CALM - suicidal young men

As reported by the PA, and other media:

A quarter of adults in England and Wales have considered suicide, research suggests.
Suicidal thoughts are most common in those aged 45 to 54, with just over a third (31%) saying they had contemplated taking their own life, according to the research [...]

While men and women are both likely to feel suicidal, more men actually commit suicide, the campaign group said.
Calm chief executive Jane Powell said that 75.5% of the 4,517 people who committed suicide in 2010 were men.
She said that gender should be at the heart of Government's suicide-prevention policy.

Ah, so more taxpayers' money to be spent on... suicides. For men. (Or rather to reduce them.) Wonder where this money should be being spent?

And who conducted this research? From the PA article:

[...]according to the research conducted by the Campaign Against Living Miserably (Calm).

Calm is a fake-charity in the UK, who out of their  £153k income for 2011, £152k (of which £98k was deferred to 2012) came from Primary Care Trusts. Which is the NHS. Which is taxpayers' money.

They describe themselves as:

The campaign against living miserably (CALM) was set up to reduce the high suicide rate amongst men under 35, currently the single biggest killer of young men in the UK

In other words: Charity that depends on taxpayers' money demands that more taxpayers' money be spent on primary reason for said charity to exist.

Sun Life - funerals

From The Telegraph, carehome.co.uk, marketwatch, and other media outlets, we have some 'research' into funeral costs in the UK co-conducted by the University of Bath and another partner:

• Almost half of 69,000 applications for a Funeral Payment (FP) rejected(2) 
• So-called "pauper's funerals" (Public Health Funerals) expected to rise as it becomes "too expensive for poor people to die" 
• Funeral Payment applicants forced into debt by committing to funeral cost of GBP 1,000s prior to finding out if they will receive state support

Gosh. What a sorry state of affairs. Who helped the University of Bath conduct their research? Another impartial group of people?

From MarketWatch:

A new Cost of Dying Special Report into Social Fund Funeral Payments from Sun Life Direct and the University of Bath reveals that the Funeral Payment scheme, intended to contribute to the cost of funerals for the most vulnerable in society, is failing to meet mounting demand.

[...]

Simon Cox, head of life planning at Sun Life Direct, says: "We have to ask ourselves whether the current infrastructure for end of life support is fit for purpose. Something must be done, and quickly.

Ah. Company that sells funeral plans seemingly encourages public, through scare tactics, to buy funeral plans. Or this is possibly a run-up to suggesting that the government use a private company (can you think of one?) to take over the Funeral Payments system in order to get their hands on tax-payers' money.

In no way is this an advertisement. Not at all.

Dry ice and CGI smoke are dangerous!!!!one

The latest in the UK Government's nanny-statism, this time pushing the myth of damaging non-first-hand smoke.

[Dry ice flowing over a sofa]

[Dry ice flowing over net curtains]

[Dry ice flowing over some child's bricks on the floor]

[CGI smoke wafting all over the room with a sleeping child in a baby seat]

[Closeup of child's feet, then hands, then feet.]

[Mum smoking by window while stood in the room]

Over 80% of cigarette smoke is invisible,[1]

[Mum now outside smoking][2]

so no matter how

[Mum back inside the room][2]

careful you are, they still breathe in the harmful poisons.

[Room without dry ice and CGI smoke showing the child again.]

If you could see what's really there, you wouldn't smoke.

Text invisible to 63818 for a Smokefree Kit.

[1] 80% of *smoke* is invisible? I'm sure it isn't.

[2] And I thought the continuity editors had it hard during films lasting 120 minutes or more - I can only imagine how hard it must be when you're doing a 30 second advert.

Quite why the government is persisting in stating that second-hand smoke is apparently, given the rhetoric, even more damaging to others than the first-hand smoke is to the smoker, despite there being little to no scientific evidence of said harm, isn't really a mystery.

We even have the Chief Medical Officer attributing middle ear infections (wot?), lung infections, asthma and 40 cot deaths per year to passive smoking and pushing for a ban on smoking in cars.

While smoke (or any other particulate matter in the air) may start an asthmatic off, I seriously doubt (nor can find any evidence of) passive smoking caused the asthma to start with.

Cot deaths, aka Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, is the name attributed to the death of a baby where the reasons are unknown. If 40 cot deaths were actually caused by passive smoking then they wouldn't be called 'cot deaths.'

And the money spent on this advert is on top of the ~£.5 million pounds of tax-payers money currently being spent by an off-shoot of the UK government in the South West of England to lobby other parts of the government for plain packaging while the government is in the middle of a 'consultation' over said packaging.

NHS - Bowel Cancer

[Visit4ads]

White man 1: I don't really know how to put this..
White woman: I'm a bit worried...
Black woman: Something has not been right for weeks...
White man 2: There's always a ... bit of blood...
White man 3: Well it's loose .. really loose...

Voiceover: Blood in your poo, or going more often with looser poo[1], are possible signs of bowel cancer. If you've had either of these symptoms for three weeks or more, tell your doctor.

Dr Terry Bowley: It doesn't matter how you tell me, just tell me.

Voiceover: Finding it early makes it more treatable. Be clear on Cancer.

More money wasting by the NHS[archive], and they're talking down to you this time. 

Are there really adults that use the infantile word 'poo,' when talking with other adults, when there are a wealth of words that could be otherwise used, e.g. fæces, stools, shit, crap?

The last two of which could probably be used as adjectives for this advert.

More seriously, who really needs an advert to tell them to go to the doctor if they've been shitting blood or have had diarrhea for three weeks? 

Most who would go anyway, would go long before the three weeks (with or without this advert,) those not so inclined to bother their doctor with something so minor as blood pouring out their anus is hardly likely to change their mind by watching an advert that patronises them by calling the stuff that comes out of their rectum 'poo.'

[1] Is this the P.C. phrase for 'the shits' or diarrhea these days?

Acupuncture Awareness Week

Update March 1: The poll's back up, but with the numbers fiddled - at the time of writing: 32% no, 68% yes, on a total vote count of.... 338. And you have to register to vote.

---

Update 16:16 GMT: Well that poll didn't last long, did it? At my last count there was 1864(82.9%) No, 348(17.1%) Yes before it 'disappeared.' (Even though the poll is still on their front page.) Strange that.

---

It appears that the British Acupuncture Council have decided that 27th February – 4th March 2012 should be Acupuncture Awareness Week.

As most people should be 'aware,' Acupuncture is complete and utter bollocks, so it the campaign seems a little pointless.

Nevertheless, they're still trying[archive]:

The first ever Acupuncture Awareness Week in the UK, supported by the British Acupuncture Council, aims to dispel the myths surrounding acupuncture[1], what conditions it can help[2] and give members of the public/you all the information you need about treatment.[3]

[1] No doubt they won't be pointing out the myths they promulgate such as it works, it cures cancer, etc.
[2] None, perhaps?
[3] "It doesn't work"?

Thought not.

They even have a poll on whether the tax payer should give more funding to this woo via the NHS [no archive since it won't].

At the time of posting (since it was pointed out by Pharyngula) it seems to be going well:

Do you think acupuncture should be made more widely available on the NHS?
No: 61.6%
Yes:38.4%
Total votes: 787

(g^2)^7 - how not to be a maths teacher on camera.

"Turn Your Talent to Teaching"- but make sure they bloody camera-man doesn't catch you writing the wrong answers on the board.

The UK Government, once again wasting our money, is advertising for teachers. Maths teachers. Just a shame the editors included this bit in the still above.[1] Perhaps those useless maths classes at school weren't so useless. At least if you're in media/advertising.

The video, while it's still around (the `still' is from around 19s):

Teacher: What I want you do now is we're[2] going to look at how we're going to solve this equation here.[(g²)⁷=g^? appears on the board as a problem]

Teacher's voiceover: If it's an early lesson and I need to get them started, [we see the kids playing bingo] I try different ways to clear the cobwebs out. [teacher writes g²×g⁷ on the board]

Teacher: This one, is just do[2] the highest common factor, so what's the highest common factor of 80 and 60.

Kids: <mumbles of 'twenty'>

Teacher: Do'ya[2] think it's twenty? Twenty, yeah?

One Kid: Bingo!

Other kids: <cheers>

Voiceover: Turn your talent to teaching. Visit teach.gov.uk

The Daily Mail appears to have been the first paper out with this 'mistake' being spotted by some 15yr old spotty oik[3] claiming they're showing the wrong answer.

Of course, that segment could quite probably have lasted a couple of minutes in the classroom there, with the teacher pointing out why it's not the right solution, but to include it in the final advert where it could be misinterpreted? Laziness on the behalf of the advertisers.

Of course, the DM's on a rant about how this 'wrong' answer shows declining standards in our schools. I'm more put out by the standard of spoken English by the teacher[2].


Mr. Coombs is praised highly for his observation of course. From the DM article:

Adam Williams, principal of John Cabot Academy which Chris attends, praised the schoolboy's attention to detail.

Aren't you simply looking forward him being one of your colleagues a few years hence? No big-headedness of course, just a mention in a newspaper article.

He said: 'It is great to think that Chris showed that degree of observation and understanding of maths to spot the apparent error in the advert.'

I learnt about indices in the first year of secondary school (12 yrs old) - just when are they teaching them these days? A-levels?

---

[1] For those who can't spot it, (g²)⁷, is g²×g²×g²×g²×g²×g²×g² which is g¹⁴. Not g²×g⁷ which is g⁹. And Wrong™

[2] Probably just as well she's not teaching English.

[3] Well - Chris Coombs doesn't look too spotty from the DM photo.

Normal people are terrorist suspects

Spotted via Dizzy:

The government wasting more money on yet another pointless advertising campaign.

Examples of suspicious behaviour[current]?

• Van - Terrorists need transport.
• Passport - Terrorists use multiple identities.
• Mobile phone - Terrorists need communication.
• Camera - Terrorists need information.
• Chemicals - Do you know someone buying large or unusual quantities of chemicals for no obvious reason?
• Mask and goggles - Terrorists use protective equipment.
• Credit card - Terrorists need funding.
• Computer - Terrorists use computers.
• Suitcase - Terrorists need to travel.
• Padlock - Terrorists need storage. 

I mean, really - can you come up with at least one valid and non-terrorist related use for each of those items?

I could probably come up with my own list:

• Air - terrorists need to breathe. Have you seen someone breathing recently?
• Water - terrorists need to drink. Have you seen anyone drinking?
• Food - terrorists need to eat. Have you seen someone trying to buy sandwiches at Tescos?
• Toilets - terrorists need to piss and have a dump. Have you seen anyone visiting the pleasantly smelling lavatorial facilities in your local pub?

Nanny-statism at it's unpleasant worst.

PDBTL #1 - seatbelts.

First in a series of (UK) government sponsored advertising, suggesting that perhaps the subjects citizens shouldn't break the law, and wasting tax-payer's money in the process.

This is the "gory" version of this particular advert (the pre 9pm watershed version only omits the allegedly 'graphical' stuff that happens inside Richard's body.)

Richard didn't want to die, [Richard is driving along] but he couldn't stop himself.[1]

The collision [two cars head-on-collide[2] in a residential area[3]] with the car didn't kill him, but he wasn't wearing a seatbelt, so he continued on his journey. [Airbag deploys and Richard hits it full on.][4]

When he hit the inside of the car[5] [his head breaks the windscreen[4]], that didn't kill him either.

But his internal organs carried on travelling until they hit his ribcage[5] [graphic of Richard's ribs], and his lungs were punctured [his ribs break and enter lungs[6]], and the main artery from his heart was torn.[shift to front view, and slowly leaking blood from his 'heart' is shown[7]]

And that's what killed Richard.

[Fade]

[Think! Always wear a seatbelt]

[1] Perhaps Richard should have had his brakes checked last time they felt spongy then. Or perhaps he should have been paying attention to the road ahead of him. Or perhaps he shouldn't have been speeding.[8]

[2] Such a perfect head on collision. To pick an easily found link at random, in 2005 in the US, only 2% of collisions were head on, (though were the cause of 10% of fatal crashes.) Most other 'head on collisions' don't involve the car going straight ahead as shown and stopping in such a short distance - which is what causes the injuries stated. If there isn't an air-bag[4]

[3] Typical speed limit in a residential area in the UK? (Section 24) 30mph. Are we expected to believe that there is a substantial number of fatal, perfect, head on collisions at 30mph in built up areas where at least one of the drivers dies?

[4] Hang on... Air bag? Those are supposed to protect you are they not? :


WTF is his head doing hitting the windscreen with such force (at 30mph[3]) that it breaks? That is one seriously mis-designed air-bag. Maybe it's the car company that killed him?

[5] The only part of Richard shown hitting the car at any speed is his head. The rest of his torso should have been less affected due to the air-bag[4]

[6] Not necessarily fatal.

[7] Given the speed of the blood coming out of that heart, the pathologist in me suspects that Richard was long dead before the crash, and *that's* what caused the crash.

[8] I have no doubt that one of those adverts will make an appearance here.


Anyway - as pointed out in a previous post, the fact the advert exists is a load of bollocks. While being in a moving car without wearing a seat-belt (with certain exceptions) is against the law, punishable by a fine, the government's own statistics show that the adverts do fuck all:

This publication presents estimates of seatbelt wearing rates [...] by drivers in England. Estimates of seatbelt wearing rates for Scotland are also included. Surveys were carried out in October and November 2009.

The main results from the seatbelt survey for England are:

* The proportion of car drivers observed wearing seat belts has not changed since the 2008 survey, remaining at 95 per cent in 2009.

PDBTL and SWMFM!

I intend to start a series or two.

Please Don't Break The Law (PDBTL)  and Stop Wasting My Fucking Money (SWMFM) - government spending wasting money on advertising suggesting (or telling) you to or not to do something.

This post started off as the first one in the series for PDBTL, but the background to the opening paragraphs started getting a bit verbose, so thought it needed a post in its own right.

Naturally this post is UK-centric, but I've seen other nations' governments' attempting to cajole their subjects/citizens.

---

Since the 'majority'[1] of the UK population that could be bothered to turn out and vote[2] at the last (May 2010) election removed the Labour party, who seemed to be such spendthrifts[3] - especially when it came to spending the tax-payer's money on advertising (£253M 2009/10[4],) I thought at least the coalition would have at least reduced it.

Down to nothing.

Especially since we're they're we're[5] supposed to be saving money in these straightened economic times.

No such luck. Though I have noticed a reduction in the number of government sponsored adverts, they are still there.

The previous Labour government spending on advertising spanned a few areas:

• Health (^178% 2009 ->2010[4])
• get your flu jabs
• stop fucking around
• if you must fuck around get yourself tested for chlamydia
• Education (^50% 2009 -> 2010[4])
• lern 2 spel
• Learn to count
• Learn the other stuff you should have learnt in school but didn't because they didn't teach you nothing.
• HMRC
• Tax needn't be taxing
• Pay your fucking tax
• Pension bollocks (NEST, GMP, S2P, SERPS)[6]
• DWP
• Get a job yer lazy twats
• Among others.

But the ones that really annoy me are the ones that suggest/tell you not to do things that are against the law.

The government thinks they need to tell us what's against the law through the medium of  dance using adverts. Using our tax.

For example in a few clicks of a mouse you can have access to the Highway Code. Or, alternatively, for the Luddites among you, you could pop down to your local WH Smiths and purchase a dead tree version for under £2.00.

In it, it has words of wisdom such as things that are actually against the law, and if you (don't) do them, you leave yourself liable to a fine, points on your licence, or even accommodation at Her Majesty's Pleasure. (The online version lists the relevant laws - not sure about the book.)

Things such as

• Not wearing a seatbelt (Section 99)
• Not using a hand-held mobile phone while in control of a vehicle (Section 149)
• Speeding (Section 124)

All three of the above have copious adverts telling you not to do them.

Why? It tends to change nothing, and some of the statistics show it. The DFT (presumably by wasting more money) collated some results in their report entitled: Seatbelt and mobile phone use surveys: 2009 results. Some 'interesting' results:

• The proportion of car drivers observed wearing seat belts has not changed since the 2008 survey, remaining at 95 per cent in 2009.
• The proportion of car front seat passengers observed wearing seat belts or child restraints has decreased slightly from 96 per cent in 2008 to 95 per cent in 2009.
• The proportion of car rear seat passengers observed wearing seat belts or child restraints has risen to 89 per cent in 2009 from 88 per cent in 2008.
  

• Since the last survey in September 2008 the proportion of drivers observed using hand-held mobile phones whilst driving increased (from 1.1 per cent to 1.4 per cent for car drivers and from 2.2 per cent to 2.6 per cent for van and lorry drivers).
• An increase in the number of drivers who appear to be using hands free mobile phones (from 0.5 per cent to 1.4 per cent for car drivers and from 1.1 per cent to 2.4 per cent for van and lorry drivers) was observed in the same period.

Now that first section has changes of at most 1%. Taking front seat passengers with seatbelts, if 2008 was 95.5% and 2009 was 95.4%, and we round to 2s.f. we now have our 1% difference, generated from a 0.1% difference. Well within the bounds of error. (Granted other valid values could be 96.4% and 94.5% (1.9%) but I'm sure that this would have been pointed out had it been the case.)

Likewise, the differences for phone use differ by at most 0.4% - suspected statistical error again.

Hardly encouraging, or justification for spending on adverts, given that we've had these adverts on UK media for years.


The cynic in me is waiting for the first advert telling you not to steal.

Or don't go around murdering people.



[1] Since (roughly) two thirds of eligible voters[2] actually bothered to turn up and vote, and of those only 60%[2] voted for either of the parties eventually involved with the coalition, I hardly think 40% of the electorate constitutes a majority.

[2] http://www.ukpolitical.info/2010.htm

[3] Spendthrifts, contrary to what some/most seem to believe (me too, until I saw that first link when it was first published,) derives from "spending the money that [previous] thrifts saved," and thus indicates someone who spends a lot, rather than someone who is thrifty by not spending.

[4] In Labour's last year of government, they managed to increase their spending on advertising from around £180,000,000 to £253,000,000. (The article says 40% up to £253M)

[5] It's my tax you're spending damn-it!

[6] Win 2 internets if you actually know what all those stand for without hovering over the links, visiting the linked sites, or work in the pension industry.

TV Licencing. Have you paid in Sheffield?

Via BBW:

There are five homes
in Rock Street S3
without a TV Licence

[graffitti] Maybe they have a life

That would be Rock Street, Sheffield then?

View Larger Map

Is your house there?

Anyway, this is yet another prong in TVL's[2] "You're guilty until we decide otherwise you've bought a licence regardless of whether you're required to," campaign that's been prevalant over the years.

There are a variety of reasons why a home might not legitimately have a TV licence.

1. It may be unoccupied, the previous occupier having transferred their licence to their new house.
2. The occupier may not be able to afford a TV Licence and has forgone the need to own a TV.
3. The occupier may have decided that all the stuff on TV is shite and isn't worth the TV, or the licence.
4. The occupier may simply have taken the stand that they disagree with the licence on principle and decided not to have a TV.
5. The occupier may have a TV but may only use it to view DVDs/videos/Wii/X-Box, and not to watch live TV.

Or there's one reason why they may illegally not have a TV licence and that's

1. That they have equipment that is both capable of, and is being used to, receive as-broadcast[1] TV signals. (Edit 2017: or want to watch anything on iPlayer)

That bolded bit is important - it's why the owner in #5 above is able to own a TV yet not be required to have a licence. It's also, incidentally, why it's possible for someone not to own a TV, but still be required to have a licence (TV receivers on PC's are an example of the latter.)

Anyway, the poster above implies, as do the letters they send that border on barratry, that everyone(without exception) without a TV Licence falls into the latter group.

I'm sure the BBC have better things to spend the Licence Fee tax-payers' money on.


[1] http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/

You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder.

[2] For the benefit of those fortunate to not be harassed by TVL - "TV Licencing" is actually a trademark, owned by the BBC in the UK, which 3rd party companies can licence(!) in order to harass law abiding members of the public.

Crapita Capita seem to be the company that provides the bully-boys at the moment.