2013-05-22T01:16:54-04:00 Richard Shrubb http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=richard-shrubb Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Richard Shrubb Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1694186 2012-07-23T06:38:35-04:00 2012-09-22T05:12:05-04:00

Richard Shrubb http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-shrubb/

Want to know where you can watch the Olympics compete without getting square eyes, getting hunted down by soldiers after breaking into the venue, or being shot down for trying to fly over London? Come down to Weymouth in Dorset and watch the events from its 3 mile long beach - most of the sailing events can be seen from there without paying for the privilege.

Thirty-three medals are up for grabs at the biggest satellite venue of the London Olympics - Portland Harbour. The Isle of Portland sits just off the Dorset coast, linked to Weymouth by an ancient pebble bank called Chesil Beach. The mile long, 50 ft high causeway protects the harbour from big seas when there's a good wind from the west. This is very good as the prevailing winds are from the west.

Weymouth and Portland will be the first ever sailing events to have ticketed viewing from Nothe Gardens on Weymouth's harbour front. The events have sold out, but there will be "cheap seats" on Weymouth's beach. Large screens are being erected for visitors to view while enjoying your gritty sandwiches and salty unofficial beer - you will be able to see the Olympian battles take place for free with your own eyes, even without the screens as most of the events will take place just offshore.

The traffic system has had over £100 million of improvements for spectators, paying and non alike, to attend the events with little trouble. I've lived here during the road building and traffic flow re routing and though a real pain in the bum as it was taking place, traffic does flow - very well by comparison to the way it did.

Speaking to an American sailing journalist in May, for whom this will be his third Olympics, he said "this is the best sailing venue I have seen so far. You can sail in most weather, and Weymouth is renowned for being windy. Competition will be exciting!"

This goes against the tradition of sailing events being held in little or no wind. All too often the Gold Medal winner has been the team that can find enough light zephyrs to get round the course in front. In Portland Harbour this year? Expect some rock and roll - it is almost always windy!

I have been covering much of the US Olympic and Paralympic teams' preparations for the events. Though I know my way around a boat and sailing, I never really got my head around yacht racing. As a yacht cruiser I don't like the idea of charging full belt into potential collision with another £50 000 boat at a marker buoy. Yacht and dinghy racers take this in their stride - having the budget to replace broken spars and even broken boats should they be too competitive at a buoy or line!

I covered the US womens' Team Racing selection event in May. Within half a day I was hooked like a no hoper to crack cocaine. As a yacht cruiser it takes me sometimes 10 seconds to work out two boats' rights of way under international boating collision regulations. For all the racers on the water this year, they know the situation instinctively - I watched two boats foul each other twice each, remedy their fouls and the winner cross the line within 5 seconds of the first incident taking place. Even knowing the complexities of sailing as a whole, these sailors are frankly, bloody amazing to watch. See the video of this below. Below that, who to watch out for?

Who to watch at the Olympics this year?

Ben Ainslie is Team GB's media darling with four medals in four Olympics under his belt. On the Finn class single handed dinghy, he won his first two medals on Lasers. He famously won Gold at Beijing by forcing his only real threat to lose on the last race.

Keep an eye out for the 49ers. These boats are described as the "Formula 1 racing cars of Olympic sailing". To me, they look more like space ships than they do something you'd buzz about the bay on. They go extremely quickly too - in a good wind, the press and umpires' speedboats will have to go at almost full throttle to keep up with them. 16 mph on any boat is very quick, and 49ers scream along at those speeds regularly. Favourites for this class are Team Australia's Nathan Outteridge and Iain Jensen

One of the tightest competitions will be Team GB versus Team USA on the women's Elliot 6 Metre match racing. The crews (skipper and two crew for each boat) do not have their own boats - they are given one by the Olympics so the only thing being tested is the crews' skill. Twenty teams will compete, but only two boats race each other in a given race, taking around 10 - 15 minutes. Of Team USA and Team GB, the joint favourites, no matter which crew wins Gold, Britannia will still rule the waves. Why? Team USA's skipper Anna Tunnicliffe was brought up in Yorkshire, England until her early teens! Both teams are on top form - though Team GB's Lucy MacGregor has pipped Team USA to Gold over the last few events.

In terms of getting right up close to the Olympics, Weymouth will be the best possible place in the UK as you will be able to see most of the events without paying through the nose and having your shoes X Rayed before being forced to drink Official Beer, eating Official Chocolate and having an Officially Good Time!]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1026280 2011-10-22T08:48:07-04:00 2011-12-22T05:12:02-05:00

Richard Shrubb http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-shrubb/ reported the findings of the relative harms and safety of ecstasy to the Advisory Council on Misuse of Drugs to the Labour government in 2009. Nutt was summarily fired because independent research clashed with the opinion of politicians.

Speaking to him, Sessa says the feedback from the government of the day was "the findings may stand up scientifically but clash with the political climate."

Political clashes with hard science infuriate Sessa. "In the 1950's and early 60's there was a lot of good research being done into the therapeutic benefits of LSD by scientists. Essentially the hippy movement got hold of the drug which annoyed politicians who banned all research into LSD."

Sessa wonders what would happen if a government took a 'moral stance' on opiates in medicine? "Doctors wouldn't have much they could use, such is opiates' proven efficacy. They'd be up in arms!"

"Psychiatry is crying out for innovative new treatments. The drugs and treatments on the market are not very effective in many cases, and a 'thinking outside the box' approach is sorely needed". This view is privately held by many practitioners in the field.

A raft of research has been carried out lately into LSD, Ketamine, mescaline and psilocybin (from magic mushrooms). A 2011 study into psilocybin found that it can improve personality characteristics in patients - something Sessa says could help people with Personality Disorder. "Personality characteristics can only be changed by intense, sometimes religious experiences. The research you mention gave such experiences to the patients." The paper in question suggests that those who tripped on mushrooms had certain personality characteristics changed for the better for up to 12 months after the event.

Personality Disorder is widely regarded as almost untreatable in psychiatry. The UK went as far as passing new laws on detention without trial for people who had dangerous forms of PD.

Sessa wouldn't go to prescribing psychedelics immediately, nor would he consider a full blown trial giving people with PD a trip on the drugs. "More research needs to be done. We need to apply the same scientific principles to these drugs that we would anything else. None of them are even close to being licensed, so it would not be legal to try it out. Indeed, all I'm calling for is this research to be done. I'd be happy if they were found to cause more problems they solved, and they were thrown on the scrapheap from diligent scientific research".

The Daily Mail is full of the risks of taking these drugs. Sessa counters "In the 50 years since they have been used recreationally, the prevalence of schizophrenia has not increased at all in the world population. If someone is predisposed to schizophrenia they should not take LSD as it will likely send them over the edge. Most people aren't predisposed so it won't cause the illness. That has been proven by their widespread use."

For my part, I have had a bad trip on mushrooms. I believe that that really bad experience in 1996 finally gave me schizophrenia after 2 years of psychedelic drug abuse and intense stress. I do have a lot of anecdote from family history that I am predisposed to the illness. I looked at predisposition in my family in an article for Community Care Magazine a couple of years ago. One of my group of student trip heads is now a senior Army officer and found no ill effects. Of 5 of us only I lost the plot. Statistically if 100 of us were tripping as much as the 5 of us did at university, based on international prevalence, only I would have would have been tipped over the edge.

The real obstacle to such research is the political climate. "I don't want the hippy movement discussing the pros and cons of therapeutic psychedelics. The Daily Mail is the conscience of the public and it is that paper I want to draw in. If we had its readers supporting, then the cause to research the therapeutic benefits would be well on the road to achieving our goals. Hippies just rub them up the wrong way!]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.991658 2011-10-03T03:29:32-04:00 2011-12-02T05:12:04-05:00

Richard Shrubb http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-shrubb/
On two occasions I have been told by separate families that they have been offered new homes on the mainland, to move by March 2012 so the houses can be renovated ahead of the games. Both were families of four and were being rehoused off the island. Their kids would have to change school - all so their landlords could make a killing at the Olympics. Neither wish to be named for this piece for fear that they would not be treated as 'fairly' as they have been to date. Such rumours are rif on the island.

Under British tenancy law there is nothing illegal in this. We have some of the least secure tenancies in the western world. Generally, after the first 6 months in your home, the landlord has the right chuck you out on 4 weeks' notice. Many are polite enough to agree to give you 8 weeks' notice. These families indeed, have been given 6 months' notice, a generous act but still unethical.

It is redolent of the slum clearances in Beijing ahead of their games. An ancient quarter, Qianmen was bulldozed to hide what the authorities perceived as an eyesore yet in the process destroyed a major link to China's past. The IOC is supranational and seems immune to the very poorest needing to live in their own communities when Olympics come to town. Indeed, I'm not convinced they objected too strongly in Beijing either.

We should look at Portland as a community. Many families, not rich by any means but descendants of miners and quarriers, can trace their roots on the island to before the Norman Conquest in 1066. As such the community is one of the oldest in the UK and seems to being destroyed by a short moment of avarice on the part of private landlords.

Though many live in local authority housing, it is extremely difficult to attain such accommodation. Those unable to buy due to adverse credit history, or simply being priced out of the market by outsiders, are forced to rent privately. Where secure tenancies are often given to council tenants, no such protection is available in private rentals. As a result a community with traditions and belief systems almost as old as the rocks they quarry, is being wrecked by something economists call 'progress'.

This mirrors the slum clearances in Beijing - the 'slums' were one of the most ancient quarters of the city, which the authorities sought to erase from the map to make China look 'modern' to the eyes of the world. Quite a few free countries' press raised their eyebrows at this, but it wasn't stopped.

The community in Quianmen may well have had roots that would embarrass Britain by comparison - Beijing in its various names has stood for millennia. Britain is losing its attachment to its past, not in the loss of buildings which are vigourously protected in law, but in the dissolution of its ancient communities. The eyes of the world turn to Portland and once again, progress dissolves one of the few gems remaining in this country that are not mere chattels.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.988719 2011-09-30T09:54:22-04:00 2011-11-30T05:12:03-05:00

Richard Shrubb http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-shrubb/
The single bloke with a clue about the workings of the financial meltdown was one Vince Cable of the Liberal Democrats. All too often this party has been the preserve of the right thinking minority. No such clear thinking comes from either of the two other parties.

To explain to those outside the UK reading it, the Tories are basically the fallen aristocracy who think they know what normal people want, Labour are Orwell's pigs who had too much dinner with the men and became men, and the Liberal Democrats? Until 1922 the major party of the left for many centuries, who now, well in third, tend to come up with common sense ideas.

To this extent, the Liberal Democrats thought about a subject in this year's annual conference, again without fear of the Daily Mail spewing or the Guardian intellectualising, and asked themselves collectively what is the best way forward with drugs?

The result was a breath of fresh air. Liberalise drug policy and concentrate on other, greater dangers to society than a stoner being caught with a bag of weed. For me it doesn't go far enough (see my call for drugs legalisation last month) but is a huge leap forward for current mainstream political thought on a major problem we have in society.

Conference called for:

1. The Government to immediately establish an independent panel tasked with carrying out
an Impact Assessment of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, to properly evaluate, economically
and scientifically, the present legal framework for dealing with drugs in the United Kingdom.

2. The panel also to consider reform of the law, based on the Portuguese model, such that:
a) Possession of any controlled drug for personal use would not be a criminal offence.
b) Possession would be prohibited but should cause police officers to issue citations for
individuals to appear before panels tasked with determining appropriate education,
health or social interventions.

3. The panel also to consider as an alternative, potential frameworks for a strictly controlled
and regulated cannabis market and the potential impacts of such regulation on organised
crime, and the health and safety of the public, especially children.

4. The reinvestment of any resources released into effective education, treatment and
rehabilitation programmes.

5. The widespread provision of the highest quality evidence-based medical, psychological
and social services for those affected by drugs problems; these services should include
widespread availability of heroin maintenance clinics for the most problematic and vulnerable
heroin users.

Will this change the world?

Political realism meets the cleverly thought and well debated considerations of Britain's third party. Most of the newspaper media are dining out on Liberal Democrat at the minute as the Tory press resent a bunch of lefties being essential to have a majority in Parliament, and the Labour press think by destroying the Lib Dems so they'll win a few more votes in the next election. It is not a good time to support the party for the fainthearted as the party gets kicked like a reject in a school playground.

New thinking on drug policy should draw people to vote yellow in 2015 and the elections preceding. It shows that liberalism is a belief system, as opposed to following a bunch of leaders as people seem to do with other parties. That liberalism is alive and well in a country renowned for conservatism.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.961523 2011-09-14T04:11:27-04:00 2011-11-13T05:12:02-05:00

Richard Shrubb http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-shrubb/ report published by Cannabis Law Reform on the 14th September, legalisation of cannabis could make the UK economy £6.7 billion a year. This is split between cost savings to criminal justice, tax revenues to government and legal income to newly legal growers. At a time of economic downturn to both government and private economy alike, this would be a much needed shot in the arm to UK PLC.

Taxing the UK Cannabis Market was produced by the independent consultancy Independent Drug Monitoring Unit and launched in Parliament on Weds 14th September. Key points to note are that:

- On estimated tax revenues, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs would gain £2.2 billion.

- Police would save half a billion pounds a year from arresting stoners.

- One million less people with criminal records would be able to bring the HMRC £200 million a year in tax revenues, because they do not face barriers to employment.

Put another way, CLEAR suggest that with such income the UK would 'enjoy a boost to its economy that is the same as the entire annual budget for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, twice the budget of the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and three times the budget for the Department of Energy and Climate Change. '

Nationally the UK police force is facing a cut of 5% this year to help make government ends meet. The report by CLEAR suggests that by not arresting stoners and raiding cannabis farms, an equivalent reduction in police time would achieve exactly the same cost saving - 5%. In short, criminal justice as a whole would benefit by legalising a drug that does less harm than alcohol.

Criminalising the drug just makes people criminals unnecessarily. The report estimates that there are 2.7 million regular cannabis users in the UK already - nearly a third of whom have been busted and face the problems associated with having criminal records. Organised crime utilises illegal and often trafficked people from countries like Vietnam who would be less likely to be tricked into coming to a country to commit a crime that can result in 5 years behind bars before deportation. Why? No market to traffic them.

It points out that upgrading the classification of the drug resulted in an increase in its use, where downgrading the drug from a Class B to Class C resulted in a drop in use! CLEAR state: 'The downgrading of cannabis to class C in 2004 led to a decline in consumption but a dramatic increase in police action with seizures up 50% between 2004 and 2005. The upgrading of cannabis back to class B in 2009 led to an increase in consumption.' Your local 'rebels without a cause' aren't drawn to a mere class C drug. Given these statistics, they would be positively repelled by a legal drug!

The economy as a whole would benefit almost overnight. Thousands of new jobs would be created, in a situation where the UK faces stagflation and decline. Such action would be a bigger boost in many ways than the 'Scrappage Allowance' given by the last government to get people into new cars, and the Bank of England's 'quantitative easing' which helped banks alone and no one else.

Will such common sense make progress in a political landscape dictated by the flexible morals and ethics of the right wing media? One worries, not a jot.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.952285 2011-09-07T12:26:42-04:00 2011-11-07T05:12:02-05:00

Richard Shrubb http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-shrubb/
Contrast this with a bunch of pissheads outside a kebab shop, aggressive from drink and chasing members of the opposite sex - sometimes their sexual partner has gone to new pastures, and they are on the edge of barbarism. The police turn up to deal with a scuffle, one or two more drunks join in and before too long the Territorial Support Unit turns up with gas and batons to break up the thuggery.

One is imaginary, the other is guaranteed to happen on your average Saturday night in most towns in the UK. As an ex stoner (indeed one of those who would have run like hell out of paranoia) and recovered alcoholic I know which group the police would prefer. The mellow happy guys intent on filling their faces with home baked cakes.

Don't get me wrong. Listen here to a podcast I made a few years ago of an interview with a custody sergeant who had to deal with people off their heads with psychosis and mania. In Clive Thomas view it was the worst job he had to do. Yet all that is needed is a better mental health system, with more psychiatrists on duty and places of safety available for the deranged to be sent to. This, instead of being pinned down, naked, by 5 custody workers for 12 hours while waiting for a psychiatrist to do his rounds. Mental Health is the Cinderella Service - first to get cuts, last to get new funding.

A simple argument for the legalisation of narcotics is you can spend trillions of dollars a year less on military and law enforcement, and spend that cash on treatment and rehabilitation. Take £10 billion out of criminal justice and put it in, in significant part, to psychiatry and you have better treatment for the inevitable (but small) increase in those breaking down due to psychoactive substances.

Let's go to a 2002 UK House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee report into the decriminalisation and legalisation of recreational drugs. In regards legalising and regulating, they concluded that

While acknowledging that there may come a day when the balance may tip in favour of legalising and regulating some types of presently illegal drugs, we decline to recommend this drastic step.

The two core arguments were that they felt that 1) more under age kids would get hold of them and 2) no other countries have done it and they don't want to rock the boat. Better for the state to decide and penalise those selling to youngsters than for peer pressure among criminal gangs, wouldn't it? Also, knowing US Federal policy toward countries that consider such things we'd lose our Special Relationship and join Syria and North Korea in the Axis of Evil. I'm only half joking...

Since the report we as a country have done two things - reduced cannabis from a Class B drug to a Class C drug, then after media scare stories and junk science being fed to government politicians, upgraded cannabis from Class C to B.

The upshot is to save on paperwork for arresting a bunch of mellow stoners so they can spend more time dealing with fighting drunks and junkie thieves, the police have started to turn a blind eye to cannabis again. From being legally able to leave the mellow ones alone, so they practically leave stoners alone.

This has been shown in a 2010 Economist article, which quotes Ryan McNeely referring to the state of US marijuana law:

[W]hat I think what we're seeing here is the wrong-headed notion that an appropriate way to express disapproval of a behavior is to simply make it illegal but then wink and nod on enforcement, as if this is some sort of middle ground (this is also the Obama administration position on federal marijuana law)...

With wink and nod enforcement you are letting the big drug dealers run and regulate the market. Most of the issues around drugs is crime. Simply, if Afghanistan was able to legally grow poppies as a cash crop for recreational use, the Taliban would go bust. The Taliban going bust, we save however many trillions of dollars a year being spent on fighting them. Fewer soldiers die. Extreme Islam has a major chunk taken out of its income stream... Though many think God makes the world go round, money actually does! These people 'with God on their side' would if be, if not impotent, marginalised to the point they'd significantly lose their Mojo...

On the streets you would have fewer crack whores (though many prostitutes will sell themselves for drink anyway, so I can't suggest there will be no men or women selling their bodies for some drug). Acquisitive crime takes place, again, for alcohol. Speak to most policemen? They attribute most petty crime to junkies stealing for their next fix. Prescribe the heroin? They get their fix and don't need to steal for it.

In a submission to the 2002 Home Affairs Select Committee report, the drugs charity Transform stated:

In Transform's view prohibition has caused or created many of the problems associated with the use and misuse of drugs...drugs prohibition effectively hands the trade over to organised crime and unregulated dealers. Government abrogates all responsibility for the management of the supply side of the market and chaos prevails.


The moralists and conservatives of this world however, need to be nudged. The UK Cannabis Law Reform Party (clear-uk.org) takes this view:

We have moved away from the use of the word "legalise" because it is interpreted as meaning a free for all. It scares people, particularly politicians and the media and we, as a party, now understand that these are the people we need to influence if we are to advance our cause.

In the next blog I shall look at the practicalities of decriminalisation. The first step of a long war; or as legalisation seems at present, a campaign as doomed to failure and just as controversial as making the UK a Sharia L
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.946552 2011-09-02T10:42:28-04:00 2011-11-02T05:12:01-04:00

Richard Shrubb http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-shrubb/ blog I argued that the system that has been foisted upon Weymouth has incurred unnecessary expense and delays to the residents and those who work into the town. In this final piece I argue that half measures that will seriously disrupt most of the county for 9-12 months don't go far enough. In for a penny - in for a pound: that's all that is left in this county so let's start pumping the cash in hard!

Many years ago before the Credit Crunch my friend and I decided to take a look at how society expects us to support the economy by visiting the Cribbs Causeway shopping mall near Bristol in January Sales. We duly joined the traffic jam a mile up the M5 motorway and the car was ready to overheat 90 minutes later when we found a parking space. I was having palpitations before we entered what can only be described as a modern version of Hell - hordes of people desperately spending money on stuff because it was 'on sale'.

Society expects the nation to pollute the atmosphere in Dorset and join traffic jams for hours on end to see why on Earth Britain is the focus of the world's attention next August. I'll give you a tip - watch it on TV. Another tip? Don't go west of Bournemouth for 12 months before, because the Highways Agency is going to give west Dorset a flavour of the pain by putting traffic restrictions on the main A31 road west of Wimborne between September and May. Wait a month (after the overrun) and then watch gridlock develop for the week of the sailing events in Weymouth!

The Highways Agency announced the following on their website:

The Highways Agency will be carrying out a £5.7m scheme to improve congestion and safety at one of the busiest roundabouts along the A31 in Dorset.

The A31 Canford Bottom junction is a busy interchange with significant congestion at peak times and weekends, resulting in long traffic queues on the approaches to the junction. The scheme aims to improve the safe operation of the Canford Bottom junction by reducing congestion at this location, both from the A31 and from local roads. New signing, road markings and traffic lights will be installed, as well as new pedestrian / cyclist facilities which will link the local communities either side of the A31.

This has been considered for some years but the Olympic Delivery Authority got involved as part of the Olympics Route Network. Not just Weymouth this time - the whole of west Dorset takes it for Team GB!

The main road has been in place so long it bends round the local Lord of the Manor Richard Drax MP's estate at Charborough. Where we can't complain of sugar and slave money getting in the way of modern progress, I can only believe the road would not have had a kink in it if the Drax Family were not there. Would they perhaps be so kind as to give over some of their land to public service (and lose the kink) as Mr Drax does his time? He'd almost guarantee his peerage then!

Speaking to local haulier John Probert of Wyvern Cargo you can see that Dorset's road infrastructure is woefully substandard for the modern day: 'To be honest, roads in Dorset were probably better in Roman times. In all directions they're a nightmare, for locals and tourists alike. How can the economy really flourish in such an environment? Of course, if you've always lived in Dorset you've never even seen a motorway!

As an observer who once knew Cornwall prior to the A30 dual carriageway scything through the countryside, I take the view that not all progress is good. Simply, money flowed into Cornwall and the soul went out the other way. A modern Cornish accent is 'Estuary English' instead of something almost unintelligible to the outsider, caricatured yet beautiful. I remember a currently world famous pasty company that once made world beating pasties!

The soul has left Dorset already. A lucky man meets and gets to know the Portlander whose family was documented in the Domesday Book. The writer remembers the poem To see The Rabbit when he visits Lulworth Cove with sadness - tourists have destroyed something once of great beauty. We need the road not to destroy what is left but to be honest to the economy (that has already killed the soul of the county) and drive it on into the future.

The Canford Bottom Roundabout is a half measure - slated to help Dorset traffic for a decade before the South East Dorset Traffic Study brings about a possible dual carriageway across the county. Road construction engineers Atkins have been asked to model this (as they did the Weymouth Transport Package) which states that already:

South East Dorset has probably fallen behind other parts of the South West in the amount of investment in transport. This study is aiming to change that, by providing the evidence to Government to justify improvements to the transport system. It will take on board the expected growth in people and jobs in the area over the next 20 years.

The study in question only really focuses on Bournemouth and Poole, which are already well served with the A35 and a fast link to the M27. The rest of Dorset will be largely ignored. There are three Parliamentary constituencies west of Poole - on basis of the average population per constituency in England, that is 210 000 people, as well as the influx of tourists as Weymouth fixes on cash for 1/7th of its economy. There is a large port in Portland - that could even rival Southampton if proper links were in place.

Dorchester is fairly unique among towns in the UK for its diversity of independently trading shops. It is far away from being a 'cloned High Street' of the type one will see in Swindon or Reading. It is heading for ruin already - without the expected chaos on the main supply route. One of the town's biggest employers is Dorset County Council, which is facing around 500 job losses. Add to this is a dodgy building project run by the Tory run West Dorset District Council's Cabinet. At a protest meeting on the 2nd September this year I listened to independent traders blame a typical loss of 20% of business on the Charles Street Development - this, on top of the recession sending many into difficulty. Dorchester is heading into dire straits, ironically thanks to a political party that represents entrepreneurs and business.

Dorchester will be the wallflower to Weymouth's week in the spotlight next summer. Dorchester, Bridport and Wareham will suffer as the Olympian scourge takes a half measure so traffic can travel more freely (NOT totally free) for the week. Where Weymouth enjoys the party, several other towns will quietly take it for Team GB.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.946149 2011-09-02T04:09:28-04:00 2011-11-01T05:12:01-04:00

Richard Shrubb http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-shrubb/
I am a mental health specialist journalist, and have spoken to various scientists at the leading edge of research, in my personal quest to find answers about my own illness. I also understand the logical pathways involved in the descent into delusion or conspiracy theory. I get delusions, and like the conspiracy theories I see in my journalism, enjoy picking them apart.

The fact is, no direct links can be shown between cannabis and schizophrenia at present. In an article for another title I spoke to a government scientist who told me that the links have all been researched, and no researchers at all globally are looking at the links any more - because it is widely regarded as being impossible to find.

My first psychiatrist explained to my father that 1 in one hundred people among the world population will develop schizophrenia. You could be the son of Rupert Murdoch and develop schizophrenia, or you could be a nomad in Mongolia and have the same chances.

As someone with a psychotic illness I have a genuine fear of the readership of the UK tabloid newspaper the Daily Mail. To those that believe everything they read in said paper I am not a married journalist and social justice campaigner, but someone with severe risk of murdering someone in the street who should be locked up indefinitely merely for having mental illness. I often end up in combat with them, generally arguing until they get aggressive and start raving, making me scared they may have a knife on them.

I take everything I read in that paper with a pinch of salt. In July 2007 it came up with the unshakeable truth that you have a much higher chance of developing schizophrenia if you smoke a joint. 'The researchers, from four British universities, analysed the results of 35 studies into cannabis use from around the world. This suggested that trying cannabis only once was enough to raise the risk of schizophrenia by 41 per cent.'

Speak to one of those researchers about what they do as scientists, and they will tell you they cannot 'prove' anything. They can show something though. I could do a study of the psychology of Daily Mail readers and show how dangerous to society said paper is, and argue that those who read it should be locked up indefinitely merely for reading the paper. I can't prove you are dangerous merely because you read it - I can show, though...

A blog on the Cannabis Law Reform (CLEAR) website counters the argument made by the Daily Mail. Referring to 2009 study by Dr Stanley Zammit, one of the world's leading schizophrenia researchers, it shows that 'if cannabis did cause schizophrenia then to prevent just one case in adults over 20 or so, we would have to prevent around 3,000 heavy cannabis users, or 150,000 light users.' It should be stated that Zammit was one of the researchers in the paper referred to in the Daily Mail article - research often counters itself, and with Zammit showing one argument and then another, you will see that proof does not come easily.

Speaking to Zammit for my 2007 book (Giving Voice to the Inner Scream, now out of print) he told me that THC, one of the psychoactive ingredients of cannabis, is used to induce psychotic symptoms in medical research. Less known in common understanding of cannabis is another ingredient called Cannabidol (CBD) which is shown to cause antipsychotic effects - a counterbalance to THC's psychotic effects. The CLEAR blog quotes another study which suggests that 'determining how the constituents of cannabis act on the brain is fundamental to understanding the role of cannabis use in the aetiology of psychiatric disorders'.

In the case of THC induced psychosis the condition is known as a temporary disorder termed 'toxic psychosis'. Toxic psychosis leaves the brain soon after the chemical causing it has been digested - different to what may be termed 'organic psychosis', one of the symptoms that dogs me permanently.

Psychosis is only one symptom of schizophrenia. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has an easy to understand explanation of the various symptoms someone with schizophrenia can have here. Broadly you must have 'positive symptoms' AND negative symptoms. If you believe that Rupert Murdoch is head of the Bilderbergers and rules the world, that is a positive symptom - but you are only a conspiracy theorist if you believe that and do not have negative symptoms. Negative symptoms include lack of insight - not being able to understand that you are mentally unwell - and thought interruption - the inability to keep to a thread of thought, such as reading this article to the end.

In a 2010 article for the social workers' journal Community Care I concluded that my schizophrenia is multifactorial in causation. I suggested that 'It seems that a combination in my case of genetics, prolonged stress and cannabis may have reached the critical mass responsible for the disorder developing.' If I was not predisposed to the illness, cannabis probably would not have contributed to organic psychosis. I may have joined my fellow undergraduate university smokers and led a successful life beginning in my 20's, as opposed to my 30's as would happen in the end.

Does this mean I can enjoy a spliff personally? No. Nor can I enjoy a drink of beer down the pub because alcohol was also a contributing factor to my psychosis. People who are susceptible to psychosis should not smoke cannabis. Cannabis campaigners say just this: 'a bad reaction to cannabis might be an early warning that a person is likely to develop schizophrenia'. In the same way, choking and spluttering my way through my first cigarettes as a youngster, I should have taken the message instead of becoming hooked to a drug that has a verifiably high chance of killing me!
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.943341 2011-08-31T10:55:02-04:00 2011-10-31T05:12:02-04:00

Richard Shrubb http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-shrubb/ previous blog in this series I wrote of the chaos and damage to the economy of the Weymouth Transport Package. This one looks at what they have done in causing that chaos. Will it be better?

So, what caused the chaos?

Essentially it is the Weymouth Transport Package (WTP) bucking the global trend toward roundabouts and going for signalled traffic control. The Traffic Research Laboratory suggests that globally, countries are changing over to roundabouts from signal controlled junctions for increased safety and traffic flow:

'In the last decade or so, the use of roundabouts has spread to many European countries, and interest is now growing rapidly in the United States. The main reason is a combination of low delays and an injury accident rate approximately 50% lower than at equivalent traffic signal controlled intersections. The safety benefits, long appreciated in the UK, have been confirmed by European experience. '

The WTP planning committee claimed that the roundabouts in place were too small and they could not handle the projected increase in traffic flow for the 2012 Games. Stuart Morris project managed the last major transport rejig in Weymouth in the mid 1980's. He takes a different view: 'I am sure that experience will confirm that it was unwise to move from roundabouts to signal control, against the strong worldwide trend.'

Boot Hill is a major intersection where most traffic heading past the centre of Weymouth toward Portland will travel. Morris put a roundabout there in the 1970's when a junior transport officer in Weymouth Council. He agrees that thanks to a major supermarket opening directly beside it in the early 2000's, there was need to improve traffic flow at the junction. 'Instead of the major works done in the WTP, all that was needed was signal control at the roundabout. This would have given priority at the roundabout where it was needed'.

In a letter to the WTP project manager Morris wrote 'I note that DfT Local Transport Note 1/09 shows that signal controlled roundabouts are increasingly used to 'increase capacity, reduce delays and to reduce accidents'.

At the beginning of the letter he suggests:

'Accidents: The main concern with the new junctions must be safety, especially at the Harbour and Westham junctions. Your plot shows only 6 slight injuries at the Westham Roundabout over 3 years, quite low for its situation. As published evidence points to statistically worse safety at signalised junctions than at roundabouts, I sincerely hope that we do not see more dots on the injury accident maps in future.'

Westham Roundabout was only ever jammed in one direction. It is now an almost permanent traffic jam in two directions. Anecdotally, the new system has failed.

Morris cannot be certain that the new system will be better or worse than the old traffic system. He feels that it needs to bed down some, and that the 'intelligent traffic lights' need to learn traffic patterns. At the moment he takes the view that 'I have never doubted that the scheme would work - the big question is whether it will work better and more efficiently than before.'

As discussed in the previous blog on the subject, the anecdotal evidence is that traffic is as bad if not worse now than it was before, though as Morris rightly says the system is still new and will take time to bed in. I ran into Morris because he had made a Freedom of Information Request to WPBC about traffic flow measurements before and after the new system was put in place. Two important questions are quoted here:

1. The scheme predicted a 10% reduction in journey times and a 20% reduction in the variability of journey time for all traffic. What were the (pre-Package) average peak and off-peak journey times between Buxton Road and Weymouth Way (i.e. to/from say Chafeys Roundabout, not The Esplanade which will no longer be the A353 route)?
2. The signals are causing more vehicles in both directions to stop on the steep Boot Hill than hitherto. Will this not increase delays (as appears at present) and worsen air quality?

On the link above you will see that the request was rejected on financial grounds. Speaking to Morris, he tells me their essential response was that to reply they would have to go out and measure it!

It does seem strange that after spending £14 million on a road project they don't audit their own work by measuring traffic flow after the work had been done. It causes road rage due to confusion on the part of some drivers - the road rage being by drivers behind them. It has caused some minor shunts though no serious accidents. Given the safety record shown by roundabouts globally, the TRL suggesting that they are 50% less prone to accidents in the quote at the top of this blog, one must ask why the global trend was bucked?

The Dorset County Council website argues that prior to the rejig, 'King Street and Boot Hill regularly experience severe traffic congestion and as a result suffer poor air quality, with nitrogen dioxide levels reaching or topping acceptable levels.'

Time will tell whether this part of the Olympic Legacy to Weymouth will improve or make the town worse. It is apparent that at the moment, with most of the road works done but some refinements yet to be made, that the result is as bad if not worse than before. With transport planning globally turning toward roundabouts, and the trend bucked by Weymouth, the planners either know something everyone else doesn't, or are heading for increased traffic problems.

In the next and final piece of this series I look at another element of Dorset taking it for Team GB - the Canford Bottom Roundabout on the main A31 road from Ringwood to Dorchester. This time the whole of the county will be taking it for the team...


]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.938908 2011-08-31T05:00:00-04:00 2011-10-30T05:12:02-04:00

Richard Shrubb http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-shrubb/
For this piece I shall show the real impact of the traffic chaos on businesses. In order to prepare for the Olympics, the powers that be decided that the existing traffic system was not up to scratch for the projected increase in traffic during the Games. Weymouth experiences a different traffic pattern to most major towns and cities - where Bristol will be predictably clogged twice a day during rush hour, Weymouth will be predictably clogged in July and August but quite easily crossed in most traffic states the other 10 months of the year. Where most cities slow down in July and August, but make their money the other 10 months a year, Weymouth and Portland's tourist businesses make their money in the two months, and are quieter for the rest of the year.

In the run up to the Games, Tony Bray, Dorset area director for the recently axed South West RDA, said on a LOCOG press release: 'The Games could bring an estimated £1.7 billion to the South West economy'.

This is an interesting figure considering Weymouth and Portland Borough Council's (WPBC) Economic and Tourism Strategy 2010 - 2015 showed that on a typical year, tourism is worth just over £100 million a year to Weymouth and Portland: 'The value of the economy is estimated to be around £708 million in Weymouth & Portland with tourism contributing about £105.5 million to the local economy'. The area creaks under the strain of the summer spate of traffic - multiply it many times and you'd have traffic jams 30 miles in every direction!

Two major road projects were announced and built. The first has been bandied about since the 1960's - the Weymouth Relief Road. Prior to its building there was one main road in from the north, which went through the suburbs into the centre. Traffic lights turning red a mile from the centre of Weymouth could cause a backup 4 miles away! As such the Relief Road was a well thought out and well designed plan. Its impact from the edge of Weymouth to the centre? A 25% quicker journey on a typical day.

The real problem has been in the other project - the Weymouth Transport Package. Its design will be discussed in the next blog. The impact of the £10.5 million scheme has been losses to businesses in the £ millions.

Speaking to a WPBC councillor who does not wish to be named, she says 'The overall plan is to make people so fed up with cars that they look at other ways of getting about... This is supposed to be a 'green Olympics' and is also about the healthy legacy.' Considering most tourism comes in by car, this comment doesn't quite fit in with the real world. When I suggested the new system may only be suited to 1980's Philadelphia, however, she thoroughly agreed!

The Dorset Echo newspaper reported extensively on the impact of the works. One article looked at the losses to business. On the 30th September 2010 it reported that 'Portland Stone says the works are costing it between £8,000 to £10,000 a week while Dowsett Motors on Portland Road is down £6,000 to £7,000 a week.' Over the 8 or so months of chaos this cost the local economy millions, and with 6/7ths of the economy not tourist related, most won't be clawed back in direct revenues.

Speaking to Poole based haulage business owner John Probert of Wyvern Cargo, he was cautious about the impact of the road works to his business. He says by email: 'Our van drivers complained for many months about chaos in the town, which added an hour to their working day. Meanwhile larger lorries, which generally serve industrial estates outside the town centre, were delayed for the best part of an hour... However, all the main road works are now finished and traffic circulates more freely in the town, while the improved Relief Road is saving up to 20 minutes every day, so after all the pain has come some gain.'

The Harbour Traders Association (HTA) is a body of traders in the tourism heart of Weymouth. For a long time, arterial traffic was directed along the tiny cobbled streets past their businesses while the WTP was put in place. This had a major impact as people didn't walk past, instead staring through their car windows waiting for the lights to change... The Chairman of the HTA Roger Dalton takes the view that the impact for most traders was transient as the chaos moved from place to place. He says that businesses were eligible for business rates rebates but none applied. 'The difficulty in applying for one was proving that the traffic problems were the main cause of losses. We had severe weather this winter and there is a recession so many businesses felt that WPBC could argue the toss and say that the chaos wasn't the principle cause.'

The experience of the rejig has been execrable for those living in the town. Some business owners fear that tourists will be permanently frightened away from Weymouth by their experience of the traffic.

This blog is written as the dust settles on the WTP, and only time will tell whether the chaos has had lasting impact - or even whether the vaunted new traffic light system will improve the situation. Canny drivers take different routes to the official ones - saving 15 minutes going to Dorchester without touching the Relief Road and only going through Boot Hill to see how awful it is once a month on the way to Portland - avoiding it all otherwise.

In the next piece, I'll discuss how the council planners are swimming against the global tide of traffic management - brave innovators or blinkered reactionaries?
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.938914 2011-08-27T10:51:42-04:00 2011-10-27T05:12:02-04:00

Richard Shrubb http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-shrubb/ stated that there is 'evidence that smoked marijuana has a high potential for abuse, has no accepted medicinal value in treatment in the United States'.

The DEA's position is similar to that of 2007 UK Home Secretary Jacqui Smith who flew in the face of the government's own top scientists' advice and declared that cannabis causes organic mental illness, not the temporary condition known as toxic psychosis her advisors all agreed. 'Though statistics show that cannabis use has fallen significantly, there is really public concern about the potential mental health effects of cannabis use.' She clearly read too many black top tabloids...

Where abuse of any drug bar opiates can cause psychosis (former Downing Street press Secretary Alistair Campbell hallucinated on alcohol for instance) the real question to ask is whether the DEA is correct in its assertions that cannabis 'has no accepted medical value'? The UK government recently licensed a drug for Multiple Sclerosis that is... almost purely cannabis extract.

Sativex is described by the Canadian government website Health Canada as 'a cannabis based medicine containing extracts of chemically and genetically characterised Cannabis sativa L. plants. The principal active components are delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD).' Spliff in a pill!

The UK political party Cannabis Law Reform (clear-uk.org) complains about Sativex that 'it sells at a fantastically high price - so high that most health authorities refuse to pay for it'.

In another article I suggested that if your company is large enough you would love medical regulation as the costs involved squeeze the little guys out of the market. The same appears to be the case with Sativex - the company has spent millions on clinical trials, got a medical license and is now making the huge investment back by selling it as medicine.

Not all forms of MS can be treated with cannabis. I have known two people with MS - one with a cannabis treatable type of MS, the other without. Before my family asked my aunt's doctor about her type, I was looking to source a high quality drug dealer to help her out. After I had, the doc said that it wouldn't help in her case. Some types do extremely well. CLEAR claims that 'there is evidence of cannabis actually reversing the condition'. This shouldn't be interpreted as cannabis 'curing' MS as if it did, the NHS couldn't refuse to pay for Sativex!

It may be argued that many people with the condition, who are advised by their doctor that their type of the illness can be treated with cannabis, become criminals overnight by having to buy the stuff illegally. In many cases they will have applied to the bean counters at their Primary Care Trust and been refused Sativex so in the face of a horrible condition, have been forced to become criminals to treat their illness because the state refuses to do so legally.

Cannabis doesn't only deal with MS. In 2009 the BBC reported that clinical trials had found that cannabis mouth spray helped with cancer pain treatment. It suggested that 'they found it reduced pain levels by 30% in a group of cancer patients, all in the Edinburgh area, who had not been helped by morphine or other medicines.'

It is known to help with AIDS, epilepsy, pregnancy labour pains, migraine and glaucoma. A number of US states have decriminalised cannabis use for medical reasons - those conditions known to be helped by the drug. Users in those states often find themselves safe from local police (if they have a medical license to use it) yet at risk of being prosecuted by the DEA under Federal Law! You can get paranoid on the drug, yet the medical cannabis user has just reason to be. A UK policeman having a bad day could arrest you and treat you as a common criminal for no other reason than his own ill found belief that cannabis is a nasty drug with no medical uses...

When the law flies in the face of common scientific understanding, it is a situation that only impacts on those who could benefit from being prescribed a drug known to help them. The real victims, as is often the case in the UK, are the most vulnerable who could benefit from political rhetoric ceasing and commonsense leading to a law change.

]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.911735 2011-07-28T07:09:36-04:00 2011-09-27T05:12:01-04:00

Richard Shrubb http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-shrubb/ blog about the MHRA considering regulation of e-cigarettes as a medical product, I had some interesting responses. I have been asked to continue looking at them.

The next question one would obviously ask is what regulations already apply to e-cigarettes? The Electronic Cigarette Trade Industry Association (ECITA) has been formed as a group to represent the industry and promote good practice. There are 8 members of ECITA - it is small but since it promotes good practice in an industry that after all sells a neurotoxin, one would hope that others join and for their sake, promote good and safe practice!

Existing Regulation

The ECITA website has a list of regulations that apply to the e-cigarette importer or manufacturer. It states there are 6 sets of regulations that apply to these companies. As someone who has keeled over before using nicotine lozenges, the most important one to me is the CHIP (Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply)) Regulations 2009.

According to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) 'CHIP requires the supplier of a dangerous chemical to:

• identify the hazards (dangers) of the chemical. This is known as 'classification';
• give information about the hazards to their customers. Suppliers usually provide this information on the package itself (eg a label); and
• package the chemical safely.'

In my previous blog I recounted how one leaked liquid in my mouth! A comment on that blog pointed out that no one has died yet from such liquid...

Another issue to the ordinary bloke in the street is dosage. This is covered by the Weights and Measures Regulations. According to Business Link these regs are designed to 'help customers understand how much they are buying and to ensure they receive the amount of goods they are entitled to.'

In my experimenting with this product I found I could use one cheap cartridge and really need a fag after, or have another and my hair stand on end!

Watch out for the bad guys

An industry insider tells me that many suppliers don't comply with some or all of the regulations that apply to the importer or manufacturer. In an email exchange he told me that 'there is very strict regulation concerning the sale of e-cigs, some from trading standards and some from our trade organisation. Lots of people on a major e-shopping website are breaking the rules but not members of ECITA'.

This is unfortunate since people tend to go to major internet shopping sites out of trust. There have been comments on the consumer review sections of that website in regards companies that supply through the site. Here's one of them:

'AVOID buying from (name removed) like I did for my very 1st one I had the misfortune of dealing with them - they are terrible to deal with especially when you have a problem they don't want to know & they DON'T like responding to comms either.' This would indicate that the company, who's name is available from the review, is in contravention of the Distance Selling Regulations - another set of regs that ECITA and indeed the law of the land requires.

The same reviewer suggested buying another e-cigarette to the cheap version he reviewed (and I started smoking myself before finding another good and expensive one) on basis 'they cost more but as the saying goes buy cheap get cheap.......... buy quality & you get quality.'

The future

This isn't always true. Nor is having a trade body that regulates its members. Look at my own lot, the Press Complaints Commission! As with companies in general there are good eggs and bad in the industry association world. One that promotes good practice and effectively self regulates can be good for the industry as a whole. It can also represent the good guys as a corporate body in consultations such as that being run by the MHRA.

As corporate purveyors of one of the most toxic poisons to man, I'd like to see good practice among these companies. I buy from one of them in the hope that I won't die too quickly from my own nicotine addiction! It is good to know that they have got together and one would hope that their reputation isn't damaged by malpractice from a company that isn't so conscientious toward its customers or the law.


]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.904173 2011-07-25T04:38:01-04:00 2011-09-23T05:12:01-04:00

Richard Shrubb http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-shrubb/ consultation on the regulation of non tobacco administrative products. To date there have been 1217 responses from public, commercial and voluntary sector organisation such as the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) and British American Tobacco's new venture Nicoventures. This has been launched in response to the availability of a new form of nicotine administration called 'e-cigarettes'.

E cigarettes are a method of giving a dose of nicotine to the smoker in a similar way to a cigarette. They give the same sensation to the cigarette, and give a similar hit. They do not involve burning tobacco, and thus apparently do not have the same ill effects of smoking such as second hand smoke. The basic idea for the smoker is you are inhaling 1-2 poisons instead of the 1000 odd from tobacco. They are odourless so as stand are accepted as legal for the smoker in the pub. This is one of the reasons they took off in the US - in response to the New York City indoor public places smoking ban.

MHRA Regulation Consultation

NRT cannot replicate smoking effectively. In the MHRA consultation the Royal College of Physicians states 'As any smoker will attest, currently available Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) products are no substitute for a cigarette, and if we are to make progress to encourage more smokers to use medicinal nicotine as a substitute and / or cessation aid, we need products that mimic more closely the dose and rate of nicotine delivery'. They advocate regulation but retention of the products on the market - so those already using can continue to do so while their product of choice is applying for licensing.

From personal experience of NRT you are permanently dosed up on nicotine, and in my case I am 'wired' all the time. Smoking cigarettes has peaks and troughs - you get a hit and it sloughs off before you fix again. I have started smoking e cigarettes and have cut down my smoking significantly.

Unregulated, the prices are low and the consumer cannot be sure of the contents of the product. Few studies have been carried out as to the health effects / risks of these products. Sloppy dosage of the vials could result in an overdose of nicotine, with cardiac arrest as a distinct possibility. Though regulated, the price point would rise, the trade off is safety and consistency of the product.

Personal recommendation of e-cigs

I am a recent convert to these. No one has been documented as keeling over from OD (otherwise there would have been knee jerk global regulation) and it is comforting to know I can enjoy my filthy habit without poisoning myself too much, or those indoors / down wind of me.

My wife is a singer and can't tolerate second hand smoke. Using this, I can enjoy a cigarette indoors without having to go through the rainy night into the shed for a fag. I still have three cigarettes a day - 1/7th my old intake - because I enjoy nothing more than a smoke with my coffee in the garden in the morning. I don't drink alcohol so the odd guilty pleasure is acceptable in my opinion!

From personal experience though you should really try buying the cheapest version of your e cigarette first. I have found good and bad, without blowing a great deal of money before making my final choice. In my case I have sided with one called Halo, available from the Welsh company e-cigarette direct. This is a simpler system than most - 2 parts not three - and provides the hit you need and a palatable taste. Unlike some brands I have bought, you rarely get a duff packet.

Using a different brand from another supplier I found myself with a mouthful of nicotine laced glycerol when I took a drag driving my car on the motorway with my kid in the back. Killing myself with a nicotine OD on the motorway is one thing - killing my son?!

Let's look at the cost. I smoke 21 cigarettes a week now at £4 a packet of rolling tobacco. I spend £10 a week on cartridges for my e-cigarettes. I used to spend £40 on rolling tobacco - a saving of £26 a week. £26 times 52 = £1352 a year saving. You get a fatter wallet and more air in your lungs - almost crazy not to switch!

Regulation will get the bad ones off the market. The risks will be reduced. To me, the answer is to definitely regulate, but I also agree with the RCP that these should not be taken off the market while the regulation system is being drawn up.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.893780 2011-07-12T12:21:57-04:00 2011-09-11T05:12:02-04:00

Richard Shrubb http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-shrubb/ Dutchman did 82.9 mph across Ivanpah Dry Lake, CA. "So what?" you may say -- you could easily do that in your family car. This guy was sitting on a buggy being towed by a kite and became the fastest kite powered person in the world.

So, what's the idea?

Kite buggying involves flying a kite, and sitting in a three wheeled buggy. You fly with your hands and steer with your feet. The concentration required is intense -- I buggy in the United Kingdom and can vouch that even at 20 - 30 mph, you lose your concentration? You wipe out!

The kites used aren't like the ones you take your kids flying. I took my 9 year-old step son flying and the only way he could stay on the ground was with my holding him down by his shoulders -- and this with a very small traction kite. Indeed, you're looking for a kite that will pull a 200 lb man across the ground without thinking, let alone a 70 pound youngster! They are of similar construction to a high end parachute or paraglider, a 'ram air wing,' and are designed to generate lift through the miracles of aerodynamics.

You can spend as much money as you like on kite and buggy. I spent $600 on a low end buggy and when I was really into the sport in Cornwall, thought nothing of spending $600 on a decent kite. You can spend $2000 and not even have the sort of kite Fast Arie had. Obviously, the newcomer should spend a lower amount to learn if he or she likes the sport, on more forgiving kites and buggy. Put simply, straight out of driving school you wouldn't expect to drive a Ferrari having just learned how to parallel park!

Adventure under sail...

It isn't just about speed. Two teams raced across the Sahara Desert from Morocco to Senegal in 2009. Their aim was to beat the world distance record of 625 miles (1000 kilometers) in an adventure, and be the first people to cross the desert by buggy. They did 1562 miles (2500 kms). "However we failed on goal number three to break the 24 hour record of 315 km [196 miles]. We only managed 215km [134 miles]. But "two out of three ain't bad," as the song goes..." says the trip organizer Steve Gurney on his website describing the trip.

The two teams dodged corrupt border guards and camping camels, and avoided being shot by desert outlaws that frequently roam the desert looking for travellers to rob and kill. As Gurney says, this is one of the last adventures left to be had in the world. "There aren't many "Everests" left to conquer. Not on this planet anyway. And now there is one less because we're the first in the world to cross the Sahara by kite!" The same teams have crossed a desert in Australia, where one of the teams live.

How and where do I do this?

You don't have to be completely nuts to do the sport. In the UK I buggy on a grass field in Dorset. In Cornwall eight of us used a 3-mile long beach -- you just need a patch of hard sand (preferably) or grass. Sand is far better -- you don't have brakes on your buggy and the best way to stop is by powersliding sideways! This is certainly the most fun way -- I have been known to spend hours doing speed runs, just to power slide...

Again, you don't need a beach to have sand -- the world speed record was done on a dry lake in CA. A kite buggy festival happens every year in Black Rock City NV. They come from all over the states and fly as far afield as PA, FL and CA.

We ultimately do sports to meet other people socially, if only to learn how to do a sport better. The American Kitefliers Association should be your first port of call. Membership includes insurance in case you hurt someone, but is a very useful hub to learn about the sport and find out where to go locally. They have a page covering the best locations across each state, which can be seen here.

I'm no crazy adventurer nor insane enough to want to challenge the world speed record. In winds strong enough to take me at 45 mph I was scared witless. By and large it is a scene of people who seriously enjoy the sport even though they will never be world beaters, but believe me when you're screaming along the beach at 35 mph you really feel like one! ]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.890521 2011-07-06T14:49:47-04:00 2011-09-05T05:12:01-04:00

Richard Shrubb http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-shrubb/
We seem to be in an ugly transition where doors are closing at one side and not enough are opening at the other. Our pay is being squeezed. I have done some investigation into this from a personal perspective and found reasonable paying sites going to revenue sharing, those relying on revenue sharing from the start, and those who think a dollar an hour is a fair rate of pay.

What is revenue sharing?

Wikio Experts advertises on Journalism.co.uk. Initially I thought them a con job when I asked them about their, on the surface opaque, method of paying you. They told me when I asked, '€15 articles which pay €2.50 upon validation and up to €13.50 over the year beginning upon publication as a revenue share from advertising revenues your article generates. All Wikio Experts content must be search engine optimised...' They risk €2.50 on an hour of your work (a typical time to write 500 words blogging) and then share the risk with you for the advertising revenue generated from your blogging. This is known as revenue sharing.

Revenue sharing is a new model where you get paid by the click on your blog. You get little or no income upfront, and a share of the advertising revenue from those who see your blog and the advertisements around them. Where advertisements are plonked by your feature in a 50 page magazine, the only way you will get your blog seen at all is via a search engine spider finding it among billions of pages. It thus requires 'text rich' copy.

Some celebrities play a game of getting as many pop song titles into their responses to a journalist as they can. This is pretty much what 'text rich' means -- getting as many words the spider is interested in as possible, to a piece of readable copy. Make a spider happy and draw in the readership. Clicks mean quid!

Such sites that give a share in revenue are advertising on serious journalism pages. This should be where you look first. When I initially burrowed down into the model I saw the risk involved and blew my top. How dare they pay so little upfront! Thinking about it, it is a very good way of keeping us writers on our toes, because we share the risk of our writing drawing in revenue with the website.

Brave new world

The Internet is not as comfortable as an established, high circulation newspaper like The Economist or The Sun. Where The Guardian is a comfortably paying print company it is haemorrhaging money. Revenue sharing ensures you the writer shares the risk with the employer. Our job has been for many years not to enlighten the reader but to get eyes on ads. We can get into the same old routine and editors keep on paying us that we tarnish, and ad revenues fall with us. Prior to the advent of the Internet, poor writing killed magazines -- not directly because of falling sales at a newsagent, but because the falling sales drove advertisers away. The ad men pay our bills, not the newsagent!

Anecdote has it that many journalists are taking the risk involved, and making good money from it. It requires a new skill -- you have to diversify or die anyway so why not try it? From a personal perspective it is galling that I must share the risk with the company, but we do anyway to a certain extent -- the magazine flies or dies on the quality of our journalism, and the quality of the writing draws in advertisers. Your editor gets fusty and long in the tooth, taking the same old shit? Circulation falls, your word count / publication / page count falls, and so you suffer anyway. These are slower and more radical changes, a tsunami against a stormy sea, and for a number of journalists, pay by click on multiple income streams is a safer way of spreading the risk than relying on the survival of an ever smaller number of magazines. ]]>