What's really in a name

Yesterday I attended #BenefitsCamp , which was considering various ideas and creating option around the issues related to the UK benefits system.

I'll write elsewhere on my main topic of interest, as it has rather 'grown wings' and deserves a discussion site of its own to be better reviewed and taken forward, but one of the points I made during the event was about the name given to the field. Often seen on job advertisements — or a part of an interview process — is that matter of salary. And alongside 'salary' comes 'benefits', which might be a subsidised canteen, service discounts, pension contributions, or regular bonus payments. And the bankers have made 'bonus' a very bad word indeed.

"Benefits" are perceived as just another name for 'extras'.

So what happens when that same word is applied to payments made to those unemployed, or disabled, or injured and temporarily unable to work? Parts of the media name these payments — which provide a roof over someone's head and allow them to eat, are pretty minimal in the first place — 'benefit' in a way which makes them sound both undeserved by the recipient, and some sort of penalty to the tax-payers who provide the funding to the government.

So the next question, clearly, is what such life-sustaining payments should be called instead.

The SOPA/PIPA Result

The people spoke on Wednesday and, it seems, they were heard by some of the Senators and members of Congress debating these proposals. And they didn't like what the people were telling them (and, no doubt, worried about whether they would be re-elected again) and so they have — for the moment at least — stopped further activity on these two bills.

But it isn't over. The powerful media forces will try to get new versions back to the House and Senate in the future. We must remain vigilant and prepared.

Once, the internet was the plaything of the USA Department of Defense. Then it moved into academe and commerce. Now, the internet is the tool of people all around the world; every minute of each day and from every country around the globe people use it to freely communicate with each other. To share news, photographs, information, their life.

The internet is no longer the private property of one country, or a single guiding mind. It was created by many many people and is for the benefit of all human kind.

And any time it may be threatened again it will be all human kind who will respond: "KEEP YOUR HANDS OF OUR INTERNET!"

Age and DNA

Over the last few days a similar topic has come up during online and offline discussions with friends: does one's political world-view change as you get older?

There seems to be some received wisdom that you get more 'right-wing' as you get older, and though this has been supported by some others had suggested the reverse has applied to them. I'm certainly aware that while I've always had personal views which could be considered to cover the entire gamut from broad-left to far-right on specific topics — I've never been a believer that single Political Parties, no matter how broad a church they try to make out that they cover, are a valid answer — I can see in myself some 'focus' changes over maybe the last 15-10 years.

Making this a matter for a blog post though was prompted by one of the questions in today's YouGov survey request, "Different people have different ideas about whose DNA should be held on a national database, with the police allowed access when seeking to investigate crimes. Which of these options do you personally favour?"

They've supplied four answers, alongside the "don't know" get-out, being

1. There should a national database of everyone's DNA
2. There should be a national database of the DNA of everyone who has been arrested by the police in the course of investigating crimes, including those not charged, or charged and found not guilty
3. There should be a national database of the DNA of people found guilty of a criminal offence
4. Keeping anyone's DNA is an invaion of their privacy: no national DNA database of any kind should be kept

and the trouble starts there. There is absolutely no question that a DNA record is an invasion of personal privacy, and that every database is open to abuse. But it is as likely true that repeat offenders exists and whilst mere suspicion (or testing for exclusion) is not a crime there would be a clear deterrent effect if everyone knows without a shadow of doubt that the merest trace of their DNA at the scene of a murder or rape would attract the immediate attention of the investigative team. I am very firmly against the death penalty and find that it is still used in some countries — most notably the USA — as completely abhorrent; the state has no more 'right' to take a life than a sick individual, and the numbers demonstrate it is no deterrent.

But then my knowledge of the ease with which databases may give the wrong results (or fail to give the right one) and that, just as with the common cold you have no idea what the route of contagion was five or ten steps back, you have no idea where your DNA — be it a fleck of blood, 2mm of hair, or a few skin cells — might be carried completely innocently, then the idea of having everything on record becomes a case of 'too dangerous to take the first answer'. There are over seven billion souls on this planet and unless you have the complete DNA record of every single one then you will be searching against an incomplete set which might easily have a close match but not the exact, correct, guilty match. And we've returned to the past dangers of hanging the wrong person.

A New mayor for London

We are fast approaching the time when all Londoners — like myself — will have to vote for a new mayor. So far we have had Ken and Boris in the post.

You'll note I did not include their family names, indeed very rarely to the media find it necessary to to do so either, their personal names being totally sufficient for everyone in London (and many further afield) to know who is being referred to.

The LibDem candidate, generally, has not had this level of name recognition in the past. Vote for Susan! required the seven million or so Londoners to know Ms Kramer better than they probably did. Support Simon! had some level of name recognition for Mr Hughes because of his activities as a fairly well-known London MP, but still he didn't win against the 'popular' Ken and Boris show.

Arguably, the voters in this contest haven't really taken the position of London-wide Mayor as seriously as they ought to; it appears to many to be more of an opportunity for PR stunts than a serious position responsible for setting the policies which enable London to grow and to run the transport and other public services. So maybe, just maybe, it is time for the LibDems to offer up a candidate who has as much of a 'knock-about' reputation as Ken and Boris do?

Lembit!

In his favour he has national name recognition in the same way — and possibly stronger than — Ken and Boris. He has been seen to not take himself too seriously, appearing on television quiz shows and the like, but also has a great record as an MP. His perceived negative, of course, is that unlike Ken and Boris he isn't seen as 'a Londoner'. But then Boris wasn't when he got elected; he'd been pretty much seen as the Henley-on-Thames candidate.

Mike Tuffrey has also thrown his hat into the LibDem selection 'ring', on the grounds of his sterling service to the GLA and right back to GLC days, but whilst he is known in London political circles he has zero name recognition at large and will suffer in the same as Susan Kramer did for that.

It will be interesting to see whether the LibDems will select the candidate more likely to win, or one who is more in keeping with the Party line but certain to lose.

All in the Family

I've just listened to an interview on PM with a man who has — with his partner — a total of eight children; four were hers before they met, one of the subsequent four was planned, the remaining three weren't. I note this because he was being asked about the Government plans for a cap on child-related benefits.

Unsurprisingly, Labour have added it to their list of things they are annoyed about (despite the high probability that had they been re-elected they'd have had to undertake very similar actions) but I am in whole-hearted agreement with the plans, indeed I might even go a little further.

Yes, through circumstances, I have no children but (as the saying goes) lots of my friends do so. Having a family is — in large degree — a matter of choice. There are many mechanical and chemical means to prevent pregnancy meaning that to have a child is, in most cases, a positive choice to do so. Just as you would only buy a house or car or clothes which are within your budget so, surely, is the decision to have one or more children.

To have a child is to decide to have a financial and social 'burden' for 18 years to life. To choose something is to be responsible for that choice and the subsequent effects of that choice. And it shouldn't be for someone else to pick up the tab for that choice.

If I'd like a new house (and, frankly, I'd love something larger than the studio flat I've lived in for the last 24 years) it is up to me to finance such a change. It isn't for me to pick one out at the estate agent's and say "the taxpayers of the UK will pay for it, don't worry".

Children should be no different. You layed in your bed, now make it.

Conversations

In my previous post I wrote an open letter to Lynne Feathersone about her proposed ban on the enforcement of parking controls on private grounds; specifically on private estates.

Where I live — in a small flat in a mansion block with a wonderful view looking over central London — is within such a private estate. It is pretty large: there are over 600 flats (apartments) and a similar number of houses, spread over a good-sized area of land, and there are two road entrances (except in bad weather when more side gates may get opened) and while each mansion block had an entryphone system installed about ten years ago it would be financially impossible to install something similar from every home across the estate to the top and bottom gates. The top one has an automated barrier fitted which closes automatically each night around 11pm and opens around 10am, although between those hours it will rise to let you leave the estate or you can enter with a 'beeper' which you can rent from the estate management committee for £50.

The lower gate is closed a few times each year for a few hours so that the 'private' nature of the roads can be legally enforced and maintained. At these times (and on the evening of Halloween) one of the estate staff stop vehicles and pass them through if they have a valid reason to be on the estate. But it wouldn't be a practical option to have a 24/7 attendant on the gate (though, as it happens, there used to be one in the 1930s when the estate was built, as there was also a pony and trap to bring people up the hill to their home from that main lower entrance.)

So returning to that post, Lynne and I engaged in a 'conversation' yesterday via twitter, and this is a record of that interaction.

lfeatherstone: Holly Lodge has gates-first defence-and ticketing better alternative which is properly regulated and a proportionate punishment

alisonw: Two gates, neither staffed. Top closed 11pm-11am otherwise open, bottom always open. No deterrent therefore. Thx for reply.

alisonw: plus a ticket has no effect on a dumped vehicle, which has been the major problem in the past.

lfeatherstone: duumped vehicles can be removed if no tax etc. Why don't you close gates? No need to answer - but seems the logical way forward

alisonw: sometimes (amazingly) dumped vehicles still have tax discs on display. Closing gates if few homes is fine but not if 600+

lfeatherstone: well - ticketing is an adequate 'punishment' for what is, after all, a parking offence

alisonw: except that the legal & actual effectiveness of a privately-issued 'ticket'is very close to zero so minimal effect.

And that is where we've currently left it. I still feel that the current proposal is going to lead to serious problems. It is sensible where the area to be managed is small enough to be gated in a controlled manner, but not for the large-size residential estates so common across London.

The ban on clamping.

The BBC are reporting that Lynne Featherstone, as the Equalities and Criminal Information Minister, is to bring forward a bill to ban the clamping or removal of vehicles parked on private land. It is "committed to ending the menace of rogue private sector wheel-clampers once and for all" she says. In the main I completely agree with the sentiment where it is unclear that you are on on 'private land', for example where there are no gates to pass through from the public highway.

But where I live this will cause serious problems, so I have just written to Lynne asking that she reconsider the detail of her proposals.

"Hi Lynne,

Though I live 'just over the border' so to speak, I felt I must write to you as a matter of urgency over today's announcement about the banning of wheel clamping and towing away on private land in England and Wales.

The Holly Lodge estate, where I live, as with many other similar estates is actually private property; the road upkeep is paid via a fee from each householder (and a substantial contribution by Camden Council for the blocks they lease).

As private land - and outside the remit of parking controls by the Council - it has been for the estate management committee to deal with dumped vehicles and such, usually by removal after warnings have been left on a vehicle for many days but occasionally when it is blocking an entrance.

The proposals you have announced today would appear to place the maintenance and free access to such roads on many estates in severe danger of becoming dumping grounds for old vehicles.

The council haven't the power to manage this, and the police only get involved where they is 'danger' involved.

Could I ask that this situation - which I know is widespread in London and elsewhere - is urgently considered before the bill is brought forward.

Thankyou"

We already have the occasional problem with people realising that they can park on the estate when the adjacent roads are subject to parking restrictions, so this would make it massively worse. If dumped vehicles, especially, can never be removed then the possibility for residents to find themselves a place to park near their home will reduce and, in time, disappear. And although we have gates to the estate it isn't practical or feasible to have them staffed around the clock.

If you also live on such a private road please let Ms Featherstone know by using the contact form on her website, or by commenting here.