Did a full 12-hour shift today, with everything to learn and no time to do it in. I am utterly knackered and have nothing to post, other than my fatigue. On this schedule, I am working for 12, travelling for one, and if you take out time to sleep, eat, see to one's bodily needs, and interact in a rudimentary fashion with one's spouse, it leaves about an hour of free time left per day. That isn't enough time to catch up on the blogs I read, never mind write anything. Luckily, I am working a 4-on, 4-off schedule, so blogging activity may well have to be confined to those days.
Now I am off to bed. Good night.
Wednesday, 3 November 2010
Tuesday, 2 November 2010
Kit Report - Targa Waterproof Gloves
This isn't going to be a recommendation, more of a commendation for good value.
My winter handwear for many years was a pair of Frank Thomas Aqua leather gloves. These were alleged to be waterproof, and were pretty good for the first few years, but over time they lost their waterproof character and started to let in a bit of dampness. They were made before waterproof membranes like Gore-Tex were routinely included in bike-wear, and I suspect they kept the water out just by the thickness of leather and being bloody well made. I kept the ingress to a minimum by treating the gloves regularly with dubbin, but they were no longer reliably waterproof. However, they are so damn' comfy and warm that I didn't have the heart to bin them. Last winter, I got them wringing wet during one downpour, and went to my local dealer to look for a cheap pair of winter gloves to tide me over. I assumed that in the 15 or so years since I had bought winter gloves, the technology had improved, and when I saw a pair advertised as 'waterproof' for under £20, I grabbed them.
These are made by Targa, and although it doesn't say so on the gloves or the packaging they came in, they are the Mission model (available online here). They are constructed mainly of nylon, with leather facings on the palm, across the backs and down the fingers. In the photo, they look quite substantial, but in fact they feel very light and quite flimsy. The leather is very thin. There are elasticated ribs across the backs, and what look to be reinforced knuckle protectors, but in fact these are only hard foam pads beneath the leather outer. They have a Hipora membrane (which is supposed to be waterproof, like a cheaper version of Gore-Tex) and are lined with Thinsulate.
The good:
For the colder parts of the ride, I also wore some glove liners. These were purchased at one of the 'motorbike days' at either Lidl or Aldi, can't remember which. They are stretchy material, a bit like Lycra, and a bit of a loose fit on me. But the difference they made on the colder bits of the ride was huge. I can't remember how much they were, probably a fiver or less, but if they appear again I will be having some more. They work well, and are great value.
My winter handwear for many years was a pair of Frank Thomas Aqua leather gloves. These were alleged to be waterproof, and were pretty good for the first few years, but over time they lost their waterproof character and started to let in a bit of dampness. They were made before waterproof membranes like Gore-Tex were routinely included in bike-wear, and I suspect they kept the water out just by the thickness of leather and being bloody well made. I kept the ingress to a minimum by treating the gloves regularly with dubbin, but they were no longer reliably waterproof. However, they are so damn' comfy and warm that I didn't have the heart to bin them. Last winter, I got them wringing wet during one downpour, and went to my local dealer to look for a cheap pair of winter gloves to tide me over. I assumed that in the 15 or so years since I had bought winter gloves, the technology had improved, and when I saw a pair advertised as 'waterproof' for under £20, I grabbed them.
These are made by Targa, and although it doesn't say so on the gloves or the packaging they came in, they are the Mission model (available online here). They are constructed mainly of nylon, with leather facings on the palm, across the backs and down the fingers. In the photo, they look quite substantial, but in fact they feel very light and quite flimsy. The leather is very thin. There are elasticated ribs across the backs, and what look to be reinforced knuckle protectors, but in fact these are only hard foam pads beneath the leather outer. They have a Hipora membrane (which is supposed to be waterproof, like a cheaper version of Gore-Tex) and are lined with Thinsulate.
The good:
- They are reasonably warm, especially with some glove liners. My hands only got cold when the gloves were wet through to the inside. In the dry they were fine.
- The cuff arrangement works well for me. I prefer gloves to come over the jacket cuffs, rather then under, and these expand sufficiently to allow this, but have a Velcro closure that lets you make a tight fit after they are on (and it's easy to do this with the second glove you put on, which isn't always the case).
- They aren't 100% waterproof, but for all normal purposes they would be. On the journey home, they were wet inside after about 4 hours of solid rain, but this was on a bike with no fairing or hand protectors, and they really got a soaking. For day-to-day use, they would be fine.
- Despite having a thermal liner, they are not too bulky and allow a good feel for the controls (with one exception - see below).
- They are definitely lightweight and feel flimsy - light is good, flimsy is not.
- They are essentially nylon gloves with leather reinforcements, and the leather is thin. Also, the 'knuckle protection' is only foam and looks better than it is. All in all, I wouldn't want to crash in them.
- They do let in water after a time, which suggests that the Hipora membrane is not working properly, or is badly fitted.
- The thumbs are too long for me, which means I have a little flap about half an inch long at the end of each thumb. This makes using the indicator a bit hit-and-miss.
For the colder parts of the ride, I also wore some glove liners. These were purchased at one of the 'motorbike days' at either Lidl or Aldi, can't remember which. They are stretchy material, a bit like Lycra, and a bit of a loose fit on me. But the difference they made on the colder bits of the ride was huge. I can't remember how much they were, probably a fiver or less, but if they appear again I will be having some more. They work well, and are great value.
And more wrong
Following from the previous post, some more thoughts.
The case for prisoners' voting rights was brought to the European Commission on Human Rights by the convicted murderer John Hirst. In 2005 the ECHR ruled that a blanket ban on prisoner voting was discriminatory and breached the human rights of prisoners.
I can see that being able to vote in your country's elections is a fundamental right, but then so is the freedom to come and go as you please. It's OK to remove the prisoner's human right to freedom of movement, which is what imprisonment means, so it is not unknown for prisoners to lose human rights when they are convicted. Why should the right to vote be any different? If you follow that argument to its logical end, then we won't do anything to criminals at all, as every sanction involves some interference with a person's rights at some level.
Hirst's argument is that without the vote prisoners are unable to put pressure on Parliament to improve conditions and change the law. That's how it ought to be. Want to be able to vote and influence the lawmakers? Don't murder people. Simples.
Hirst has released a celebratory video, in which he drinks champagne and smokes a joint to celebrate his 'victory'. I won't link to it; it's vile. Find it and watch it if you must. And remember, while you are doing so, that the man in the film was convicted of murdering his landlady by bludgeoning her to death with an axe. He felt 'nagged' by her after she asked him to bring in some coal. And he's passionate about human rights.
If you need an argument for the death penalty, this is it. I have always been against capital punishment, but this case tests my principles to the limit.
UPDATE 4.11.10:
I referred to Hirst above as a 'murderer'. That is incorrect. Apparently, he was convicted of manslaughter, on the grounds of 'diminished responsibility'. I'm sure that makes the world of difference to the lady he killed. I should have referred to him in this post as an 'axe-killer' rather than a 'murderer', and of course I am happy to correct this.
The case for prisoners' voting rights was brought to the European Commission on Human Rights by the convicted murderer John Hirst. In 2005 the ECHR ruled that a blanket ban on prisoner voting was discriminatory and breached the human rights of prisoners.
I can see that being able to vote in your country's elections is a fundamental right, but then so is the freedom to come and go as you please. It's OK to remove the prisoner's human right to freedom of movement, which is what imprisonment means, so it is not unknown for prisoners to lose human rights when they are convicted. Why should the right to vote be any different? If you follow that argument to its logical end, then we won't do anything to criminals at all, as every sanction involves some interference with a person's rights at some level.
Hirst's argument is that without the vote prisoners are unable to put pressure on Parliament to improve conditions and change the law. That's how it ought to be. Want to be able to vote and influence the lawmakers? Don't murder people. Simples.
Hirst has released a celebratory video, in which he drinks champagne and smokes a joint to celebrate his 'victory'. I won't link to it; it's vile. Find it and watch it if you must. And remember, while you are doing so, that the man in the film was convicted of murdering his landlady by bludgeoning her to death with an axe. He felt 'nagged' by her after she asked him to bring in some coal. And he's passionate about human rights.
If you need an argument for the death penalty, this is it. I have always been against capital punishment, but this case tests my principles to the limit.
UPDATE 4.11.10:
I referred to Hirst above as a 'murderer'. That is incorrect. Apparently, he was convicted of manslaughter, on the grounds of 'diminished responsibility'. I'm sure that makes the world of difference to the lady he killed. I should have referred to him in this post as an 'axe-killer' rather than a 'murderer', and of course I am happy to correct this.
Wrong, wrong, wrong
According to the Torygraph:
This is utterly and completely wrong, and I am bitterly disappointed that Cameron had caved in to the EU over the issue. On its own, this is worth a referendum on leaving the EU.
The principle is a simple one. If you break the law, you forego the right to participate in the democratic process that makes the law. If you don't like that, then don't commit murder, theft, rape, whatever. Your choice.
We, the law-abiding majority, create the law, and we enforce it. You, the criminal, are the outsider, and prison is your punishment for messing with us. If you don't like it, tough. You are excluded from society for a reason.
Imagine a prospective MP campaigning in a marginal constituency which has a large prison population, and where that population may be critical in returning a majority. "Vote for me, and I'll let you out early! Vote for me, for better televisions, free lottery tickets and wages for prisoners! Vote for me, and I'll cut police numbers in half!"
Not in those words exactly, but it's going to happen.
When, if ever, are we going to stand up for ourselves?
Prisoners will be given the vote in general elections for the first time in 140 years after David Cameron conceded there was nothing he could do to halt a European court ruling demanding the change, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.
This is utterly and completely wrong, and I am bitterly disappointed that Cameron had caved in to the EU over the issue. On its own, this is worth a referendum on leaving the EU.
The principle is a simple one. If you break the law, you forego the right to participate in the democratic process that makes the law. If you don't like that, then don't commit murder, theft, rape, whatever. Your choice.
We, the law-abiding majority, create the law, and we enforce it. You, the criminal, are the outsider, and prison is your punishment for messing with us. If you don't like it, tough. You are excluded from society for a reason.
Imagine a prospective MP campaigning in a marginal constituency which has a large prison population, and where that population may be critical in returning a majority. "Vote for me, and I'll let you out early! Vote for me, for better televisions, free lottery tickets and wages for prisoners! Vote for me, and I'll cut police numbers in half!"
Not in those words exactly, but it's going to happen.
When, if ever, are we going to stand up for ourselves?
Monday, 1 November 2010
Webb, Spinning
From the Guardian.
I used to think the people who swam the English Channel were brave but essentially harmless nutters who got a team of supporters together, slathered themselves in Vaseline and then jumped in and headed for France in the company of a small boat full of sandwiches and Thermoses of hot soup. And why not? The sea is everybody's, isn't it? They don't charge you for using it, so they? You don't need a licence to swim, do you?
Well, apparently a lot of people think you should, and some want to ban it altogether.
Ferry company DFDS think there should be "stronger regulations on cross-Channel swimming" because too many people now undertake the feat. They want the activity to be regulated by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, instead of the current official oversight by the Channel Swimming and Piloting Federation and the Channel Swimming Association. Presumably, they want the activity 'regulated', not out of concern for the swimmers' safety but because the swimmers get in the way of the ferries and disrupt their timetables. They are inconvenient. If there was a memo that said that Danish companies had a right to stop British people swimming in the open sea in their own waters, than I must have missed it.
The French coastguard want to go further - they want the swim to be banned altogether. There is no reason given, but I imagine it is along the lines of "for their own good" - pour leur propre bon, or something. Oh, hang on - that might not be right.
Dr Bradshaw, who has raised thousands of pounds for charities by swimming across the Channel on numerous occasions, added that the CSA had been in contact with the French Coastguard and said that its comments in the documentary had been misunderstood.
"I'm of the understanding that the French Coastguard did not say it wanted a ban on cross-channel swims, but rather on unauthorised swims, which would be quite right."
So we have a ferry operator calling for tighter regulation for commercial reasons, a coastguard possibly calling for a ban, and the CSA saying this is all wrong, and what should be banned are only the unauthorised swims.
"Our pilots are second to none, the health and safety measure [sic*] all swimmers have to take is rigourous [sic*], and there are no accidents, so I don't know what this proposal is based on."It's an outrage! People should be free to be regulated by us! They should be filling in our risk assessments! It's not fair!
Personally, I think swimming the Channel is a remarkable achievement, and if you want to do it, you go right ahead. All that hot air from the arguing over whether you can do it and who regulates you if you do will keep you afloat while you slip past under their noses and head for Calais.
* The Grauniad keps trditoin aliave, I sea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
