Azara Blog: April 2009 archive complete

Blog home page | Archive list

Google   Bookmark and Share

Date published: 2009/04/23

Google's Street View allowed to continue in UK (permanent blog link)

The BBC says:

Google's Street View technology carries a small risk of privacy invasion but should not be stopped, the UK's Information Commissioner has ruled.

The technology, which adds photos of locations to maps, sparked complaints it breaches the Data Protection Act.

A spokesman for the privacy watchdog said removing the entire service would be "disproportionate to the relatively small risk of privacy detriment".
Google has always said its service observed UK law and that photos were only taken from public areas. The technology was first launched, amidst some complaints, in the US in May 2007.

Privacy International had complained to the Information Commissioner along with 74 others, requesting the service be suspended, because some individual's faces were identifiable on Street View.

The technology does have automatic face blurring but some individuals were not obscured. Google said it would remove any image on Street View if a request came from a member of the public.
David Evans, the Information Commission's senior data protection practice manager, compared being captured by the service to passers-by filmed on TV news camera.

"It would not be in the public interest to 'turn the digital clock back'," he said.

"In the same way, there is no law against anyone taking pictures of people in the street as long as the person using the camera is not harassing people," he said.
Dr Ian Brown, a privacy expert at the Oxford Internet Institute, said: "The phrase 'small risk of privacy detriment' betrays the slightly wrong mindset at the Information Commissioner's office as they are having to adopt a reactive approach when it's far too late to really do anything about it.

"They should have been involved much earlier, because Google could - and should - have done a much better job and the Information Commissioner needs to be involved at a much earlier stage; in other words, when it is being designed and not finished."

He added: "I'm not saying Street View is evil and should be taken down, but it shouldn't be up to individuals to spot breaches of privacy and get them taken down.

"So far, the breaches have just been embarrassing - someone being sick, someone else leaving a sex shop - but it's possible someone could find themselves being unfairly divorced because an innocent image could be interpreted wrongly."

A victory for an open society over the closed society that some privacy fanatics unfortunately seem to prefer. If Google was not allowed Street View, then basically nobody would have the right to take photos or make video footage in a public place. Of course these privacy fanatics went after Google because Google is big and American. Fortunately the Information Commission ignored their bleating.

Brown (the so-called privacy expert) makes a particularly poor analysis. It should not be up to a photographer to try and contact every individual who is in a photograph taken in a public place to get their consent before a photograph can be used, which is in effect what Brown is demanding. And his example that "someone could find themselves being unfairly divorced because an innocent image could be interpreted wrongly" is just pathetic scare mongering over a near-zero probability hypothetical situation. Should all vehicles be stopped because there is a near-zero probability hypothetical situation that he is hit by one on the way to work?

There is an important place for concerns about privacy, especially with regard to government surveillance, but by attacking Google, and so in effect attacking every photographer on the planet, the privacy fanatics have diminished their cause.

Gordon Brown wants a flat-rate attendance allowance for MPs (permanent blog link)

The BBC says:

Downing Street has defended plans for a flat-rate attendance allowance for MPs, saying it would encourage them to turn up to Parliament.

Under the current system MPs do not have to turn up but still get their allowances, said the PM's spokesman.

Gordon Brown intends to put his plan to scrap second homes expenses in favour of a daily rate to the vote next week.

But Lib Dem deputy Vince Cable said he believed there was so much opposition to it, it would not go through.

He told BBC One's Question Time the idea was "absurd and unworkable" and said, while there was agreement on some aspects of Mr Brown's proposals, "this particular proposal about clocking out will not go through".

There should be no flat-rate attendance allowance. MPs should just be paid a certain amount for the job, a certain amount to cover travel, and a certain amount to cover office expenses. And MPs should have an apartment in a government-owned block of flats if they want to stay in Westminister over night. Everything else is pretty much corruption. And there is a cheaper way to "encourage" MPs to turn up to Parliament, namely to publicise loud and clear which MPs are not there on any given day. On the other hand, the Tory and Lib Dem opposition to Brown's proposal seems to stem entirely from their desire to retain privileges for themselves that ordinary members of the public do not have.

Goverment screws up yet again over terrorism arrests (permanent blog link)

The BBC says:

The case of 12 men arrested over a suspected bomb plot in the UK who were all later released without any charges is to be independently reviewed.

Eleven Pakistani nationals are now in UK Border Agency custody and face possible deportation.

Lord Carlile of Berriew QC will look at the case as part of his ongoing role as independent reviewer of terrorism laws.

Greater Manchester Chief Constable Peter Fahy, defended the arrests, saying he was not "embarrassed".

But the Muslim Council of Britain says the government should admit it had made a mistake and claimed the way it had dealt with the men was "dishonourable".

Prime Minister Gordon Brown's spokesman told reporters: "We are seeking to remove these individuals on grounds of national security.

"The government's highest priority is to protect public safety. Where a foreign national poses a threat to the country, we will seek to exclude or deport them where appropriate."

However, lawyers for the men point out that they have not been charged and are innocent of any crime.

Brown is sinking further and further into the quagmire as he desperately tries to save his failed premiership. His actions in this case are particularly despicable. Rather than admit the government and police got it wrong (yet again) he is willing to ruin the lives of these men. It is also unfortunate that the government believes it has the right to deport people without any due process.

Date published: 2009/04/21

City residents are allegedly going to be better informed about tree cutting (permanent blog link)

The Cambridge News says:

Residents could get more say on the chopping down of trees in Cambridge.

The move comes after concerns were raised about the number of trees being felled in the city.

There has been criticism over the felling of 33 "diseased" cherry trees on the Hills Road frontage of Addenbrooke's Hospital and nearly 100 at Byron's Pool, while more than 100 are set to go for the cb1 development.

Earlier this month, angry residents called for an end to the "Cambridge chain saw massacre" following the city council's decision to fell five trees on Midsummer Common which experts said were diseased and a risk to the public.

And there was outcry over the lack of public consultation carried out over felling of trees and bushes to make way for the guided busway.

New guidelines aim to ensure future decisions about tree-felling are fully publicised - with any "sensitive" proposals discussed by councillors in public meetings.

Procedures for all tree works would be published on the city council's website and in a leaflet while seminars would be offered to concerned parties.

This does not really change anything, especially if the notification is passive (so published on the city council's website) rather than active (so emailed to concerned people). Many of the tree massacres have had perfectly valid planning applications in place, so people could in theory already object. The real root of the current problem is that the city tree people seem to have developed a fetish against what they deem to be non-native trees, and that situation has not changed with this announcement.

Men allegedly overestimate the age of young women (permanent blog link)

The BBC says:

The effect of "beer goggles" should not be used as an excuse for men getting a woman's age wrong, a study suggests.

University of Leicester researchers showed 240 people, half of whom had been drinking, digitally-altered images of females meant to be 13, 17 or 20.

The paper for the British Journal of Psychology said most overestimated ages no matter how much they had drunk.

The researchers say it suggests men who have sex with under-age girls should not be able to use drink as a defence.

The researchers evidently think this is a clever bit of research, but in fact they have shown that men do not have to "use drink as a defence" that they thought the women were older than they appeared, they can just use the defence, period. Given the anti-male bias of the research topic and the way the story has been spun, this seems to have not been their intent.

Date published: 2009/04/20

Lib Dems propose yet another random change in fiscal policy (permanent blog link)

The BBC says:

The Liberal Democrats have said they want to cut the amount of income tax paid by most workers by £700 a year.

The party proposes raising the threshold at which people start paying to £10,000, with all those earning under £100,000 paying less.

BBC political editor Nick Robinson said this move replaced the commitment to cut the basic rate of income tax by 4p.

But Labour said it was "policy on the hoof" by a party which had changed its tax policy twice in 12 months.

Introducing the proposal Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg said "big businesses and millionaires" would make up the shortfall in revenue.

It was "nonsense" to say cuts could not be brought in during a recession because a "tax switch" was "affordable", he said.
It estimates the overall cost of the pledge will be £17bn a year - slightly less than the cost of the previous pledge to cut 4p in basic tax, which was estimated at £19-20bn.

The Lib Dems say they would find the money through raising taxes on richer people, for example cutting top rate tax relief on pension contributions, raising capital gains tax and closing some loopholes for companies and high earners.

It's amazing how "affordable" something is when you get someone else to pay for it. Needless to say, by trying to screw the "rich", the Lib Dems would end up taking in a lot less than the 17 billion they are willing to throw at tax cuts, since the really rich are perfectly capable of shuffling their money around to avoid tax. The Lib Dems keep trying to be seen as a populist party, with their perpetual attempt to come up with new ways to screw a minority to benefit the majority (hey, how principled can you get). Unfortunately they are just a bunch of muddled academic middle class no-hopers.

Obese people attacked over climate change (permanent blog link)

The BBC says:

Getting back to the relatively slim, trim days of the 1970s would help to tackle climate change, researchers say.

The rising numbers of people who are overweight and obese in the UK means the nation uses 19% more food than 40 years ago, a study suggests.

That could equate to an extra 60 mega tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions a year, the team calculated.
In addition to calculating the increased food costs of the heavier population, the team worked out how much additional fuel would be needed for transportation of modern-day UK compared with the 1970s version.

The latest attack on obese people, this time dressed up to also mention the other current academic middle class fetish, climate change. Unfortunately these "researchers" fail to realise that every pound spent on food, or transport, is a pound less spent on some other good or service. It's not exactly a zero sum game when it comes to emissions, but it is a lot closer to a zero sum game than it is to the game analysed here which completely ignores the substitution effect. And why choose the 1970s, let's get all nostalgic and choose the 1950s or the 1890s. The good old days, when Britain was allegedly a paradise, and the peasants did what they were told by the academic middle class. Why is Britain wasting money on this kind of "research"?

Date published: 2009/04/17

Tories propose to cut spending in a recession but refuse to say what will be cut (permanent blog link)

The BBC says:

A Conservative government would clamp down on spending to tackle the "atrocious" state of the UK's public finances, George Osborne has said.

The shadow chancellor told the FT Labour's planned 1.1% a year spending increase was "unaffordable".

But he said spending cuts rather than tax rises were the best way to tackle the UK's biggest peacetime deficit.
But they are not expected to reveal detailed proposals on the areas where any cuts will fall, beyond saying that health, schools, defence and international development will be protected from cuts in 2009 and 2010.

The next Tory government is already looking set to be a disaster for Britain. Not only are the Tories still viciously anti-European, but they are now evidently set on a neo-Hooverite policy as the alleged way to deal with the recession. Given that a large chunk of the budget is allegedly protected from cuts, the remaining areas of the budget (e.g. for research and development) are obviously going to be savagely cut. Hopefully the British media will not let the Tories get away before the coming election without specifying what areas they expect to cut and by how much.

US EPA wants to regulate greenhouse gases (permanent blog link)

The BBC says:

The US government is to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, having decided that it and five other greenhouse gases may endanger human health and well-being.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the move following a review of the scientific evidence.

The decision marks a major change from the Bush presidency, when the EPA argued it could not regulate CO2 because the gas was not a pollutant.
Carbon-cutting legislation is being proposed in Congress, but the EPA decision - known as an "endangerment finding" - will allow the agency to mandate some cuts without waiting for the draft bills to become law.

Well it was obvious this was going to happen, and the only question is what the impact will be. So if it is just a way for the executive branch of government to steal a lead on the legislative branch then it's probably a sensible decision. On the other hand, one unfortunate outcome is that it's likely to lead to endless court cases by so-called environmentalists determined to stop any activity they happen not to like. Needless to say, they will presumably first target cars and airplanes and coal power stations. But you could easily argue that pretty much any activity (shopping for food, visiting a museum, going to the ballpark, etc.) contributes to emissions and so you could easily argue that pretty much all activities should be stopped. The courts and lawyers will have a lot of fun over this one.

Lottery Fund bounces Cambridge's bid for Jesus Green money (permanent blog link)

The BBC says:

An application for lottery funding to improve facilities in a Cambridge park has been rejected.

Cambridge City Council applied to the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) for a £141,400 grant to upgrade Jesus Green park in September 2008.

The council's bid focused on retaining the character of the park and creating greater accessibility.

But the HLF panel said the council's plan did not include the greater range of activities they looked for.

The council's revamp included building a new cafe and public square, a skateboarding facility, an area for band concerts and theatre performances, and a new play area.

During the next few months the council will meet with residents and stakeholder groups to determine how to progress with the improvements the HLF identified.

Councillor Julie Smith said: "The HLF project planning grant did give us the opportunity to do a lot of background research, not least in developing plans for future tree planting for Jesus Green."

If the lottery bid had been successful the council would have had to match the funding provided by the HLF.

This application summarised everything that is wrong with government generally and the lottery fund in particular. Jesus Green is a core responsibility of Cambridge City Council and it is ridiculous that a rich city like Cambridge is even applying to the lottery fund for money to cover this kind of park development, most of which had little point. And most of it had little point exactly because the city was applying to the lottery fund, and so they made the application completely grandiose and over the top. Smith's comments about "future tree planting" are particularly egregious since the city was going to arbitrarily and unnecessarily cut down a large number of the existing trees just because somebody or other felt like it would be amusing to shuffle the location of trees around the park.

The BBC article also singularly failed to point out that the city itself estimated the cost of the development to be £4.3m and was applying to the lottery fund to cover 3/4 of the total project costs. And, for example, 300k of that cost was to be blown on a "micro-hydro electric power project" just so the city could pretend to be "green". Needless to say, if such a hydro project made any sense (i.e. actually made money by producing sufficient electricity to justify its large cost), then the city could do it perfectly well by itself.

All Jesus Green really needs is for many of the pavements to be re-paved. Unfortunately Cambridge City Council seems totally incapable of even doing that small job.

Date published: 2009/04/14

David Cameron continues to whinge about the McBride emails (permanent blog link)

The BBC says:

David Cameron has demanded a reform of Downing Street's "culture" after a government adviser sent e-mails about slurs against leading Conservatives.

The Tory leader said Labour had "been in power too long" and Gordon Brown had to end "this sort of nonsense".

Adviser Damian McBride resigned after unfounded claims about Mr Cameron and other senior figures were revealed.

Cameron at his nauseating and insincere worst. He's an ex-PR man and this is just all Tory spin. About the only thing you can guarantee about the next Tory administration, given the last Tory administration, is that it will be far worse in terms of spin and "culture" than the current Labour government, and given how bad the current Labour government is, the public perception of politicians only has one way to go.

Funnily enough, nobody in the media can be bothered to ask the most important question about the McBride emails and that is how they came to be in the public domain. It's extremely unlikely that any recipient of the emails would have leaked them, so theft (e.g. by computer hacking) seems the most likely reason. That's a far more serious crime than some spin merchant making up silly stories about Cameron. But why should the media care about theft when they can instead spend all their time talking about tittle-tattle.

Police stop campaigners from protesting at power station (permanent blog link)

The BBC says:

Police have defended their decision to arrest 114 environmental campaigners in connection with a suspected plan to protest at a power station.

The men and women were held in Sneinton Dale, Nottingham, on Monday and later released on bail.

Police said they had been planning to cause "prolonged disruption" at Ratcliffe-On-Soar power station.
The power plant, which is eight miles south-west of Nottingham, has seen protests by environmental campaigners in the past, including members of Eastside Climate Action.

Bob Andrews, from the group, denied any connection with the latest incident.

However, he said direct action was the only way to bring about a change in energy policy.

He said: "We're saying we've got to change policy, and (the government and E.On) are not doing it.

"They're not taking the science seriously. It's got to change. Stop burning fossil fuel."

Hopefully the police (for once) had good intelligence on this issue. As Andrews makes clear, there are many protestors who are willing to admit they are up to no good, so the police were probably correct in their actions. In the usual academic middle class media outlets (including the Channel 4 News and the BBC) various people of the same ilk as the campaigners openly wondered why anyone was arrested without a crime having been committed, as if the police should not be able to stop vandalism before it happens. If climate change protestors had a history of peaceful protest it would be one thing. But they do not. And this particular group of protestors were not open about what they were doing, so were fairly evidently up to no good.

The campaigners have not won the argument democratically (although presumably Cameron will try to throw them a few bones to chew on once he is in power), so they want to hold the rest of society to ransom to achieve their aims. And pretty much every good and service that Andrews uses (including getting free publicity on the BBC website) has some coal energy somewhere in the supply chain, so if he is so opposed to coal (and presumably oil and gas) then he should just get rid of all his possessions and go live in a cave (a very small one, so as to minimally impact the rest of the planet).

The Environment Agency is not keen on biomass power (permanent blog link)

The BBC says:

Biomass power - such as burning wood for energy - could do more harm than good in the battle to reduce greenhouse gases, the Environment Agency warns.

Ploughing up pasture to plant energy crops could produce more CO2 by 2030 than burning fossil fuels, if not done in a sustainable way, it said.

Its study found waste wood and MDF produced the lowest emissions, unlike willow, poplar and oil seed rape.

The EA wants biomass companies to report all greenhouse gas emissions.

The agency is calling on the government to introduce mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from publicly-subsidised biomass facilities, to help work out if minimum standards need to be introduced.

Wood-burning stoves, boilers and even power stations are seen by many as critical to Britain's renewable energy targets.

Biomass is considered low carbon as long as what is burnt is replaced by new growth, and harvesting and transport do not use too much fuel.

The Environment Agency jumping on the anti-biomass bandwagon. Needless to say, a lot of the so-called solutions to the carbon emissions problem are not nearly so good as the relevant proponents would claim, so at least the EA is jumping on a sensible bandwagon. But the EA is rather naive if it thinks anyone can really calculate the carbon emissions of any process correctly. In particular, for biomass there are all sorts of emissions due to things like possible change of land use, and those are very tricky to get right (especially because there can be displacement of other land activities, such as food production, which indirectly affects emissions that should be counted against biomass production).

Date published: 2009/04/06

Tories want poor local authorities to subsidise rich ones (permanent blog link)

The BBC says:

"Well-behaved" council tenants should have the right to move around England without losing their accommodation, the Conservatives say.

The party's housing report says local authorities should be compelled to buy homes in other areas, in which to re-house people who relocate.

Tenants would have to show they had behaved well for five years to qualify.

The Tories say this will allow people to look for work elsewhere without the fear of losing their home.

Another crackpot Tory policy, which takes no account of the housing circumstances in either the originating or destined local authority. And (the worst aspect of the proposal), why should the originating council be forced to pay the bill? The most likely reason someone would move is to take up a new job. So the likely direction of migration will be from high unemployment (i.e. poor) areas to low unemployment (i.e. rich) areas. Thus the overall effect will be that poor areas of the country would end up subsidising rich areas. Needless to say, that's unfortunately the usual Tory philosophy.

Most people allegedly do not think enough about cancer (permanent blog link)

The BBC says:

Two thirds of people have not changed their diet or lifestyle to reduce the risk of cancer, a survey for the BBC's Newsnight programme has found.

This is despite evidence and public health campaigns that highlight diet and lifestyle as a cause of between a third to a half of all cancers.

The poll of 1,000 adults found over a third said that they tried to ignore cancer or hardly ever think about it.

One cancer expert said new ways were needed to convey health messages.

Oh, those dreadful peasants, not paying enough attention to the brilliant public health campaigns waged by the academic middle class control freaks who run the country. Evidently the academic middle class, led by the BBC, find the concept difficult, but most people have better things to do with their lives than spend their time worrying about cancer (and every other topic the academic middle class continually obsesses about).

Some restaurants are going to display calories on their menus (permanent blog link)

The BBC says:

Hundreds of food outlets will start displaying calorie information on menus later this month, ministers say.

A first wave of 18 firms will trial the scheme, aimed at getting people to eat more healthily.

High street chains including Pizza Hut and Burger King have signed up, along with staff canteens.

The move, brokered by the Food Standards Agency, is similar to a labelling system introduced in New York last year.

It comes after surveys showed the public wanted more information about the food they buy.

A poll of 2,000 people by the FSA in 2008 found 85% were in favour of catering outlets displaying nutritional data.

Surveys are almost inevitably meaningless. First of all, the wording is skewed to give the answer the people who conduct the survey want. In particular, there is never any context given to the questions. So were the 85% of people who were allegedly "in favour of catering outlets displaying nutritional data" given any information about how much this would cost (which of course the customer is going to end up paying) or were they told that calorie information is a very narrow indicator of what is and is not an allegedly healthy diet? Of course the FSA has to justify its existence and perpetually come up with ideas like this. Whether this kind of academic middle class control freakery actually makes any sense is another matter.

Date published: 2009/04/03

BBC does not like that America puts the interests of its citizens first (permanent blog link)

The BBC says:

The US must balance science with what is politically and technologically achievable on climate change, America's lead negotiator has said.

Speaking at UN talks in Bonn, Jonathan Pershing said the US must not offer more than it could deliver by 2020.

Poor countries said the latest science showed rich states should cut emissions by 40% on 1990 levels by 2020.

President Barack Obama's plan merely to stabilise greenhouse gases at 1990 levels by 2020 is much less ambitious.

And the article goes on with that tone. Of course the academic middle class that run the European media (and in particular that run the BBC) put the interests of the citizens of Europe below the interests of the rest of the world, when it comes to climate change. Not surprisingly, US politicians think differently. It is, after all, their express responsibility to look after the interests of US citizens, not the citizens of the rest of the world.

London G20 protest a complete non-event (permanent blog link)

The BBC says:

The unshaven young man at ExCel summed it up with his hand-written placard: "Down with this sort of thing!"

David Jones was one of the estimated 5,000 people to take to the streets of London for two days of G20 protests - a little of it intensely violent - but most of it overwhelmingly peaceful and benign.

"I'm protesting to get the G20 to do the right thing - but I'm trying to inject some humour - everyone is so serious. I'm going to get everyone to sing the 'Wheels on the Bus go Round and Round' later."

Over the last two days, those of us who spent the G20 with the protesters lost count of the single-issue groups on the streets.

There was the global talking shop inside ExCel - and a global speakers' corner on the outside.

Conference day was exceptionally low-key compared with what we had seen. No banks were stormed and the ratio of black-clad anarchists to pin-stripe suited city folk tipped significantly in Savile Row's favour.
So what was achieved? Political aims? Not really. Violence? There was some - but not as much as the dire predictions. The attack on the RBS branch was startling, but limited.

The BBC, and other similar media organisations, have desperately tried to spin this entire G20 conference in terms of the protestors. But nobody cares about the spoiled middle class protestors except journalists. So the BBC points out that the protestors were out numbered by city workers. But the protestors were also out numbered by journalists, who were there, it seems, to cover scenes of violent confrontation that they hoped would occur. Indeed the one incident where a window was smashed was fairly evidently just staged for the sake of journalists, and the one or two chaps involved were surrounded by a phalanx of cameras anxious to capture the allegedly spontaneous moment. All a bit ridiculous. There are plenty of protests in London week in and week out that barely get mentioned in the news, if at all, and yet this specific insignificant protest was covered endlessly. All in all, it was just an elaborate April Fool's joke.

Cambridge's David Urwin award unbelievely not given to Riverside Bridge (permanent blog link)

The Cambridge News says:

Cambridge's most attractive "public realm" building schemes have won plaudits in a competition.

The David Urwin Awards, set up in memory of the city council's former planning officer, who died in the 1980s, aim to recognise the top buildings, conservation projects and other architectural schemes in the city.

For the 2009 awards, the focus was on finding the finest examples of work in the public realm - building work aimed at improving the public environment of Cambridge.

The winners were announced at the annual dinner of the Cambridge Forum for the Construction Industry, which backs the awards along with the city council and the News.

The award for best work in the public realm was won jointly by the new gates for the Botanic Garden on the corner of Brookside and Trumpington Road - the first new entrance to the garden in half a century - and by the CB2 cafe outdoor terrace, on the corner of East Road and Norfolk Street.

A special commendation was given to the new railings surrounding Grove Lodge near the Fitzwilliam Museum, and a commendation for public art went to the £1 million gold clock at the Corpus Christi College library.

The Botanic Garden gates are fine enough, as is the CB2 outdoor terrace. But really, these two projects just pale into insignificance (and not just because of cost) compared with the new Riverside Bridge.

Eurostar still plain stupid when it comes to one way trips (permanent blog link)

Eurostar is one of the few rail services in the world that seems to make money, presumably because there are plenty of rich bankers going back and forth between London and Paris. But they are still stuck in the stone age in comparison with most airlines. Their website looks slick enough but buying a ticket is an excruciating task, especially if you decide to go back a page or two to look at something again, at which point you often just get a blank white page staring at you, and you have to start all over again. And they still don't get the idea that you should be able to travel one way without paying ridiculous odds for it, something most airlines figured out years ago (thanks to Ryanair). So Eurostar will perfectly happily quote you 178 pounds for a one way trip, and 99 pounds for a round trip including the same one leg of the journey. And they expect people to treat them seriously.

All material not included from other sources is copyright For further information or questions email: info [at] cambridge2000 [dot] com (replace "[at]" with "@" and "[dot]" with ".").