Email to Mr Cameron and Mr Johnson

Dear Mr Cameron,
I was very impressed by the swift reply i received before. Unfortunately, this cannot be said of Boris Johnson. As a member of the public, I expect at least a reply. I would like to bring the issue I sent to Boris Johnson to you because I feel it is very relevant to make our country healthier. I understand that David Cameron is a busy man but I do hope that theses issues are passed on to him. Could you tell me the procedure that is undertaken for these issues to be sent to Mr Cameron? Below is the email I sent to Mr Johnson:

_____________________________
Dear Mr Johnson,
I remember you suggested an idea about parking wardens helping to keep the streets of London safe. I think that this is a good idea but I fear that their image will not help. You may say that helping to keep the streets safe will balance things out. I fear that by associating yourself with these people (as they are not all people of scruples) will be bad for you and ultimately for London. Please allow me to briefly tell you my story.

I parked a car unknowingly in a residents permit holders only space (I was in a rush to meet my pregnant wife in hospital). I passed a traffic warden who was issuing a penalty charge notice to a car next to mine. I said please don't issue one for me whilst I get a parking ticket. I thought all was well but on the way back with my wife, I find a penalty charge notice. I explained the circumstance to the council but they were not interested. I later find that there is a possibility that the traffic warden was acting unlawfully. This is because they are, by law, meant to be helpful like the police.

Do you not find any problem employing such people to make the streets of London safe? They may exploit their new powers by for example bribing. One should not employ people of unscrupulous nature. I voted for you to become mayor and I would be worried if you are going through with this proposal.

Your idea can work but it needs a lot of time. Firstly, traffic wardens should not be paid on a commission basis (they are currently paid by the number of tickets being issued). This is because it is not under the control of the council but private companies who are money hungry. This set up could still work as long as the wardens are not getting paid on a commission basis. They may not do their job well enough? Well, let the locals decide if the parking enforcement is not up to scratch. Make it easy for people to complain about the parking enforcement. This I hope will make the public see the wardens in a new light. Then your idea has a much better chance for it to work.

Yours faithfully,
Dr Julian Hartley

PS I am passionate about the Conservatives and our country. I have other ideas on education, crime prevention and ways to make our country a better place. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you would like my help.
______________________________

_________--

Furthermore, I am deeply saddened by the treatment I have received from the Camden Council on this matter. They have yet to reply to me. Another issue I would like to point out is the uncooperative nature of local councils. They do not evoke an image of supporting a community. The least they can do is to give me a reply. By the mere fact that they are not responding suggests that they do not care, not to mention being rude. How can moral standards be maintained if local government and the main Government act in this manner? This can be seen throughout society from the BBC programmes (including cbeebies) through to the explicit evidence of knife crimes. Moral issues must be dealt with from an early age through to institutions. I have some ideas on these matters but I am digressing. For institutions to improve, they must listen and so they must at least reply. This includes the police. They are meant to be serving the community so why not let the police become closer to the community? I am digressing again but why not have mini police stations that serve areas of communities instead of just having one large police station serving a wider community? This sort of arrangement will make the community stronger.

Back to the point about the above email, the law is also a problem. Where do I turn to about an issue that concerns the law? Many people cannot afford the fee that lawyers charge. The law is for everyone and at the moment, it is only properly served by people who can afford the fees. Is this morally right? Is this a reason to feel at least something against the law? In my case, I just happened to come across an article on the internet which to me suggested that the council had acted inappropriately. If the council ignores me, who do I turn to without having to pay a substantial fee? Make the law work for everyone equally.

I have too many issues on our country to mention here. I do want to make our country a better place to live but when voices are not heard, you can easily despair and one starts to think about the prospects of one's children. Too many people are emigrating because they feel they cannot be heard.

Yours sincerely,
Dr Julian Hartley

PS Do you remember the "BREAKDOWN BRITAIN A guide to our broken society and how to fix it" publication. I and everyone around me were not very impressed by this. Firstly, it appeared to miss important issues. I would very much like to help you on this matter. Secondly, you brought all these issues to the people and you want the people's opinion on it. Many people are too busy to do such things. I am writing this out of despair and because I work at home although I have children to look after. You are in the position to make the difference and you really need to find what is best for the country yourself rather than asking the public who are already busy.

PPS The inequalities I mentioned above exists on your very doorstep. You send out paper to ask me to become a member of the Conservative Party where the first three months are free. Why do you only let people join if they are capable of paying? Why do you let these inequalities exist? It makes me think that you are not able to gauge the problems that the public have.

May I remind you what I wrote at the beginning? I do hope it is you Mr David Cameron that replies to this. I do hope you agree that what is contained here is highly important to building a better community and a better future.

CBeebies advertising next program

CBeebies have started to advertise their next program upon nearing the end of a program. I am not too sure on the merit of this from the perspective of a parent. I cannot write from experience but wouldn't children be more inclined to stay and watch the television? If there are clear breaks between programs, children will not be as influenced.

Children knifed to death

News these days feature a lot of incidents of children getting stabbed to death by other children. It is important to ask why some children can so easily stab someone let alone kill someone. One thing that springs to mind is the low moral values. I cannot think that children who carry knives have no intention of killing someone. They just don't seem to care enough about life.

Why have the moral values of some children disappeared? I am tempted to say that the violent video games, films and music are the problem. They do not influence everyone but I think certain children are easily influenced. It would be nice if game manufacturers could produce an entertaining game that can educate good moral values. The market for such games is wide open compared to the violent games. More points for players who show a good moral character.

There is perhaps hope for this because I read the other day that hip hop or rap music is not as popular as before. My explanation for this is to do with the children who have parents that grew up on such music. Since children like to rebel against their parents, these children cannot easily rebel with rap music They are perhaps ready to rebel by becoming morally good.

Welfare system that favours single parent families

Contrast the following two scenarios.

1. Single parent with 2 children under the age of 11, works 16 hours a week on the minimum wage, receives 487 pounds (with the aid of tax credits).
2. 2 parent family with 2 children under the age of 11, must work in total 116 hours a week on the minimum wage to receive the same amount of pay.

This clearly shows that remaining single is better than getting married if you are trying to make ends meet.

It would be interesting to know if there are any other equally ludicrous welfare systems around the world?

Guerrilla marketing ethics?

The idea of marketing is to make your product or service well known. The marketing can be negative but it can command a lot of publicity. Is it worth it? I don't believe that the following advertisers had any intention of negativity. Surely the best thing would be to have a positive marketing campaign that reaches out to as many as the negative?

Take for instance, Sony Ericsson who wanted to get the public to try out some functions of the mobile phone. They got people to look like tourists who wanted their picture taken with the phone and attractive women who sat in bars to start a conversation about their purchase. Once the people found out that they were not genuine, the campaign became negative. The moral seems to be, if you are advertising, make sure you are upfront about it. Especially when you are, in effect, invading their space.

IBM decided to chalk symbols on the streets of San Francisco. Some technologically minded people liked it but others thought it as graffiti. Although the chalk was biodegradable, it took weeks for the stuff to be removed. The moral is to try and be in the good books of everyone.

Some offensive images can arouse suspicion. For instance, Cartoon Network decided to place these images. Some residents in Boston thought they were bombs. I remember the news showing the city grid-locked. The moral is to be aware of the past incidents that could have changed people's sentiments.

Smells and sounds are a relatively new medium to be exploited. They have been used to try and gain a bigger impact but the more unusual and unknown it is, the more people would be scared. Paramount Pictures teamed up with the Los Angeles Times to trigger the theme music of Mission Impossible whenever a newspaper was baught at a newspaper rack. People had thought it to be a bomb. Sending smells through an underground system to advertise a drink did not go down too well because it could be thought of as poisonous gas. Besides, forcing someone to smell something is not a good idea. The moral again is to consider the sentiments shaped by recent events. And don't force something upon the unsuspecting public.

Examples from BusinessWeek: http://images.businessweek.com/ss/07/02/0209_guerrilla/index_01.htm

Petition: Dog DNA database

On the 10 Downing Street website for petitions, I have found someone who has started a petition. Follow the link below if you would like to sign up to the petition.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/K9DNADatabase/

The website states that you must be a British citizen or resident to sign the petition.

DNA analysis to identify dog owners who leave a mess

The idea of creating a database of dog DNA to clean the public areas does not seem to be new. A Freakonomics article in the New York Times (another link), a remarkable 12 year old girl's proposal, and Vienna and Dresden have proposed the same idea.

The idea is pretty simple. Firstly make sure that every dog is licensed. During this licensing process, the DNA can be collected through the saliva of the dog (existing dog owners' dogs can be included perhaps the next time they go to a vet). The data can be stored in a database. Now if a dog owner decides to leave the mess behind, the dog dirt can be collected and DNA analysed. A suitable fine should be imposed and sent to the dog owner's address.

I do hope that the health of our children can be protected with this simple idea. No more risk of blindness. The initial cost may be high but it will be a fraction of the cost of setting up the equivalent for us humans.

Dog muck on my daughter

I have just come back from the park with my daughter who had stepped on some dog muck and picked it up. She was crying during the way back because she thought she did something wrong. I had to explain to her that it was not her fault. It was a particular dog owner's fault.

I am usually very careful but this time, some children playing football had hid the thing under some leaves. They were old enough to know better that hiding it would not have prevented them from getting dirty themselves if they had stepped on it. Anyway, they did not mean anything bad and it is beside the point.

There may be a solution to this. I will write shortly.

Scam: Tickets to see The Queen

Scammers (or con artists) appear to be using The Queen as bait. They are dressed in The Queen's guard uniform to make the scam authentic. The incident I have been told occurred on a tourist bus. At the traffic lights, there is a knock on the bus door. They enter and mention a chance of a lifetime to meet The Queen. This is particularly effective because there are many people to sell the tickets to and they can be hidden from sight until a target bus appears. They can also sell the tickets and make a quick getaway.

Scamming is an evil practice as it is but to defame someone else makes the matter even more disgusting. I must contact The Queen and the police.

This was obvious to me because I am familiar with many scams. Since someone has asked for my opinion on this, I am inclined to believe that some people will fall prey to these con artists.

The convincing trick they have used is to operate near where the public see the genuine Queen's guards. In the example that I have heard, the bus was waiting to get into Whitehall from either Whitehall Place or Horse Guards Avenue. Since the genuine guards are in sight, they try to make you think that they are coming towards the bus from that vicinity. So that they don't appear too conspicuous, they did not wear the tall bushy hat. They had the red jacket which from certain angles could look like an ordinary jacket but from the front, it should convince the vulnerable public.

A solution could be to inform the tour leader of such a scam so that the next time they get on the bus, the tourists could be advised to take pictures of the Queen's guard. The photos can be past onto the police.

Wheelie bin thefts

Wheelie bins are rubbish bins on wheels. Designed for their manoeuvrability, the UK government distributed them to most households. Theft of these things have risen due to the cut backs on the frequency of rubbish collections from once a week to once every two weeks. Why are they stolen? The neighbours have decided to steal them so that they can store more rubbish.

It is a small wonder how the thieves can neglect to put themselves in the shoes of their neighbours?

Wasting food on the Apprentice (BBC)

Last night, the BBC showed an episode of the Apprentice where the teams were challenged to sell British food in France. One team in particular did so poorly that on top of making a loss, they were unable to shift a lot of the food. At the port, they were seen to discard the food in a bin. Did the BBC need to show this? Do they think it is acceptable to waste food? I fail to see these actions as entertainment. Why show something so morally wrong?

If the BBC wanted to show a better moral standard, they should have arranged the losing contestants to store the food at their living quarters. Since there are many more weeks to go, they should be able to finish off the food during this time. Provided they are not eliminated so quickly.

I am surprised that Sir Alan Sugar did not make a big issue out of it. Even from a business perspective, throwing away your merchandise is appalling.

Incentive for pupils to take science and maths

We are seeing a decline in pupils taking science and maths. The government is reviewing an incentive scheme that pays the pupils who decide to take science and maths. Is this the right thing to do? I don't think so. I can fully imagine the government using this scheme because they have introduced a similar scheme to reward pupils who decide to stay on at school rather than leave early. Why rely on money? Science and maths are very important subjects which should already be an incentive for children to take. The government must look at why the subjects are unpopular and try to fix the imbalance by tweaking things accordingly. A common reason is that other subjects are easier. So two immediate options. Either make science and maths easier or make the other subjects harder. Another option will be to reward pupils with more points for taking science and maths (the points should closely follow the hardness of the subject).

Another problem is that science and maths are taught without any applications. Surely we can design these subjects so that pupils can see the relevance to society. Even better, introduce maths and science more to the other subjects to reflect how they cover different subjects. This should be done at an early stage so that the teachers can cope.

1 in 58 police patrolling the streets

I read today in the Sunday Telegraph that only one in 58 police are patrolling the streets at any given time. This is based on the result that each police person spends about 14% of their duty time patrolling the streets. There are about 150,000 police and around 2500 are patrolling the street.

The reason for this is blamed on the amount of paper work that they have to do which appears to have steadily increased by the government. This is just difficult to fathom. Surely the police in other countries spend much less time on paper work and spend a greater amount of time outside patrolling the streets?

I have mentioned about reintroducing smaller mini police stations around the country. Considering the area of UK to be 245,000 sq km and having three in the mini police station, we can have 50,000 covering just under 5 sq km each. This is of course a trivial calculation but on the surface, it looks feasible. I have assumed a uniform density of these mini police stations so a more appropriate spread of them will make the idea even more attractive.

Dog poo on my shoe

Dog owners, please can you pick up your dog's poo. Today, I spent some time cleaning off the mess off my shoe. Although this is a nuisance, I am much more concerned about my daughter falling ill. I have heard that some dog poos contain worms that can cause blindness (if say a toddler rubs their eye with a dirtied hand). I am sure the dog owners that leave the poo on purpose do not understand the severe consequences. I do believe that if the dog owners are told of the dangers of dog poo, they will all clean it up. Should there be signs erected in the park that succinctly explains the consequences?

I would like to know why they do not clean it up in the first place. Are they too lazy? Do they think that the rain will miraculously wash it away so that their efforts will be pointless? If they have a garden, do they leave the poo lying about without cleaning it up? I cannot believe all the owners that do not bother cleaning up the mess in public places will act in the same way at home. So why the difference? Do they think that a public area is not their responsibility? Any way you look at it, they lack moral values.

There is such a thing called the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. So it is against the law to leave the mess behind.

Dog owner takes another dog owner's dog

I have written negatively about some dog owners in my previous posts. I just wanted to say that I am not biased. I was in the park with my daughter and we were playing in a pretty packed playground. A dog owner was playing with a child and the dog was waiting outside. I was busy with my daughter but I noticed that another dog owner was concerned about this dog all alone and decided to take it with her. She had apparently called for the rightful dog owner but without a response. I alerted the incident to the rightful dog owner who had been engrossed in a game with the child. She managed to get her dog back just in time.

Youth, 16, knifed to death as gang chants 'kill him, kill him'

The article with the above title caught my eye today in the Daily Telegraph. The gang included boys and girls but the police have arrested 7 males - four 13-year-olds, two 15-year-olds and a 21-year-old. Murders of youths are fairly common these days but this story stands out because so many people were indirectly (or you may really say directly) involved. Did they really want him killed or the chant was just to scare him? It appears that they had hammers, bats and knives to go through with the killing pretty easily. Perhaps they were used to scare him?

If they all valued life, the death would have been avoided. I feel that children these days do not value life as much. They seem to treat it as one of those things. Killing someone is no big deal. I can only imagine that, to develop such an attitude, they are surrounded by events that trivialise killing. The TV, music, films and computer games have all trivialised killing and are still doing so. Surely it is time to reverse this trend and put more emphasis on how valuable life is. We cannot just rely on education to instill such a view. We need the cooperation of the media as well.

This is all linked to our moral values declining. Although killing is one of the worst outcomes, there are other less extreme cases of the moral decline. For instance, my front tooth is dead because someone at my secondary school punched me in the face. He distracted me by saying the teacher was looking at us in the class room. I turned to see but the teacher was looking at something else and as I turned back, I was hit (very naive of me I know). This is clearly a difference in moral values. I was aware that punching someone in the face can be dangerous. You can severely disfigure someone and you can even kill someone. I have never punched someone else in the face. This puncher obviously did not have the proper moral values. He did not show any regret or anything after the event. This happened just because I pushed him when he said some insulting words to me.

How did the puncher have such moral values? I have blamed the media above but on second thoughts, I have been acquainted with such material from a very young age (since maybe seven). It must be the way my parents brought me up. I think nurture has a lot to do with it but nature also. Some people are more violent than other people and if they want to have better moral values, they need to be taught more than others.

Although I have said that the media has not affected me, I still think that some people will be affected. Is it difficult to have scenes in movies where a fight is about to erupt but they come to their senses by thinking of the consequences? Why can't games promote how to prevent fighting (you can do this by awarding more points to the player for doing so)? Why does music need to glorify violence?

I suppose it is to do with the children being rebellious and so naturally gravitate towards material that show the most rebelliousness. I don't know if we can control this rebellious streak but instilling the proper moral values will nevertheless be invaluable.

Politician waste light

The media has recently remarked on how Government buildings are lit up over night. This is not because there are people working late. Are they trying to scare off a potential burglar? All this during the time when they are asking the public to be more energy efficient. How can we entrust the country in the hands of such morally inconsistent politicians?

Woman with a dog destroys toddler's ball

I have no prejudice towards people with dogs in general but here is another incident I encountered involving a dog owner. As the toddler was playing with his ball, a dog grabbed it and destroyed it. The owner just apologised and walked off. The mother had to say to her son, say bye bye to the ball. How can someone just destroy someone else's property and walk away like this? Is it not common courtesy to at least offer compensation?

I was also involved in a similar incident when I was around maybe 15. I was playing tennis when a youthful looking dog bounded into the court and grabbed one of the new balls (which I rarely bought but I digress). After it had deposited enough saliva and exercised its jaws enough by gnawing, the ball was ready to be placed in the bin. The owner who was much older than us just said an empty apology and walked off? I was quite taken aback by this nonchalant behaviour but I managed to draw his attention to the fact that a tennis ball in the UK is very expensive and asked for some money to contribute towards it. He just made another excuse and walked off.

Dangerous man with a dog and a stick

As I was playing with my daughter in the playground, a man jogging along with his dog hurled a heavy stick into the playground which was intended for the dog to chase. It narrowly missed a girl standing by and another girl in the swing. Even if he had managed to avoid the playground, there were children playing football nearby so there really was no place for such a dangerous implement to be thrown. The girl on the swing managed to throw it outside the enclosure where the dog was waiting eagerly. The man just said something like good throw and carried on jogging. I don't think he actually felt sorry at all. He must have felt that as it did not hit anyone, it was ok. Surely he could have at least set a good example to the children and said sorry.

I remember a similar incident vividly to this day that I regret very much (maybe I was 14). I was playing golf in the park where there was no one in sight except some people playing in the tennis courts. I had some idea of how far I could hit the golf ball but never in my wildest dreams did I expect the ball to reach the tennis courts. Luckily, it had hit the fence and trickled into the tennis court. I rushed over to the tennis court and apologised profusely. I was prepared to be scolded severely but the father was very magnanimous. I was in a state of shock for quite some time afterwards. How could this man calmly jog away from the above scene? I struggle to understand.

Marketing Inequalities

To expand readership, newspapers like to offer things like DVDs and books for free. At least this is the case in the UK. I wonder what it's like abroad? You would think that everyone would be treated equally if you buy their newspaper but sometimes this is not the case.

The Daily Telegraph and the Sunday Telegraph have recently offered a collection of National Geographic DVDs and Jane Austen novels.

4 DVDs came inside the weekend papers probably because they use plastic bags to keep everything together. In order to get the rest for free, you have to buy the Daily Telegraph at a stationery shop called WH Smiths. The only other way of getting them is to buy the newspaper elsewhere and request them to be posted to you (you must pay the postage). I think this is unfair on the customer as well as the other retailers.

Similarly, you can get the Jane Austen novels for free if you buy the newspapers at Costa Coffee shops. Any other way, it is not free.

Is this a good marketing tactic? To me, you should create a reputation that all customers will be treated equally.

Surprisingly, there are many other things that harbour inequalities. For instance, food. In one supermarket, they may offer buy one get one free but in another, you will only get one. Customers are quite accustomed to different prices in different places for the same good. Surely the more unified the prices are, the more faith the customer will have provided everything else remains constant?