Letters from the Crossing Place

David McCandless of informationisbeautiful.net posted some pretty pictures and interesting figures about military spending at The Guardian datablog. I don’t really understand why I should be interested in how it relates to GDP though? Surely “defence” spending would be better compared to the area of land or number of people it has to “protect”?

Dear Marsha Singh,

Thank you very much for coming to meet us the other week when we were in London to express our concerns about the arms trade. I was glad to hear you agree, in principle, that advertising of so called “British” arms should not be funded by the tax payer. I am, of course, still pleased that Gordon Brown’s government took the decision to close DESO; but I’m a little disappointed that, in this time when all parties are scouring the public sector for anything they can cut, a pledge to similarly consign UKTI DSO to history has not been one of Labour’s election promises. When there are so many public services that need to be protected, the one department that’s actually offensive to common decency would seem a good one to scrap.

I also wanted to write and find out your thoughts on the other main issue concerning me in the run up to this election—the Digital Economy Bill. I have heard the government plans to rush this bill through before the election without proper scrutiny. This would be a travesty of democracy, as well as the last thing the real digital economy needs. I urge you to do all that is within your power to prevent this. I feel so strongly about this that I would seriously consider voting for the Pirate Party should they field a candidate in Bradford West, as they are the only party to have made sensible, modern manifesto commitments on intellectual property issues. Within your own party however, your colleague Tom Watson, member for West Bromwich East, is much more reasonable and, should your views fall near his, I would hope you might figure out a way of putting a stop this insane power grab by the Business Secretary and the music industry lobby.

Dear Deb,

I just saw a trailer on YouTube for a new film by Czech director Jan Svěrák, with production design by Jakub Dvorský. I was greatly disappointed not to be in Bradford for Jakub’s appearance at the Amanita Design design event at the Bradford Animation Festival last year, and was wondering if you had any plans to bring his new work to BAF 2010?

I’m assuming from the seeming lack of an English language web site or IMDb entry, that Kooky’s Return (Kuky se vrací) doesn’t yet have a UK distributor, but there’s a little information on the Amanita Design blog. The trailer looks pretty special, and I can’t wait to see a subtitled version.

Credit to RPS for the link.

My last post was rather gushing and over excited. But I guess I did something right, either in that, or in the e-mail I sent to Doug Lombardi begging him to confirm it, ’cause a press release just dropped in my inbox confirming Steam for the Mac.

Apparently, Valve will be introducing a new feature called Steam Play to the Steamworks API, which allows people to play games they own on one platform free of charge on the other. It also includes cloud saving support, so you’ll be able to play part of the the game on, for example, your work PC, then switch to your home Mac part way through and carry on right where you left off. All Valve’s future games will be getting simultaneous PC and Mac releases, starting with Portal 2. The Mac will get the same patching schedule as the PC, and Mac and PC players will share multiplayer games and lobbies. Valve describe their Steam partners as “very excited about adding support for the Mac” and say they expect “most developers and publishers” to take part. So, yes, now Steam itself is become the platform.

The first Mac Steam client will be the one currently in beta for the PC, and it’s due out in April.

So, Valve relased a beta update for Steam. It has a lot of nice features. It’s faster, it’s prettier, it does nice community things, it has a clock on the overlay. That last feature alone makes the beta worth opting in to. Buried down the bottom of the feature list though, is something exciting. The HTML rendering engine has been switched from Internet Explorer to WebKit, the technology behind Apple’s Safari and Google Chrome.

At the point of reading that, the excitement started to rise. Aside from the immediate performance improvement, uncoupling Steam from Internet Explorer was the single largest step that needed to be taken to uncouple Steam from Windows. Starting the new Steam client, it’s a much more beautiful application, and it feels Mac-like in many respects. Noticing the “File” menu had been replaced by a “Steam” menu, the excitement meter was starting to overload. I hit the Steam forums, where it looks like some other people have had similar thoughts.

Discoveries there send me over the edge. I might die of excitement. The new update inlcudes graphics files for OS X interface elements. Today has been noteworthy already, but it’s now officially a good day.
This is about more than a few games on the Mac, though that alone would be good. In developing Steamworks, Valve have been building a platform. They’re the only company with a credible product in the marketplace that can present the PC as an alternative to the consoles. Games downloaded with the ease (and occasionally, price) of the iTunes App Store? Yes please. Networking and social gaming features? Yes please. Sensible DRM? Yes please.

If Valve stick with the “games you buy can be played anywhere” philosophy that has defined Steam in the past, they could do for gaming what Google Docs and Spreadsheets is trying to do for the office suite: break free of the desktop. Pleanty of Steam games already have Mac versions, even if they were released later. It wouldn’t be that hard to make such titles available multiformat. It would also redefine PC gaming in an instant, making Steam the platform rather than Windows.

It’s safe to assume that if there’s a Mac Steam client coming, future Valve games will have native Mac versions. Giving people access to their games on the platform of thier choice would reduce the “but I’d have to re-buy all my software” disincentive to switching away from Windows. More people would switch. More games would be developed. Deveopment would get easier with multiformat APIs. Steam would become the de facto gaming platform on the PC. Developers would see that Games for Windows Live is now pointless. Everybody wins. Well, except Microsoft and Stardock, I guess. Bring on the future.

Dear Mr. Hopkins,

I am writing to complain about the undemocratic and unrepresentative decision taken by the Regulatory and Appeals Committee on 23rd September of this year to demolish the former Odeon cinema building on Prince’s Way and to grant planning permission to the proposed New Victoria Place development. I now realise that I should probably have written earlier, but I had come to believe that there was no further recourse available to save the building, and was hoping for further legal guidance before submitting my complaint.

I sat though almost the whole of September 23rd’s lengthy meeting, returning for the late session and enduring till the bitter end to witness the committee’s disappointing decision. Particularly infuriating was the moment when it became apparent that the committee were ready to vote five to two in favour of saving the building and so were removed from council chamber to receive private “legal advice”, only to return and vote for demolition. I’m afraid I did not make a note of the name of the council’s legal advisor, but I am sure he acted in good faith and within his remit. What disappoints me is the lack courage on the part of those councillors who changed their vote, unwilling to support what they know to be the will of the people who put them into office.

Another detail I did not make exact notes of was the number of letters the committee had received on the issue. I remember it being somewhere in the region of 2000 opposing demolition, and a figure in support of the proposal that was so small it could be counted on the fingers of one hand. A hand with at least two fingers cut off.

The gratuitous amputation of irreplaceable assets seems to have been a recurring misfortune for Bradford. The former cinema is the last truly iconic building in the city centre. It’s imposing frontage, distinctive domes and red brick construction set it apart from it’s surroundings such that it is not just a beautiful building in it’s own right, but actually symbolic of the heart of the city. In UNESCO’s only City of Film, and opposite the National Media Museum, it seems absurd that a council should entertain a plan to demolish the last remaining 1930s super-cinema. Properly maintained, this building should be an asset to the city: a valuable cultural centre, and a landmark of Bradford’s cinematic history. This is not some building that deserves to be saved because of an adverse affect on the neighbouring Alhambra theatre. This is the only building left which can symbolise Bradford in the same way Big Ben does London, or the Eiffel Tower Paris.

Under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 the local planning authority is required to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area into which the former Odeon building falls. One need only look at a map of the conservation area to see that it was clearly designated specifically to include this building, jutting out as it does from the Thornton Road/Prince’s Way junction. On conservation areas, Planning Policy Guidance 15: Planning and the Historic Environment states that the general presumption should be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of a conservation area. It was evident from attending the meeting on 23rd September that no presumption in favour was shown. Instead councillors allowed themselves to be dictated to, accepting a plan that neither preserves the character or appearance of the area, nor can be said to enhance it.

As a fig-leaf to cover their shame, the Regulatory and Appeals Committee wore a single letter from English Heritage, as though this were some objective measure of the building’s value overriding the views of 2000 local people. In truth, of course, the very idea that such value could be measured objectively is clearly a nonsense, and this is a call which PPG15 and the 1990 act empower the local authority to make. The Regulatory and Appeals Committee have clearly shrugged off this duty.

Bearing in mind the above, I would ask that Bradford Council do three things:

1. Serve Yorkshire Forward and Langtree Artisan with a building preservation notice, preventing them from demolishing the former cinema or altering it in such a way as to affect its character.
2. Hold a vote of no confidence in the Regulatory and Appeals Committee, removing them from office at the earliest opportunity.
3. Hold a fully-open meeting of the whole council, at which the two applications approved on September 23rd be reconsidered, taking proper account of public opinion, the building as an iconic symbol for the city, and it’s historical importance in the UNESCO City of Film.

I am aware that various people within the city have presented compelling evidence for the physical health of the building as being fit for use, and I would also ask that such evidence be given it’s due weight in any future debate on the issue.

Update 22/11/2009: I’m glad the version of this that I actually sent to my elected representatives didn’t include the links that embellish the above version. I’ve discovered an asbestos survey that seems to provide the proof that the above linked Mr. Nobel had indeed been negligent. I’ve started a thread on the Save the Odeon Facebook discussion board in the hope that someone can provide futher information.

John Walker wrote a blog post over at botherer.org earlier this evening that pretty much echos the kind of thing I’ve been saying to anyone who’d listen for quite a while.

Leaving aside for the moment the fact that what one of Walker’s commentors calls the “Getting Off Your Backside And Voting system” in this country is thoroughly inept and only serves to encourage the kind of infantile political debate John describes, I think today has been a deeply troubling day. Not because I don’t think Griffin should have been there—he had every right to be—but because of the effect it will likely have. I suspect Jack Straw’s assertion that this will prove a bad week for the BNP will itself prove a sad misjudgement. Griffin’s target audience will have seen a man who’s views resound with their own shouted down, laughed at and bullied by five of the liberal elite; two of whom don’t even belong in Britain anyway. They will have seen themselves forced to stand and justify themselves before a crowd of Jews, Muslims and foreigners, and they will have asked themselves why the hell they should have to do that in their own country. It’s not a picture they’ll’ve liked. We’ve all had an entertaining evening and patted ourselves on the back for making a fascist look a fool, but Griffin’s base will have grown as a result.

It is a fundamental paradox of democracy that allowing free speech means allowing people you don’t agree with a voice, even if those people would seek to remove your own. A free democracy should allow its members always the option, but never the desire, to vote for its own abolition. Until we find a more sophisticated level of political discourse than was seen tonight, that desire will not be challenged on a meaningful level.

Dear Mrs Holdsworth,

I have just come off the phone from discussing my claim for Jobseeker’s Allowance with one of your advisors. From what he was able to tell me, it seems that your staff responsible for processing my claim are either incompetent or persistent liars. Over the last month I have gone through an absurd process of bureaucracy in an attempt to get reinstated my claim which was cancelled in error from 10th June. I am now told that there is no record on your system of any attempt cover the missing weeks.

Upon attending my regular signing appointment at Westfield House Jobcentre on 10th June I informed my advisor that I would be unable to make my next signing as I would be at the Glastonbury Festival with a ticket purchased prior to the start of my claim. I had hoped to be able to rearrange my signing for the day before, but expected to be told to sign off and start a new claim on my return. Instead I was told that I was entitled to ten days of holiday that I could take any time during my claim. I was given a form to fill in giving details of my holiday within the UK, and told that provided I returned it to the Jobcentre before leaving for the festival everything should be fine.

I believe I returned my holiday form to the Jobcentre on 22nd June, two days before my next appointment was due. The staff on the front desk were helpful and friendly, and gave no indication that I was doing anything incorrect or unusual. They told me that I should come back to the Jobcentre on 6th July, the first weekday after I got home, and tore a reminder slip from the holiday form that I was told to present when I returned. Other than that I was given no receipt or acknowledgment of the form I had handed in.

I duly presented myself at Westfield House on the required date, and turned over the reminder slip I had been given. My appearance clearly caused some confusion, and it was some time before I was called forward to see an advisor. I was finally called to a desk where I spoke to one man and one woman who told me that the holiday form I had brought in prior to my departure had been lost somewhere between the front desk and the team who should have put it on the system. My claim had been cancelled as I had, the system recorded, missed my regular signing date on 24th June. They advised me to return home and phone the helpline, asking to make a rapid reclaim, and to request that my claim be backdated to the date my earlier claim had been cancelled in error.

Following the advice given by the Jobcentre advisors precisely, I returned home and called the helpline. I asked to make a rapid reclaim, and was put through a process that could not by anyone be reasonably described as rapid. The gentleman I spoke to appeared to have no access to the details of my previous claim, and was unable to look up basic facts you would think might help in a “reclaim” process, such as the date my prior claim had been cancelled. Nor was he able to simply duplicate the details of my claim, and I was forced to answer a tedious volley of irrelevant questions, the answers to which you must already have had on your system, as not one detail of my situation had changed since my previous claim.

At the end of that call I was instructed to attend Westfield House again, for a starting interview, on 10th July—by which time I had been without income for one month. At this interview I was told that the only way I could hope to have this outstanding period covered was to complete another form requesting that my claim be backdated. I spoke to another helpful lady who, unlike the telephone advisor I had spoken to before, was actually able to look up the details I needed to complete the form accurately. She again admitted that my claim had been cancelled in error by the Jobcentre, and told me that there were notes to that effect on my record. She informed me that my case would need to go before a specialist decision maker who would have authority to issue the JSA covering the missing month. I wrote out in full on the form what had happened to my claim, and how I had been repeatedly told to expect that money. The advisor said she would also give full details, officially recording for the benefit of the decision maker that I was owed the money due to a Jobcentre Plus error.

Prior experience has shown me that one can not expect to receive anything in JSA before your first regular signing date after the initial interview. So I waited until after my next signing on 22nd July before expecting anything further. On 27th July, I finally received a payment of £156.16. I waited a little longer, expecting to hear something by post that would state the result of the backdating decision, and how much regular benefit I could expect going forward. As of today I have not received any written acknowledgement of this current “reclaim”. Slightly bemused as to what period that £156.16 was supposed to cover, I rang today to ask for clarification and also to ask what had happened about the backdating decision. I was told that the payment was to cover the period 6th–22nd July. Before my claim was erroneously cancelled I was receiving £64.30 per week, so that works out correctly. However, I was also told that there is no record on my account of any attempt to claim for the period 11th June–5th July.

Clearly, this should not be true. I can therefore assume only that either Westfield House have lost a form relating to my claim for the second time in as many months, or that I have been repeatedly lied to, and that none of your seemingly helpful staff ever had any intention of passing my documents through the relevant channels.

Ultimately, I assume, this is probably a failure of the system rather than of any specific individual. I am told that you do not have protocol for the restoration of a cancelled claim. This is patently absurd. I can not be the first person ever to have suffered a claim being erroneously shut down—people do, after all, make mistakes. It does leave me rather angry that a month after discovering the error I appear to be back at square one. I hope that, following this letter, you will be able to take some action to expedite my receiving the missing month’s allowance.

I’ve just been reading an article on The Register slating New Scientist for a lack of understanding of basic economics (it’s fairly old, but I was away when it was published). Now, I’ve never claimed much understanding of economics, but clearly I’m dumber than I thought, ’cause to me The Register’s argument looks like nonsense.

The Register is attacking the classic green anti-capitalist myth that a system built on economic growth is fundamentally flawed because it requires an ever increasing consumption of finite natural resources. It may well be myth but, if it is, I’m going to need the reasons why explained to me in a little more depth than Tim Worstall gives here. He uses sand as an illustration for his argument, pointing out that a quantity of sand converted into computer chips will add significantly more value to the economy than the same quantity converted into wine bottles.

As a basic illustration, that’s fine, but extrapolated to a larger scale it doesn’t seem to hold much water (or wine). Economic growth is fine in this model as long as you assume a nation to be a closed system. Britain’s resource consumption doesn’t have to increase in line with GDP if we use our sand to make microchips. But building microchips will not reduce the demand for glass. All we’re doing is offshoring glass production, whilst continuing to double consumption of sand. If we all become singers our GDP per capita may increase while our sand consumption goes down, but we still want microchips and glass. In fact we probably want more microchips and more glass because we’re now all so rich from singing that we have more money to spend. Total sand consumption has increased again. The fact that it’s mined and processed abroad won’t negate the impact on our environment. We can not live on singing alone. Or, as put by someone wiser than me, how can you have money if none of you actually produce anything?