Rain Rain Go Away.

I felt like turning on the camera & talking about the weather. Well, it's what us Brits do best isn't it?

Solar Power, Yes Please.

Over two years ago, on 15th October 2009 to be precise, i wrote a blog post all about climate change (Blog Action day 2009: Climate Change).
In that post i mentioned my feelings about solar power and the fact that here in the UK it seems to be the forgotten option when it comes to renewable power.

This topic has, once again, raised its head again over recent days.
Yesterday the High Court, here in the UK, ruled as unlawful a decision by the UK Government to change and reduce the subsidies on solar power. These are subsidies that are paid to the small consumer, typically a householder, to encourage solar power generation.

Meanwhile, two Parliamentary committees have also criticised the UK Government over the same issue.

Many commentators think that the Governments decision could sound the death knell for the production of solar panels in the UK, with the loss of many much needed jobs.
Apparently the reason behind the decision is that the installation of solar panels has proved far more popular than anyone predicted. Thereby, costing the Government more money in subsidies.

Whilst i do understand the Governments predicament, especially, in these testing economic times. Surely, we should be encouraging the use of solar power generation, not trying to put people off?
The fact that solar panels on private dwellings have been so popular shows that the general public want to install them. So, why not help them continue to fit them?

I have argued, to anyone who will listen, that we should be concentrating far more on solar power than on wind power to produce the nations renewable energy in the future.
The Government have pumped billions of pounds into wind turbines. Wind turbines that only work when there is a wind and, as we have seen recently, don't actually work that well when there is "too much wind".
Then there is the issue that, in many peoples opinion, wind turbines are a blot on the landscape. I actually quite like them myself, but do totally understand the objections. Solar panels, on the other hand, disturb nobody, make no noise and don't present a hazard to birds either.

I accept that the sun doesn't always shine here in the UK. But, ordinary daylight can still be used to generate solar energy, albeit not as much as on a sunny summers day.

So, for me, there is no issue here. Solar power should be encouraged.
The energy companies and the Government should be looking at ways of generating electricity through solar power and private householders should be encouraged to fit solar panels to their houses. This would then provide cheap natural power to the nation and help protect UK jobs as well.

But, putting on my cynical hat, i can see other reasons why wind power is usually put above solar power.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no plan by the big energy companies to use solar energy as a source of power generation. They all seem to be stuck with this fascination with huge wind turbine farms, both on land and at sea.
I do realise that for them to do this they would have to go down the route that other countries have taken and have solar panel "farms". I have seen this kind of thing in Spain. It takes land to do this and maybe that is the argument against it?

But, maybe another other reason is that wind turbines can't really be fitted to houses very easily?
Planning permission can be a real problem in this area. It can be with solar panels too, but they are nowhere near as visible, or ugly. Wind turbines, after all, are like an extension to a house, or building. Therefore requiring planning permission. Whereas, solar panels are fitted onto the house.

So, if you can't easily fit wind turbines to your house, but solar panels are easy to fit. Why would the energy companies want to encourage you to fit solar panels to your own house, helping you to generate your own electricity and therefore, reducing your need for the energy company in the first place?

If we were all able to afford and fit solar panels to our houses and buildings, we wouldn't need the energy companies at all would we? Or, at least, only for emergency power as a kind of back up.

Of course, the energy companies were created when the UK Government sold off and privatised the energy systems back in the 1980's. Which leads me to wonder, if we still had a Government owned energy system, would we still have this problem with renewable energy systems now?

I'd like to think that if we still had the old system we'd all be encouraged to fit solar panels and save ourselves some money. This way would also encourage householders to conserve energy. Because, if you're generating electricity yourself, you're bound to take more interest in how you use that energy.

This would, in turn, reduce the CO2 emissions of the UK, helping us meet our Kyoto and other targets.
It would also reduce our reliance on energy imported from abroad. Whether that be coal, gas from Russia and even electricity from France. We could not then be held to ransom by other countires and subject to their own price increases.
Surely, that can only be a good thing?

I suspect though, that this will not happen due to the power that the energy companies seem to have over the Government in the UK. They seem to be able to do whatever they want, with very little, or ineffectual Government interference.
All the time the status quo is maintained, the public will keep seeing their own energy bills rise far above the rate of inflation. As they have been doing over recent years.
The price of energy is now a major chunk of household expenditure. Something that never really used to be the case.

In my opinion, it doesn't need to be this way. Solar power needs and deserves to be encouraged and the ordinary householder needs to be given the means, at a sensible cost, to generate their own electricity.
But, what we need is a strong UK Government and some forward thinking to help provide the conditions for this to happen.

Power needs to be returned to the people.

Britain In A Day - The Footage.

Here is the rather random footage that i shot & will submit to the Britain In A Day project.

It's just random stuff from my day & yes, i am aware that the day technically starts at one second past midnight. But, i didn't think of that until it was too late.

Here are a couple of links to the project:
YouTube - http://www.youtube.com/britaininaday
BBC - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00kqz5p

Britain In A Day Vlog

Talking about the joint YouTube and BBC project "Britain In A Day".

11/11/11.

Today is 11/11/11. Unless, of course, you are in the USA, where it's 11/11/11.

Sorry, but i just couldn't resist that. But, that is the whole point of this post.
Just why is there a difference in the way that those in the USA and, at least, us here in the UK write dates?

I have found this difference a source of confusion and even irritation, for a number of years now. Especially when travelling in the USA itself. The increasing influence of the Internet and it's U.S centric nature has only made this worse.

I think this anomaly really came to most peoples attention after, what is universally referred to as '9/11'. The terrorist attacks on America that took place on 11th September 2001.
When somebody in the UK sees that date written down, we automatically think of 9th November.
I totally understand why '9/11' is written as it is. After all the attacks took place is the USA and that date and the way it is written has now become seared to the memory of us all. But, this is an example of the potential confusion that can be caused.

For me, the way that dates are written down in the USA defies logic.
Why on earth would you put the month first and not the actual day? For me this is just confusing. As i'm sure it is for many non Americans.
Surely, the day should come first, because the day changes, well, daily. Whereas the month only changes every 28 to 31 days and as for the year...... well, i think you can guess the rest?

I have been wracking my brain for other similar examples of the way that important numbers are written down "wrongly". I can't think of any, but i did come up with time and the way that that is written down.

Time is also, usually, written in the "wrong" order. For example, we tend to put the hour first, then the minutes, then the seconds. Just look at a digital clock to see what i mean.
Although this goes against the reasoning that i suggested earlier, it does make sense and is logical. The sequence is just written in reverse order to the way that dates are written, in the UK that is. The number that changes the most is written last, instead of first.

Are you still with me?

For me at least, the time example just "proves" that the way that the USA write dates is illogical.
I'm not criticising the USA in any way, what they do is up to them, of course. I'm just asking the question.
So, can anyone explain to me why this is done and when it started?

One concern, for me anyway, is that the continued influence of the USA might mean that the U.S date system may start to creep into more general use. I'll admit that i would not be at all happy if that were to happen.

But, for today at least, we can all enjoy having a Universal date system.
And, it's an auspicious day all round, as it's also a binary day, Remembrance Day and Nigel Tufnell day (For all those Spinal Tap fans amongst you)

So, let's turn today up to 11 and enjoy it while we can.

Iron Maiden: Flight 666.

Today i watched, once again, the documentary  "Iron Maiden: Flight 666"  A film i first saw about a year ago.

On first viewing i have to say i was very impressed and watching a second time around has just re-inforced that feeling.

I am a big music fan and especially a fan of Rock music. So, a film about Iron Maiden, one of Rock musics biggest bands, was bound to attract me.

I must admit though that Iron Maiden are not my favourite band. I actually find a lot of their music quite samey and repetitive. But, i have always had a lot of respect for them, both as a band and as a group of musicians.
And this documentary shows exactly why that is.

Iron Maiden grew out of what was then called the New Wave Of British Heavy Metal (NWOBHM). A movement that started towards the end of the 1970's and spawned bands such as Def Leppard, Saxon and Motorhead and also helped inspire later bands such as Metallica and Guns N Roses.

Yes, it was a re-emergence of Rock music, but the NWOBHM took a lot of its inspiration from the Punk Rock bands of the mid 1970's. These NWOBHM bands would probably never have come about without the Punk Rock movement that had gone before.
The Punk movement showed these young British Heavy Metal and Rock music fans that they too could go out and form their own bands, produce their own music and even start their own record labels.
It also furnished them with a different attitude to many heavy metal bands that had gone before them. An attitude and approach which helped enable these new bands to break through to bigger and better things. Something that might not have been possible in the past.

Iron Maiden probably exemplify this as well as any of those other bands i mentioned earlier and that still shines through today.
Somebody in the film states that Iron Maiden don't give a fuck what others think about them. They are not trying to impress anyone, they are just being thenselves and remaining true to themselves.
This is one of the reasons that Flight 666 is such a good watch.

What you see in the film are a band at the top of their game. A band that have the utmost respect for each other and for the people who work with and around them.
They are a team, almost a family and that makes a huge difference to how a band works.

I have watched many music documentaries and films over the years and there is usually at least a hint of inner tension within the band. It is very hard to hide. But, nothing like that shows up here, in fact quite the opposite and this line up of the band have been together for many years now, decades even.

This in turn, transfers itself to the audience, who are amongst the most loyal i have ever seen. Some of the crowd scenes and audience participation, during the live footage, is amazing.

Many fans shown in the film describe Heavy Metal as a kind of religion and it is pretty obvious that Iron Maiden are viewed as Gods by many of them.
A couple of scenes in particular stick in my mind, both from South America.

It is obvious that Iron Maiden are huge in South America and the reaction to them borders on the hysterical at times. A fact recognised by the band themselves.
Bruce Dickinson, the bands singer, says to the crowd in Mexico that "The further south we go, the hotter it gets" and by that he means the reaction of the audience, not the weather.
He is not exaggerating either.

Part of this, i think, comes from the fact that Iron Maiden were one of the first heavy metal bands to play in South America, way back in 1985.
The fans have not forgotten that.
Also, Iron Maiden were actually banned in countries like Chile in the past, due to religious concerns and so had not been able to play live there. Therefore, when they do come to town, it is a very special event.

One gig in Puerto Rico, their first ever in the country, becomes a virtual pilgrimage for many fans, some of whom have come across the border from neighbouring countries just to see their idols.
A fan interviewed in, i think, Columbia becomes very emotional just thinking about seeing his favourite band.
Another male fan is seen at the end of a gig, clutching a prized drum stick to his chest, crying. He is later seen hugging his tearful girlfriend.
It really means that much to them.

I have seen this kind of emotional response to a band, or act before, but very rarely in this modern era. And these are grown men crying too, not besotted teenage girls.

For me Flight 666 is worth seeing just for the live crowd scenes alone. You are drawn into the emotion of the occasion. And, if you like that kind of thing, the music is pretty damn good too.

But, this film also reminded me of several reasons why i have such great respect for Iron Maiden:

- They haven't lost their sense of humour, despite all that goes on around them.
- The bands Boeing 757 jet, flown by Iron Maiden's singer Bruce Dickinson by the way, is called "Ed Force One", after the bands mascot, Eddie.
- As the title of the film suggests, the 757's call sign was "Flight 666". The number of the beast and the title of one of the bands most famous songs.
- Iron Maiden are a great British export and are still proud of and retain their British roots. You only have to see the amount of Union Jacks, England football shirts and West Ham United items amongst the crowds worldwide to see what effect and influence that can have.
- The have achieved what they have without any real radio, tv, or press exposure. They have done it the hard way. They have done it their way.
- Their "Don't give a fuck" attitude. I may not be their greatest fan, but they do what they believe in and they do it very well.
- And last, but by no means lest, they bring a smile to my face and you can't say fairer than that can you?

Andy & Steve Go To Bath.

I travelled down to Bath to spend the day with Steve: http://www.youtube.com/21stCenturyCat

This is a record of that day. The sights, the lions & the pubs.

Thanks to Steve for being an interesting tour guide.
Thanks also to Keiran, the barman in The Salamander pub, for his camera work at the end of the video.

For more info on the lions we mentioned & saw in the video, go to: http://www.lionsofbath.com/home

The Salamander pub: http://www.bathales.com/pubs/salamand...

Renting A Cherry Tree.

(Can i first just say that this blog post is not an advert and i have not been paid to talk about this. It is just a blog from a satisfied customer)

For those of you who may follow me on some other social networking sites. You may have noticed me mentioning the fact that i've been out picking cherries from my cherry tree.
Now, i do not own this tree, i merely rent it.
Renting a tree?, i hear you ask, how on earth does that work? Well, i'm glad you asked, because i'm going to tell you.

Up until a couple of years ago, i had never heard of anyone renting a fruit tree and apart from the scheme that i'm involved with, i still haven't.
It's all very simple really. I pay a yearly rental fee for a particular cherry tree. For that fee i get to pick and keep, all of the fruit from that tree. It is in effect, my tree. I even have a certificate, with my name on it, telling me exactly which tree is mine. As long as i pay my rental fee every year, the tree remains mine.
And that is it.
The farmer does all the work and looks after the tree for me. He even sends me regular emailed newsletters, telling me about the state of the trees, the likely optimum picking dates and how good the crop is likely to be. All i do is pay my money and then turn up and pick the cherries. I can then do with those cherries what i wish. I could even sell them if i wanted to.

As you can see from this photo, the trees can carry a lot of fruit.

Whilst i don't know if this scheme is unique and i certainly hope it isn't. I think that this is a really good idea.
Here in the UK, we have seen a number of farmers "grubbing out" their fruit trees, because they are not really financially viable any more. This has certainly been the case with apple orchards, where many have disappeared over the past few years. Fruit farming, in the UK, seems to have taken a big hit recently.
So, this renting scheme seems like a really clever and inventive way of preventing this happening. It helps to preserve the fruit trees for future generations and it also helps to keep the farms in business.
I'd love to see it extended to other farms and farmers. But, also to other types of fruit. Apples for example. I would certainly be very interested in renting an eating apple tree as well. So, if anybody, local, knows of one, please let me know.

Another added attractions of the renting scheme, is the family aspect of it all.
As i said before, the tree effectively becomes yours and this has an effect on the way that you and your family start to feel aboutt that tree. For example, when you are picking the fruit, you make sure that you don't harm the tree in the process. After all, this might harm the crop for next year.
When i went to pick my first batch of cherries this year, with my son as it happens. There were family groups there, making a day out of the whole picking process. They had brought along a picnic and were sitting down, next to their tree, eating their lunch. What a nice way for a family to spend a day together.
I went back today, to pick the remaining fruit and this time i went with my father-in-law. As i said, it becomes a family affair.

So, all in all, i am one very satisfied customer and i can recommend this scheme and any others like it. It's a great way of keeping the fruit trees in the orchards and the fruit farmers in business. And you can have some family days out, picking your own fruit, in the great British countryside into the bargain.

Now all i need to do is figure out what i'm going to do with all of these cherries?

Flights Of Fancy?

I am just about to book a return flight to the USA, for a few months time.

After the events of the past few days, it is no surprise that i am wondering what this may lead to. Apart from the obvious concerns for my own safety. I am also left wondering what sort of extra security systems may still be in place when i plan to travel & how long the check in time may be!

The last time i flew to the USA, in September 2008, the security was tight. But, not excessively so. Well, not in my opinion anyway.
My opinion has always been that, there is an obvious threat & that these things need to be done to protect myself & everyone else. I know full well that the air routes between the UK & USA are a prime target for terrorists, whether we like that, or not.

I'll admit, the part of the whole security process that tends to annoy me the most is all of the form filling & online checks that are done, both prior to the actual flight & on the plane itself.
And i haven't even mentioned the many checks that take place on arrival in the USA itself!
But, once again, i have just accepted them as a part of the process.

Now, i learn though, that in the most recent incident on that now infamous Amsterdam to Detroit flight, these systems all seem to have failed.

A person has managed to board a flight across the atlantic to the USA, with explosives strapped to his body. Not only that, but we now know that this person was known to the authorities in America, after being reported by his father.
We also know that he was also refused a visa to visit the UK, earlier this year, because of security concerns.
And i heard today, that he boarded this flight without any checked baggage. Isn't this just a little bit suspicious?

So, we put all of these security measures in place & somebody still manages to evade them all?

I vivdly remember the time when we in the UK had terrorist problems with the IRA. There was a famous quote from a member of the IRA, at the time, who said that "We only have to get lucky once. You have to get lucky every single time"
How very true, both then & now.

We got very lucky on that Amsterdam to Detriot plane on Christmas Day. Don't forget that.
If that explosive device had detonated properly, that plane would have gone down with everybody on board it. Regardless of whatever anybody on board might have done to try & prevent it.

So, what can be done?
Well, obviously, we need to make sure that the measures that are in place actually work. After all, they only need to fail once....

Now, i'm no security, or aviation expert, but i'd hate to see any more security measures at airports. As with the IRA situation, if you stop, or dissuade people from flying in the first place, the terrorists will have effectively won. After all, you don't need to actually kill anyone to create chaos & disruption to "normal" life.

What, in my opinion, should be done, is to make better use of so called "profiling". I'll admit that this generally goes against my feeling of civil liberties. But, sometimes drastic measures have to be taken.
We already know that the Nigerian suspect, in this most recent attack, was known to the authorities, in more than one country. So, why was he allowed to board that plane?

Better & co-ordinated use of "intelligence" & profiling will surely help to stop suspected terrorists from being allowed to board certain planes & enter certain countries. That can't be a bad thing, can it?
We should also learn from other countries, namely Israel, whose methods have been proved to be successful.
I know that these measures will inevitably tend to target certain people & maybe even some ethnic groups. But, why target & inconvenience everybody, when you possibly don't have to?

If you combine the measures that are already in place, with the better use of intelligence. This can only help to make flying safer for everybody, in the long run.
And isn't that what we all want?

And if that can all be done by late April 2010, i'd very much appreciate it.
Thanks.