The workers at Follyville Borough Council continue to get ready for the big move. The office phone system has now been replaced with VOIP (Voice over internet protocol). This is supposed to be cheaper and will allow those working from home to make free calls. However, it is plagued with problems. For a start, you can't make a phone call unless your computer is logged on. This in itself is a process that now takes about 20 minutes each morning so, if you have just popped into the office briefly before going off somewhere else for the day, you can't make a quick phone call because it's just not worth firing up the computer. It also means that you can't be helpful and answer your colleague's phone when it rings because if they are not there, their computer will not be logged on.
This week my system has been ringing and then hanging up before I have a chance to answer. The caller gets a message asking if they want to leave a message, even though I am sitting at my desk. This then transformed into a total malfunction by the end of the week whereby my colleague had to phone someone else in the office on their mobile and get them to bring me a message to phone her back because my phone was not ringing at all (no voicemail either).
But this is not as bad as it gets. We heard on Friday that when we move we will lose our computers and will instead have "dumb terminals" connected to the server. The dumb terminals won't have any kind of sound-card in so when the phone rings ........... we won't be able to hear it! Great for getting work done but not exactly high in the "customer care" stakes. I'm starting a book on how long it will be before we get proper phones back again!
Saturday, 14 November 2009
I've just put a link to this site on my new Facebook page, so hopefully I might get a few followers!
Does anyone actually understand Facebook ....... or is it really as random as it seems? I keep getting e-mails from people I have never heard of wanting to be my friend. Is it just that (a) I have completely forgotten them over the years. (b) they think they know me but have made a mistake or (c) they are desperate for friends and will take anyone? If they read the blog for a while they will probably all be clamouring to be de-listed.
If you can explain how the system works (simply), please respond to this message.
Does anyone actually understand Facebook ....... or is it really as random as it seems? I keep getting e-mails from people I have never heard of wanting to be my friend. Is it just that (a) I have completely forgotten them over the years. (b) they think they know me but have made a mistake or (c) they are desperate for friends and will take anyone? If they read the blog for a while they will probably all be clamouring to be de-listed.
If you can explain how the system works (simply), please respond to this message.
Monday, 2 November 2009
More Government Stupidity
Just when you thought the government couldn't get any more stupid - it does just that! Not only is the level of stupidity increasing but the rate of it as well. Two significant items this week within a day or two of each other......
1. The government appoints expert scientific advisors and then not only ignores their advice but actually sacks them for having the cheek to give it. Alan Johnson the Home Secretary, on sacking the head of the government's Drug Advisory Committee, said "I have lost confidence in him". What he meant was, "I have sacked him because he said the opposite of what I wanted him to say". But if the Government already know what answer they want and what action they are going to take, why bother to have an advisory committee at all? Could it be, Alan Johnson, that if this is the attitude you are going to take, the public has lost confidence in you. Just remember that MPs are supposed to exist to represent the will of the people ......... and that the will of the people is based on facts and common sense not political dogma.
2. Two very disturbing articles in the Times about the effects of the new Independent Safeguarding Authority .....
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6898127.ece
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6898212.ece
One of my favourite poems (because it is so short I can actually remember it) is by Steve Turner -
History repeats itself.
Has to.
Nobody listens!
The government are not immune to this failure to learn lessons from history. They seem hell bent on taking us back to the Stalinist era of Russia when nobody could do anything unless the government said they could. In this country we have fought long and hard for democratic freedoms but now the government is slowly (or in some instances not so slowly) unpicking all this and reverting to ultimate state control ....... of everything. This sort of thing resulted in Revolution in Russia (and in other countries where it has been tried) and it can only be a matter of time before it happens here.
We are supposedly still a Christian country. The Queen is the head of the Church of England and we still have "Her Majesty's Government". So why the discrepancy?? One of the main commands of the Christian religion (and many other religions too I believe) is "Love your neighbour". Yet the government seems determined to put every obstacle possible in the way of people doing that. But who is the first organisation to bewail the breakdown of society as we know it in this country?? ........ that self same government! On the basis of the above, the law bringing this ridiculous scheme into being is almost certainly "ultra vires" and probably contrary to the Human Rights Act. I shall certainly ignore it and I suggest everyone else does the same. If nobody co-operates the scheme will have to fail. in addition to the ethics and common sense of the scheme, it is a horrendous waste of money. On one hand the government is saying we are in a terrible financial situation and must all tighten our belts and cut back spending, and on the other they are inventing new quangos, to carry out a function that nobody wants, will cost them money, and which will be completely ineffective anyway.
When the next election comes round I will drag the doorstep candidates indoors and not let them go until until I have a written assurance that, if elected, they will do all in their power to get this iniquitous law repealed.
1. The government appoints expert scientific advisors and then not only ignores their advice but actually sacks them for having the cheek to give it. Alan Johnson the Home Secretary, on sacking the head of the government's Drug Advisory Committee, said "I have lost confidence in him". What he meant was, "I have sacked him because he said the opposite of what I wanted him to say". But if the Government already know what answer they want and what action they are going to take, why bother to have an advisory committee at all? Could it be, Alan Johnson, that if this is the attitude you are going to take, the public has lost confidence in you. Just remember that MPs are supposed to exist to represent the will of the people ......... and that the will of the people is based on facts and common sense not political dogma.
2. Two very disturbing articles in the Times about the effects of the new Independent Safeguarding Authority .....
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6898127.ece
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6898212.ece
One of my favourite poems (because it is so short I can actually remember it) is by Steve Turner -
History repeats itself.
Has to.
Nobody listens!
The government are not immune to this failure to learn lessons from history. They seem hell bent on taking us back to the Stalinist era of Russia when nobody could do anything unless the government said they could. In this country we have fought long and hard for democratic freedoms but now the government is slowly (or in some instances not so slowly) unpicking all this and reverting to ultimate state control ....... of everything. This sort of thing resulted in Revolution in Russia (and in other countries where it has been tried) and it can only be a matter of time before it happens here.
We are supposedly still a Christian country. The Queen is the head of the Church of England and we still have "Her Majesty's Government". So why the discrepancy?? One of the main commands of the Christian religion (and many other religions too I believe) is "Love your neighbour". Yet the government seems determined to put every obstacle possible in the way of people doing that. But who is the first organisation to bewail the breakdown of society as we know it in this country?? ........ that self same government! On the basis of the above, the law bringing this ridiculous scheme into being is almost certainly "ultra vires" and probably contrary to the Human Rights Act. I shall certainly ignore it and I suggest everyone else does the same. If nobody co-operates the scheme will have to fail. in addition to the ethics and common sense of the scheme, it is a horrendous waste of money. On one hand the government is saying we are in a terrible financial situation and must all tighten our belts and cut back spending, and on the other they are inventing new quangos, to carry out a function that nobody wants, will cost them money, and which will be completely ineffective anyway.
When the next election comes round I will drag the doorstep candidates indoors and not let them go until until I have a written assurance that, if elected, they will do all in their power to get this iniquitous law repealed.
Sunday, 25 October 2009
I was wrong.
OK, so I got it completely wrong about the Pope's statement. I optimistically thought it might be one small step forward in ecumenism but cynically suggested that it might mean no progress at all just "we're still talking". Alas even that was a huge overestimate. What the statement apparently boils down to is a blatant attempt by the Roman Catholic Church to pinch clergy from the Anglican Church. Having realised they are in dire straits manpower-wise they have decided to involve themselves in a bit of industrial espionage. All this talk about congregations is a complete red herring ..... it is the clergy they are interested in. A breakaway Anglican leader has described this as "a moment of grace" ??? It is nothing of the sort. Nothing new is being offered. It is merely active encouragement from the Roman Catholic Church for Anglicans to defect to them.
There has never been anything to stop Anglicans going over to Rome if they so wish. Even the concession that married clergy can remain as clergy has been allowed before - so there is actually nothing new at all. The sad thing apparent in the press reports is that many people seem to think that the Pope is creating a new kind of religion that is half Anglican, half Roman Catholic. Nothing is further from the truth. Any folk who do move across will be well and truly Roman Catholic. If you owe allegiance to the Pope you cannot also owe allegiance to the Archbishop of Canterbury despite the strange wording in the statement about "retaining certain elements of Anglican patrimony". The only concession that is being made, as far as I can see, is the right to certain liturgical freedoms, but all the Roman Catholic services I have ever been to have not been that different to Anglican liturgy anyway.
A female lay reader from a church in Walthamstow is reported as having said "It is the best news I have heard all year. I would support it 150% because this is the faith to which I belong. The Church of England doesn't seem to stand for the genuine, God-given doctrines."
What planet is she on?? If this is the faith to which she belongs, why is she not worshipping in a Roman Catholic Church now? As far as I am aware the Romans do not have such things as lay readers and would certainly not tolerate female ones (so she would be out of a job!). And what exactly are "the genuine God-given doctrines"? From my reading of Church History, there may be God-given commands / laws, but all "doctrines" are entirely man-made ....... hence the existing discrepancies between the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches. We use the same bibles ...... it is only where the church hierarchy started laying down rigid doctrines that schism started taking place and has resulted in the mess we are all in today. If there is one God-given doctrine, it is that the church should be one. Funnily enough this is the only one that seems to be ignored!
There has never been anything to stop Anglicans going over to Rome if they so wish. Even the concession that married clergy can remain as clergy has been allowed before - so there is actually nothing new at all. The sad thing apparent in the press reports is that many people seem to think that the Pope is creating a new kind of religion that is half Anglican, half Roman Catholic. Nothing is further from the truth. Any folk who do move across will be well and truly Roman Catholic. If you owe allegiance to the Pope you cannot also owe allegiance to the Archbishop of Canterbury despite the strange wording in the statement about "retaining certain elements of Anglican patrimony". The only concession that is being made, as far as I can see, is the right to certain liturgical freedoms, but all the Roman Catholic services I have ever been to have not been that different to Anglican liturgy anyway.
A female lay reader from a church in Walthamstow is reported as having said "It is the best news I have heard all year. I would support it 150% because this is the faith to which I belong. The Church of England doesn't seem to stand for the genuine, God-given doctrines."
What planet is she on?? If this is the faith to which she belongs, why is she not worshipping in a Roman Catholic Church now? As far as I am aware the Romans do not have such things as lay readers and would certainly not tolerate female ones (so she would be out of a job!). And what exactly are "the genuine God-given doctrines"? From my reading of Church History, there may be God-given commands / laws, but all "doctrines" are entirely man-made ....... hence the existing discrepancies between the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches. We use the same bibles ...... it is only where the church hierarchy started laying down rigid doctrines that schism started taking place and has resulted in the mess we are all in today. If there is one God-given doctrine, it is that the church should be one. Funnily enough this is the only one that seems to be ignored!
Tuesday, 20 October 2009
Keep it simple, Stupid!
The General Synod of the Church of England has obviously never heard that the best way to get anything done is to "Keep it simple, Stupid (K.I.S.S.)".
Having, last year, overwhelmingly voted in favour of consecrating women bishops, a "Revision Committee" of the Synod is now engaged in working out some very complicated arrangements for allowing conscientious objectors to ignore their female diocesan bishop and turn to some new breed of super-bishop with the statutory authority to overrule the Diocesan. If this isn't the kiss of death for the Church of England as we know it, I don't know what is. The whole point of a bishop is that they are the "focus of unity" in their area. How can anyone, male or female, be the focus of unity knowing that some of their flock won't even talk to them and are taking instructions from an interloper?
The revision committee state that they are trying to address the concerns of those with "conscientious difficulties" so that they won't leave the church altogether. Conscientious difficulties?? Their conscientious difficulties should lie in their continued insistance on treading a path that is at clear odds with the declared will of the majority of Synod. In the "good old days" of the Church such people would be declared heretics and burnt at the stake. You wouldn't have found Henry VIII or Queen Mary saying "let's just change the whole order and structure of the church to accommodate these folk who, quite clearly, do not believe in the unity of the church anyway."
If the Church is not one it is nothing. Stop pandering to these people and let them either put up or shut up. It is surely better to preserve the majority of the church and lose a few than to risk destroying the whole church.
More on this here: www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=83359
Having, last year, overwhelmingly voted in favour of consecrating women bishops, a "Revision Committee" of the Synod is now engaged in working out some very complicated arrangements for allowing conscientious objectors to ignore their female diocesan bishop and turn to some new breed of super-bishop with the statutory authority to overrule the Diocesan. If this isn't the kiss of death for the Church of England as we know it, I don't know what is. The whole point of a bishop is that they are the "focus of unity" in their area. How can anyone, male or female, be the focus of unity knowing that some of their flock won't even talk to them and are taking instructions from an interloper?
The revision committee state that they are trying to address the concerns of those with "conscientious difficulties" so that they won't leave the church altogether. Conscientious difficulties?? Their conscientious difficulties should lie in their continued insistance on treading a path that is at clear odds with the declared will of the majority of Synod. In the "good old days" of the Church such people would be declared heretics and burnt at the stake. You wouldn't have found Henry VIII or Queen Mary saying "let's just change the whole order and structure of the church to accommodate these folk who, quite clearly, do not believe in the unity of the church anyway."
If the Church is not one it is nothing. Stop pandering to these people and let them either put up or shut up. It is surely better to preserve the majority of the church and lose a few than to risk destroying the whole church.
More on this here: www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=83359
Important Statement from the Archbish and the Pope
Well ..... I think it's important. A joint statement made today can be found here - www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/2572
Have you read it? Good - then perhaps you can explain to me what it actually means. Particularly the bit about "a canonical structure that provides for Personal Ordinariates, which will allow former Anglicans to enter full communion with the Catholic Church while preserving elements of distinctive Anglican spiritual patrimony." Does this actually mean a change in anything or is it just a very verbose way of saying "We're still talking"?
What I would like it to mean is that we Anglicans can take communion in a Roman Catholic church without thinking we'll be damned to all eternity if the priest ever finds out we're not a Catholic. ...... but I don't suppose it means that at all. Any attempts at a proper translation into common English would be much appreciated.
Have you read it? Good - then perhaps you can explain to me what it actually means. Particularly the bit about "a canonical structure that provides for Personal Ordinariates, which will allow former Anglicans to enter full communion with the Catholic Church while preserving elements of distinctive Anglican spiritual patrimony." Does this actually mean a change in anything or is it just a very verbose way of saying "We're still talking"?
What I would like it to mean is that we Anglicans can take communion in a Roman Catholic church without thinking we'll be damned to all eternity if the priest ever finds out we're not a Catholic. ...... but I don't suppose it means that at all. Any attempts at a proper translation into common English would be much appreciated.
Monday, 12 October 2009
At last! Someone with some common sense.
I am thinking of becoming a "Seddonite". Not some new religion but at last someone with a common sense view for the future of local government.
John Seddon is described as an "outspoken management thinker". He is only saying what I have been saying for a long while ........ but if people listen to him, I don't mind if he takes the credit.
He says "Targets always make performance worse. They are arbitrary measures which distort people's thinking and sub-optimise the system." Outsourcing and shared services in local government is "wasteful and pointless", and he is all for saving billions of pounds and making services run like clockwork by scrapping the entire "systems and inspections industry".
In other words Whitehall - let local government get on and do what it has to do without continually telling it how to do it, when to do it and how fast to do it. Local government has been around for a long time now ....... it knows how to operate efficiently and effectively and as cheaply as possible ....... unfortunately those who think they know better won't let it.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/public_sector/article6733600.ece
John Seddon is described as an "outspoken management thinker". He is only saying what I have been saying for a long while ........ but if people listen to him, I don't mind if he takes the credit.
He says "Targets always make performance worse. They are arbitrary measures which distort people's thinking and sub-optimise the system." Outsourcing and shared services in local government is "wasteful and pointless", and he is all for saving billions of pounds and making services run like clockwork by scrapping the entire "systems and inspections industry".
In other words Whitehall - let local government get on and do what it has to do without continually telling it how to do it, when to do it and how fast to do it. Local government has been around for a long time now ....... it knows how to operate efficiently and effectively and as cheaply as possible ....... unfortunately those who think they know better won't let it.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/public_sector/article6733600.ece
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)