Glencore chief Simon Murray launches private navy

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

In the beginning of January 2013 Glencore chief Simon Murray launched a private navy intended, so the story goes, to combat the menace of the Somali pirate which time and again endanger shipping.

This outfit, which could only be described as a mercenary force, will be staffed, amongst others, by former British navy personnel, and is said to consist of a mother ship, which appears to be some kind of a frigate (I am no navy man) and several fast attack boats. I would assume that this is but for starters.

However, in theory, mercenary activities are illegal for any British citizen to engage in and thus this appears rather strange to me and it can only mean that this is a private, mercenary naval force, which is being backed by the British government.

Now that there is, once again, a charter navy I am wondering when Britain is bringing about charter companies and their armies again, as was the case with the British East India Company, the British South Africa one, and others.

Maybe, sooner rather than later, the British government is going to be privatizing the military altogether in the same was as they are privatizing the prison service, the probation service and plan to privatize the police.

The privatized military and police, no doubt, will also be paid by result, in the same way as the private prison and probation service will be, and we can only wonder how that is going to be worked out.

And the majority of the British public is sitting there like lemons and could care less, as long as they have their bread and circuses; the latter in the form of so-called reality TV and soap operas.

© 2013

Con-Dem govt intends to scrap Natural England

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

In a move clearly intended to weaken effective opposition to the government's plans to allow development of the Green Belt, the Environment Secretary, the one who sounds like something marinaded in vinegar, is considering the merging of Natural England with the Environment Agency.

In a very worrying proposed shift in priorities the report states that Natural England should “support and contribute to the Government's aims and priorities as effectively as possible”, which is clearly at odds with Natural England's original purpose: “to ensure that the natural environment is conserved”.

No one should be fooled into thinking and believing that this has anything to do with efficiency or the effective management of the British countryside. This is all about a government determined to push through its own twisted agenda by whatever means possible.

When it comes to conserving and managing the countryside it's a close run thing as to whether the current bunch of clowns who we allowed to be in charge are more incompetent than the previous bunch of clowns.

When Milliband, the current leader of the so-called Labor Party, was Secretary of State for the Environment he also had nothing but excuses as to why this country was not doing what it should be as regards to renewable energy, for example.

The Cameron-Clegg regime made bold statements when they created the coalition to govern the UK about being the greenest government ever but this can only have referred to being interested in the color of green as far as money is concerned.

Unless the people tell this government where to get off as regards the countryside and its protection, like they did with the proposed sell-off of the Forestry Commission lands then there will be very little left of the Green Belt and the countryside.

© 2013

British High Street in danger of death

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

High Street store chain after High Street store chain (not even talking about the independent shops) are collapsing in the UK.

First we lost Woolworth, followed by a fair number of others and now, the latest casualty, is Jessops, the specialist camera stores. And this has now been followed, only a few days after Jessops biting the dust, with HMV, the record store chain, going into receivership.

Much of the demise of the High Street stores is due to the fact that the British people shop, nowadays, more on the Internet than in any other way.

In some ways one cannot blame the people as on the Internet they can obtain things with ease from a great variety of vendors without (1) having to go out and (2) without having to hunt for it from store to store.

While, in the old days when you went to your General Store looking for something and they did not have it the proprietor would reply with “don't worry, I can get it for you” today the answer generally is “we don't stock that” and that's it.

In those days customer service was high on the agenda for the store wanted to keep the customer happy so that they would come back time and again but today it no longer seems to be the case.

Some years ago I went to a store dealing in grinding supplies and asked for a razor strop. The young shop assistant did not have a clue and when he finally grasped what I wanted simply said “we don't have that”.

When I then asked for emery grinding paste he also had no idea, told me he needed to get his manager, who then proceeded to tell me that that was not what I wanted needed and that I really wanted and needed a diamond hone. Bad move... I knew what I needed and wanted, as a professional, and definitely did not need someone trying to sell me something I knew I did not need nor wanted.

Thus there are two ways that need to be employed to resurrect the High Street. The first is for stores to, once again, care for and about their customers and the second for people then to actually return to those stores and be their patrons.

It takes two to tango, as they say, and prices also need to reflect this in that it is not possible for a shop to charge double of what I can buy something for on the Internet, including shipping.

Only by traders being flexible and shoppers valuing their local traders and craftsmen and -women, etc. will we ever get proper life back into the British High Street, and not just wine bars, restaurants, coffee shops, and such like.

© 2013

Emigration from Eire 'at famine levels'

Emigration 'at famine levels' as 200 leave country each day

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

More than 200 people a day have left the Republic of Ireland during 2012, as emigration has surged to levels not experienced since the famine.

Some 87,000 people emigrated from Ireland in the year to April 2012, which is three times as many as the annual exodus during the boom years.

Almost 16,000 headed to Britain, according to figures from the UK Department of Work and Pensions, which show the nationality of new applicants for social insurance numbers there.

The figure was around twice as many as headed across the Irish Sea during the boom, and does not include children and non-working spouses who moved with their families.

Australia remained a big draw, with the number of permanent migrants from Ireland soaring by 33% to 4,938 in a year with Ireland now being among the top 10 source countries for migration to Australia, the authorities there noted.

Others headed to New Zealand and again others to Canada, whose economy is rather booming at present. Though a much greater number headed from the country below the 49th, that is to say, the USA. The latter has always been a country for Irish emigrants and, in general, the US always gave the Irish special treatment as far as immigration and green cards are concerned.

The net emigration is also taking a toll on the Irish birth rate with 1,200 fewer children born in 2011 than the previous year, as there were fewer women around to have babies.

Since the Euro crisis the Irish economy has headed even further down the proverbial tube than even during the financial crisis per se and people will go to where the work is.

However, coming to the UK is not really helping any of them, bar for the fact that in Britain they can get welfare benefits straight away as there are special rules, and always have been, for people from Eire.

In fact almost as many Irish emigrants headed for the British mainland as did to the USA despite the fact that jobs are not directly plentiful in Britain.

Anyone still claiming that the Euro crisis is not impacting on things and that it is all going to be over soon better check facts and figures again.

© 2013

British countryside in danger from development

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

One of the UK's newspapers of January, 11, 2012 has been reporting that the Planning Minister has apparently accused councils of ‘dragging their feet’ over giving up green land for development, an issue which he described as a ‘generational crisis’.

The minister suggested that those opposing development were being hypocritical, saying: ‘Everybody who’s writing in to object to new houses being built on green field land themselves is occupying a building that was once a piece of green field land.’

He then made it clear that ministers will bring in further sweeping changes to the planning system if the level of house-building does not increase sharply.

Previously the minister has suggested that up to 2million acres of green fields may have to be sacrificed to meet the supposed housing shortage. He seems to have failed to comment upon the estimated 850,000 houses currently standing empty, and those are just the homes that are, actually, on the “empty homes” list.

Let's not even count those, such as the thousands of empty homes on the Ocean Estate in Stepney (London), an estate that has been standing empty, bar some squatters, for many years now as it was, supposedly, redeveloped. And we alsoo don't even want to consider the homes that are being destroyed by the fact that the Robin Hood Estate in Poplar (London) is to be demolished to make way for expensive offices and houses for the rich in the Docklands.

The government and the Planning Minister are rater very disingenuous when it comes to the claims that we need more new homes. What we need is to refurbish those existing empty ones and then there will be homes enough with many to spare even.

The minister also went on to suggest that the Government would encourage proposals for a string of new towns in southern England along the 120-mile route of the planned High Speed 2 rail line from London to Birmingham, which is already destined to destroy hundreds of acres of countryside, including ancient woodland.

Do we really need any more new towns down here in the south of England? The answer is an absolute no. In fact there are so many empty tracts of housing in many counties of England that, if encouragement would just be given and infrastructure created, could be occupied once more and people could work there and from there (at home).

Personally, I think that it is an abomination that his party have the cheek to use a tree as their emblem – a thick wad of cash would be a better one!

The Cameron-Clegg regime claimed to be the greenest government even in the UK but the only green color that they are concerned with is that of money.

Even Thatcher in her heydays would never have considered destroying the British countryside and the Green Belt in the way it is being proposed by this regime. I guess many brown envelopes have been passed their way by the developers and house building companies such as Wimpy, Barrats and others.

We do not need a new government, we need a new system...

© 2013

Almost half of the world's food thrown away, report finds

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

And people still think that we need GMO's to produce food to feed the hungry

As much as half of all the food produced in the world – equivalent to two billion (2bn) tonnes – ends up as waste every year, a report published on January 10, 2013, warns.

The UK's Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IME) blames the "staggering" new figures in its analysis on unnecessarily strict sell-by dates, buy-one-get-one free and Western consumer demand for cosmetically perfect food, along with "poor engineering and agricultural practices", inadequate infrastructure and poor storage facilities.

In the face of United Nations predictions that there could be about an extra 3 billion people to feed by the end of the century and growing pressure on the resources needed to produce food, including land, water and energy, the IME is calling for urgent action to tackle this waste.

The IME's report, “Global Food; Waste Not, Want Not”, which can be downloaded here, found that between 30% and 50% or 1.2-2bn tonnes of food produced around the world never makes it on to a plate.

In the UK as much as 30% of vegetable crops are not harvested due to their failure to meet supermarket buyers' exacting standards on physical appearance, it says, while up to half of the food that is bought in Europe and the US is thrown away by consumers.

Those buyers claim that consumers would not buy produce that is misshapen, has blemishes, or what-have-you. However, this all comes down to education and that is where government and NGOs come in also, and the supermarkets themselves.

And about 550bn cubic meters of water are wasted globally in growing crops that never reach the consumer. Carnivorous diets add extra pressure as it takes 20-50 times the amount of water to produce 2lbs of meat than 2lbs of vegetables; the demand for water in food production could reach 10–13 trillion cubic meters a year by 2050.

This is 2.5 to 3.5 times greater than the total human use of fresh water today and could lead to more dangerous water shortages around the world, the IME says, claiming that there is the potential to provide 60-100% more food by eliminating losses and waste while at the same time freeing up land, energy and water resources.

Tim Fox, head of energy and environment at the IME, said: "The amount of food wasted and lost around the world is staggering. This is food that could be used to feed the world's growing population – as well as those in hunger today. It is also an unnecessary waste of the land, water and energy resources that were used in the production, processing and distribution of this food."

In order to prevent further waste, governments, development agencies and organization like the UN "must work together to help change people's mindsets on waste and discourage wasteful practices by farmers, food producers, supermarkets and consumers," the IME said.

This report on waste also proves that there is absolutely no need whatsoever to play G-d by genetically modifying and -engineering crops and other foodstuffs. All we need to do is use all that which is available and create an infrastructure so that the food that is being harvested actually reaches the consumer.

Furthermore we must educate the consumer that misshapen fruit and vegetables taste as good, if not often better, than the “perfect” ones and that would eliminate then almost all possible waste.

Maybe, just maybe, we also need a new way of getting the produce from the farm to the consumer on a much more direct way and get people to buy and eat local and in season.

© 2013

Paper is good for you and the environment

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Time and again misguided and misinformed people, especially in the environmental movement, come out with the phrase of paper being a tree killed and such like. Nothing could be further from the truth, however.

We are being told that paperless is the way to go and that e-books and e-book readers are the way to go. However, does anyone consider the impact of the e-books and their readers?

I am all for PDFs which can be read on one's computer or – dare I say it – printed out for reading but e-readers, with their factored in obsolescence of a couple of years and such are, in fact, not very environmentally friendly at all, despite claims.

When the claim is made that paper is a killer of trees and printed books are called dead trees all one can say to that is that either the people making such claims are very naïve and misguided or, and I am being a devil's advocate here, have a hidden agenda.

Far from being a killer of trees paper and cardboard and the paper industry in fact are responsible for millions of acres of trees, grown to produce pulp for paper, and replanted later to grow more trees for pulp for paper. Without the paper industry many of those areas, which are often marginal lands, would not be having any significant tree cover at all and some might, in fact, be housing or industrial estates.

Paper also can be easily recycled, even if only as animal bedding, such as for chickens (and this can be done at home with a shredder) and then composted. On the other hand waste and old paper can also be used make new paper. Something that cannot be done with an e-reader.

Furthermore you never own an e-book for, say, Kindle, but only, even though you pay good money for it, borrow it, to all intents and purposes. You may not, legally, pass it on to someone else, not even onto someone else's e-reader. A printed book, on the other hand, you can pass on, resell or what have you. You own it. Not so with an e-book.

The paper industry has the stigma of being incredibly harmful for the environment. However, here are some facts for you to make it clearer as to why this is not the case:

• Paper’s primary raw materials are renewable resources and the paper and forest products industry plants more than 1.7 million trees every day in the U.S. alone. That is three more times than what is harvested.

• Paper is biodegradable, recyclable, and reusable. Almost 60% of all paper is recycled in the U.S. The stats for other countries may be better or they may be worse but all of that can be changed.

• The paper industry is one of the world’s largest users of renewable, low-carbon energy. 60% of the energy used to make paper in the U.S. comes from self-generated carbon-neutral renewable resources.

Here are a couple of more fact that link to the above or stand separately:

• The forest products industry is the largest producer of renewable biomass energy in the United States, generating 77% of the nation’s industrial biomass energy. Additionally, the renewable energy generated by the forest products industry exceeds all of the nation’s solar, wind and geothermal energy generation combined.

• The forest products industry is also a leader in the production of renewable energy, with more than 65% of the on-site energy needed to produce paper products derived from carbon-neutral biomass.

• More trees are grown in the United States than which are harvested and the amount of U.S. forestland has remained essentially the same for the last 100 years at about 750 million acres, even though the U.S. population tripled during the same period.

When it comes to the paper industry, their forests are not part of the state forests in any country generally but they actually have their own woods and forests which they manage for wood for paper and cardboard. And, if the use of paper would cease tomorrow altogether, or we'd all use less of the stuff, many of those forests would be grubbed out and sold to developers no doubt.

In more cases than not paper is better for you and the environment than would be the electronic equivalent. So let's stop the perpetuation of the myths that paper is causing the deforestation of the Amazon and other tropical forests and deforestation in general. It simply is not true.

© 2013

Managing Britain's Wild Woods

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

The truth is that there are no wild woods anywhere in Britain but only once managed woods that have gone wild. Those latter woods cannot become “wild woods” again; Nature does not work that way despite what some people believe, some are made to believe and many misguided environmentalists would like everyone else to believe.

For thousands of years the woods and forests of the British Isles have, all basically, been managed, and for most of the time we have managed them very well indeed. Those woods provided our needs, until such a time that we were importing more from abroad, and fueled our industry. In the latter case it was the charcoal produced in our coppiced woods.

Only since about the end of WWII have our woodlands become really neglected and this very neglect is not helping them one bit. The opposite rather. It is also not beneficial to the ecosystem. Brambles and bracken crowd out everything else, allowing no light through.

The same goes for a canopy that is too dense, which is one of the many reasons that our Forestry Commission lands planted, as is often the case, with conifer plantations, are often so devoid of life, especially on the forest floor.

Old coppice stools of once managed woods slowly decay and then break apart, destroying the entire tree, often then not regrowing, as would be the case would the stool have been coppiced. And in this way, over a short period of time, an entire wood becomes an environmental and ecological disaster zone.

Less than ten percent of stools, if even that many, will thrive whether they continue to be coppiced or not. The great majority will decay and fall apart.

Only by working, once again, our woods in the time-honored fashion of coppicing will we ensure the survival of those woods and not by misguided beliefs that Nature will take care of it itself.

We need healthy woods and not just for woodland products, though they are important for the rural economy and for sustainability. Our very life depends on healthy woodlands and thus it is all of our interest that the gauntlet, if I may put it thus, that the Forestry Commission and other have thrown down is being taken up and we put all of our woodlands back into management, including the woods that are part of the public open spaces, such as parks.

This will not only improve the health of our woods but also will reduce our dependency on imported woods and woodland products, such as charcoal, for instance.

Ninety percent of all charcoal consumed in Britain comes from tropical hardwood sources and this is not sustainable. Neither is that charcoal comparable in quality to the one that can be produced at home by means of coppicing.

Aside from charcoal coppice management of woodlands also produces other timber products which give an income to local wood workers and a boost to the local economy.

Localism in woodland products is supporting those that try to make our woodlands healthy again by managing them in the time-honored ways.

Many products of great value and use can be produced from coppice woodlands and often all that people, sometimes even the underwoodsmen managing the woods, can think of, is charcoal, hurdles, beanpoles, and firewood. But there is a lot more that this wood can be used for; products that add much more value to the wood than would any other ones.

Our woods and the health of them is important to us and we must revitalize them and the only way this can be done is by means of proper management.

© 2013

Department of Homeland Security advises computer users to disable Java

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

No, we are not talking about coffee

WASHINGTON (AP) ― The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has advised computer users to disable Java.

The recommendation came in an advisory issued late Thursday, January 10, 2013, following up on concerns raised by computer security experts.

Experts believe hackers have found a flaw in Java's coding that creates an opening for criminal activity and other high-tech mischief.

Java is a widely used technical language that allows computer programmers to write a wide variety of Internet applications and other software programs that can run on just about any computer's operating system.

Oracle Corp., who bought Java as part of a $7.3 billion acquisition of the software's creator, Sun Microsystems, in 2010, had no immediate comment with regards to this apparent problem and security risk.

Having an Internet Browser with an automatic block of Java script is, therefore important and Firefox (though I am not sure about Microsoft's Internet Explorer) blocks scripts by default and both Google Chrome and Opera can have extensions fitted to do so.

It is always good to assume that any script that is being run on a website could, potentially, be malicious and thus it is advisable to keep scripts blocked (unless one is 110% sure that the site has not been compromised).

© 2013

Obama administration says UK must stay in EU

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

The Obama administration has said that the UK must stay in the EU and that a referendum against membership in the EU must not be held in the UK.

Sorry! Run this by me again...

A senior member of the Obama administration has said that the UK must stay in the EU and that a referendum against membership in the EU must not be held in the UK as it could negatively impact on the US if the UK would leave the EU.

He is also, so it is understood, supposedly said that the UK's possibility of leaving the EU could have a negative impact of the special relationship between the UK and the USA.

The concerns of the US administration are all fine and good but they should be advised to keep their noses out of the affairs of the UK for the last time we looked Britain was a sovereign nation and not a state of the United States.

From what what we can see is that a great number if not the majority of British people would vote for Britain to leave the European Union, as long as the people are given the truth and a free vote with a Yes or No.

The USA and its administration does not have the right to try to, more or less, threaten the British government and the people how to deal with the country's membership in the European Union (or any other aspect).

The US may think it is the world's policeman and the ruler of the world but it is not and it would be good if this would be understood by the administration and the people of that country.

© 2013