Archive for November, 2005
eTSP – The Softback Preview
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on November 29th, 2005
A lesson in consumer-based policy.
Private companies should work towards improving their customer service in order to achieve the greatest market penetration that they can. Companies that treat their customers the way they would like to be treated make more money.
There are exceptions: Richard Branson does not focus his company’s policy on customers because he knows that happy employees work harder for their customer naturally. Virgin has, because of this and Branson’s nouce, diversified more successfully than most other companies.
But in the banking sector, First Direct is famous for answering the telephone the instant it rings and ten times out of ten, being polite and sorting out problems immediately. Citibank and Halifax, meanwhile, are known for not managing to deal with their customers effectively.
As a blogger and someone who is read and appears reasonably high in search engines, I feel it is my duty when I am the victim of appalling customer service to report this to you, the great consuming public. I don’t do this when I have an unusual experience or when I have been upset by an individual member of staff, I do this when all contact with a company at all levels and without fail, are painful and in need of managerial attention.
In this respect I would gladly offer The Softback Preview (TSP) some free advice: Focus on customer service.
The following is an e-mail that I have sent off to BCA’s Chief Executive, BCA’s Press Officer and TSP’s customer services:
CC: I have published this e-mail to my blog for public consumption www.gavpolitics.co.uk/blog/
Dear Tanmaya
You should really keep a record of communication.
I have a parcel that you are (at separate responses):
1) Collecting (at your expense)
2) Sending me pre-paid labels to return
3) Not collecting, I should have declined the offer in time.It would make sense if your staff were consistent in dealing with me.
Some background: I e-mailed before the book was posted asking that it not be sent to me. I received a confirmation in reply saying that it would not be sent (Anshul Maithani on 1 October 2005). I then asked you to collect it [1] and you agreed (Akhil Sharma on 19 October 2005).
I then said I was moving home to chivvy you along – you said you’d send out pre-paid labels [2] (Pranav Apte on 14 November 2005).
I then complained (again) that neither of the promises had come true and Lorraine DSouza said that I should have cancelled it in time [3].
I’m hoping now that you can get yourselves organised and correct this before the threatening letters start being sent by your over-zealous billing department. And while you’re there, please cancel my membership.
You can contact me to rejoin when you’ve sorted out the administrative nightmare that is TSP (and sister companies).
Yours sincerely
As always I will report any responses on this blog.
Reuse? China’s gift
Posted by: Gav in Uncategorized on November 28th, 2005
There are some things on Earth that are finite. There are others that are effectively infinitely renewable.
Sunlight, wind and tides will continue all the time we have the sun and moon. All the time there is sun there will be trees and other plants. Throughout the solar system there are giddying amounts of metals as diverse as titanium, aluminium and iron.
But in the whole solar system there is only one place we know of that contains coal, gas or oil – Earth.
There are also three main focuses for the green movement:
1) Reducing CO2 emmissions which cause Global Warming
2) Stopping wastage of metals and glass which have finite terrestrial sources
3) Stopping the human encroachment on animal/plant habitats
On CO2
The US is the world’s greatest polluter creating 25% of all the world’s CO2 emmissions. But China’s rapidly catching up. China’s gift to Earth right now is sulphur dioxide (SO2) in quantities previously unseen. 75% of China’s power comes from coal-fired power stations. It is not something that the Chinese can correct in anything like a reasonable period of time. And yet the governments of the West are wasting as much effort as they can in trying to reduce the relatively small amounts of pollution created by the other 5 billion people.
This is not the same argument used by people walking down a high street at night who comment that there’s no point saving power when the shops are illuminated all night (there is); this is far more fundamental. The sun provides us with enough energy that we do not need to burn fossilised organic matter. It is the sun’s energy which causes heat transfer in the oceans which trigger winds. It is the sun’s energy that we trap in solar cells. It is the sun which gives life to all plants on earth.
On metallic resources
It will soon be economically viable to mine asteroids for metals used in manufacturing. Our paltry recycling efforts, while helpful in reducing land-fill, will not help us avoid ‘running out’ on Earth.
So our planet, and surrounding bodies, can keep us stocked with everything except coal, oil and gas. What’s the answer?
Nuclear power, solar power, wind power and tidal/river damming are the three main ways of making entirely CO2-free power. But nuclear leaves behind waste that we’re not yet excellent at disposing of. Solar and Wind power are expensive and unreliable (weather is not consistent in most parts of the world for long enough). Tidal and non-tidal rivers have, in the majority of cases, already been dammed. In those places where this is still an option there is untold damage to the local habitats for local wildlife.
Now I’m an advocate of nuclear power. It is safe and we can store the nuclear waste. But there’s a better solution: 100% burning biomass.
The problem with burning wood is that it kicks out so much pollution. But President Bush is looking at methods of complete-burning wood in a new pollution-free power station. And in the meantime the US is converting fossil-fuel power stations to burn biomass.
The CO2 cycle starts with trees (and other plants that photosynthesise). Trees absorb CO2 (one part carbon to two parts oxygen) and release O2 (the two parts of oxygen – it is two parts because oxygen is stable when it is bonded with another oxygen atom).
The tree then either dies and decomposes or is chopped down and is burnt.

Then one of two things happens:
1) The carbon is sequestered in the ground and, over an extremely long period of time and compression is converted into coal, oil or gas.
2) The carbon is released into the air to be absorbed by other trees.
Long ago there was more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and this was sequestered in the oil, gas and coal we are currently burning. This means we are creating a net growth in the amount of CO2 ‘in circulation’.
By burning trees and replacing them in sustainable forests we are contributing nothing to the net amount of carbon in the atmosphere. This makes it green, reliable and cheap.
What we must do
We must plant massive fast-growing forests that can be used, when the power plants are built, as fuel. We must commission power stations that burn all the particulates released during normal burning of wood (though we shouldn’t be too concerned about releasing CO2 as this is not previously sequestered carbon). Once we, in the West, have proven the technology we can export the process to China who, because of the number of power stations she has, will stand most to gain from this.
In the future
The ESA (European Space Agency) and NASA have already mooted the idea of mining asteroids for valuable metals. We may see a time when spacecraft are regularly travelling to relatively close extraterrestrial bodies to extract resources.
Whole tracts of land will be given over to growing forests to burn in modern, clean power stations.
Cars will be powered using power from one of several sources (probably not hydrogen in my opinion – electrically charged cars are far more likely).
The free power provided by trees will create a need for more land and land reclamation will be progressed further using lessons learned in New Orleans following Katrina as well as in the construction projects off the coast of Dubai.
[Technorati: China, Green, Environment, News and Politics, Politics, US, United States, Future, Futurology ]
This post is not covered by the Creative Commons Copyright – All Rights Reserved
Free Press? Never!
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on November 27th, 2005
Tony Blair offered to jail any media publisher who reports the news that Bush wanted to bomb Al Jazeera. This is a shocking, but not surprising attempt to misuse the Official Secrets Act to ensure that embarassing information is not reported. The Official Secrets Act should be used to protect Britain, her interests and her agents in the field – not to protect Blair’s friends or blushes.
In the spirit of blogging, Blair Watch are compiling a list of bloggers and others who will willing publish this information if it can be obtained. The list of bloggers who will risk jail.
Corn Flakes, Rice Krispies and Coeliac Disease
Posted by: Gav in Uncategorized on November 25th, 2005
Some terrible news. Kellogg’s have recently used a new test on their Cornflakes to check for the residual gluten left over from the use of Malt Extract and have discovered that there is too much gluten left in them to pass the Codex Alimentarius rules on gluten content to qualify for gluten free.
In a nutshell this means that coeliacs must not eat Cornflakes from Kellogg’s, Asda, Co-op, Sainsbury’s, Somerfield or Waitrose.
Tests were also repeated, using the new test named the Mendez Method, on Rice Krispies and the Kellogg’s branded products passed. However as a precaution all other brands have been removed from CoeliacUK’s Food and Drink Directory and should not be eaten until further notice.
Complete list of products that must not be eaten
Kellogg’s Corn Flakes, Corn Flakes Banana Crunch, Crunchy Nut Corn Flakes, Crunchy Nut Red, Crunchy Nut Nutty, Frosties, Frosties Reduced Sugar, Frosties Cereal and Milk Bar, Choco Frosties, Cereal and Milk Bar
Asda Choco Flakes,Choco Snaps, Cornflakes, Crispy Nut Corn Flakes, Frosted Corn Flakes, Frosted Flakes, Organic Corn Flakes, Rice Snaps, Variety Pack
Co-op Choco Snaps, Crisp Rice, Frosted Flakes, Golden Nut Corn Flakes
Sainsbury’s Cornflakes, Frosted Flakes Breakfast Cereal, Honey Nut Corn Flakes
Somerfield Basics Corn Flakes, Choco Flakes, Choco Rice, Choco Teddies , Corn Flakes, Crisp Rice, Honey Nut Corn Flakes
Waitrose Corn Flakes, Frosted Flakes, Honey Nut Corn Flakes, Crisp Puffed Rice
On the streets in the US
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on November 25th, 2005
This would be funny if it weren’t so scary… You’ll need sound though…
School photo database
Posted by: Gav in Uncategorized on November 20th, 2005
An excellent database of school photographs that must have taken a massive effort to create: click here
Education, Education, WAR!
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on November 20th, 2005

Blair is famous for a few quotes specifically:
- Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime
- I do not want war. I do not believe anyone in this House wants war. But disarmament peacefully can only happen with Saddam’s active co-operation (link)
- Education, education, education
Okay, maybe not the second but I had to point out that he lied about Iraq too…
But on the last point Blair has failed catastrophically. Education was damaged by Thatcher when she listened to the selection-obsessed and started the dismantling of the Grammar school system. Blair, however, continued it and made official the government’s disapproval of selection.
Some people may be uncomfortable with it, but it is true that everyone has a different academic capability. Whether we like it or not, some people must work harder to achieve what others can achieve with no effort. And when a more intelligent person is taught at the same time as someone who needs more assistance, both suffer. The intelligent person gets bored with the repetition and, in taking that into account, the teacher does not repeat enough for those who need more help to learn. It is far better to teach in groups of similar ability.
In some schools in the 1950s children were taught in streamed groups. These groups were based on overall ability so if you excelled in creative subjects but had more difficulty in mathematics you were placed in lower groups for both. This is crazy but is sometimes used as a parallel for the problem with the Grammar and Comprehensive system.
If at the 11+ a child is capable of obtaining an A-Level in English but has no chance of obtaining an A-Level in a science, what part of the 11+ should account for that? Should the 11+ be based on intelligence, effort or ability in specific subjects? These are not easy questions and they’re not questions that will likely be answered by consensus.
Regardless of the method chosen, however, we can be sure that there is a satisfactory way of sorting those who will be better suited to vocational or physical employment from those who will likely make a career in academia or using qualifications obtained from academia. This is the idea of the Grammar/Comprehensive system.
If a child is bright they can be educated in a grammar school where they will receive education better suited to their abilities. These children will not be disruptive because they won’t be sitting in lessons bored of the pace. Much bullying is performed by intelligent children who are not being engaged.
If a child is not exceptionally bright they can be educated at a Comprehensive school. Socialists worry that those in Comprehensives have somehow been labelled second-class citizens. For some reason it is assumed that if a child is not academically exceptional they are of no use to society. This is patently not the case. Today’s post grammar school era actually places greater emphasis on academic education. The government proposes 50% targets for the university attendance. In fact today’s shortage of plumbers, builders, electricians and many other jobs can be attributed to the government’s relative lack of focus. If the government tells children and parents that a 50% target has been set, the remaining 50% considers themselves failures.
A Comprehensive school, then, provides an institution to educate late-bloomers (who can then be taught at the grammar school if applicable) and most importantly children who are not suitable for academic education. These children can be given appropriate and relevant training without being made to feel that they are less capable than their grammar school peers.
Selection is humane and I welcome any comments on this subject particularly.




