The old phrase 'methinks he doth protest too much' is frequently an insight that something is genuinely amiss. And so I find myself thinking of MMR.
Let's be clear from the off, whilst the vaccination programme is to protect children the multiple jabs are to save money. It then became political. I don't know if the claims by Dr Andrew Wakefield that there is a link between the MMR injection and autism were correct. But what I did see was the full force of government and its authority lackeys being deployed to discredit and get rid of him.
Proving him wrong didn't seem to be a strategy. He was in the pay of drug companies who stood to profit, was unprofessional, his work not rigorous, anything but actual evidence. It caused consternation and people became fearful of the multiple vaccination. Some wanted to have single injections, spaced out but the government refused to allow doctors to provide this service, even if the parents volunteered to pay.
Why was that? All they could offer was a weak 'people will forget and not get their children vaccinated'. But of course, if a groundswell grew wanting single injections the battle would be lost. MMR had to stay.
Now an advert has appeared on a website claiming the link to autism again and it has immediately been banned. Such prompt action rarely signifies something good when the government is involved. Too much protesting, I think.
A bit like the silence over the deaths of farmers after compulsory sheep dipping, using government approved chemicals was introduced. The government don't want to investigate that at all, yet it is accepted fact that Organophosphates act on the nervous system and build up with repeated exposure. Some things are less important than others and a Minister being embarrassed is best avoided, even at the expense of people's lives.
Wednesday, 8 August 2012
Home Advantage
It is certainly the case that the noisy home crowd cheering on British athletes is having a positive effect on performances, perhaps even giving the edge sometimes. But otherwise it is just hard work that is turning up our medals.
It hasn't stopped the whingers though, like France and Spain complaining about bias (or cheating). What we have seen though is the opposite. In pommel horse, a clearly unfinished routine that was terminated by the Japanese athlete falling off, was upgraded in marks when the Japanese ludicrously claimed the fall was a 'dismount;. This knocked the British lads to Bronze.
Victoria Pendleton is nudged by the ever professional Australian Meares and in an effort to stay upright crosses a line she should stay inside. Guess who gets penalised? Cycling had of course, already changed some rules in an effort to dent British success at Olympics, but similar US dominance of swimming was fine.
Before the Triathlon the Brownlee brothers are warned that if they cross the line together they will be disqualified. That is assuming they are going to win and that they have such a plan. In the event a penalty was dreamed up to separate them. and the penalty is served by stopping the athlete for 15 seconds, which in such a tough race must be physically damaging if not dangerous. Was it in some way to blame for Jonathan Brownlee's subsequent collapse?
Other countries seem to get enormous latitude. Like a runner banned from the Games for not trying in the 800m, who then produces a doctor's note to say he was injured, but goes on to win the 1500m the next day.
It hasn't stopped the whingers though, like France and Spain complaining about bias (or cheating). What we have seen though is the opposite. In pommel horse, a clearly unfinished routine that was terminated by the Japanese athlete falling off, was upgraded in marks when the Japanese ludicrously claimed the fall was a 'dismount;. This knocked the British lads to Bronze.
Victoria Pendleton is nudged by the ever professional Australian Meares and in an effort to stay upright crosses a line she should stay inside. Guess who gets penalised? Cycling had of course, already changed some rules in an effort to dent British success at Olympics, but similar US dominance of swimming was fine.
Before the Triathlon the Brownlee brothers are warned that if they cross the line together they will be disqualified. That is assuming they are going to win and that they have such a plan. In the event a penalty was dreamed up to separate them. and the penalty is served by stopping the athlete for 15 seconds, which in such a tough race must be physically damaging if not dangerous. Was it in some way to blame for Jonathan Brownlee's subsequent collapse?
Other countries seem to get enormous latitude. Like a runner banned from the Games for not trying in the 800m, who then produces a doctor's note to say he was injured, but goes on to win the 1500m the next day.
Magic Wheels
Well the Velodrome has certainly seen some excitement these Olympics. And Britain has a particular skill it seems in cycling. Or not, according to the French. They feel that to be beaten something underhand must be going on and the object of their suspicion is our wheels.
Yes, the wheels on the British bikes, made in France are apparently 'magic wheels'. In what way they haven't said, but maybe as they arrive in England we sprinkle Pixie dust on them. Maybe the French officials need dope testing. Maybe they are just dopes!
Yes, the wheels on the British bikes, made in France are apparently 'magic wheels'. In what way they haven't said, but maybe as they arrive in England we sprinkle Pixie dust on them. Maybe the French officials need dope testing. Maybe they are just dopes!
Tuesday, 7 August 2012
Who Are These People
Someone called Morrisey, who came to light mistaking wailing for a musical enterprise, has availed us of his insight into the Olympics and Britain. He feels that the nation supporting the hard work and endeavours of its athletes against those of other countries, makes us Nazis. It is 'foul patriotism' he feels. I presume, as he is spouting at the host nation, that the support for other nations is different, otherwise the whole World would be Nazis (except him, I guess - he may want to look paranoia up in the dictionary).
I think he mistakes hatred of other nations and races for supporting your own kin. To follow Morrisey logic, I would guess he dislikes his family as to do otherwise might be the first glimmering of Nazi tendencies, surely. Certainly they would be justified in finding the whining git a drain.
Honestly, I think taking any notice of what Morrisey has to say on the subject is pointless. He should concentrate more on his chosen industry at which he is poor enough already. Giving credence to his political views, would be like putting Boris Johnson in for the 100 metre final.
I think he mistakes hatred of other nations and races for supporting your own kin. To follow Morrisey logic, I would guess he dislikes his family as to do otherwise might be the first glimmering of Nazi tendencies, surely. Certainly they would be justified in finding the whining git a drain.
Honestly, I think taking any notice of what Morrisey has to say on the subject is pointless. He should concentrate more on his chosen industry at which he is poor enough already. Giving credence to his political views, would be like putting Boris Johnson in for the 100 metre final.
Clegg The Clown
Nick Clegg and his band of misfits continue to demonstrate their unsuitability for high office. Having lied to their supporters and abandoned principle to get into power (I struggle to write this, as if Lib Dems ever have principles!), these bunch of half wits now are having childish tantrums.
Claiming some agreement has been broken over reform of the House of Lords (I prefer, 'change' to 'reform', as reform suggests better), the untrustworthy Lib Dems have decided to strike back at the Tories by opposing boundary changes. These changes are actually required for the proper running of democracy, as strangely after 13 years of Labour, the constituency framework aids Labour victories.
The Lib Dems have broken their side of the bargain more often and deeper than the Tories, and even let their supporters down, when it suits them. At least it shows Cameron as still being the least worst of the three otherwise identikit 'leaders;.
Claiming some agreement has been broken over reform of the House of Lords (I prefer, 'change' to 'reform', as reform suggests better), the untrustworthy Lib Dems have decided to strike back at the Tories by opposing boundary changes. These changes are actually required for the proper running of democracy, as strangely after 13 years of Labour, the constituency framework aids Labour victories.
The Lib Dems have broken their side of the bargain more often and deeper than the Tories, and even let their supporters down, when it suits them. At least it shows Cameron as still being the least worst of the three otherwise identikit 'leaders;.
Friday, 3 August 2012
Recruitment - The Waste
The economy is in a mess and it seems it is mainly the politicians who are struggling to cope, industry just gets on with it's job. Clearly the issue is between the pillocks in parliament and the hordes of useless and costly bureaucrats 13 years of Labour has saddled us with. Generally a Conservative government comes in to clear it up, but today we don't have that, we have a coalition and the Conservative bit is run by David Cameron! Disastrous.
But that is not quite the end of it, something has infected of workplace, in the private sector. Ultimately it's roots can be traced back to Left ideology but it has taken on something of a disguise and pretends to some respectability. It is a branch of Political Correctness I suppose and is an adjunct of the red tape that is strangling business.
What I speak of is the poor state of recruitment in this country. Recruitment agencies are a raw barometer of the way recruitment is carried out as it just reacts to circumstance. So, whilst not without blame it, as an industry is just doing what it has to, to survive.
The real problem lies in the power of Human Resources. This powerful political group in any company can be a friend or foe both to the economy and it's own employer. Originally the 'Personnel' department looked after the employee side of a business, making sure relations were handled within the law and maintaining records of disciplinary matters etc. The department was important but served the company and the hiring Managers.
But as legislation affecting employment increased, whether as a result of bored politicians looking for something to do or the meddling of the EU, so the nature of the beast changed. Personnel became Human Resources, the better to reflect their new found power within a company. No executive dared go against HR, nor seek to make changes without their approval. HR pushed a number of agendas, all legally based but ultimately damaging.
No HR person concerns themselves with the utility of any measure they insist upon, nor its impact. Instead it reflects their importance. And blunt the company they certainly do. I remember a chap who had been a HR Director with a large IT outsourcing company saying his view was that HR was the 'contraceptive on the prick of progress'. A little colourful perhaps, but true nonetheless. Recruiters called them 'recruitment prevention officers'.
This was in the Nineties when the rise of HR was only just starting. As this Left wing based industry undermined its paymasters, so it decided to further extol its importance. Clearly the hiring of staff was a job beneath their dignity, it was little more than a paper exercise, time consuming and of little interest. Worse it seemed to maintain the 'servant' status of their department; it was hived off. HR set up a separate recruitment arm to handle this mundane activity, hiring ex-agency staff.
The recruitment process for HR (whether they handle it themselves or instruct a recruitment section) became ever more bureaucratic. Either the person seeking a job had to fill out a fairly pointless and usually carelessly designed Application Form or a CV would be accepted on its own. These would be received against a published Job Specification that was either written by HR, to conform to their ideas of whom the company should employ, with a nod to any technical qualifications the role may require or they would instruct a hiring manager how to do his own.
The Spec usually contains some 'must haves' which aren't often essential but would be a good pointer. HR give a cursory glance to incoming CV's against these and any lack means it gets no further. The Application Form is worse as it rarely allows the candidate to explain how they are suitable for the job at all. For HR it is just an exercise in getting the paper from one side of the desk to the other.
A hiring Manager chooses his candidates to interview from a pile decided on by HR, who neither understand the job role nor the candidate. They have no interest in acquiring the best candidate, they just want to clear their desk (or Inbox these days).
If a hiring Manager gets to speak to the outside world an entirely different process takes place. Rarely does the actual needs of that Manager match what is published in a Job Spec (indeed good recruitment consultants get a better feel for what the company wants than even the Manager realises, because they talk to other companies with similar needs).
The recruitment of a new employee takes on a whole new dimension and often completely different people get interviewed. This is rare however. And it is the stranglehold that HR have insisted upon on the way people are recruited that has undermined the stength of many UK companies.
Recruitment agencies now rarely bother with the quality of a candidate or suitability, they just box tick (to the delight of HR, who supply the boxes to tick) and send off volumes; something should stick. Needless to say, HR feel this lack of 'targeted' quality in incoming CV's is due to the low quality of recruiters (fast becoming true, due to their actions) and improves their facetious opinion of their own superiority.
It doesn't need to be like this and it is damaging Britain. When you come across a dedicated HR professional, who sees the job very much as supporting the company, it is an absolute delight.
But that is not quite the end of it, something has infected of workplace, in the private sector. Ultimately it's roots can be traced back to Left ideology but it has taken on something of a disguise and pretends to some respectability. It is a branch of Political Correctness I suppose and is an adjunct of the red tape that is strangling business.
What I speak of is the poor state of recruitment in this country. Recruitment agencies are a raw barometer of the way recruitment is carried out as it just reacts to circumstance. So, whilst not without blame it, as an industry is just doing what it has to, to survive.
The real problem lies in the power of Human Resources. This powerful political group in any company can be a friend or foe both to the economy and it's own employer. Originally the 'Personnel' department looked after the employee side of a business, making sure relations were handled within the law and maintaining records of disciplinary matters etc. The department was important but served the company and the hiring Managers.
But as legislation affecting employment increased, whether as a result of bored politicians looking for something to do or the meddling of the EU, so the nature of the beast changed. Personnel became Human Resources, the better to reflect their new found power within a company. No executive dared go against HR, nor seek to make changes without their approval. HR pushed a number of agendas, all legally based but ultimately damaging.
No HR person concerns themselves with the utility of any measure they insist upon, nor its impact. Instead it reflects their importance. And blunt the company they certainly do. I remember a chap who had been a HR Director with a large IT outsourcing company saying his view was that HR was the 'contraceptive on the prick of progress'. A little colourful perhaps, but true nonetheless. Recruiters called them 'recruitment prevention officers'.
This was in the Nineties when the rise of HR was only just starting. As this Left wing based industry undermined its paymasters, so it decided to further extol its importance. Clearly the hiring of staff was a job beneath their dignity, it was little more than a paper exercise, time consuming and of little interest. Worse it seemed to maintain the 'servant' status of their department; it was hived off. HR set up a separate recruitment arm to handle this mundane activity, hiring ex-agency staff.
The recruitment process for HR (whether they handle it themselves or instruct a recruitment section) became ever more bureaucratic. Either the person seeking a job had to fill out a fairly pointless and usually carelessly designed Application Form or a CV would be accepted on its own. These would be received against a published Job Specification that was either written by HR, to conform to their ideas of whom the company should employ, with a nod to any technical qualifications the role may require or they would instruct a hiring manager how to do his own.
The Spec usually contains some 'must haves' which aren't often essential but would be a good pointer. HR give a cursory glance to incoming CV's against these and any lack means it gets no further. The Application Form is worse as it rarely allows the candidate to explain how they are suitable for the job at all. For HR it is just an exercise in getting the paper from one side of the desk to the other.
A hiring Manager chooses his candidates to interview from a pile decided on by HR, who neither understand the job role nor the candidate. They have no interest in acquiring the best candidate, they just want to clear their desk (or Inbox these days).
If a hiring Manager gets to speak to the outside world an entirely different process takes place. Rarely does the actual needs of that Manager match what is published in a Job Spec (indeed good recruitment consultants get a better feel for what the company wants than even the Manager realises, because they talk to other companies with similar needs).
The recruitment of a new employee takes on a whole new dimension and often completely different people get interviewed. This is rare however. And it is the stranglehold that HR have insisted upon on the way people are recruited that has undermined the stength of many UK companies.
Recruitment agencies now rarely bother with the quality of a candidate or suitability, they just box tick (to the delight of HR, who supply the boxes to tick) and send off volumes; something should stick. Needless to say, HR feel this lack of 'targeted' quality in incoming CV's is due to the low quality of recruiters (fast becoming true, due to their actions) and improves their facetious opinion of their own superiority.
It doesn't need to be like this and it is damaging Britain. When you come across a dedicated HR professional, who sees the job very much as supporting the company, it is an absolute delight.
Thursday, 2 August 2012
It's The Stupid Economy
The economy has slowed due in part to the Olympics. I'm not surprised, so many people seem to be watching it, either by taking time off work or downing tools at key moments to follow the sport. But we also hear the problems are due to the Eurozone, which is less forgiveable.
No intelligent person would have considered ramming countries together against their will to be a good idea, as if the USSR hadn't already shown us. But politicians and anything outside narrow self interest don't usually go together, so they stormed ahead with stupid idea after stupid idea, to support their 'dream'.
Of course the single currency was merely a ploy to cause a crisis by which the technocrats could say the only solution, is to create a single superstate, under their completely non-democratic rule. It hasn't quite happened that way. And the people of the European nations, far from agreeing to unending subjugation, have realised the strength of shared experience and cultural similarity (something Blair's unlimited immigration was designed to undermine).
One very real and damaging aspect is the concentration of trading with our European 'partners'. This has been trumpeted as a reason to be 'in Europe', by which they mean the political EU, but in fact is incestuous and a poor strategy. Britain used to trade with the World, but the EU insisted we stopped. Now the folly of that is being thrown into the light, as the whole of the European economy is thrown into chaos by, er, the financial policies of the EU.
If Britain continued to act independently, as sovereign nation our problems would be so much less (and we would have at least £53 million a day more to spend for ourselves). The technocrats of the EU are bringing the continent to the brink of war. It would say that it is the nationalism of individual countries that is causing the tension, with the Germans hating the 'lazy' Greeks and their demands for German money and the Greeks hating German 'arrogance' and demands that Greece does as Germany bids.
But this is not so. It is the fact that these people are culturally different and the EU refuses to recognise the fact that is causing the problems. In essence what Germany and Greece say about each other is true, it only matters, only has impact because the EU forces them together.
Everyone thinks of Spain as 'just like Britain', only sunnier. But Spain has been a democracy for only 35 years. Everything in France is illegal unless the State decides to allow it. The same has slowly become true in Britain since 1973, but no-one has told you of this massive break with traditional British law. It has not been explained that it used to be that everything was legal unless the government made it illegal. And the government could be replaced.
During the recent Olympics there has been some whining (I'll let you guess where from), about the 'National Anthem'. Why, they ask is it played when a Scotch person wins a Gold? The answer is because, since 1707 this nation has been known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain (and Northern Ireland, since 1927). That country has a National Anthem. The confusion arises because it has become popular to play songs before sporting events in the regions of the Kingdom. 'Flower of Scotland' is a song, not a national anthem.
Part of the problem of course is the Scottish 'parliament' and its suggestion that Scotland is, or could be in some way independent. Scotland was given a local council, as was Wales, with slightly different names, because they are listed in the EU bible as 'Regions'. When the superstate comes they will be like counties are now, within the pan-European remit of the government in Brussels. The English haven't allowed this to happen and have forced the abandonment of the 'regional authorities', (except for 'London').
It is an example though of how successful the schemes of the politicians and technocrats are at sowing the seeds of division, when intending to break apart existing bonds. Whilst we remain in the EU the lies will keep rolling in and the money keep rolling out. If you stopped doing the stupid things the politicians love and dismantled the bureaucracy built to support it, we could rapidly get ourselves out of debt. In about a fortnight.
No intelligent person would have considered ramming countries together against their will to be a good idea, as if the USSR hadn't already shown us. But politicians and anything outside narrow self interest don't usually go together, so they stormed ahead with stupid idea after stupid idea, to support their 'dream'.
Of course the single currency was merely a ploy to cause a crisis by which the technocrats could say the only solution, is to create a single superstate, under their completely non-democratic rule. It hasn't quite happened that way. And the people of the European nations, far from agreeing to unending subjugation, have realised the strength of shared experience and cultural similarity (something Blair's unlimited immigration was designed to undermine).
One very real and damaging aspect is the concentration of trading with our European 'partners'. This has been trumpeted as a reason to be 'in Europe', by which they mean the political EU, but in fact is incestuous and a poor strategy. Britain used to trade with the World, but the EU insisted we stopped. Now the folly of that is being thrown into the light, as the whole of the European economy is thrown into chaos by, er, the financial policies of the EU.
If Britain continued to act independently, as sovereign nation our problems would be so much less (and we would have at least £53 million a day more to spend for ourselves). The technocrats of the EU are bringing the continent to the brink of war. It would say that it is the nationalism of individual countries that is causing the tension, with the Germans hating the 'lazy' Greeks and their demands for German money and the Greeks hating German 'arrogance' and demands that Greece does as Germany bids.
But this is not so. It is the fact that these people are culturally different and the EU refuses to recognise the fact that is causing the problems. In essence what Germany and Greece say about each other is true, it only matters, only has impact because the EU forces them together.
Everyone thinks of Spain as 'just like Britain', only sunnier. But Spain has been a democracy for only 35 years. Everything in France is illegal unless the State decides to allow it. The same has slowly become true in Britain since 1973, but no-one has told you of this massive break with traditional British law. It has not been explained that it used to be that everything was legal unless the government made it illegal. And the government could be replaced.
During the recent Olympics there has been some whining (I'll let you guess where from), about the 'National Anthem'. Why, they ask is it played when a Scotch person wins a Gold? The answer is because, since 1707 this nation has been known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain (and Northern Ireland, since 1927). That country has a National Anthem. The confusion arises because it has become popular to play songs before sporting events in the regions of the Kingdom. 'Flower of Scotland' is a song, not a national anthem.
Part of the problem of course is the Scottish 'parliament' and its suggestion that Scotland is, or could be in some way independent. Scotland was given a local council, as was Wales, with slightly different names, because they are listed in the EU bible as 'Regions'. When the superstate comes they will be like counties are now, within the pan-European remit of the government in Brussels. The English haven't allowed this to happen and have forced the abandonment of the 'regional authorities', (except for 'London').
It is an example though of how successful the schemes of the politicians and technocrats are at sowing the seeds of division, when intending to break apart existing bonds. Whilst we remain in the EU the lies will keep rolling in and the money keep rolling out. If you stopped doing the stupid things the politicians love and dismantled the bureaucracy built to support it, we could rapidly get ourselves out of debt. In about a fortnight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)