Home - Diary Of An ADI

UKIP Just Won’t Go Away… Yet

30/05/2014

During last week’s election coverage, one of the truest comments ever uttered came from UKIP.

Discussing the party’s relatively poor performance in London on Radio 4, [Suzanne] Evans [the Party Spokesman/person] seemed to agree with the host that they had difficulty appealing to the “educated, cultural and young.”

It has been described as “a sound bite UKIP would rather forget”. But you can’t help seeing the truth in it – UKIP and its policies appeals to the kind of person who is likely to start every conversation they get involved with by saying “I’m not a racist, but…”, but who then launches into various illogical explanations about why immigrants are bad. So it is quite true that educated and more tolerant people might not vote for them.

What IS worrying, therefore, is how many people across the country appear to be so uneducated and intolerant if you go by UKIP’s showing in the election.

Like it or not, Britain is not a balanced country as far as racial tolerance (or attitude to being a part of Europe) goes. To try and counter that, there is a lot of artificial bias – positive discrimination, if you like – but all this does is add fuel to the fire for those who already hold nationalist views. Without some of that positive discrimination (and laws prohibiting it, of course), bonfires of burning immigrants would be a commonplace thing on our streets.* As a result, the pent-up frustration at not being able to take such action means that one way or another parties like UKIP will always have support.

Worryingly, such support appears to come from places you would least expect it to. I note that in today’s papers, it is reported that the BBC has received almost 1,200 complaints about its “biased” election coverage. I must say that on election day last week the way the BBC was reporting the results on its election web site made me wonder if I was missing something. Labour had made significant gains, and yet this was being reported in such a manner that you got the distinct impression they’d lost everything (there were 73 complaints about this). Tory and LibDem losses were huge, and yet were skimmed over somewhat. It was only later in the day that Labour’s improved performance compared to the last General Election started to be acknowledged in any way, even though the numbers hadn’t changed. I was certain then – and even more so now this story has emerged – that the BBC had responded to complaints and changed their tack.

Apparently, it is the highest number of complaints the BBC has ever received over its coverage of any party during an election. However, as you’d expect, the BBC denies everything, saying its coverage was proportionate and fair. From what I saw, it wasn’t. The BBC’s interpretations and headlines did not represent the numbers actually coming from the counts.

Another story from today shows how unpleasant political correctness of all kinds (not just that involving politics) can be when it crops up in the midst of such a bias-fest. Newsnight, a BBC political programme, has been dumbed down over the years along with much of the BBC’s other output. These days, Newsnight likes to invite celebrities on to the panel to comment on questions put forward by the audience. It did this last week, and featured footballer Joey Barton alongside yet another UKIP member, Louise Bours. When asked to comment on the UKIP showing, Barton responded as outlined in these two paragraphs:

The footballer said last week’s outcome – when UKIP won 27% of the overall vote – was far from a ringing endorsement of the party, since only 34% of the eligible electorate had voted.

Describing UKIP as the “best of a bad bunch”, he added: “So if I am somewhere and there were four really ugly girls, I’m thinking, ‘Well, she’s not the worst’, because that is all you are, that is all you are to us.”

Now, anyone with any sense would have stopped at the “bad bunch” part. But this is Joey Barton we’re talking about, and he didn’t.

Bours then:

…accused Mr Barton of “ignorance” and having his “brains in his feet”.

Barton’s comment could have been made far more eloquently, and with much more humour. As it was, it was clumsy and immature given the setting. But any reference to a woman or girl in anything other than a context implying female superiority is always going to provide a political correctness card the size of a skyscraper to any politician appearing on TV if they needed to belittle someone’s beliefs or opinions. Of course, if a female (or gay) person had likened something to picking the best looking of four ugly blokes at a bar, there’d be no case to answer. See how positive discrimination works?

In actual fact, if you look at Barton’s comments without any blinkers on, Bours’ comments to Barton were actually far more offensive, and show how easily such attitudes come to the surface when UKIP is challenged. They were personal and specific, whereas Barton’s were generic. But it’s funny how UKIP and its policies can border on racism, and yet become so sanctimonious when sexism is detected.

Their policy on immigration is what sold UKIP to the majority of those who voted for them. Tony Blair has recently referred to what is behind the UKIP facade as “pretty nasty and unpleasant”. It seems that not a day goes by where the truth in this comment is highlighted. In December last year UKIP politician, Victoria Ayling, was criticised for a video, made while she was still a Tory. In it, she says:

…multiculturalism doesn’t work, Britishness does,

…multiculturalism is dead, I’m allowed to say that, but maybe Britishness is waving the National Front flag a bit.

…We must control immigration. We cannot sustain the numbers coming in; the strains on our infrastructure are enormous. Control should be done fairly and the points system like they have in Australia and all those coming here should be encouraged to speak English so they can integrate,

…I just want to send the lot back but I can’t say that.

Elsewhere in the footage, she says:

Do we want the French to order our troops?

Sod that. Just think of Waterloo, bastards.

She claims that her comments were taken “out of context”, but I think we have the context just right. UKIP leader, Nigel Farage, made some extremely slight noises of concern, but I note that Ayling may stand as the UKIP candidate for Great Grimsby in next year’s general election.

Only a few weeks ago, Farage himself was criticised for his comments about Romanians. He said:

Any normal and fair-minded person would have a perfect right to be concerned if a group of Romanian people suddenly moved in next door.

UKIP says he was “tired” when he made the comments, so I guess they’re suggesting that he meant exactly the opposite of what he said. Of course he did! And then there was a more recent radio interview, where he was quizzed over his previous comments when:

…he said he felt “uncomfortable” about the fact so little English was spoken on a train journey he took from London to his Kent home.

Still more recently – and quite probably after the realisation that its performance in the latest election was Serious Stuff – it seems that UKIP has sacked a newly-elected councillor for “racist and homophobic remarks”. Unfortunately, the councillor in question is an extreme example of the sort of thinking that attracts people to UKIP, and you can’t help wonder if he would have been sacked 12 months ago if he’d have made similar comments. In many respects, what he said was merely an extremely crude rendering of what others have been saying (for example, that one above about foreign speakers on the train).

* Note that this is a joke. Unfortunately, I have to explain this sort of thing for the hard-of-understanding types out there (like that crazy woman in Manchester who wrote to me a while back).

PoliceWitness.com – An Update

29/05/2014

DOAADI

ADI, Archived, Driving Tests, DVSA, News

As of June 2019, this article has received a few hits. Please note that it is an old post and is not relevant any longer. DVSA allows recording of tests using dashcams now (but still not the audio). Indeed, I often use dashcam footage to show pupils where they went wrong. However, the original post is still of interest because of what was being advised at the time I wrote it. Namely, covert recording of tests at a time when DVSA (or DSA as it was) did not allow it.

Back in February I commented on a story that had come through on the newsfeeds concerning advice from PoliceWitness.com. The company sells in-car cameras, and in a story published in Fleet News, it was stated:

Learner drivers are being encouraged to film their driving tests, covertly if necessary, by PoliceWitness.com.

Earlier today, I received an email from PoliceWitness.com. The full text is as follows (with their permission):

Dear Sir,

I am writing with reference to your post on your website, diary of an adi: https://www.diaryofanadi.co.uk/?p=14855 which states that PoliceWitness.com has given irresponsible advice about filming driving tests.

I wanted to take the opportunity to clear up any confusion and thought it would be useful to update you on our recent correspondence with Alastair Peoples, the Chief Executive of the DVSA.

On your website you state “PoliceWitness is getting itself into a very muddy area, since unless an examiner gives permission such recording could be a breach of the Data Protection Act”.

When we contacted Alastair Peoples and asked about the DPA and filming of driving tests, his reply was “…You suggested that we have used the Data Protection Act as the reason why we do not allow the filming of driving tests. This is not the case. While it is true there are data protection issues associated with the recording of tests, the main reason we do not allow tests to be recorded is that a single video camera mounted in a test car could not provide an accurate record of everything that happened on test”.

We have had several subsequent letters from Mr Peoples who has recently advised, and I quote “As you may appreciate, there are many issues to take into account when considering the recording of driving tests. For many years, our position has been – aside from a few very exceptional circumstances – that we did not allow the recording of live tests. This policy developed largely from our concerns that the recording of tests from inside a vehicle could have been a breach of the Data Protection Act. We were also concerned that footage from a single, internally-mounted camera could not show a true representation of events both inside and outside the vehicle. There is also the possibility that a recording could be altered to show something different from what actually happened.

We are, however, aware that times change and cars that are fitted with cameras, telematics systems and other forms of recording devices for insurance purposes are becoming more common. It is difficult to foresee how we could exclude vehicles with these technologies from

testing, neither would we wish to do so. We are committed to working with stakeholders to design a modern and relevant driver training and testing regime that delivers safe and responsible drivers and riders. It is clear that the current position on the recording of driving tests needs to be reviewed and we are currently looking into that. During that review the safety of test candidates, examiners and other road users, and the integrity of the driving test must take priority. Once we have completed our review we will publicise the outcome through the usual communication channels”

As a driving instructor (are you based in Nottingham?) I thought you might be interested to hear about the driving test review that is underway and to hear how PoliceWitness.com is supporting many DI’s who have dash cams installed, not only to protect themselves on the road but to use them as a training tool for their pupils.

I hope you have found the update from Mr Peoples useful and would be interested to hear your thoughts on the matter.

Kind regards,

Paul
Customer Services

With a proven track record of holding bad drivers to account, we have been instrumental in changing driving standards for the better.

Our most significant step forward of late has been to secure genuine insurance reductions for those using a dash cam.

Unlike many insurers that merely use ‘x% off’ as a marketing message, we’ve gone straight to an underwriter who already recognised and understood the benefits of a dash cam during a claim.

As such we guarantee to reduce our members insurance costs. Even beating the likes of Direct Line and Aviva. An announcement will follow.

In my response, I included an email I received from DSA (now, DVSA) in February this year, which I also include in full, below (I have underlined the significant portions):

Dear [DOAADI]
Thank you for your email of 3 February about using video equipment to record a practical driving test. I appreciate you bringing this matter to our attention. I have informed our relevant departments who will also investigate further if necessary.

We do not allow people to record driving tests as images and/or audio recorded consist of, in most cases, the personal data of the examiner. This means that the images or recordings are subject to the Data Protection Act (DPA).

The fact the act is employed means that the Approved Driving Instructor must ensure the processing of this personal data is ‘Fair’ and they satisfy certain conditions that allow processing in this way. They must take account of the privacy and wishes of the person whose being filmed, especially when an individual objects to filming. Based on this, we made the decision to prohibit the filming of tests, owing to the data protection issues involved.

It is within the examiner’s rights to stop a test if they become aware of someone filming the test without the agency’s permission. If it becomes apparent that filming equipment is active either in a test vehicle or externally, the examiner should politely ask for the equipment to be switched off. If this request is not complied with the test should be terminated.

If a test is terminated because of filming the candidate would lose their fee. If a test is filmed covertly and the examiner did not know, then all DPA laws would apply. Our position is still that we do not allow tests to be recorded because of the DPA protection implications. If a test is filmed we would not view the footage unless it is deemed to have involved criminal activity, in this instance we would send the film directly to the Police.

You can find further information here.

This is not to say that vehicles fitted with CCTV etc will be refused for test. However, the equipment must be turned off while the test occurs.

Yours sincerely

Customer Support Correspondence

Customer Operations
[old DSA email address no longer correct]

As you can see, there is a discrepancy here. Alastair Peoples says one thing, whereas the DSA part of the new DVSA says another. However, the fact remains that – at present – DVSA does not allow any form of recording to take place during tests, and I maintain that it is – at present – irresponsible to advise covert recording of driving tests.

There are a number of issues that Alastair Peoples does not seem to have considered in his comments to PoliceWitness.com. Concerning DPA, there is the fact that the majority of test candidates are under the age of 18 (and a large proportion of those are female). The Protection of Children Act (1978) was amended in 2003 to apply to anyone under the age of 18, and so the routine recording of 17-year olds will definitely raise questions – or, at the very least, put the person making such recordings in a very risky position – should the person being filmed raise any objections. I’m not saying it would definitely be in breach of the DPA and associated laws, but it is clearly sailing bloody close to the wind. Also, the inside of a tuition vehicle is not a “public place”, so as I said in that earlier article, it’s a very muddy area – and one that is best kept out of by instructors,

Furthermore – and irrespective of any possibility that recordings can be amended to show something different to what actually took place – in order for a bona fide recording to show all of the necessary information for an appeal over a test result, it would have to have been made from several simultaneous camera angles. To cover all possible situations, you would need forward- and rear-facing footage, footage from at least one camera either side of the car, and close-ups of both the examiner and the candidate. All of these channels (at least six) would have to be synchronised. Only then could you begin to address the usual “but I did check… oh no, you didn’t” claims when someone fails. And it would still need lengthy expert assessment to decipher what was going on. Mr Peoples doesn’t seem to have considered that – or how much it would cost DVSA to wade through the inevitable deluge of unfair claims that would ensue.

And yes, there is the risk of footage being edited to bolster any claim, though this is the least of any problems that might arise from allowing tests to be recorded.

You also have to remember that both VOSA and DSA have a long history of “looking into things” – and an equally long history of actually doing bugger all about any of them in the end. For Alastair Peoples to say something like this now – less than a year away from a General Election – is typical. It is likely we will have a new government this time next year, and in the meantime the existing one will be more concerned about not losing votes than it is about changing things which won’t win any. In any case, the uncertainties over the legal situation mean that changes to the Law are likely, and that means consultations. All of this is even less likely to happen inside any reasonable time frame.

I have no problem with PoliceWitness.com selling cameras for the purposes of combatting theft and fraud, but driving tests are not conducted fraudulently, give or take a few high-profile cases every few years. Advising covert recording of something which is already expressly forbidden is a bit of a contradiction in terms.

This article is getting a a fair few hits from Theory Test Pro, and an article of theirs which give 5 reasons why ADIs should use a dash cam. All of the reasons are sound – and not one of them involves recording driving tests.

As I have written before, I use a camera for training purposes – I’ve experimented with several – but recording tests is something I would never do, even if it was allowed. [EDIT 2019: I am a steaming hypocrite! I forgot I actually wrote those words until just now. Since DVSA started allowing it, I initially didn’t record tests. But then I got a camera which starts up as soon as the car is started, and I didn’t want to keep removing it, so I left it in. It’s turned out to be a Godsend in helping pupils understand what they did right/wrong on test]. There is simply no need. And there is no need for any of the many hundreds of other people who take tests daily to record theirs, either. There’s even less need for them to be egged on by someone who sells cameras on the premise that they’re being cheated out of test passes.

It must be stressed that DVSA does not object to dash cams being fitted. However, driving tests cannot be recorded [that is no longer correct in 2019, or for the last couple of years]. People seem a little confused by this, and seem to assume having the dash cam at all is a problem. It isn’t.

This article has been getting a few hits during the summer from a forum dedicated to one particular dash cam. The thread that is triggering the interest has two posts of note.

One ADI comments that he has forgotten to switch his camera off a few times on test, and that the footage makes “interesting viewing”. This is a fairly ambiguous comment – it may mean just what it says (though you can sit in on test and see exactly the same “interesting” things), or it could mean that the ADI in question disagrees with what he has seen.

However, all ambiguity is removed by another poster, who comments:

I bet they do make interesting videos! I may have to “forget” to switch mine off during test!

Regular readers will know that I often refer to the attitudes of some ADIs, and how this us-and-them approach to the DVSA doesn’t do anyone any favours. Deliberately suggesting that DVSA rules are going to be broken – and the current rule IS that no videoing of tests is allowed – is… well, you can work it out for yourself.

I’m sure some people become ADIs just to cause trouble. There is no need whatsoever for 99.9% of tests to be recorded, and the remaining 0.1% is insufficient (and insignificant enough) to justify that they should be! The DVSA is NOT routinely doing anything that warrants covert filming, and it is nauseating to keep hearing camera vendors, disgruntled pupils, and even ADIs suggest that they are.

Note this update from September 2014. DVSA will now allow insurance cameras to be fitted and running, but you still cannot record driving tests per se or any audio, nor will DVSA enter into any form of discussion about disputes arising from such insurance video footage.

My original assertion that advising people to covertly record their tests is irresponsible still stands. However, I do think DVSA has shot itself in the foot (albeit with a spud gun) over this.

I don’t think they should have changed their original stance.

Note the edits in this post. I forgot I’d written it until it started getting hits in June 2019. I have done a U-turn and record tests (but never audio). It is very useful. But note that the original purpose of the post was valid – at the time, DVSA (or DSA as it was called then) didn’t allow recording at all, and the company referred to was advising covert recording in complete opposition to that – apparently with the suggestion that test fails could be appealed.

DVSA will not entertain an appeal based on video footage for the reasons already given.

Universities To Clamp Down On Binge-Drinking

29/05/2014

DOAADI

General, News

Most people will have heard the classic version of 11th century King Canute attempting to hold back the waves, and failing. Well, it seems we now have a modern equivalent.

The National Union of Students (NUS) is bringing in a new “initiative” to stem the tide of binge-drinking amongst students (the Home Office is also involved).

…the aim is to create a “cafe culture that runs into the evening”.

Not that old “cafe culture” thing again! The British and “cafe culture” are poles apart – and the gap is even wider where students are involved. One of the prime considerations for people going to university is the night life – the choice of university for many students is based purely on the craic available in the host city. “Cafe culture” doesn’t even appear on the list.

It’s like tapas bars. They’re great if you go to Spain, but in Britain they’re both expensive (compared to Spain) and pretentious. We have one in West Bridgford, and you should see the kind or people who go in there (actually, West Bridgford is probably the only place one would work in Nottingham). And “cafe culture” is the same – the British just don’t do “cafe culture” very well at all.

Driving past any of the numerous student complexes in Nottingham (this is yet another way in which the City Council is screwing up this place – instead of building houses, it builds student flats, and then tears up green belt for the houses) you can see the level of “cafe culture”, as the current residents proudly display their empty vodka and Jägermeister bottles on their windowsills. You can also assess how well the “cafe culture” went the previous evening from the number of smashed bottles and glasses in the roads around student digs when you go to pick up a pupil from one of them.

The true British ethic is also well illustrated by the boards outside trendy bars (“shots and bombs, £1 all night”), and this is where you should start if you’re going to try and prevent students getting rat-arsed at every opportunity. If they had to pay £4 a pop like the rest of us, they’d soon cut down.

Independent Driving And Tit-For-Tat

26/05/2014

DOAADI

ADI, General, Training

I noticed someone comment recently that the independent driving part of the driving test is pointless and a waste of time simply because it doesn’t matter if someone fails to follow the directions accurately.

This is a rather short-sighted view. I’ve noticed time and again that in the early stages of learning, when I am giving directions, I can train pupils to use the MSM routine with no problem. The fun starts the first time I let them choose a route (maybe driving home) or if we are actually attempting a test-like independent drive with a map or road signs. Now that my voice isn’t a trigger any more, the majority of pupils immediately start missing mirror checks and signals, and some of those cases are clearly down to not having that verbal trigger. Prior to the independent driving assessment this was rarely dealt with, and it certainly wasn’t tested for.

The driving test is 40 minutes long. Until it becomes a continuously assessed year-long event (and that will be roughly around the same time that hell freezes over), it will always have limitations. Introducing the independent driving element definitely addressed one potential issue that the test previously did not.

Of course, how people choose to drive when they have passed is not the fault of the test, the examiner, the instructor, or any other third party who wouldn’t have been involved if the driver hadn’t chosen to learn to drive in the first place. It is, however, the fault of the parents – in large part.

And don’t get me started on special needs candidates who, according to some, “can’t cope” with the independent drive segment of the test. You have to wonder what these drivers will do when they pass and start driving around on their own. If they cause an accident through not driving properly, people can still die.

The simple fact is that if you go the wrong way, but do it properly, then you haven’t done anything wrong. You’re not being tested on navigation skills, you’re being tested on your ability to drive safely. However, being in the wrong lane for the turn you are going to take is NOT safe. The examiner knows this, and it’s where the faults usually come from – directly (if you cut across traffic) or indirectly (if the examiner reminds you where he wants you to go to avoid ending up on a motorway or in a canal, and you panic). Unfortunately, in real life – especially with new drivers – what someone says they were going to do and what they actually did do don’t always marry up.

Here’s an example from a lesson tonight. I had to stop a pupil from entering a tight, two-laned roundabout which she had approached too fast. Even if the roundabout had been clear, there was no way she would have kept in lane had she entered it at the speed she was doing, and there was no way of knowing what she would have done – or which exit she would have headed for in her panic – once she realised what was happening. Subsequently, there was no way whatsoever I was going to wait to find out, and I used the dual controls. After we stopped to discuss it, she insisted that she was going to brake, but that I had beaten her to it. I pointed out the following (more diplomatically):

if my internal panic-o-meter maxes out then I will take action
if I have to take action, then you were too late
it doesn’t matter what you say you were going to do – you didn’t do it by the time I had to
I am not going to risk my life, your life, other peoples lives, or my car gambling on whether or not you will react in time – or on how you will react
…and the examiner will view it in exactly the same way

It seems that the original comments about independent driving stem from a discussion on another forum, where someone thrice removed from an alleged situation had heard a story from the parents of a test candidate who had been failed for being in the wrong lane at a roundabout. The hearsay reports that the candidate had been asked to take the second exit on a roundabout as part of the independent drive, but he signalled and positioned as if to take the first. He had insisted to his parents that he was going to take the first exit, and the parents had contacted this thrice-removed ADI, who was also a family member. As you’d expect, the usual suspects have stacked up against the examiner, even though all of them are even further removed from being associated with any reliable facts. Several have even gone so far as to state categorically that it “shouldn’t have been a fail”. No one who is so far away from knowing the full story can possibly make such an assertion and be taken seriously.

In my own example from above, if you just say that I used the dual controls but the pupil insisted she was going to stop, it sounds like I was somehow in the wrong. It is only when you have the full facts that anything like the true situation starts to emerge. My pupil can argue all she likes, but she was going too fast and could easily have hit another vehicle, so the question over whether or not she’d have braked and given us both whiplash into the bargain becomes moot.

There is every likelihood that the failed test candidate in the forum example was acting irrationally enough for the examiner to decide not to risk it developing any further. That is quite probably why he took action, and correctly so. If nothing else, those people who are thrice removed from the events should certainly consider it instead of just trying to trash the DVSA.

Independent driving is about showing that you can drive a car safely without being prompted to use MSM with frequent directions all the time – something a learner will have to be able to do the moment they pass their test. Being tested this way is better than not being tested at all, which the old version of the test was guilty of.

eBay And Hacking Scandal

23/05/2014

DOAADI

Computers & Tech, News

I use eBay a lot – mainly to buy, very occasionally to sell. I like it because items listed there are usually cheaper than identical items from normal online retailers. In addition, postage is often free – I’ve lost count of the times I’ve got to the checkout stages with an online retailer who is advertising something at a low price only to discover on the final page that postage costs are close to (and sometimes more than) the advertised price of the thing I’m trying to buy. Amazon is bad for this where third-party vendors are involved.

Of course, this is an underhand way of dragging people in – a bit like driving instructors advertising low prices, then trying to keep hold of people for more lessons to make up some of the shortfall they’ve created for themselves. For example, over on eBay something might be advertised at £15 with free postage, whereas an online store will be blatantly advertising the same product for £10 – but with postage costs (hidden right until the end) set at something like £8.99 (and then it arrives seven days later by first/second class Royal Mail – not Special Delivery – in a Jiffy bag).

Anyway, back to eBay. Some years ago I picked up a newly-published book while I was at Heathrow waiting for a flight to Vienna. It was called The Perfect Store: Inside Ebay, written by Adam Cohen. It’s worth getting hold of a copy if only to marvel at how the dotcom bubble of the 90s so easily made silk purses out of sows’ ears, and then for seeing how writers like Cohen managed to hype it up still further a decade later. In truth, eBay existed for years with a sociopath in charge of the hardware and software on which it depended. Every step forward the company made was opposed by the sandal and poncho-wearing employees who had been there from the start. Flotation on the stock market was seen as a sell-out by these people, and as an insult to what “eBay stood for”. In fact, the main reasons eBay was so successful very early on was because of a) the chat room it operated, and b) those who used it, and who didn’t have lives of their own. Some of the original employees were drawn from this pool of misfits, and they fitted the TV sit-com stereotype of that era like a hand in a glove. Once eBay moved to real offices, staff really did play office ball games at set times every day, and they really did consider desks, suits, and ties as “terminally un-cool” (apparently, no one who turned up to an interview in such attired was ever recruited, and that was on the say-so of the recently promoted chat room people). As an aside, the book is also notable for the number of times Cohen uses the word “iconoclastic” to describe founder, Pierre Omidyar.

The buying and selling part of eBay eventually reached critical mass, and it became successful IN SPITE of the chat room and the weirdoes in it. However, it never got rid of the underlying “hippiness” and radical attitudes – particularly those which dogged its technical division – and those attitudes persist to this day.

If ever you’ve ever had contact eBay you will know that you’re like a drop of water falling on to a bone-dry sponge the size of several football fields. You’ll get saccharin-sweet emails which don’t help one bit or, if you phone (or online chat) them, you’ll be connected with someone with a restricted grasp of English who will try to persuade you that your problem fits into one the the neat pigeon holes he (or she) has on the desk in front of him. When it doesn’t. he will try to persuade you that it does, and before long you’ll be wishing you’d never bothered.

It comes as no surprise, therefore, to discover this same attitude permeating eBay’s responses (or lack thereof) to the recent massive hack, which has seen the personal details of every single eBay user stolen.

To start with, it has taken eBay as much as THREE MONTHS to reveal that the hack took place. That’s THREE MONTHS during which the thieves have had plenty of time to steal identities. Secondly, even two days after the announcement – which broke in the media, not from eBay – eBay has still not implemented any form of communication forcing users to change passwords (I changed mine 10 minutes after I saw the story). Thirdly, it would appear that most of the stolen data were not encrypted in any way – which means that someone out there now knows my name, address, date of birth, phone number, and email address. Passwords appear to have had only minimal encryption, meaning a skilled criminal could probably crack them inside a couple of days.

eBay’s attitude and responses to questions from the outside world (or maybe that should be the REAL world) have been typically “eBaysian” (that’s another word the group-hug brigade in the early eBay coined for itself). There are many searching and very relevant questions that eBay has simply not answered. All eBay cares about is eBay.

If I ever find out my identity has been stolen as a result of this, eBay is going to have a lawsuit on its hands. My personal details have basically be handed out to God knows who by eBay.

Come to think of it, eBay made almost $13 billion last year, and the details of 145 million users have been stolen. It would be a relatively simple gesture to pay each of these users $1 million in compensation. Now there’s a thought… because back in the days covered by Cohen’s book, eBay dished out massive bonuses to the weirdoes it originally employed for much less.

Courtney Love @ Nottingham Rock City, 2014

21/05/2014

DOAADI

Music

I’ve always been interested in Courtney Love’s music, as it teeters on the brink of the sharp divide between rock and pop. Songs like Celebrity Skin (with her band, Hole) are a prime example. Anyway, I went to see her last night at Rock City in Nottingham.

The support act was White Miles. Now there is a difference of opinion here – I thought they were great, and my mate (who I go to these gigs with) wasn’t too impressed. They describe themselves as “a dirty pole dance stoner blues rock duo”. If I was describing them, I’d say they were along the lines of The White Stripes, but more energetic. The sound that the two of them produced was quite impressive. Certainly, one to keep an eye on.

Courtney Love was on stage on time, and she put on an impeccable show. She kicked off with Wedding Day (apparently, her new single). Later on, a bit of The Beatles’ Hey Jude got my mate all cynical (as he always is of any attempts by other artistes to play “the classics”) was played Courtney-style. This was later followed by Skinny Little Bitch – another one I liked from a while back.

It’s hard to believe that she’s nearly 50. The encore of the hour and a half set closed with Doll Parts.

I was surprised at the relatively low turnout. I’d say that the hall was about 50-60% full, but at least it meant that you could stand comfortably without people trying to get in front all the time (plus it was easy to get out at the end).

Courtney didn’t swear anywhere near as much as I was expecting her to, but the brief periods of expletives brought squeals of pleasure from the mainly young (and probably underage) female crowd. In fact, given that she was interviewed on BBC Breakfast last week I suspect she might be mellowing a little with age.

Unlike her original band, Hole, the current supporting musicians are all male and they’re a very tight outfit.

The lighting was good, and it made for some great pictures, as you can see here (you can read Courtney’s tattoos in most of them on the originals).

We finished off the evening with an interesting curry in the Mogal-e-Azam, as usual. That place has gone weird – they have two chefs now, it seems, and both have totally different approaches. Pilau rice shouldn’t really have sweetcorn, green beans, and peas in it, and it shouldn’t be cooked in chicken stock – but it did last night. Add to this the one we had a few months ago, where my Chicken Methi had about half a kilo of fresh Methi leaves in it (dried Methi is the flavour you want when you order a Methi dish), and you can see why “weird” is the best word to use. It was still nice – just… odd.

Fortunately, I’d made sure I had no lessons until this afternoon. I miscalculated with my dietary preparations earlier in the day yesterday (line your stomach with something fatty) and the beer hit me harder than I would have liked, and I had a bit of a thick head this morning!

But another fine musical interlude in the middle of the business of teaching people to drive. At the moment, the only gig lined up is Status Quo later this year – December, I think – so something needs to come up to fill the gap in between.

Sickening Story From Oz About Distracted Driving

19/05/2014

DOAADI

Bad Drivers, News, World

I thought our legal system was bad enough, but Australia’s appears even worse – particularly if you come from, say, Taiwan.

Meghan Hopper is the daughter of a prominent local businessman in Queensland. She was arseing about with her iPhone (apparently using Google Maps) when she slammed into Taiwanese fruit-pickers Chen-Chuan Yang and Kwan-Jun Wu. Yang was killed, and Wu severely injured. Hopper said she did not see either of the innocent parties. She was 17-years old and driving on P plates at the time.

Laughably, Hopper was awarded a 30-month suspended sentence for all this.

The sentence was considered to be too lenient by the Attorney-General (AG) and it was appealed. The AG said:

I appealed the sentence of Ms Hopper because I felt her sentence was manifestly inadequate,

I note the Court of Appeal agreed that ordinarily this offence would demand a sentence of imprisonment.

Incredibly, the appeal was lost and the court ruled that the original sentence would stand. The AG subsequently added:

Even so, the court [of appeal] did not hand down a prison sentence and I must respect its decision.

He also added that he had no further avenue of appeal.

To make matters worse, a “respected” former traffic cop has waded in. I’ve put the word “respected” in inverted commas because Garry Church, the person referred to, is a long-time friend of Hopper’s uncle. So obviously he is TOTALLY unbiased on the subject. He is also completely devoid of any logic, and you can only offer thanks to whatever God you believe in that you never had someone like this working against you. He says:

“I don’t by any means condone what Meghan has done in taking a life and seriously injuring another, and I certainly don’t condone the second incident where she was caught using a mobile in the Brisbane area.

“Having a driving licence means you take a big responsibility when entering our road for yourself and other road users and this responsibility shouldn’t be taken lightly.”

But he said he did not believe sending a young person for jail was warranted in this case as it did not involve speed, alcohol or any deliberate act.

Have you ever heard such complete bollocks in your life? In the UK, what Hopper did would have got her sent away for up to 14 years (though being a woman, our Courts would probably have gone for a sentence way down at the lower end).

And it gets even worse. Five months after her spoilt brat attitude killed Yang, she was stopped in Brisbane by police after she was caught using her mobile phone while driving.

The Appeal Court totally ignored that detail, or the fact that she clearly hadn’t learned any sort of lesson. Her well-to-do family hired a lawyer who – at the original trial:

…put in a sterling performance and kept the teen out of the big house.

His address was professional and impeccable.

He told the court Hopper had “found religion” since the incident. Looks like she forgot it again when she was driving around Brisbane.

The stupidity doesn’t stop there. At the appeal:

The Queensland Court of Appeal on Friday dismissed Mr Bleijie’s [the AG] appeal despite all three justices agreeing the sentence was manifestly inadequate.

Two of them exercised their discretion not to interfere based on Hopper’s rehabilitation attempts and psychologist visits since sentence.

The Aussie judges are on a more distant planet than UK ones, it seems. How can you agree that the sentence is inadequate, then turn down an appeal to have it sharpened?

Justice Hugh Fraser said new evidence showed Hopper had benefited from not having a custodial sentence.

Yes, and she showed what benefit that was 5 months later when she was caught using a phone at the wheel of her car. Again.

Apparently, there are over 7,000 other people serving jail terms in Australia for lesser crimes than this. It is worth reading that whole article just to get a handle on how stupid the Australian legal system appears to be, especially over this affair.

Let’s just go into theoretical territory a moment. Nothing to do with Hopper or her wealthy family with it’s obvious connections to the local police force, you understand. You can imagine how – if you had the right connections, and if the courts were corrupt enough to respond to such connections – you could put sufficient pressure on them to get an ultra-soft sentence for a crime which would ordinarily warrant a much harsher outcome. Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?

One thing we can conclude with some confidence. The life of a Taiwanese fruit-picker is worth a lot less than that of a dumb and spoilt little Australian rich girl as far as this Australian court is concerned. I wonder if they’d have behaved as leniently if it had been a Taiwanese fruit-picker who had slammed into Meghan Hopper? I doubt it.

Arsenal Get Another Trophy At Last!

17/05/2014

DOAADI

General

The good weather brought in a flood of “I’m not very well” calls today, which was fine by me because I would have missed the FA Cup on TV otherwise. Until Arsenal scored that third goal, I would have happily rather have spent a whole week teaching problem pupils than go through that.

Being an Arsenal fan this season has been very painful. We’re easily good enough to win the title, the Champions League, and any other competition there is out there. But we didn’t. Again.

What people forget is that we still did well in those other competitions. We were top of the table for longer than anyone else this season, but a disastrous couple of months earlier this year killed off our challenge. Arguably, injuries to Theo Walcott and Aaron Ramsey were the deciders, but I don’t like thinking of us as relying on individuals – the rest of the team is good, too. It’s just bloody inconsistent.

It was nice to hear Aaron Ramsey say:

…the manager has always believed in us. This [is] for Arsene – and we now know he’ll put pen to paper.

Let’s hope that some of the Arsenal supporters out there also start thinking the same way – because I’ll tell you now, one of the biggest obstacles Arsenal have had to deal with over the last few seasons (and one that will screw things up in future seasons if it keeps going) is the loud mouthed anti-Wenger brigade demanding that he be sacked. When Wenger eventually leaves, we’ll be screwed for a long time.

Arsene Wenger didn’t choose to sell the likes of Robin van Persie, Cesc Fabregas, Samir Nasri, or any of the others who were greedily following the scent of money (well, maybe not Fabregas, but all the others to be sure). He had no choice in the matter. Can you imagine the effect it would have on a player – and those around him – if he were forced to see out his contract when he had made every effort to leave? At any club? Arsene has never bowed to that sort of pressure, and hopefully he never will.

I think I’ve mentioned before that in an interview last year – shortly before they bought Mesut Özil – Ivan Gazidis (CEO) implied that Arsenal had been following a strict financial path following the move to the Emirates, which had come to an end and money was now available for players. In spite of targeting several other players, none were available – and there’s not much you can do about that.

Even now, after today’s win, there are those people out there trying to stab Wenger in the back. The simple truth is that some of the poor performances Arsenal have put in have been down to the players and not the manager. Someone who can play as if they were at the top of the world some weeks, and then have a run of absolute stinkers, is at fault – not their manager. IN fact, credit has to go to the manager – as Aaron Ramsey has clearly articulated – for sticking with them. And that has always been one of Wenger’s strengths. Mark my words: when Arsene leaves, Arsenal will have the turmoil that other clubs have who change managers. The Club is never going to be as free with its money as Chelsea or Manchester City (unless a loopy billionaire buys them) – it can’t be, because it doesn’t have it in the same quantities. What it DOES have is Arsene Wenger’s astute management. Without that, we’d be nowhere.

These anti-Wengerites seem to think that every time a player puts in a bad show, or if he becomes disliked by the fans, you simply dump him in a skip and buy a better one. They’re idiots.

Anyway, Arsenal didn’t put on a classic display by any means, though they came close for large parts of the match after the first 25 minutes (and especially towards the end and in extra time). They came away with 65% possession and over 30 shots at goal (which certainly didn’t look likely after 10 minutes when they were already 2-0 down). All three goals were impressive one way or the other (that back heel for the second through the defender’s legs was deliberate).

Anyway, a huge relief in the end. Well done Arsene and the Team – you all deserve it.

(And well done Hull City for putting in a great performance themselves).