Don't Blame Boris, Blame the Scientists and their Computer Models

It seems the media is now slowly realising the various computer models of pandemic Armageddon were wildly off the mark.

The estimates of thousands of deaths didn't pan out the first time we had a lockdown, the second time we had a lockdown nor the third Omicron wave when we didn't have a lockdown.

So basically the computer models are less accurate than licking your finger and sticking it in the wind. At least if you do that, you get some information about wind direction.

The SAGE estimates were just basically making not very educated guesses.

So now we can safely ignore the so-called "science" and get back to normal. Not that it was ever science, it was just statistical modelling based on flawed data.

Now that the media have started to understand the flaws with relying on computer models (garbage in, garbage out) I hope they scrutinise other areas of science that rely on computer models.

Yes, I'm looking at you climate scientists.

I'm looking at the Billions of pounds of taxpayers money already spent trying to fix a problem that doesn't appear to exist. The climate models from the Nineties and the Noughties, even the Twenty-Tens have not come to pass. The Earth steadfastly refuses to adhere to the Hockey stick graph that was touted as gospel a decade ago. 

So can we now say that computer models cannot be relied on to give an accurate estimate of the future? They are no more accurate that Mystic Meg, or Tea Leaves. 

The point to take away from all of this is that taxpayer's money should not be spent based on these computer models.

BBC Licence Fee: That's what You get When you Deliberately Ignore Your Audience

 So Norris Doris has said the BBC will eventually lose their licence fee. Finally.

It's about time that they went the subscription route. I don't see why I have to pay for something I don't watch. I can't remember the last BBC program I watched regularly. A Question of Sport, but I only watched that occasionally and I've not bothered to watch the Paddy version. 

I only pay the licence fee because I have to to watch all the other terrestrial channels. But I'd quite gladly pay a retainer through taxation to pay for the terrestrial transmission network (an element of the licence fee pays for the transmission network for TV and Radio), but as for programming, let that be commercial or subscription.

And if BBC goes subscription, then boot them of Freeview. We'll have their digital bandwidth to watch something else.

I'd waste no sleep[ in losing the BBC. Despite their charter that insist s they provide programming for everyone, I don't know the last programme they made that was specifically for me: a white, aged Gammon.

Maybe the original Top Gear with Clarkson and co. But When they switched to Amazon to become Grand Tour, I stumped up the £80 a year for Prime to watch them and the other programmes and films on demand. I've loved every season of the Expanse and some of my favourite YouTubers were invited to provide content which I've watched. 

I'm pretty sure if the BBC went to subscription, I wouldn't subscribe. To be on Freeview I'm sure they can only go commercial and have adverts.

The Mrs pays for Netflix, so between the pair of us, we have two subscriptions with the choice of many hundreds of films and programmes on demand for about the same or less than the cost of the TV licence.

And that's the sort of cost that the BBC is up against. They need to deserve that £160 a year. What exactly do they give to me, a person that doesn't watch any of their programming? I mean the Mrs watched Holby, Casualty and Eastenders. But are they worth a £160 subscription fee?

With BBC output consistently pandering to a younger minority audience and completely ignoring non-senile oldies like me, why should I pay to view their content? If they ignore their charter responsibilities to provide programming to all including my demographic, I'm quite happy to say Feck 'em and their fee.

The BBC has one option. It has to reform and start to pander to the majority, not the minority. If it wants funding, then provide programming for it's biggest audience. It has to stop making the majority of it's programmes for a minority audience. That way lies ruin. But it's understandable that an organisation that is guaranteed a revenue stream no matter what spunks their budget on programmes the majority don't watch. 

But do understand the pushback when you do that. Don't feign ignorance or surprise, or go on the defensive and call your financiers names. That's the express route to insignificance and bankruptcy.

The Tyrrany of Tony Blair.

 I've blogged before about the changes to the Police Role and to law in general under the Blair government.

The introduction of Anti-Terrorism laws that have been misused time and time again by Police forces.

The introduction of "absolute" crimes that have no extenuating circumstances.

The introduction of fixed penalty notices for such crimes making the Police tax collectors.

The removal of Double Jeopardy allowing the Police to prosecute ad infinitum.

The changes to Legal Aid availability.

The introduction of the Violent Porn laws introducing laws who's wording allows mission creep to outlaw virtually any book, image etc.

I'm sure there are more that I have missed. But the above mark the Blair governments as the one that made the most serious changes to law enforcement and the rule of law for decades.

The removal of Double Jeopardy being one of the more egregious. It now allows for sloppy Police investigations. If the first investigation fails for whatever reason, then the Police and CPS can bring a new prosecution. Ostensibly there should be significant new evidence in order to bring the second prosecution, but we all know that the threshold for "significant new evidence" is pretty low. 

The thing is that while the Police and CPS have infinite funds with which to prosecute, the defendant doesn't. Legal; Aid has been withdrawn for a large proportion of instances and even if it were applicable, the quality of the legal support provided by legal aid is somewhat substandard. Unless you know how to work the system, as with all government funded programs.

So, the Police and the CPS can and have prosecuted maliciously in order to wear defendants down. I've been warned before of "causing mischief" by an MP regarding various issues, lest I be targeted by the Police and they start a version of "lawfare" against me. 

The various court appearances by Tommy Robinson are a case in point. The Police have conducted a state of lawfare against him as they have prosecuted him repeatedly. I see recently a a YouTube "auditor" is now being prosecuted because the Police are a bit fed up of him videoing them and holding them to account. It looks like they've finally found something to maliciously whack him with to teach him a lesson. No-one questions the Police, they are above the law, so it seems.

The Blair government did more to usher in this authoritarian state then any other Government before or since, although the following Coagulation of Cameron and Clegg with Mrs May as Home Secretary deferred to the Police too many times as well.

Successive Home Secretaries are also complicit, allowing the Police to overstretch their authority on numerous occasions. 

The misuse of various laws and Police powers has not been challenged at all by successive governments. We really need the Government to hold the Police to account. I've lost count of the number of times Cressida Dick has been in hot water, but she appears to be untouchable.

I just wonder if this is what a Tyrannical Police State actually looks like. At least we know who to blame: it was started by one Anthony Blair Esq. Oh, and he's getting a knighthood for his endeavours, including an illegal war. Fucked up or what?

TV Navel Gazing Claims another Victim

There have been a Slew of suicides involving involving reality shows. It makes lovely television watching people less fortunate than ourselves struggle to make ends meet, or fail to pay bill and be evicted, or be held up to ridicule, or thrust into the limelight with no preparation or support.

Well, yet another life was lost. One subject of TV's "16 and Pregnant" has died at 26: Former 16 and Pregnant star Jordan Cashmyer passes away at 26 (msn.com)

No mention is made of the cause of death, but the girl has had a history of drug use. The article above is ended with a link to the Samaritans. I think the inference is obvious. This girl was the subject of a TV programme, which after it had used her for titillation then left her and her boyfriend to fend for themselves. Eventually they split, the baby involved ended up being with another family member and Jordan ended up on drugs and working in a strip club. 

Now isn't it about time that these reality TV shows stopped? At the very least, offer these poor unfortunates a way out of their poverty. After all the TV companies that are commissioned to make these programmes and the networks airing them are making a mint out of them. 

Just think what a change to that girl's life a TV company could have made had they the moral decency to not just walk away, but to help instead.

Reality TV is the cheapest form of TV going, the TV companies make huge profits on them. There's no studio to hire, no studio staff either, so those costs are not there. Just a crew with a camera, a crew to edit the content into a programme and finally a crew to market the programme.

I find it offensive that these people are shown on TV and are just left in the poverty and mire the TV companies found them in. The TV companies have the opportunity, once they have had their pound of flesh out of these people to then switch their lives around. For TV companies I'm sure the amounts are peanuts, but for a family or couple in poverty even 20, 30 or 40 grand could change their lives forever. It could pay the deposit on a flat and furnish it. The same amount could pay for therapy for the people affected by the fame (or infamy) rendered by being on TV.

It's about time that the TV companies started supporting the people with personality issues, or started lifting the poor out of poverty. After all they can afford to do it. And it's the least they can do after making hundreds of thousands of pounds at the expense of these people.

Either that, or end this constant naval gazing and exploitation. Or maybe Ofcom needs to step in for the safety and sanity of the victims of these programmes and issue new guidelines.