique and enjoyed it.

who would have thought bunting and rain could make a man happy.

turning

doesn't matter who is in power there will come a time when they have to make decisions that anger various groups in society. these interest groups will lobby parliament and try to get the decisions changed. that is democracy in action.

when we elect our politicians we are telling them to make decisions for us and in our name. the unspoken part of that pact is that there are going to be times when they are going to have to listen to the voice of the people even though there is not an election going on.

no government, no matter how strong or how wise is going to get it right all of the time. the strength of democracy is that a governments can rectify their mistakes.
what is odd is that we don't celebrate this evidence of democracy in action, rather we use it to castigate the government for being weak or stupid.

the recent con/dem budget has been described as an 'omnishambles' and it is an 'omnishanbles' that keeps on giving. there have been several u-turns that have punctured holes in the budget proposals. whatever else i may accuse the con/dems of being weak isn't one of those things. that just leaves being stupid. it does appear that george osborne and his team are guilty of either rank amateurism or they are very stupid.

i commend the government for changing tack on several of its headline idea from the last budget. it shows they are listening and are prepared to change their minds (of course they are not caving into pressure - who could think such a thing). judging by some of the recent changes it doesn't appear that a lot of thought is going into the plans that they are making - beyond the basic 'can we get those on low to medium incomes to pay more'.

a government that listens and can change its mind and decisions is a good thing.
a government that has to change its mind and decisions often is a bad thing.

phew - for a moment there i thought i was going to have to fully defend the con/dems but it seems i have given myself an out - they are lazy and clumsy planners and so are bad.

at least now we know why there isn't a plan b for the economy - they are still trying to work out what plan a was.

leaks

 

we’ve had a bit of rain: we still have a drought situation.

we are going to have more rain, but we will still be in a drought type situation.

how do i know this? thames water has told us. 

in a recent advert in the london evening standard they have taken out a full page advert that says “rain or shine – please always use water wisely”. they are even offering free water-saving gadgets for all their customers. that is nice of them.

one thing they are not going to do is meet their leak reduction targets. so while they ask their customers to use water wisely they are still leaking some 600 million litres of water a day (which is an improvement on the situation in 2006 when it was over 800 million litres a day).

ofwat (the water regulator) has ‘forced’ thames water to invest some of its own money, i.e. profits, into improving their leakage prevention.

don’t worry too much for thames water though they made a chunky profit last year and will do ok this year even if we save water because they put their prices up. this is an example of how a private business is so much better than a publicly owned one. even though it is inefficient and wasteful it can still make money for its shareholders. how does it do it? by making us pay more for the service.

maybe if thames water actually took their own message to heart and conserved water they could still make a very substantial profit and lower bills. all it takes is a little bit of investment and will to do it – you know the sort of things the conservatives are always telling us that private companies are so good – yet in practice they seem so so bad at.

just remember that while you are saving water – thames water is pissing it away.

2012

the olympics have a lot resting on them.

you have the expectation that is being heaped on the competitors, we are expecting a large haul of medals (in the parlance we want them to 'medal') and given we are funding them - we deserve to see some bang for our bucks.

you have the concern that the olympic park will function as promised. that it will provide a suitable and effective venue for sport and for viewing sports (it will also be a place to siphon money out of your pocket: how much for a cup? too much).
will all the tickets be sold? (pretty much - and we can bet that most of the empty seats will belong to the members of  the 'oympic family' or corporate bodies who just can't be asked to turn up or don't want to leave the confines of the hospitality tent. 

you have the worry about the london infrastructure being able to cope with the anticipated hoardes of tourists and sports fans. will heathrow be able to manage all these people? will the tube? will bob crow throw a hissy and blame 'bullying' bosses (answer: yes). will the, so called, zil lanes have a disastrous effect on london's businesses? will andrew lloyd-weber's nightmare of no one going to the theatre during the olympics come true?

the olympics will be a glorious event - they always are, there will be some problmes - there always are, there will be some dark sides to it again nothing new there.
the difference is this time it is happening in our backyard. that brings with it a whole new level of excitement and it will bring with it a whole new level of whinging.

ever since london won the bid there has been the worry of a terrorist attack. so much so that all branches of the armed forces are on stand-by (well those that are left after the con/dems have wielded their axe. we are expecting to have a missile battery on top of one of the local tower blocks - just in case.
so an attack has been thought likely and the various measures to avoid, prevent or repel it have been put into place.
sensible stuff you would think.

not to some - all of this just proves that the illuminati are out there and they are telling their friends that there is going to be an attack in london during the olympics in order to help bring about the new world order.
what proof have they? well the floodlights are in a triangular shape and the iluminati like triangles. the olympic mascots only have one eye - another trope of the elite, the 2012 logo is really 'zion'.
seriously what more proof do you need.
just to make sure you can't take this seriously there was a clue to what is going to happen in the movie '2012' when the hero of the film finds and opens a london tube map even though it isn't the map he wants, nor does it have much reason to be where it is.
evidence you can't refute.

the  conspiracy theorists have taken over the olympics.
i think i preferred it when it was just whingers who hate the games because they didn't get a ticket to see mr. bolt run.

enjoy the video - it is an eye opener (see what i did there).

in case you are wondering - it is all pretty much bollocks.
(though i have my fingers crossed when i say that.)

labyrinth

labyrinth

i have no problems with bureaucracy, most of the time that red tape serves a purpose and is needed (no matter what the conservative party or the confederation of british industry say). the main problem with bureaucracy is that often the right hand can pretend that the question is something to do with the left hand.

here is how it sometimes works.

my adviser gets me on a course. yay for him and yay for me. he then tells me that i have sign on every week. not so yay. i tell him that might be a problem because of having to get to the course – i tell him i will be walking because i can’t afford the bus fare. he nods. we compromise on the signing on. it stays at once a fortnight. he tells me he can’t move the time (he never explains why, i don’t bother to ask), but as it is first thing in the morning i can work with that.

during the first two weeks it is pissing down with rain in the morning – so i am forced to get a bus. i walk home in the afternoon whether it is raining or not. at some point it is mentioned that we can get a travel allowance from the job centre. in fact one or two people have been given one.

 ‘mmmm’ i think (i do a lot of ‘mmmming’ when i am thinking) ‘shame my adviser never told me that.’ i followed that thought with another: i’ll ask about it tomorrow on the way home.

now you may be wondering what all the fuss is about – it is just a bus fare. true, but when you are on jobseeker’s allowance every penny counts.

next day comes and i wander over to the job centre. at the reception i ask about the travel allowance. the bloke tells me he just works reception he can’t really help me. he does mention that i might be eligible for half price bus fare, but i would need to speak with my adviser. as i was seeing my adviser later on in the week i left it at that.

later on in the week i am seeing my adviser. it is my new adviser (after a certain amount of time you are assigned two advisers one who does your regular signing on and one who will see you every now and then to ‘advise’ and question you and this is your senior adviser). i ask about being refunded my bus fare. they tell me they are not sure about that and i will have to ask my other advisor. oh ok then, so what about the half price bus card do you have the form for that? no comes the reply – you have to get it from the station or the post office. ok that’s good – i’ll get that sorted then.

i am booked in to see my senior adviser in two weeks time (i am sure that is in the hope i will forget about trying to reclaim the bus fares – no chance of that).

last week of the course – just concentrating on getting there and reading the textbook.

course finished.

go to the tube station. can’t see the form i am looking for. ask for it. oh we don’t do that. really? i was told you did. no. you might be able to download it, or maybe from the post office. ah that sounds like it: the post office.

i go to the post office. do you have the half price bus pass form? no we do not (with a barely disguised snort of disbelief). oh i was told you would have it by the job centre. no, but you might be able to download it.

mmmm (see i told you i do it a lot).

well seeing the senior adviser at the end of the week will ask then.

meeting with the senior adviser: so can i be reimbursed for the travel to the course? i am not sure i will have to ask someone. i’ll let you know next time i see you (which will be at least 3 weeks later – i won’t forget to ask). what about the half price bus pass thing? have you been signing on for 13 weeks? i think so. yes you have. here is the form.

the form the other adviser didn’t have, because they don’t have them. yes that form.

at least i have it – i shouldn’t complain.

except.

he suggests i go to a work experience introductory meeting at another job centre. i say fine sounds like it could be interesting. he sets it up. i go. once the greetings and thanks for comings are out of the way the first thing the bloke says is that you can claim your travel expenses back.

yeah right.

fat

obesity is the current obsession (obesiession?), everywhere you look there are reports about people being fatter than fat, there are tales of new wonder diets, research into why people are getting fatter.

the media are fascinated by the shape and size of female celebrities and it soon becomes obvious that it isn’t what you do that counts it is the way you look and any deviation from the artificial norm is pounced upon as a sign of failure. 

i consider myself fat. i have pretty much always been fat. i can grab more than an inch (oo’er missus) compared with some of the more rotund in society i am really no more than cuddly, chunky, big-boned, heavy set or whatever other euphemism you might want to use. 

one of the curiosities of the weight debate is that some athletes would be considered to be obese by using the body mass index – a lot of top level rugby players fall foul of this.

last week an unnamed person at the british olympic association must have been having a quiet day and with little to do decided to mention that jessica ennis was carrying a little too much weight. the timing was a bit odd as ms ennis was about to compete in her only heptathlon before the olympics (she won and set a new british record). 

lots of people rushed to her defence. 

one of the things it has highlighted is that she is not the only female athlete to have been told that perhaps she is a little heavy, louise hazel has also told of the less than helpful, or subtle, comments she has received from her coaches. it has also brought to light the fact that there are a number of senior athletes who are struggling with food and weight issues. given that top athletes are funded by the state it seems a sad indictment that we are encouraging athletes to put themselves at risk in order to win a medal or two, especially when you consider all the medical and sport science help and advice these people can call on. somehow it seems wrong that it can become something that can lead to damage rather than proper health and fitness.

though on second thoughts in a sport that is prepared to allow known drug cheats to compete on the largest stage of all then what concern are they going to have about a few women puking their guts up in order to keep their weight down? 

anyway the real reason for this was to be able to put up some photos.  

 here is 'fat' jess - except she isn't, but she is quite foxy. (please note that ms ennis is displaying her rather fine forn in the old team gb kit, the one featuring red which according to stella would make it hard to recognise with all the red in the usa and french flags. yeah made sense to me.

 here is the 'heavy' louise hazel in action - looking trim and, frankly, very hot. i'd be happy to rub her down after her race.

and here is someone who might actually be called fat - it you were going to be cruel. 

what's worse is he is a tory to boot.