There has been much debate in the blogosphere about Ian Tomlinson, the newspaper seller killied during the G20 protests.
What seems aparrent is that the police and the Mainstream media are reporting the assault by a Police officer on Mr Tomlinson and his subsequent death as unrelated, or at best linked only tenuously. Basically their stance is he walked away and collapsed at least 5 minutes later, most reports showing a spot several yards down Cornhill as the sport where Mr Tomlinson collapsed. Also, they state there is no other video like CCTV showing the assault.
However, is that a true statement, because I've reviewed the video here.
Towards the end of the BBC video, it shows Mr Tomlinson being worked on by the Police and paramedics, actually in Royal Exchange Passage.
Now comparing the video of the assult and the tail end of the BBC video, it shows Mr Tomlinson didn't move very far at all, in fact he was being worked on only yards from where he was assaulted.
It also shows there was at least one other video camera covering exchange passage on the day.
I assume the camera must have already been there as its clearly only minutes after Mr Tomlinson collapsed, so where is the footage from the camera? Did it show the assault on Mr Tomlinson from a different angle or was any footage taken prior to the assault? I for one would be very interested to see what footage that camera took, because it has a birds-eye view of the whole scene.
He is assaulted and lands on the floor in front of Montblanc, then is shown at the end of the video being worked on over by Louis Vuitton.
Not much of a walk away from the scene is it?
Looking at Streetview, the Office Angels entrance the BBC say he collapsed in is 100 yards away from where they are actually treating him on the video at the end of Exchange Passage. If thats true, why would the Police and Ambulance drag him 100 yards back to the end of Exchange Passage before or during treating him? If the Police had bottles thrown at them as reported, why not dodge into Finch Lane?
I 've emailed the IPCC and they've replied, saying they will look into the video footage from the high-level camera.
Aparrently in a sop to the greens, Gordon Brown is announcing measures in the forthcoming budget to promote the use of electric cars, as reported here.
The problem is, battery-powered electric cars are an evolutionary dead end. Despite advances in bettery technology, they provide neither the range nor the short recharge times consumers demand in order to break through into the mainstream. They will remain a quirky toy, not a viable transport alternative.
As an example, there have been great advances in battery technology. Lithium-ion batteries can now be charged very rapidly, in fact there are now Li-on batteries that can be charged in very few minutes, which is great for the small voltages and currents used in consumer electrical items like ipods, walkmans and laptops.
Its a whole different ball game when it comes to traction: the movement of vehicles. Thats because larger voltages and currents are necessary in order to move a vehicle, and therefore a larger capacity battery is needed. Recharging that battery in a couple of minutes, would take several hundred amps.
For example, a tiny G-Whizz has a 200 Ampere Hour battery. Basically the battery can deliver (roughly) 200 amps of current for an hour before being exhausted. However, it also works in reverse. To charge the battery up in an hour, you'd need to supply just over 200 amps of current for that hour. Supplying that amount of current requires some chunky wiring. G-Whizz themselves supply a 1-hour charger, but it only charges to 90% of battery capacity and takes so much current from the mains, it needs a three-phase mains supply (only usually available to commercial users) to spread the load.
All of that hassle to take an hour to charge the battery? Now start to think about if you wanted to charge up the battery in half an hour, or 10 minutes. The impracticality of delivering a thousand amps of current in a consumer-safe way starts to hit home. Are we really going to adjust to waiting for an hour to recharge every 100 miles of travel? I don't think so.
So, what REALLY is the future of electrically-propelled transport?
Its Hydrogen fuel cell technology.
THATS where Gordon Brown needs to be investing his money, not in some already redundant technology.
Hydrogen fuel cells are green and the best thing is a car can be refuelled with Hydrogen in a similar amount of time to a petrol or diesel car. There is no radical change needed to our lifestyle.
Cars will be lots simpler too, because the number of moving parts will be reduced down to the motor, the transmission and suspension, then eventually as motors get incorporated into wheel hubs, only the four axles and the moving bits of the suspension will ever wear out. They will be lighter too, with no heavy engine and no heavy batteries compared to plug-in electric cars.
So when you hear the Chancellor and the PM bleating on about advancing environmental technology in the budget, if they invest in battery car technology you know they've been ill-advised, they're stupid, or they're telling lies.
What would I do? I'd announce a minimum-tax policy on the production, sale and purchase of hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles. I'd also announce minimum tax and zero duty on hydrogen used as fuel and tax rebates for installation of hydrogen fuel supply infrastructure.
Honda already have a Hydrogen fuel cell car in production called the Clarity, its been on Top Gear. If we give enough incentive to Honda, maybe we can save all those car-making jobs in Swindon and make Britain the Hydrogen fuel innovators of Europe.
But hey, I'm only a lowly blogger, what do I know?
I can add to that: It'll be 2014-15 by the time we actually do get out of recession. Thats because the government plan another fiscal stimulus amongst other stuff in the forthcoming budget, which will prolong the misery another 12 months.
I can't remember where I blogged it (probably commenting on Nick Robinson's blog, but I can't be arsed to find it), but last year I put a figure of 5-10 years on the depression. It looks like the money men are finally coming round to my way of thinking.
No-one wants to say it, but for various reasons every fiscal stimulus puts approximately another 12 months ONTO the length of the downturn, rather than make it shorter.
The Government missed a trick way back when the banks started to get into trouble. They should have secured depositors money, but left the banks to go to the wall. The depression would have been far shorter. It would have been painful, but would not be the decade-long lingering death we're committed to now.
The problem thats emerging from all of this is that it looks like the depression will last longer than the next government's tenure. Winning the next election will be a poisoned chalice: all they can ever be committed to is repairing the damage caused by Gordon Brown, with all the painful measures like reduced public spending and higher taxes that go along with it.
That causes a dillemma: would people vote for the same party again, after 4-5 years of austerity? I doubt it.
So where does that leave us? Would it mean an immediate return to power for Labour at the election after next? Its an interesting thought that this could be a deliberate strategy to hinder the re-election chances for the next (presumably Tory) government and therefore ensure that Labour are only out of office for 1 term. I wouldn't put it past thais cynically manipulative government.
I really have come to an impasse: the more I delve into the world of politics, the more disillusioned I become.
More and more details are coming to light daily about the self-serving troughing of the greedy pigs on all side of Parliament, but the majority of people aren't interested.
They switched off from politics decades ago, when its percieved relevance to them waned. Basically the MPs make some of the rules, elected MEP make soem of the rules and unelected EU beaurocrats make some of the rules. Nowhere does it say that the people - the voters make any of the rules.
Thats whats missing in Parliament: an engagement with the voters. In an age where people can phone vote on TV for things like Big Brother and the rest and then see within minutes the results of their button-pushing, what relevence has having to traipse to a voting booth and having to write an X on a piece of paper every 4 years got?
Basically the government can get away with murder. Because whatever they do, the public at large aren't interested, just so long as they can get on with their lives with the minimum of state interference and as long as the state mops their brow when they are sick and looks after their children when they work (education not required, as the state will provide if the kid ends up with no qualifications).
So, just how do you get the population at large engaged in politics? Why would any government cut its own throat by attempting such a feat?
For all the internet bleating on blogs like mine, what chance do we have of changing things? We're like wasps at a picnic: we are an annoyance and we might even sting once in a while, but we can be dealt with if necessary.
Just how do us wasps stir up the the rest of the nest for collective action?
Thats a question that I will be pondering and hoping for an answer.
I've no way of switching the things on and off and I've no way in Blogger to give you a choice. I'm not an internet guru. So lets just say if you're one of the 20-people-a-day that browse this site, Blogger collects the stats telling me you've been here and that by browsing this site you are happy about that.