(See original article: Unreported)
I have recently heard that the Israeli Government has found that elements of its report were incorrect. It now seems possible that the deaths were caused by an Israeli shell fired in error, possibly against orders.
It is interesting, however, that this item of news was much more widely reported than the original report, which exonerated the IDF. The media are ready and willing to attack states when they make mistakes, but when rebel/militant/terrorist groups make regular small-scale attacks on civilians (such as the numerous Qassam rockets fired every day at Israeli towns from Palestinian positions), this remains largely - to quote my original article - unreported.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Liquid Assets
Thames Water, the company holding the monopoly over water supply and sewage treatment in the Greater London area, is in crisis... or is it? The company made a profit of £450m on a turnover of £1.4bn last year, and returned £246m to shareholders in dividends - what crisis?
The other side of the story is that the company's water leakage record is scandalous. They have failed to meet their own targets on leakages from public water mains three years running, and are still replacing Victorian mains in many areas. Surely Victorian piping should have been replaced 50 years ago...
The company defends itself by saying that it has to make a profit or shareholders will not invest. This is simultaneously patronising and absurd, and shows why privately-owned profit-making companies should not be running public service monoplies like water supply. They also argue that they have fixed more leaks than the previous nationalised utility, but this entirely due to the ever-aging network and poor maintenance by said utility.
However, this does not excuse Thames from doing a generally awful job. Surely the first thing the chairman of the newly-formed monopoly company should have said at the inaugural board meeting should have been, "We must replace all of these Victorian pipes." It seems that such an obvious measure was overlooked in favour of cutting rates (relative to previous years' rises) to persuade the public that privatisation was working.
Yet again a privatised public service has failed, and yet again it is not accountable to anyone. The regulator, OFWAT, could fine the company, but they would argue that such action would reduce their ability to meet their targets in future years. (In any case, money raised from such fines goes directly to the Treasury and does nothing to help alleviate water supply problems.) They could also be ordered to cut their rates, but this would bankrupt the company as banks would refuse to offer loans due to "regulatory risk", i.e. the risk of said fines being applied.
In addition, there is no competition in the water supply sector. I am not proposing that there should be - indeed, I would prefer to see the whole system renationalised and amalgamated into a single company - but the gas and electricity supply sector is doing relatively well since market forces were left to do their work.
All this just goes to show that the purpose of privatisation is to move problems in public services away from government ministers and into the hands of unaccountable private businessmen, and a regulator which has no power to do anything to remedy the situation when things go wrong is no regulator whatsoever.
The other side of the story is that the company's water leakage record is scandalous. They have failed to meet their own targets on leakages from public water mains three years running, and are still replacing Victorian mains in many areas. Surely Victorian piping should have been replaced 50 years ago...
The company defends itself by saying that it has to make a profit or shareholders will not invest. This is simultaneously patronising and absurd, and shows why privately-owned profit-making companies should not be running public service monoplies like water supply. They also argue that they have fixed more leaks than the previous nationalised utility, but this entirely due to the ever-aging network and poor maintenance by said utility.
However, this does not excuse Thames from doing a generally awful job. Surely the first thing the chairman of the newly-formed monopoly company should have said at the inaugural board meeting should have been, "We must replace all of these Victorian pipes." It seems that such an obvious measure was overlooked in favour of cutting rates (relative to previous years' rises) to persuade the public that privatisation was working.
Yet again a privatised public service has failed, and yet again it is not accountable to anyone. The regulator, OFWAT, could fine the company, but they would argue that such action would reduce their ability to meet their targets in future years. (In any case, money raised from such fines goes directly to the Treasury and does nothing to help alleviate water supply problems.) They could also be ordered to cut their rates, but this would bankrupt the company as banks would refuse to offer loans due to "regulatory risk", i.e. the risk of said fines being applied.
In addition, there is no competition in the water supply sector. I am not proposing that there should be - indeed, I would prefer to see the whole system renationalised and amalgamated into a single company - but the gas and electricity supply sector is doing relatively well since market forces were left to do their work.
All this just goes to show that the purpose of privatisation is to move problems in public services away from government ministers and into the hands of unaccountable private businessmen, and a regulator which has no power to do anything to remedy the situation when things go wrong is no regulator whatsoever.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Unreported
It appears that much of the Western media has failed to notice the publication of a report by the Israeli Government, which concludes that the deaths of several people on a beach in the Gaza Strip were not caused by Israeli fire. The report provides evidence to back up this conclusion, including some taken from shrapnel found on the beach. The report states that no Israeli ammunition of the type of which remains were found on the beach was used that day. Therefore, there are only really three possibilities; the deaths could have been caused by:
The "Qassam" rockets regularly fired at Israeli towns by members of Palestinian terrorist groups are known to be highly unreliable and regularly misfire, but this usually results in injuries to the people firing the missile rather than innocent bystanders. In any case, the missiles are not so poorly made that they would end up in completely the wrong place - their main weakness seems to be range control.
And as for an Israeli soldier firing on a Palestinian family on purpose, who would do such a thing? There have been incidents of Israeli soldiers killing civilians on purpose but such cases are few and far between and are prosecuted vigourously by the military authorities. Again, this seems unlikely.
So, my conclusion is that the whole incident was some sort of freak accident. I'd say my 1st option above was the most likely, but I will be very interested to hear the results of investigations by the Palestinians.
- An unexploded bomb or land mine.
- A misdirected rocket fired from a Palestinian position.
- An Israeli soldier firing against orders.
The "Qassam" rockets regularly fired at Israeli towns by members of Palestinian terrorist groups are known to be highly unreliable and regularly misfire, but this usually results in injuries to the people firing the missile rather than innocent bystanders. In any case, the missiles are not so poorly made that they would end up in completely the wrong place - their main weakness seems to be range control.
And as for an Israeli soldier firing on a Palestinian family on purpose, who would do such a thing? There have been incidents of Israeli soldiers killing civilians on purpose but such cases are few and far between and are prosecuted vigourously by the military authorities. Again, this seems unlikely.
So, my conclusion is that the whole incident was some sort of freak accident. I'd say my 1st option above was the most likely, but I will be very interested to hear the results of investigations by the Palestinians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)