Today is the 11th Annual Transgender Day of Remembrance. "This day was created as a time to grieve trans and gender non-conforming people killed over the past year because of fear and hatred. It also serves as a time to raise awareness about violence against trans folks."

I, like Andrew Hickey (who is a much better writer than me, and who's careful thought-provoking post prompted this ill=thought-out rant) am a White Straight Male, living in a world where being a White Straight Male is considered normal, and anything else is worth less. Well, frankly, bollocks to that. Humanity is a glorious rainbow of variety, and the sooner we come to accept this the better. The people who murder other people based on how the gender they present are no better than those who murdered based on skin colour, religious beliefs or any of the other petty xenophobic reasons we've been using to murder each other since humanity fell out of the trees.

Is it really so hard to treat people with common decency?

I really don't have anything particularly constructive to say. I'm not involved in the Transgender movement, nor I suspect would I be particularly helpful. All I have to offer is undirected anger and despair at yet another example of humanity's inhumanity. Its a start I suppose.

Still they've got CERN up and running again. Hopefully when they actually start doing proper experiments they'll turn the world inside out and we won't have to worry anymore. That'll be nice.

Hahaha! Gotta love what they can do when it ain't part of the 'proper' series. ( Not really that spoilery, but whatever )

Looking forward to it!

Click here to view this entry with minimal formatting.

I agree with the Single European Newspaper Headline.

Next time can we have these posts elected by the people? Either directly or via the EU parliament, I’m not fussed. And elect the commision too. Kthxbye.

Speed humps: love ‘em or hate ‘em, here in the UK they’ve become a symbol of the traffic calming zeitgeist.

Speed humps also pose a major challenge for local democracy. That’s because local authorities are legally hampered from taking full account of the commonly held view that whilst speed reduction is good, speed humps are bad.

Here’s where I’ve got to in understanding why (stick with me please: it’s also about consultation, deliberative democracy and the Sustainable Communities Act).

A lot of people like the idea of slowing traffic to 20 mph in residential areas (in a 2005 survey cited in a study for Transport for London, 75% of the British public supported 20 mph speed restrictions in residential areas). Less noise, less antisocial car-driving behaviour, less road-rage, reduction of casualties from road traffic accidents, and encouragement (perhaps) for people to leave their cars take to public transport.

All this has helped 20 mph zones to sweep across the country. The London Borough of Southwark (where I live) aims to make 20mph the default speed limit across the entire borough. This sounds good to me.

But this is the problem. It would appear that 20 mph zones cannot, by law, effectively be implemented unless ‘self-enforcing’ traffic calming measures are adopted at the same time. In other words, you can’t have a 20 mph zone unless you simultaneously accept measures like chicanes, speed cushions, speed humps, raised tables, pedestrian islands and the like.

As a (former) lawyer, and therefore something of a nerd about rules, I wanted to know why I kept coming across this argument. In fact, that I’m aware of it at all is down to the e-democracy practised on the East Dulwich Forum where local councillors interact with a very active local community. (Sadly that’s not the ward I live in or my rapidly developing views about 20 mph zones might not have ended up here!)…

Eventually I found the legal answer I was looking for. And it’s clear that it perplexes even experts working within local authorities. For the legal reason that you can’t have a 20mph zone without lumps in the road lies buried in regulations governing the use of traffic signs.

The way this works is that The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 say that a 20mph zone sign “may only be placed on a road if no point on any road (not being a cul-de-sac less than 80 metres long), to which the speed limit indicated by the sign applies, is situated more than 50 metres from a traffic calming feature”. And then the Regulations go on to list the traffic calming features.

Innocent, isn’t it?

But the result is that the real choices offered to people consulted on 20 mph zones are about the kind of self-enforcing traffic calming measure proposed (e.g. whether it should be a hump or a cushion). In contrast, often what people (including me) want to support is the effective enforcement of a 20 mph speed restriction, not the humps and cushions.

Speed cameras and interactive speed signs aren’t an option in a 20 mph zone since they’re not self-enforcing. Consultation responses that request them instead of cushions, humps and the like are therefore likely to be treated as irrelevant.

This poses major problems for public consultation, since unless extraordinarily good practice is followed; deliberative democracy even; it’s unlikely that people will realise what they’re being consulted on.

If you like the idea of a 20mph zone but hate the idea of speed humps, cushions, chicanes and the like, you’re on a hiding to nothing. But it must be unusual for residents to be told that in advance, or to be involved in decisions on what the alternatives might be before consultation on a specific traffic calming proposal linked to 20mph zone starts.

The other problem is simply the conflicting evidence on the pros and cons of speed humps and cushions and the complex balancing acts. Hump-topped ones seem more effective; but they cause greater problems for emergency vehicles and buses. Flat-topped ones don’t work as well, but people on busy roads (which need the speed restriction more) might end up with them because such roads are more likely to be used regularly by buses and emergency vehicles. Etc. If you’re fascinated by this, please see this report from Transport for London, by way of just one of many examples of relections on the subject.

This is a classic situation where deliberation, based on the full range of facts, is more likely to generate consensus. And lack of deliberation dissent.

The Department for Transport notes that: “The value of adequate consultation being undertaken cannot be over-emphasised. Without such consultation, schemes are likely to be subject to considerable opposition, both during and after implementation”. Indeed. Barnet borough council has had a policy of reviewing and possibly removing previously installed speed humps for some years.

For the time being I shall be responding to my current local consultation to say that I’m in favour of the new 20 mph zone that’s been proposed where I live, but not to the use of speed humps and cushions and other so-called ‘vertical deflections’ to enforce it.

In my case this is partly a nimby (’not in my back yard’) response to extra vibration and possibly extra noise caused by having one directly outside my house. Not just that though: if I thought they’d work it’d be great. I don’t drive and I dislike speeding. But I’m convinced, by credible evidence from Southwark Living streets in particular that humps and cushions generally don’t work very well in my bit of London.

One street where a close friend lives is down to get a sinusoidal hump (why local authorities go out to public consultation using words like ‘sinusoidal’ without further explanation is beyond me). It’s a very short street which ends with a right angle turn up a hill. It would be almost impossible to speed up or down it if you tried. But presumably this and other streets (such as one which already has a speed camera) have to receive ’self-enforcing’ traffic calming features because otherwise they can’t form part of the 20mph zone.

What I want to be asked is whether I support effective enforcement of a 20mph speed limit in my neighbourhood (I do). And then I want a proper deliberative process about the options so that I understand why it’s really necessary if I do end up with a speed cushion outside my house. But that’s not the question on the table.

What we’ve been asked is not ‘do you want a 20mph speed limit in the zone shown on the attached map’ but ‘do you want a 20mph zone’. Legally there’s a difference; and the difference determines how my view gets counted. It’s obvious isn’t it? Um, not.

Ah; legalistic hairsplitting that only a nerd would get excited about.

The majority of people whose views, like mine, can’t count are likely to feel frustrated and alienated by the Council. My own frustration is partly directed at the Council for not giving us residents the full facts when they consult. But it’s also got a legal outlet; a bigger target to blame. So that’s comforting.

Now a council could in principle impose a 20 mph speed limit without ‘self-enforcing’ traffic calming measures (at least I think it can; I’m not sure how it works in London); but that hasn’t been proposed in my neighbourhood; it’s very unlikely that it will emerge as an option out of consultation because people haven’t been told it might be an alternative; and anyway 20mph speed limits without additional ‘self-enforcing’ traffic calming are recommended by the Department of Transport only for use on roads where average speeds are already below 24mph (definitely not the case on my street save for when it’s too congested for cars to move).

Essentially ordinary 20 mph speed limits rely, like most others, on police enforcement. And the police may have better things to do than deal with calls about speeding cars in an area with a 20 mph speed limit, runs the argument.

Anyway, it doesn’t matter whether you agree with my specific views on speed cushions. The wider issues here are about deliberation and consultation.

Still, if you do happen to agree with me that speed cushions and humps really aren’t the best thing since sliced bread…. could this be an area where people should ask for their local authority to get new powers under the Sustainable Communities Act?

Then local authorities could adopt 20mph zones (not just limits), complete with signs, and experiment with alternative approaches to enforcement that don’t rely on speed humps, cushions and the like. Many residents would thank them; at least if there were good ideas on workable alternatives that didn’t involve citizens’ vigilante speeding patrols.

Might it be worth a coordinated effort if there’s another round of proposals under the Act to ensure that at least one such proposal gets through to the Act’s ‘selector’?

Long live localism and the ‘duty to involve’.

Originally published at Local Democracy. Please leave any comments there.

Had a whale of a time. The set, as promised, was the entirety of the Hazards of Love album (which sounds fantastic live, and made me teary at a few points, because the songs The Wanting Comes In Waves and The Hazards of Love 4 have a tendency to make me sniffly), followed by a round of other songs. Was happy to hear 16 Military Wives and O Valencia! being played, and having The Mariner's Revenge Song as their encore act (complete with audience participation) was... um, good. Really good.

Embarassingly, Sprog and I managed to miss the supporting act because we took a wrong turn as we left Elephant & Castle tube station, and spent about half an hour walking around going "wait, this probably isn't the right way?". Hobbling back home was a problem, while there wasn't much opportunity for dancing, standing up for that long has made my back and knees ache.

As Martin has pointed out, my body is going to hate me in the morning.

There are two packages waiting at the post office. I have reason to believe that one contains intertubes, and the other contains Verdi. Both good.

Also, countertony has discovered how to make the shower run hot. This is also good.

This evening I tried to take a photo of a friend and David Cameron suddenly skated between him and the camera.

Possibly this is not so odd when I tell you that I was standing at the edge of an ice rink. The Winter Wonderland in Hyde Park is enormous this year. I went and wandered around it and was astonished by how big it is and how scary some of the rides look. And they have a lot of stalls selling sausage, beer and mulled wine. Also this sign:

Things which are kitten food:

Rye bread with sunflower seeds.
Rye bread with sunflower seeds *and butter*.
Paluszki.
Hairbands.


Things which are not kitten food:

Mushrooms.
The same organic cat food that was top of the "Kitten Food" list last month.


Things which are less kitten food than a betrayal of trust:

Rye bread with sunflower seeds and butter and Marmite.

Sometimes time twists and turns, sometimes it meanders to and fro, sometimes it crosses back on itself, sometimes it coils like a rope or a roll of thread. I wonder which of the last two it is this time?

Five years, to the week.

[*]Gratuitous Icon Post

The t-shirt is in the wash, but the text on the picture is accurate and answers his question.

Copy of this post on Dreamwidth, where there are comments I'd prefer it if you comment there if you are able to keep the discussion together.

Armed with a few hours of sleep, I'm going off to a Decemberists gig this evening (along with malky_moo). Time to work out the best way of getting down towards Elephant & Castle, I guess...

• 16:20 Never mind the pandas. Look at the cute little prehistoric fishies! tinyurl.com/yzzh4rn #

...LoudTwitter seems to think you're interested

I attended an interesting seminar yesterday afternoon, hosted by the 2020 Public Services Trust. The topic was the future of citizen-centred public services.

The two principal speakers both brought innovative ideas and a real vision, which is more than can be said for a lot of these public policy seminars. Ben Jupp, from the Cabinet Office, and Christian Bason from the Danish reform institute Mind Lab, set out a vision that I might crudely summarise as:

• We need to understand that public service goes wider than the things funded or provided by the state – in other words, the hospice movement is part of the health service, even if it isn’t part of the National Health Service
• We need to combine greater user empowerment, productivity drives and a better understanding of user pathways to identify waste in the system
• Future services will be provided in a radically decentralised way – well below town hall level
• Citizen/citizen and citizen/state relationships are the most important element of this new mode of public service

There’s a lot to like in this vision of decentralised, democratic public service, particularly if it brings about the alchemical “better services at lower cost” that we’re all hunting around for.

I don’t think it’s a simple or risk-free transformation, though. The questions that occurred to me were:

• Public service delivery is something that goes wider than taxpayer funding, but it is also something that is fundamentally political. How can decentralised local organisations be made accountable and representative to their users and those who pay any taxes that fund them?
• Are we acknowledging the problems of Whitehall managerialism only to create them over again at local level?
• How do we create the active and informed citizens needed to co-create and co-produce these services? It feels like the change needed – though a good change – is either a years-long cultural transformation programme, or devolution to a group of super-engaged people running local services.

I don’t have any easy answers. I want to see more democratic and less managerial service delivery – which is what both Ben and Christian were describing. I want fair and comprehensive public services. I buy the vision and the potential. My only nagging worry is that in a world where we’re living with the consequences of the efficient markets fallacy, we should be wary of stumbling into an efficient citizen fallacy.

Originally published at Local Democracy. Please leave any comments there.

I like to cook a lot more than I like to eat. But usually I’m only cooking for myself, and leaving Andrew to fend for himself.

We’re like Jack Sprat and his wife; there’s practically nothing we both eat, and especially when I was working, we’d never eat at the same times of day anyway.

Last night, though, I felt like cooking even though I was too sick and headachey to be interested in eating. Plus I got, in my veg box (lovely magic veg box! i still haven’t gotten over the novelty of this food-turning-up-on-my-doorstep thing) one of the very few vegetables that Andrew will eat but I really don’t like. But he’ll only eat it in stew, where it tastes of gravy anyway.

So yesterday I bought some lamb mince -- I can’t even remember the last time I cooked with meat1 and since it was frozen and I didn’t have to touch it, just dump it out of the bag, it was fine with me -- and chopped up an onion and the swede (that’s the one I’m not keen on) and a few carrots and potatoes and it was just starting to bubble away on the stove when Andrew got in from work.

Domestic goddess, that’s me.

I ladled some of the stew into a bowl and brought it to him, then went to lie down and nurse my headache. From time to time, though, I heard the clinking of the spoon on the bowl as he ate, and I thought there are few things that make me as happy as that sound, evidence that someone is getting something out of my effort, my skill and work is giving nourishment to another person.

(And one who’s not too picky about what it tastes like, so there’s no pressure there!)

I drifted off to sleep quite happily then.

Not really in the mood to write lots of text, so I’ll just say — :-)

Global Frequency Take Two

Mark your calendars people, for today, the very light of God^H^H^H Ellis shone upon us once more.

(I am more than a little excited about this.)

The best article I've seen on Afghanistan recently. Really sums it up. And yes, I like it because it says all the things I said in 2002 about both Iraq and Afghanistan being hopeless.

Ah, Boris Johnson - "we have to stay or we will betray the soldiers who have died so far". How often do we have to hear that one? Does anyone mind that it can apply to any war, and need never stop applying? How about not betraying all your other soldiers by wasting their deaths in an unwinnable, unnecessary war?

From thessalian on twitter: a comic called Jesus Hates Zombies, this week co-starring Lincoln Hates Werewolves.

They appear to be sitting on the General Lee from the Dukes of Hazzard. This may be the greatest comic ever.





Edit: And I *still* haven't seen Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter.

I recently added stats and high score gathering to some of my card games on Rosamund's Bower, and I could really do with a bit of help getting some scores on the boards, so it doesn't look quite as empty. So if anyone's got time and inclination, if you could head over there, create an account, log in and then play (and preferably win!) any of the games in the stats enabled category (here), I'd appreciate it. If you don't think you know any of the games, Klondike is probably a good place to start!

If you were to add one blog to your RSS reader at my request, please make it Chris Dillow’s Stumbling and Mumbling.

It’s about ‘Clarksonism.’ Why  tedious self-pitying rich white blokes on the telly the question of ’subjective well-being’ is an important one to understand and why politicians often end up being forced to expend lots of energy on people with imaginary grievances while ignoring those with genuine ones:

“Almost a fifth of the poorest one-fifth of people – and these, remember, are the poorest in the world – say they are satisfied with their lives, whilst a third of the best-off fifth say they are dissatisfied.

This suggests that subjective indicators – how people feel, what they say – are an imperfect measure of actual inequality.”

This is another example of the way that highly visible citizens can often dominate debate at the expense of other – perhaps more deserving – cases. In another example of this, the Freethinking Economist gives us Theodore Dalrymple. It is the Jeremys, the Theodores and the Victors who are often – as Anthony observed here a while ago – the main beneficiaries of a good deal of outreach and consultation work.

Originally published at Local Democracy. Please leave any comments there.