BBC Story 27th July 2009
From: Illinois Cook (illinoisc@hotmail.com)
Sent: 27 July 2009 11:43:34
To: ministers@dwp.gsi.gov.uk
Cc: public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk; Esmee Russell (esmee.russell@ace.org.uk); Maria Dillon (maria.dillon@acth.org.uk)
Dear Sir/Madam,
In the following story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8169859.stm
A spokesman from your department is quoted as countering the EC’s figures about poverty amoung UK elderly.
Firstly a claim is made by your department that ‘even the poorest UK pensioners were better off than those living in other countries’.
Since the EC figures show that the poorest UK pensioners are living in poverty, the poorest of these are undoubtedly living in dire straits. Add to this the obvious difficulties in the definitions involved, and this claim is clearly at best nonsense and at worst misleading.
The second claim, from a DWP ‘spokesman’ is quoted as follows:
"In 1997 our pensioners' income was well below the European average. Today their income is nearly 10% higher than the EU average."
Again, since the EC figures show that a high percentage of our pensioners are living in poverty, and poverty is measured after incomes, this does not contradict the EC figures at all.
Indeed, if as I suspect the percentages given in the previous quote are average figures, then it seems the DWP doesn’t care about the poorest UK pensioners at all.
It would seem that although we have gone from having incomes well below the European average, to incomes higher than the average, 1 in five of our pensioners are skipping meals to save money, and the level of old age poverty in the UK is 50% higher than most leading European economies, as is mentioned elsewhere in the BBC report.
Would you agree with me that the DWP response is therefore a highly embarrassing one, and one which brings your department into disrepute?
Yours sincerely,
Illinois Cook
Monday, 27 July 2009
Sunday, 26 July 2009
The Weekly Gripe
The Weekly Gripe is a place that echoes many of the posts here, the consumer-flavoured ones anyway.
By the way, anyone on Delicious or Digg?
By the way, anyone on Delicious or Digg?
Monday, 15 June 2009
Iran story in a teacup
1) Many people in Iran are no doubt fed up with the government - just like in Broken Britain.
2) The regime in Iran may well be a harsh one for it's internal critics. Police beat people up at demonstrations in both countries.
3) The CIA may be part-financing regime change in Iran, just like it did in so many other countries. The fact that the West has invaded two neighbouring countries and ruined them, and is interfering in every country in the region, as well as Iran's own nuclear programme, probably also applies negative pressure on the state of Iran.
4) The 'green revolution' has the same chance of success as any other revolution.
5) Ahmadinejad is just another leader, an elected leader, of a country. What he has said about Israel is correct, including "The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time". This would be the minimum requirement for a just outcome after the many crimes Israel has committed. This does not mean they want to commit genocide.
6) There are 20,000 Jews living in peace in Iran, they have a member of parliament.
7) Ahmadinejad apparently said The Holocaust is a myth. He meant that The Holocaust is being used a myth by supporters of Israel, which is very well explained and supported in Norman Finkelstein's book: "Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History". U of California P, ISBN 0-520-24598-9. 2nd updated edition, U of Cal. P. June 2008, ISBN 0520249895,
And judging by the title is probably explained in:
"The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering", Verso, ISBN 1-85984-488-X.
I think it would be better reporting if the headlines used against Iran's regime today were directed at the racist state of Israel, who are waging a war against a poor section of their own country, and using them as slave labour, after expelling them from their homes and land 60 years ago (see Ilan Pappe: "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine", London and New York: Oneworld, 2006. ISBN 1851684670), and are still getting away with it, and are somehow succeeding in getting media coverage which portrays THEM as the peacemakers.
2) The regime in Iran may well be a harsh one for it's internal critics. Police beat people up at demonstrations in both countries.
3) The CIA may be part-financing regime change in Iran, just like it did in so many other countries. The fact that the West has invaded two neighbouring countries and ruined them, and is interfering in every country in the region, as well as Iran's own nuclear programme, probably also applies negative pressure on the state of Iran.
4) The 'green revolution' has the same chance of success as any other revolution.
5) Ahmadinejad is just another leader, an elected leader, of a country. What he has said about Israel is correct, including "The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time". This would be the minimum requirement for a just outcome after the many crimes Israel has committed. This does not mean they want to commit genocide.
6) There are 20,000 Jews living in peace in Iran, they have a member of parliament.
7) Ahmadinejad apparently said The Holocaust is a myth. He meant that The Holocaust is being used a myth by supporters of Israel, which is very well explained and supported in Norman Finkelstein's book: "Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History". U of California P, ISBN 0-520-24598-9. 2nd updated edition, U of Cal. P. June 2008, ISBN 0520249895,
And judging by the title is probably explained in:
"The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering", Verso, ISBN 1-85984-488-X.
I think it would be better reporting if the headlines used against Iran's regime today were directed at the racist state of Israel, who are waging a war against a poor section of their own country, and using them as slave labour, after expelling them from their homes and land 60 years ago (see Ilan Pappe: "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine", London and New York: Oneworld, 2006. ISBN 1851684670), and are still getting away with it, and are somehow succeeding in getting media coverage which portrays THEM as the peacemakers.
Wednesday, 3 June 2009
Buses (in London?)
Surveys by MORON and GALL indicate the recent trend, scientifically stated as follows: 'Cretins standing at the front of the bus, and not moving right down into the carriage unless under strong verbal encouragement from fellow passengers, even then it's all you can do to climb over them to get to the stairs,[on doubledeckers..]' is, you guessed it, on the increase.
They benefit, and this is my guess at the Cretin worldview, from not having to get close to other sitters, not having to ask people to move bags/coats/coatflaps, not having to move past other cretins, but also if the bus driver cannot denude the very front of the bus he will not stop to pick up more passengers, the cretin journey may be shorter in elapsed time
This never used to happen. I don't need to point out that while this disaster is happening on the downstairs of the bus, where there is some space at the back, there are usually PLENTY OF SEATS UPSTAIRS.
You're amazing. We want you to stay away.
They benefit, and this is my guess at the Cretin worldview, from not having to get close to other sitters, not having to ask people to move bags/coats/coatflaps, not having to move past other cretins, but also if the bus driver cannot denude the very front of the bus he will not stop to pick up more passengers, the cretin journey may be shorter in elapsed time
This never used to happen. I don't need to point out that while this disaster is happening on the downstairs of the bus, where there is some space at the back, there are usually PLENTY OF SEATS UPSTAIRS.
You're amazing. We want you to stay away.
Friday, 22 May 2009
Re: Contact O2 (KMM411124284V2029L0KM)
From: mycarewebform (mycarewebform@o2mail.co.uk)
Sent: 22 May 2009 14:44:25
To: Mr Cook (emailandevennamewithheld@spam.global)
Good Afternoon Mr Cook Thanks for emailing us about the deposit of £100.00. The deposit of £100.00 including VAT (Value Added Tax) is adjusted against the outstanding balance of £9.82 including VAT on your bill dated 23 April 2009. You can view this credit under the 'Balance brought forward' section of your April bill. This is why your April bill was £90.18 including VAT in credit. I've arranged this credit to be transferred to your bank account. It'll be transferred within 5 to 10 working days. I'm sorry for any inconvenience that may have been caused. I hope you'll find this information useful.
-Yes, I've found some information within that paragraph useful. You don't defend the fact that you lied about when you'd be giving the bond back, nor my accusation that taking it in the first place was unnecessary, so what should I deduce from that, do you think?
By the way, have you heard about our service called Analyse my bill? You can too create reports in the form of Pie chart, Bar Graph or Data table on your bill data. For more information and details check the 'Analyse my bill' section of your online bill.
Important - When you email us please provide: your date of birth, postcode and mobile number as it helps us answer your query faster.
-Important back atcha, I did provide all the info above except date of birth, and I don't believe that was asked for anywhere.
Kind regards Deepa BhandariO2 Customer Service Getting your query right the first time you email us is very important to us. If your query has not been resolved this time, please reply to this email with the words 'Need More Help' in the subject field. Telefónica O2 UK Limited, Registered in England No 1743099. Registered Office: 260 Bath Road, Slough, Berkshire SL1 4DX.
From: mycarewebform (mycarewebform@o2mail.co.uk)
Sent: 22 May 2009 14:44:25
To: Mr Cook (emailandevennamewithheld@spam.global)
Good Afternoon Mr Cook Thanks for emailing us about the deposit of £100.00. The deposit of £100.00 including VAT (Value Added Tax) is adjusted against the outstanding balance of £9.82 including VAT on your bill dated 23 April 2009. You can view this credit under the 'Balance brought forward' section of your April bill. This is why your April bill was £90.18 including VAT in credit. I've arranged this credit to be transferred to your bank account. It'll be transferred within 5 to 10 working days. I'm sorry for any inconvenience that may have been caused. I hope you'll find this information useful.
-Yes, I've found some information within that paragraph useful. You don't defend the fact that you lied about when you'd be giving the bond back, nor my accusation that taking it in the first place was unnecessary, so what should I deduce from that, do you think?
By the way, have you heard about our service called Analyse my bill? You can too create reports in the form of Pie chart, Bar Graph or Data table on your bill data. For more information and details check the 'Analyse my bill' section of your online bill.
Important - When you email us please provide: your date of birth, postcode and mobile number as it helps us answer your query faster.
-Important back atcha, I did provide all the info above except date of birth, and I don't believe that was asked for anywhere.
Kind regards Deepa BhandariO2 Customer Service Getting your query right the first time you email us is very important to us. If your query has not been resolved this time, please reply to this email with the words 'Need More Help' in the subject field. Telefónica O2 UK Limited, Registered in England No 1743099. Registered Office: 260 Bath Road, Slough, Berkshire SL1 4DX.
You're Sneaky O2
When signing up I was apparently unnecessarily asked for a £100 bond. This was to be repaid to me after 3 months. Now I find that instead of repaying the bond, you're keeping my money and just debiting what I owe every month. This appears a dishonest thing to do. It enables you to keep my money for a whole year, without grounds. Please take this opportunity to defend your actions, following which I will decide whether to take the matter further. Yours sincerely, I Cook
Monday, 4 May 2009
Climate
Just read a letter that the climate scientist David Archer sent to Nature magazine. He co-wrote it with Gavin Schmidt, another climate scientist. In it he talks about CO2 stabilization targets. And he specifically refers to the definition of climate sensitivity, in that many climate scientists are using the "traditional" Charney sensitivity, which excludes slow feedbacks. Thing is that I wrote to Archer a few weeks ago to point out exactly that, and I think I referred to Gavin Schmidt's blog post on realclimate.org. Archer never replied to my email. Maybe he was thinking about it anyway - who knows.
I'm going to email my friend Eberhard in the Munich Re georisks department and explain the climate sensitivity issue. If you think that there is a good chance that climate sensitivity is a high number, then it is impossible to recommend a high CO2 target. I want the Munich Re GeoRisks department to understand the climate sensitivity issue and to decide how likely it is that slow feedbacks are important. If they think that they are important then I will suggest that any high CO2 stabilization target gives guaranteed disaster. Hence the target has to be low. And I want to suggest that Munich Re has more expertise in risk than any politician, economist or climate scientist, there is no-one in a better position to recommend a target than the Munich Re Geo risks department. Then I want the Geo Risks department to convince Munich Re management to pick a low CO2 target (350) and lobby for it. Then I want Munich Re to convince Swiss Re to go for the target. That's the first stage. Watch this space.
I'm going to email my friend Eberhard in the Munich Re georisks department and explain the climate sensitivity issue. If you think that there is a good chance that climate sensitivity is a high number, then it is impossible to recommend a high CO2 target. I want the Munich Re GeoRisks department to understand the climate sensitivity issue and to decide how likely it is that slow feedbacks are important. If they think that they are important then I will suggest that any high CO2 stabilization target gives guaranteed disaster. Hence the target has to be low. And I want to suggest that Munich Re has more expertise in risk than any politician, economist or climate scientist, there is no-one in a better position to recommend a target than the Munich Re Geo risks department. Then I want the Geo Risks department to convince Munich Re management to pick a low CO2 target (350) and lobby for it. Then I want Munich Re to convince Swiss Re to go for the target. That's the first stage. Watch this space.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)