Profits vs warming

Grumpy isn’t really a mobile phone person, and has to admit to never have taken a ‘selfie’. [In fact, for nerds, he is POP3 rather than IMAP based, and doesn’t even have access to e-mail on his phone. He uses it to , errr, make phone calls.]

However, from time to time he needs to install an App (for example for his alarm system), but on seeking to do so is informed that he should install a later version of Android. His trusty Samsung Galaxy S3 currently runs Android 4.3, however, and it cannot be updated, so no App.

Similarly, his iPad, an alternative vehicle for the alarm system App, gives a similar message; however, that too, running IoS 9.3.5 also cannot be updated.

So he owns two perfectly functional hardware devices (which in all likelihood have the potential for many years life in them) which have to be replaced. They are now effectively worthless, and their fate is inevitably disposal i.e. trashing. How can we, at this time in history, design (or even allow) commercial strategies deliberately calculated to create unnecessary waste?

There is a mismatch here between the mealy mouthed platitudes of corporates and governments with regard to their ecological credentials and the reality of policies which drive enforced obsolescence. If there really is an “emergency” which is shortly to result in the drowning of New York and London, and instigate global mass migration on a scale never before seen in history, it does seem anomalous that as a species we permit policies which are specifically designed to drive unnecessary mass consumption of resource, including the precious rare earth metals used in electronic devices.

The bottom line is that, whilst large swathes of the population pay lip services to the implications of climate change and cheer on Greta T, they are simply not prepared accept the radical and truly unprecedented changes to our way of life inevitably implied by it. Sadly, Donald Trump recognises this, and thus finds willing followers for his actions to roll back the tentative steps to mitigate warming already made in the USA, without whose full acceptance warming will take place whatever the rest of the world does.

It does not bode well.

Sophistry from Jessica Arnold

Jessica Arnold, Associate Director of Primary Care, NHS Bromley

An article in the Guardian berating users of private medical services caught Grumpy’s eye. His initial reaction was to dismiss it as being just another staff writer beating the socialist drum, but on further examination the author was an Associate Director at NHS Bromley, one Jessica Arnold.

Whereas unbalanced and slanted writing is the norm for the paper’s writers who quickly mug up on the background of their latest target over the first coffee of the day, Grumpy studied the piece published on 08/01/20 with more than usual care. He was taken aback at the blatant hypocrisy of the argument presented from an NHS insider, but on further investigation it seems that Ms Arnold is a paid up member of the Labour party (attending the annual conference even) and hence a proxy for the John McDonnell Marxist take on public services.

Ms Arnold essentially admits that the NHS isn’t working, but her thread of logic seeking to place the blame on a parallel private system is highly flawed, and seeks to ignore the underlying causal factors. Grumpy has used private GP services twice over the Christmas period for the simple reason is that no GP appointments were available in time frame relevant to his problem. However, to suggests that he in some way contributes to a shortage of GP’s is not only simplistic left-wing drivel, but profoundly wrong.

Ms Arnold’s argument is based on the notion that private medicine is responsible for ‘poaching’ NHS staff, which is the cause of the staffing crisis. This is breathtaking sophistry; the NHS itself is indeed a poacher of scarce medical skills on a scale which dwarfs any effect of the private sector. As Grumpy outlined in his note here because of deliberate policies of governments of both persuasions places at medical schools in the UK were restricted in favour of a mammoth multi-million pound poaching exercises from a variety of other countries, and particular India.

So whilst arguing that private medicine was depriving UK patients with care, the fact was that the NHS itself was depriving Indian mothers – with the highest child mortality expectation in the developed world – of doctors who were poached by higher salaries in the NHS.

As Cambridge Professor Ha_Joon Chang has argued systems which involve just the private sector or just the public sector are increasingly being shown not to work well; rather, thinking how private and public enterprise co-exist is key to developing a balanced society and economy.

The problems Ms Arnold recognises stem not from Grumpy’s recent burn being attended to by a private GP but from the policies of politicians, and only politicians. As a member of the Labour party, Ms Arnold will recall that Gordon Brown planned to cut thousands of doctor and nurse training places if labour were elected in 2010. However, for decades both parties have (a) knowingly held down training places because it was cheaper to poach scarce staff from Romania etc (b) encouraged the take up of local places by foreign students to generate income but without solving the local resourcing problem.

The fact is that until and unless the NHS trains more doctors than it poaches from other countries with far worse health systems than the UK, Ms Arnold’s attempt to lay the blame on private provision rings hollow.

RIP Nig… , sorry, Fido

Awareness of what is now seen as the stained and inhuman history of individuals, organisations and countries in a position to exploit and despoil nations, beliefs and the environment has led to increasing demands for both recognition of the nature of same, and in some cases reparations for, past deeds.

Whilst there can be some element of empathy for this, the targets are inevitably a bitty, hit and miss, illogical minority of the totality of injustices of the past. The simple fact is that those same actions were inextricably entangled with the current evolved structure of a country; part of its history, for good or ill. For example, the Industrial Revolution in the UK can be mapped back directly to both slavery and the subjugation of India, for example. How can that now be undone?

However, what is potentially more difficult to have empathy with is the the increasing attempts to re-write history, invoking an Orwellian vision of the ‘Ministry of Truth’. This tendency is overt is some cases, but in others it is diffusing with subtlety through governmental and institutional structures.

In 1955, a film called The Dam Busters was made, a belatedly patriotic tale of an otherwise wholly inconsequential attack on German infrastructure. The hero (and all war films need the ‘hero’) was Guy Gibson VC, and the point of this post is that in the story he had a dog called ‘Nigger’. Whether he did actually call it Nigger (or indeed, had a dog) is historically irrelevant, but this was the name used in the film. That’s a matter of record and fact. It is in time past. It cannot be changed.

It’s perfectly acceptable for people to now note that by current social mores the name is retrospectively seen as offensive if uttered by white persons (but oddly not coloured people). However, what Grumpy finds to be a dangerous trend by (in this case) the RAF is an attempt to remove a record of this by changing the name on a memorial dog tombstone at Scampton air base to something else. If history can be air-brushed for this, it is an alarming precedent for governments and others to re-write facts on more or less anything.

To put things in context, one of the currently successful women rappers (singers?) is a lady called Nicki Minaj. She released a song called ‘Looking ass,’ which had critical acclaim, and was presumably heard repeatedly on radio and seen in a video by the teenage consumers of such music. She used the word ‘Nigga’ (and Niggaz) no less than 40 times in two verses. That’s actually quite a feat, but the lyrics are typified by “Look at y’all niggas, niggas, look at y’all niggas” and “Pussy, you tried, pussy ass nigga you lie, pussy ass nigga, you high” {and no, Grumpy has absolutely no idea what that all means.}

Where is the furore ? Was the song banned in the UK ? Did the government leap in to prevent its youth from being exposed to this? Not at all – a 12 year old girl can buy it with explicit lyrics from Amazon today. Inconsistency is the father of disorder, and Grumpy will return to this topic in later posts.

What are GPs for?

For some considerable time now, waiting times to see a GP (in Grumpy’s patch at least) have stretched out to be 3 – 4 weeks, or worse. That rather begs the questions about, if not the role a GP plays, but to how that role is being radically transformed from its original conception.

If one sustains a minor injury, say, in the garden which requires cleaning and dressing, or a sprain which required strapping up, then attention is required quickly, and 3 or 4 weeks is not an option. The result is likely to be a trip to Accident and Emergency (A&E) at a local hospital.

An individual might develop some other illness (say some for of viral attack) which appears not to be clearing up, and indeed worsening , then again a wait of a month would not be a sound course of action, and a visit to A&E would be in order.

These are but two examples of how small incidents which in days of yore would be in the remit of a local GP are now driven to drain resource from pressured A&E departments.

It would seem that GP services have been relegated to routine scheduled monitoring (say for pregnant women), addressing the needs of those with long term chronic illnesses and essentially for activities which can be (a) scheduled and (b) have no element of urgency about them.

Everyone from patients to politicians knows that unless there is integration and coordination between social services, primary care (including GPs) and hospital services then there will continue to be resource mismatches and basically an inefficient hotch potch of support. Time to rethink how the NHS and Social Services work together.

Goose and gander

What’s the difference between the two individuals pictured here? Well, on the right is Stormzy, a ‘grime rapper’ whose lyrics embrace such niceties as wishing to gift a ‘facial’ to any young lady unfortunate enough to be involved with him. Stormzy has created a scholarship to fund two black students to attend Cambridge University. The initiative has been welcomed / praised by many in the educational field, as widening access to BAME students from disadvantaged and poor backgrounds.

On the left, however, is Sir Bryan Thwaites (both obviously white and from a privileged demographic), who offered £1m to fund two scholarships at Dulwich College and Winchester School for talented white boys from poor backgrounds.

Both Dulwich and Winchester immediately rejected the offer on the basis that any discrimination on the grounds of colour was against their core values.

Nothing could underline the contorted posturing of academia and politicians on supporting underprivileged youth than this. Poor white boys can expect a worse educational outcome than poor black boys, but somehow this fact is inconvenient when ethnically focused help is directed towards whites and not blacks.

Grumpy was hugely impressed by pieces written by Trevor Phillips (former Head of the Equality Commission and himself black) who trashed the ‘self-righteous guilt tripping’ offered by these organisations when faced with evidence based support for the disadvantaged of the wrong colour i.e. white. His intervention brings the weight needed to re-balance efforts in seeking to improve equality of opportunity for young people.

Twisted logic

Another Feminist has entered the battle – one assumes from a self publicity angle rather than ideological purposes – to make a London men’s club – the Garrick – accept women as members. This is Oxford PPE graduate Emily Bendel who has formed a lingerie company, and is being hailed as an example of the thrusting (is that he right word?) confidence of young female entrepreneurs. [Grumpy cannot help but comment that on-line lingerie merchandising is not exactly innovative as a business concept.]

In spite of her Oxford education and presumably lots of upper echelon contacts, Emily had no idea that men only clubs existed, or so she told the Daily Mail. Her attack on the Garrick seems to be driven by a philosophical feminist motive rather than any wish to actually join the Club. Her feminist credentials are underlined by her approach that seductive lingerie is not bought by women to be seductive, but for their own self-actualisation and the pleasure of (presumably) looking in themselves in the mirror. The ‘Social Responsibility’ page on the website states that ‘The Future is Female. ‘

She is seemingly one of the “my peep hole bras and crotchless panties have nothing to do with sex or titillating men” feminists. Oddly, she started off selling vibrators for Anne Summers, although this maybe underlines the ‘self love’ take on her frillies. However, her philosophy (in her own words) for the company is “to redefine sensuality. We design for spirited women that buy lingerie to please themselves and we have pioneered the ‘underwear as outerwear’ trend”. In common with most corporate mission statements this is essentially syntax without semantics, and the juxtaposition of the words doesn’t actually convey any understandable meaning about the company goals.

{Frankly, Grumpy wasn’t aware that the current trend was for him to put his M+S underwear on the outside of his jeans, but he probably moves in the wrong circles.]

However, to the point Grumpy wishes to make. Emily’s ignorance of men only clubs presumably extends to a lack of knowledge of a fast growing sector in London – women only clubs, of which an abundance can be found by a simple Google search. Their existence underlines the conundrum feminists like Emily today have to face; how to harass the gander with needing to having to do the same for the goose.

Normally the answer is to simply take the view that geese and gander don’t have to follow the same rules. Gender equality is a weapon against men but women (delicate flowers that they are) are excused. It’s the Stella Creasy MP school of logic where men will be jailed for misogyny but women are free to practise misandry at will. Similarly, check out Durham University’s student president – presumably elected to represent all students – who publicly declared that she was a ‘misandrist till I die’ as an example of this asymmetric breed.

Nevertheless, Grumpy wishes good luck to Ms Bendell with her lawsuit, but at the same time, for the sake of rationality, equality and one for the boys, he hopes the Judge consigns it to the waste bin of other ‘stunt’ actions.

More information :

The Bluebella website has the normal corporate dung about climate change on its “Social Responsibility” page, and the purely tokenist actions taken to salve their consciences for being in one the the major sectors contributing to warming, ecological damage and third world poverty – see link

See Grumpy’s justification for the ‘tokenist’ comment above here

.. and on Stella Creasy here

On the asymmetry of of female reactions to male ‘voyeurism’ vs the actions of women to deliberately titillate see here and here

Pointless climate actions

Rarely a day goes by without reading of some new UK initiative with regard to climate change. Sadly (as pointed out in several posts here) the vast majority are pointless, and often dumb, tokenism. Worse, there often seems to be a conflation with plastic pollution, when forces here often actually conflict.

What is now many years ago, right wing conservative politicians would rant against extreme left wing (normally in London) councils about their lack of financial probity, but, as with climate issues, the targets of their invective were generally wrong. They would, for example, call out a council for employing a poet (yes, those were the days ..) as trashing ratepayers money, but the reality is that in the scope of their total expenditure it was not a material matter. It was the wrong argument.

That error is being repeated in spades on the environment, and climate policy makers and pressure groups need to get real. The UK does not generate 98.8% of global emissions. The US, China and India alone collectively generate more than 50%, so just like the poet, expending effort on saving 10% of 1.2% which are UK emissions will not stop the oceans from boiling. Unless and until the aforementioned three become wedded to significant and prompt action, activities here will remain what they are i.e. pointless tokens by self- satisfied and smug people.

To show the scope of this problem, in recent weeks, Trump has turned his attention to ‘windmills’; “the energy is unreliable and terrible” (twitter) / “the noise causes cancer ” (speech, December 2019). We can set aside his bizarre statements at rallies, however, and look to actions. The EPA has been steadily rolling back on environmental protections implemented by Obama such as restrictions on coal fired power generation (June 2019), so Trump can get support from Wyoming miners. Screw the world, get elected for term 2.

China’s emissions, of course, are significantly impacted by the Western world exporting its own emissions by importing manufactured goods from China. Also, the UK is now the biggest net importer of CO2 emissions in the G7, through imports of foreign goods.

So enough of the token, back-slapping but pointless exercises. No more talk of dates to achieve something which are patent nonsense, as they are simply don’t impact at all on the global picture. There is an English (or should it be British) trait that somehow ‘we must do our bit’. This feels comforting and self-righteous, but is an intellectually bankrupt approach – the only way to counter global warming from a UK perspective is to support the facilitation of global agreements which the big three will subscribe to… and right now that looks a long way off.

Lib-dem manipulation

As the Lib-Dem manifesto is published, it is clear that either (a) their policy research employees are particularly poor, or (b) they deliberately use disproved memes to connect with various ‘focus group’ touch points they think will strike a chord with their target electorate regardless of their veracity. Grumpy is particularly astonished that they have trotted out the tarnished ‘sock in pants’ theme as a headline to bolster their female focused agenda.

A motion at Conference will note that “Approximately 40 per cent of girls in the UK have used toilet roll because they couldn’t afford sanitary products.”.

The topic of ‘period poverty’ was brought into wider focus by labour MP Danielle Rowley who announced to the Commons that she was having a period (urggghhh, TMI), and made an assertion about costs of sanitary products, thus pointing to the ‘rolled up newspaper / toilet paper / socks in pants’ stories as part of a push to to make such products ‘free’ (or in reality, paid for by taxpayers) . (See link here ) Her idiotic assertions (for example implying she changed a tampon as frequently as every 5 minutes of every waking hour) was testament the the lack of validity of argument so prevalent in today’s politicians.

The ’40 percent of girls’ meme quoted as a headline for the conference probably came from an article by Guardian writer Amika George (see link ), who merely regurgitated dumb statistics which were patently unsupportable. Grumpy did a reasonably comprehensive analysis of the assertions, which he summarised here ). The backing data for these various stories was statistically naive in the extreme.

It’s a pity to see that the Lib-Dems are so seemingly poorly researched in checking facts which underline their policy themes; alternatively, if they have deliberately chosen to promote unsupportable figures for political purposes, it destroys their claims to hold the moral high ground (low as that may be) in British politics.

[Grumpy cheerfully admits to re-touching what the Daily Mail would call Ms Swinson’s ‘ample assets’ to effect a disgracefully sexist example of manipulation. We can all do it.]