Law, London, property, society, Uncategorized

Isn’t Sunday Supposed to be Free?

Last Sunday I copped a parking ticket.  It was a complete surprise to me.  I had parked in the same car park on and off for more than 30 years without problem.  And isn’t parking supposed to be free on Sundays and public holidays?  But not this Sunday.

It was only after I had arrived home that I noticed the little yellow package tucked behind my windscreen wiper.  I opened it up to find that I was being punished for not having paid for my parking.  That can’t be right?  It’s Sunday?  Perhaps the traffic attendant made a mistake?  Perhaps he had forgotten what day it was?  Perhaps he had woken up in the morning thinking it was Monday?

So, I drove back to the car park and looked around to see if there is any obvious sign about charges being introduced for Sunday parking.  But there was nothing obvious except in the small print on the machine itself: which had recently been closed down because it was no longer taking cash.  And there were no tickets being issued.  It is now all pay by phone.  Which brings me to another question.  If there are no tickets to display, how does a parking attendant know whether someone has paid or not?

When I returned home again with my parking ticket, I searched online to try to find out when the rules for this particular car park had changed, as regards the introduction of Sunday charging, and what signage had been displayed to alert motorists that the rules have changed.  But nothing came up.  So, I posted a question to an AI platform and got back some Goan food recipes.

As I was not prepared to give up, I bowled in a statutory freedom of information request to the council which had issued the notice, asking the same questions.  Now I don’t know how much it costs to answer a freedom of information request.  But by the time it has been bounced around between different council departments and someone has spent half a day digging out this obscure piece of information and sending it back to me, I would not have thought that there would be much change out of £500.

As I had nothing to lose, I made representations to the local authority, explaining that I had made an honest mistake.  As I expected, the council were quick to reject my representation.  Though again, someone would have had to be paid to consider my representation and respond formally to it.  If I wanted to take my appeal further, I would have to go to the parking adjudicator.

Appealing to a parking adjudicator is a double or nothing game because, by the time you make your appeal, you would already have lost your 50% discount for early payment.  But my personal view is that if you think that a penalty charge notice is unfair and that you have grounds to appeal, you should appeal.

I went back to my AI platform and asked whether lack of adequate signage alerting me to the changes, provided grounds for appeal to a parking adjudicator.  This time, instead of Goan recipes, it directed me to a government website, “Key Cases-London Tribunals”.

The first thing I noticed about this government website was that there are so few key decisions.  I had been expecting thousands.  When I typed ‘Sunday’ into the search- bar, nothing came up.  I then browsed the section headed, “Adequacy of Signs and Lines”.  There were only six key decisions, most of them dating back to 1990s.  Really?  So, it did not take me long to browse through the list.  The key decision which most closely resembled my predicament was Mary Fairburn’s appeal against a notice issued by the London borough of Bexley, again where there had been a sudden change to the charging regime, to which she had not been alerted, except for the small print on the machine.  In that 1997 case, Parking Adjudicator G.R. Hickinbottom expressed surprise that Bexley Council had not cancelled the notice on the basis of a genuine mistake but felt that he had no power to cancel the notice because an infringement had occurred.

So on the basis of Mary Fairburn’s decision, I will not waste time and further public expense pursuing an appeal to the parking adjudicator and will pay the PCN at the discounted 50% rate whilst I still have a few days to do so.  Which brings me to a final thought.

I don’t understand the mentality of town centre parking policy.  If you really wanted to help struggling local businesses, wouldn’t you want to make it as easy as possible for motorists to park their cars and get on with their shopping?  No wonder town centre retail and entertainment chains like Wilco; Debenhams and Cineworld have gone to the wall.

Uncategorized

Imperial Measurements

One of the most successful campaigns of the 1970s was the Campaign For Real Ale (CAMRA).

At the beginning of the 1970s, the traditional hand pump and pint of traditionally brewed bitter had all but disappeared from Britain’s pubs.  In its place, drinkers were directed to Watney’s Red Barrel or the new lager alternatives.  At that time, the only national pub chain still serving in that way in its older establishments was Bass Charrington.  There were also some smaller local breweries still serving beer ‘from the wood’ such as Young’s brewery in Wandsworth.  In fact, it would have taken only one more legislative step to abolish the traditional pint in its entirety.  Bottled and canned beers had already been repackaged in alternative metric sizes, commonly now in sizes of 500 millilitres.

No one is forced to drink real ale.  You might not even like it.  But the important thing is that CAMRA has given you a choice.  If you buy it draught, you can still buy it in traditional imperial units but sadly not if you buy it bottled or canned.

Maybe, like me, you dislike having anything forced upon you as part of anyone’s agenda.  Whether it’s lockdowns.  Or if it is someone is telling you in what units you can market goods and services.  Speaking for myself, I don’t eat magic mushrooms.  But if you want to get high on magic mushrooms, that’s fine with me.  It’s not for me to tell you what you can or can’t do with your own body.  So if I love our traditional system of weights and measures, why should someone else tell me that I can’t use them? I can buy a 454 gramme jar of honey from my local supermarket but I am not allowed to call it a pound of honey.  What nonsense is that?

In modern Britain, we value diversity.  We value the many different cultures, languages, accents and dialects which we encounter everyday of our lives.  We would not dream of asking someone who is born and bred in Yorkshire to change the way they speak.  So why do we ‘tut tut’ when someone chooses to talk in terms of feet and inches, pounds and ounces, Fahrenheit instead of centigrade (sorry Celsius)?  No-one in history has ever legislated to force the use of traditional British measurements?  It is something which grew out of trade and custom.  And over many centuries.

Don’t get me wrong.  I am not calling for any legislative change.  I just object to the fact that 1000 years of history has been airbrushed out of the information which is fed to us daily through our televisions or other media outlets.  As though it has been removed as part of a corporate policy.  As though our traditional measurements had never existed.

Several years ago, one of the mainstream TV channels provided a series of documentaries in which they recreated life within a 1950’s primary school.  It was all authentic except for one thing.  When the teacher was measuring the height of the schoolchildren, she spoke to them in terms of centimetres instead of feet and inches.  Kilograms instead of stones and pounds.  Yes-I know that children today would not know how to use imperial measurements.  But if you are trying to re-create a 1950s environment, at least please try to make it authentic.  Otherwise, what’s the point?

A couple of years ago, the Johnson government announced proposals to relax the rules on mandated Metrication.  But it never came to anything.  It was too half-hearted.  A nod to the Brexiteers.  Even though there is nothing anti-Europe in wanting to preserve something more than 1000 years old and which helps to make us what we are.  If we are going to abolish traditional measurements, why don’t we go the whole hog and abolish folk music, morris dancing and piano accordions?  Yes-the government has legislated to restore crown markings on pint glasses. Big deal! Did you even notice that they had gone?

Whether you like it or not, there are three reasons why imperial measurements, and their American equivalents, will never disappear completely during our lifetimes:

  1. The United States of America, the biggest economy in the world, hasn’t even begun to go metric.  In fact, it even used customary units in relation to a recent space mission.  What’s the betting that the next American space mission will also go with customary units? And if you watch any Hollywood blockbuster, you’re going to see references to feet and inches; pounds and ounces.  They’re not going to convert it for your benefit. Remember also that American Tech still leads the world.  The plastic may be made in China.  but the technology behind it is 100 percent Silicon Valley.  It’s why you will still be buying your 22-inch computer monitors for many years to come.
  2. Even when legislative Metrication is 100% complete, we will still drive a mile down the road; or grow an inch in height; or put on a couple of pounds.
  3. Some things just don’t lend themselves to Metrication.  Like the fact that it takes the Moon 28 days to circumvent the Earth; or the Earth takes 365 ¼ days to go round the sun.  It’s why we still measure time and angle the Babylonian way.

If like me, you want to celebrate this part of our history, here is something you can do to shout it out.

Do you love sunshine? Then get into your car and adjust the dashboard display so that the temperature is expressed in Fahrenheit instead of centigrade (sorry Celsius).  Somehow 38°Celsius doesn’t feel quite as hot as 100° F. Phew!

business

Covid Lockdowns. Heralding a new way of working

For me, one of the positives to come out of the repeated covid lockdowns were the changes in the way Britain works.  It was the opportunity to adopt hybrid working, which, for most people, did not exist before covid.  No more traipsing through the rush hour to a crowded workplace.  Instead, we can now choose where to work.  And get more done as we don’t waste time travelling.  It is fortuitous that the lockdown came in the wake of technical developments, such as a ‘Zoom’ or ‘Teams’, which enables us to meet online instead of wasting half a day travelling through London.  Before, we only had conference calls. It was also, during these tiresome lockdowns, that I was able to make my own office arrangements by renting pop-up desk-space at any of the dozens of Regus co-working centres which now exist across the UK.  It was also a chance to network and meet other people from a range of disciplines. And surprisingly affordable.

At the moment, my workspace is a small box room at my home.  It’s cramped, but I am kitted out with everything I would have if I worked and a proper office, including a large monitor screen, a laser printer and scanner.  If it’s a sunny day, I can even take my work out into the back garden and set up my equipment.  I love sitting under the palm tree.  It provides a bit of shade so I can see the screen.  I don’t have a secretary.  Nor do most property professionals these days.  But I don’t care. I still have the ability to dictate my work in volume using Microsoft voice-dictation.  It’s why it’s only taken me an hour to write this piece. Some people find that my dictation disturbs them. But when I’m working at home that ain’t a problem.

Do I feel lonely?  Nah!  I don’t have time to feel lonely.  There’s just too much going on in my life.  Although I am already well past retirement age, I don’t want to retire.  What else would I do?  Walk a golf course with other retirees?  No thank you. I’d rather do this.  Although I’m still at the conveyancing sharp end, I love to write about what I do.

During June 2021, my book, Essential Law for Cemetery and Crematorium Managers became Amazon’s number one best-selling business-law book.  Even if it was only for a few days.  But although other books, including Legal Profession: is it for you? have also enjoyed significant success, not all my self-publications have sold as well as I would like.  Usually, when a book doesn’t sell, it’s because of problems within the book itself.  It is why I am currently working on a relaunch of a personal memoir, which I co-wrote with my partner, Farida J Manekshah, back in 2016.  It was my first self-publication, and to be quite frank, I can quite understand why no-one wanted to buy it.  But maybe things will be different with a comprehensive re-work of the text, a new title and an exciting professionally produced front cover.  Yep!  It’s all gonna change.  Yes sirree.  It’s all a learning curve and I’ll let you know as soon as it comes out.

In the meantime, please take a look at Legal Profession: is it for you?  You don’t have to be a lawyer to enjoy reading it.  Thank you.

Law, medical, politics

Covid-19 Inquiry. The Unanswered Questions

What point was Hancock actually trying to make at the Covid-19 inquiry, when he talks about ‘doctrinal failures’ with an emphasis on cleaning up after a pandemic instead of preventing it from happening?  Is he saying that Britain should have locked down even harder and faster?  So why didn’t he just say so?  Why wasn’t he challenged on what he was really trying to say?  More importantly, why wasn’t he challenged about leaked messages suggesting he favoured “scaring the pants off everyone”?  Well it didn’t scare the pants off me.

For me, Hancock’s evidence was just too hand-wringing; too vague; and too short on specifics.  It just didn’t get to the point.  Who cares about his personal feelings?  We want facts.  And it all went unchallenged.  It was all too ‘polite’ for my liking.  Too cosy.

My worry is that is that the key questions regarding the justification for repeated lockdowns; mask-wearing; and standing in line outside supermarkets will not even be addressed at this public inquiry.  Instead, it will assume that every one of these measures was necessary because that was the policy which the government had decided to follow.  Even though the government was being led by the nose and was frightened of being seen as out of step with other jurisdictions, even with Nicola Sturgeon.  And there was no opposition.  Any alternative view was quickly shut down. We also know that the inquiry won’t even have the most crucial evidence to determine how these decisions were made.

Yes-Boris Johnson has surrendered his WhatsApp messages to the inquiry.  But these only go back to April 2021.  What is the point of that?  Instead, we had the excuse that his earlier phone had been compromised.  But those earlier messages must still exist somewhere in the ether?  And what’s all this about the government bringing legal proceedings against its own inquiry to stop information going into the public domain?  We want to know what messages were exchanged between ministers and top civil servants at the beginning, in March 2020, when government policy suddenly changed from herd immunity to lockdown.  If it was all just to “scare the pants off us”, we need to know.

The real message I take from Partygate was that those at the top of government who were attending those lockdown parties knew that they weren’t putting their health at risk.  Otherwise, they wouldn’t be doing it.  So why the pretence?  Why impose restrictions on everyone else?

Yes-we all know someone who has died of covid.  Just as we all know people who have died of heart attacks.  Of cancer.  Of suicide.  But I’m sure that no account will be taken of that at the public inquiry.  Nor of young people who studied for years for examinations which they were never allowed to sit.  A teacher-assessment is never a substitute for a robust external examination.  It’s too subjective.  And will anyone challenge the nonsense of closing down someone’s livelihood whilst at the same time printing money out of a bankrupt economy to pay them to stay at home?  And then there’s the fraud.  The cronyism.  If we can’t afford to pay nurses, how could we have afforded to pay for that?  And why did covid quickly become the excuse for any poor customer service?  “It’s covid innit.”

Perhaps I’m wrong.  Maybe later in the inquiry we will get some serious questioning of the knee-jerk policies which caused so much damage to so many people as they swung backwards and forwards?  Maybe.  But I’m not going to put money on it.

Law

Artificial Intelligence (AI) A Threat to Humanity (Part 2) – How AI Really Works

I think I’ve sussed how artificial intelligence (AI) really works.  Particularly when it comes to creative tasks, such as writing an essay.

If I ask AI to compose my next Eurovision hit, it will probably get back to me with a mishmash of every winning entry which is ever been written, including words and music from ABBA’s Waterloo.  If I ask AI to design me an iconic London building, it’ll probably get back to me with the plans and specifications for The Shard.  How do I know this?

Because when I recently asked to AI to write me some promotional material for a book which I had published, it repeated back to me my own words.  So what is the issue?

Only that if you use AI to write your university treatise, you will probably be poaching on someone else’s copyright material.  It’s like paying someone else to take your driving test.  You might even be sued by the copyright holder.  And think about this.  Isn’t it possible that copyright in any text or artwork produced by your AI belongs to the AI machine which generated it?  You might even be sued by your own computer.  But that’s not to say that creative AI is without its uses.

If you are intending to sit a professional examination, you might want to ask your AI what questions are likely to come up, based on past form.  It might even know what questions are going to come up, if it already has access to your examiner’s password protected materials. Not just the questions. Maybe also the examiner’s model answers. But can you trust it to give you the correct information?

Remember the American attorney who used AI to write a skeleton argument which he later presented to the court in a big commercial law-suit.  When the opposing lawyers looked into it, they discovered that every case which the attorney. had cited in his skeleton argument was fake.  The AI generated case law which he had quoted to the court had never even existed.  How embarrassing is that?