Straight To The Point

Full story here.

How can politicians say "there's no conflict of interest" when there so obviously is? They're effectively saying "there is a conflict of interest, but you can trust me not to abuse it." Yeah, right.

Am I the only person who's just noticed that the size of a packet of Walkers crisps sold in a multi-pack is smaller than a normal packet? About 50% smaller? A normal packet of crisps is 35g, whilst one sold in a multi-pack is only 25g. So when a multi-pack seems like a bargain, remember that if the multipack is for 6 packets, you're missing out on 60g of crisps, almost two (of the larger) packets! It got me wondering what other companies pull this trick?

This is Charles Clarke statement regarding the proposed new ID cards. Lets go through it and see if we can find any facts.

"It will be affordable to set a charge of £30 at current prices for a standalone ID card which is valid for 10 years. This will be affordable within current Home Office spending plans."

This is affordable? To the Government? And there I was thinking they had run out of money. But is it affordable to the people who will actually have to pay this £30? No idea.

"This figure has been arrived at following careful scrutiny of the costs of the ID cards scheme over the summer by the Home Office, in full consultation with Treasury and other Government departments.

Thats okay then. We can trust them.

"We are unable to release the precise costs for individual aspects of the scheme because this information is commercially sensitive and could affect the Department's ability to secure value for money from the market. However, independent analysis in a report from KPMG, a summary of which will be published shortly, has concluded that the costing methodology is robust and appropriate for this stage of development.

So they can't tell us how they came about the figure of £30 (does the Government ever tell us how it came about its decisions?), but luckily the methodology is robust. Thats like saying your Excel spreadsheet hasn't crashed, but you can't account for what you've actually typed into it.

"We are also developing plans to roll the scheme out faster using registration with the criminal records bureau as well as passport application to enrol people into the ID cards scheme. This would lead to faster issuing of the card and improved outcomes and budget savings for the criminal records bureau.

Well, including the words "budget savings" makes good PR. But is it only reducing the amount they will have to pay for the card in the firstplace?

"We remain confident that further significant savings to Government and the private sector will be identified as plans are developed. In particular, Tony McNulty MP now chairs a cross-Departmental Ministerial committee to identify transformational benefits and efficiencies which the ID cards scheme can deliver to other Government departments.

This means: hopefully we will be able to save some money, but there's no guarantees.

"Our current best estimate of the average unit cost of the combined passport and ID card package is £93; around 70 per cent of these costs would be incurred anyway because of the worldwide move to biometric passports. We expect that most people will still choose to get their ID card alongside their new biometric passport as this will be the most convenient way to participate in the scheme and will give people the full benefits of having the most secure travel documentation.

So because we're being forced to have biometric passports, we might as well have the ID cards by default?

"I am also publishing today a research report 'Identity Cards: an assessment of awareness and demand for the Identity Cards Scheme' which demonstrates strong public support for the scheme."

Various other sources cite that this supposed "public support" is based mainly on the question "once you're forced to have the ID card (and since you need a passport if you want to go anywhere mate) do you mind having to pay only £30 for it?"

So all in all, we still don't know how much it will cost us, or whether the public actually want it anyway.

Among the other million-or-so reasons why ID cards are not a good idea, is the thought that how do you prove who you are in the first place in order to get the ID card saying who you are? Do you use your passport or NI card? Then if they are counterfeit, you've now got yourself a legitimate ID card Mr. Terrorist.

http://www.no2id.net/

In the persuit of freedom, our rights are constantly being eroded. How can people be justifiable held without trial in the modern western world? And now Blair wants to increase the length of time innocent people can be held before trial to 90 days, Walter Wolfgang should think himself lucky he was only held a short while.

I wish religon had never been invented. Not only is it the cause of pretty much every conflict in the world (the middle east, Ireland, terrorist attacks) but it's now invading the classroom. How can something that is completely unprovable be taught in classes alongside scientific fact? Not that they need to bother, as only 26% of Americans believe that the earth was created without the help of a supreme being. As if they didn't know, God doesn't exist!

Anyway, religon is just gang warfare on a global scale.

Java muist be the only language that gets criticised based on the software people write with it. When Windows crashes, people don't slag off C++!

Hull University! Its great. And it would be - except half the "campus" is in Scarborough, about an hours drive away. So anyone living in Hull browsing the university's prospectus gets a nice surprise when they think they can just travel down the road.

How can they justify that? Surely it's two seperate universities. Of course, they join up with what presumably used to be called Scarborough University, and can then offer double the courses without spending an extra penny! I pity any non-drivers however, who look at their courses, think it all sounds good, and then realises that somehow they will have to get to Scarborough every day. Without knowing which "campus" any particular course is at makes looking at the prospectus pointless. And with codes like "Campus S", its not immediately obvious.

An article in the British Medical Journal says that 4x4's carry an increased risk of harming pedestrians. How does this affect the statistics cited in the road safety campaign where they tell you about the much-increased risk of killing a child when driving at 40mph rather than 30mph?

Can I say to the officer "well, at least I'm not driving a 4x4, so the chance of me killing a pedestrian at 40mph is probably less than than if I was driving a 4x4 at 30mph". Is it time to have seperate speed limits depending on the type of vehicle you are driving? Or just get rid of large off-road vehicles altogether? (unless you are one of the few that actually drive them off road.)

And don't get me started on when people take up two car-parking spaces with their off-roader...

It almost seems acceptable for companies to advertise one price on their web site, but then announce that its actually a different price when you come to pay for it. The usual excuse is "sorry, the website is out of date". Why is that okay? It's obviously deliberage to lead you on, and once you've gone through all the hassle of contacting them and attempting to pay for it, the customer (myself included) just say "oh, alright then".

I've had to change the name of this bog from The Daily Rant to Smiths Angry Blog. I did a search of "The Daily Rant" on Google, to see if I came up. Well, maybe I did, but not before the other million-or-so blogs with exactly the same name! There was even one that also used blogger, and had chosen exactly the same theme, so when I first saw it, it took me a few minutes before I realised it wasn't even mine!

Even artists and producers know they are evil and have no interest in anything (even in their musicians) except their own profits.

More power to the artists - if you can get there songs legally and cut out the middlemen, then why shouldn't most of the profit go to the people that actually create the product? Try http://www.mp3.com/ for a start, though there are obviously many more.

In my opinion, by far the worst aspect of the story about the 82-year-old Labour Party Member who was thrown out of the Labour party conference for heckling, is the fact that afterwards he was held under the Terrorism Act! If ever there was any proof needed that this law can and is being abused by the authorities, then surely this is it. I can't think of a more unlikely terrorist, and I think we all should be worried about our lives if all it takes is to heckle an MP to accused of being a terrorist and held.

This is just the worst aspect. This whole story stinks from beginning to end:-

• Heckling now seems to be an offence that involves the police.
• Why were Labours heavies not arrested for assault?
  
• Why did the police feel the need to get involved anyway? Are they at the beck and call of the Labour party?
• Is criticising our leaders slowly becoming illegal?
  

I for one will be joining the Labour party so I can then resign in protest.