Ross and Brand

Lots of interesting comment on this, on RW, in the papers, in the pub, and overheard on the train. I'm more interested in the stuff people say about it than I am in the incident itself.

For example:
"The original listeners had no problem with it. It's just a bunch of people who hadn't even heard the show who are complaining, over a week later". That would be a valid comment if the complaint was that the show was offensive to the listeners. However, I don't think that's what they did wrong: they offended Andrew Sachs, not their listeners.

So many people seem to think that the key question is whether they find Russell Brand funny or not. Endless letters to the papers about who "gets" or "doesnt get" his humour. But that's irrelevant. If he did wrong, it doesn't excuse it that some onlookers (or listeners) find it funny.

To take a hypothetical example (and if you can't do hypothetical, please stop reading this blog) if someone made a speech inciting racial hatred, and I complained about it, it wouldn't be any defence to say "you weren't there at the time, you only found out about it later, and the people in the audience loved it".

My general take is this, on whether something's right or wrong:
-- it doesn't matter who you are. There are no "privileged positions" that excuse you.
-- it doesnt' matter who the victim is. Nobody "deserves it" or "is asking for it".

I think the BBC generally, and these two in particular, suffer from hubris. Thinking they are holier than thou, and above criticism.

These two phoned up someone, left an abusive message on their answerphone, sang a mocking pretend "apology", and then broadcast the whole thing to the public. If I did that from my company's premises on their phone line during my working hours, I'd be sacked. If people were listening to me do it and found it all very funny, that might actually make it worse. So I don't think the debate on whether Russell Brand is funny has anything to do with it.

As far as I can see, he has something wrong with him (diminished sense of responsibility) which makes him a danger to himself and others, but also very funny to the onlooker. Yes, he is funny. Unfortunately, being a "celeb" probably means he won't get help.

Dublin result!

I did 3:51:59, and am very pleased with that. That's 20 mins off my PB, and 8 mins faster than my target. In marathon running, 8 mins is a lot!

To be honest, that might possibly be my lifetime PB. I'm not sure how I can beat it. I'll be older next time. I trained quite systematically; my weight is about as low as I ever want it to be; the course is flat; the weather was perfect (cold, bright, not rainy or windy); and nothing went wrong. No "hitting the wall", no niggles or pains. Today, I find it hard to see how I could better it another time. Okay -- maybe next time skip the 4 pints of Guinness 36 hrs before the race! Or did they help?

Oops! I seem to be talking about a "next time" .....

Anyway, we had a pleasing weekend, even if we didn't do all that much. We arrived on Saturday, and spent the evening in Temple Bar, sampling pubs and live music. One Coldplay wannabe; one crowd-pleaser. On Sunday we went to register (and in Karen's case, immediately deregister again) and then had a quiet evening with carbo loading. On Monday, the race, then a couple of pints and lunch in a pub with some RW friends; then a nap; then dinner and back to Temple Bar for more beers and live music. Overall, lots of eating, drinking, and sleeping.

Dublin

Only three days now before Karen and I are off to Dublin. Poor Karen's still suffering from her broken arm, and likely to be so for some time. Still, we should have a good weekend.

I've reached the point of bafflement in my training. I have no idea what will happen, or what result I might get. I'm hoping for anything faster than 4hrs.

3:59:59 would be fine. 3:50 seems not absolutely impossible. On some days.
On other days, 4hrs seems totally impossible.

Change of Address

You'd think this would be about the most common, basic business process anyone could implement. Not so.

I remember this the last time I moved house, in about 1990. Just about every company's systems screwed it up. I was giving a talk at that time about business systems, and used it as an example.

It hasn't got much better. Barclays happily assigned me to a non-existent postcode, although postcode validation software is part of their standard platform. The ususal crop of people changed my name to "Micheal", which I detest. Npower got the postcode right, so their letter reached me, despite being randomly addressed to Kirkintilloch in Scotland. I phoned them - it's a problem with their system.

Lots of people also seem to think I live in Surrey. I'm fairly sure I don't. But I would welcome clarification from anyone who works in Surrey local government...

A more subtle point: just about nobody can distinguish between (a) me moving house and (b) me correcting an error in the address they've got for me. Both are just described on their system as "change address" - updating their address field.

Why does it matter?

Because it affects things like how often they think I've moved house, how long they think I've been at this address, and what my previous address was.

The bug is caused by thinking about system functionality, rather than business requirements. Properly done "use case" analysis would distinguish.

I'm not being theoretical: this has actually happened to me twice. Once I corrected a typo in my address on my car registration document. This was taken as a change of owner, and increased the "number of previous owners" shown on the document from 1 to 2. Which could affect the value of the car. It took a series of letters to get that fixed.

Then, a couple of days ago, someone at Barclays asked me, as a security validation question, what my previous address was before I moved. I of course gave the address in Hampshire. Wrong! I'd corrected the error in my new postcode a few days ago, so my "previous address" on their system was the same as my current address except with a typo in it. They no longer had a record of my real previous address, or the real date I'd moved house. All their data was wrong. So their security check didn't work. I pointed out that they'd got current and previous address the same, and the baffled clerk had to admit this was so, and used a different security check. . . . I guess if it was an automated system, that wouldn't work.

So: system designers and business analysts, please note the difference between a change of data, and correcting an error in data. And please validate your postcodes.

Choir

I seem to have joined The Choir With No Name, which sings in aid of homeless people (and tries to get them to join in too). As a volunteer, I cook or wash up, but am also allowed to sing. It's a small choir; about a dozen people normally turn up I think, whereas Winchester CC was fifty or sixty. We'll be having some "gigs" towards Christmas, by the sound of it.

I've arrived

The second removal-van-load of "stuff" has been delivered to my new house.

It's amazing how much more space stuff takes up when it's all wrapped in tissue paper and put in cardboard boxes. A small shelf of mugs or glasses occupies a large cardboard box. There must be about 100 boxes. So I have a load of empty cupboards, a nearly empty loft, and a load of dismantled furniture (beds and wardrobes) needing floor-space to assemble. And the house and garage are so stuffed with boxes, it's difficult even to move around! I can't believe how much stuff I have.

It's going to be like a sliding block puzzle, trying to make enough space to assemble things and do unpacking. I don't want to fill up the drawers of chests of drawers until they're in the right place, etc etc. I'm going to have to have another purge on belongings.

There's still a load of stuff in storage in Winchester as well! Aargh.

I can't really "work from home" there till I get broadband.

Still, I've checked out the local kebab shop, and it seems ok.