Erm, a story from BBC News.

“Kidnappers” who stole a Dalek from a Somerset tourist attraction have sent its owners a ransom note – and the robot’s amputated plunger.
[…]
On Thursday, staff found the plunger arm and a ransom note on a doorstep.

The note read: “We are holding the Dalek captive. We demand further instructions from the Doctor.”

The group, signing themselves Guardians of the Planet Earth, added: “For the safety of the human race we have disarmed and removed its destructive mechanism.”
[…]
Former Dr Who actor Colin Baker has been in touch with staff at the attraction, and may be asked to send a message to the kidnappers.

Inspired by John Hemming, I looked into the specific differences between Pelican, Puffin and Toucan crossings. Cheshire County Council has a brief guide. Of Puffin crossings it says:

Pedestrian User Friendly INtelligent Crossings: This new type of crossing is to replace the Pelican Crossing. A Puffin Crossing differs from a Pelican Crossing in that there is no flashing ‘green man’ period for pedestrians or flashing amber period for motorists. Instead detectors are used to:

determine that there is still a pedestrian waiting to cross; and
extend the ‘green man’ time while a pedestrian is on the actual crossing.

Finding one of these at lunch time today, I couldn’t resist playing. I pressed the button and the red light lit up. I stepped away from the crossing and the light went out.

But they do have a down side:

The Red/Green man signals now form part of the push button unit. These are sited so that pedestrians, when looking at these signals, are also looking in the direction of oncoming traffic. Pedestrians can therefore ensure, more easily, that traffic has stopped before starting to cross the road under the green man signal. Also being much closer to waiting pedestrians they are easier to see, particularly for the visually impaired, rather than looking for older type signals across the road.

I don’t like this at all. Unless the traffic is one-way, looking only in the direction of traffic from one side of the road is not helpful. As the Green Cross Code Man would tell us, you need to look both ways. Being so close, it also means refocussing the eyes to look between the signal and traffic rather than sticking to distance vision. Unless you’re extremely short-sighted and colour blind, there is no problem having the red/green man on the other side of the road: the colour tells you when to cross even if you can’t make out the symbol. And if you’re extremely short-sighted, the beep tells you when to cross.

But worst of all, it only takes someone to stand between you and the crossing indicator and you can’t see it.

I’ve made it into this week’s Guardian Backbencher column, and not for the first time.

Meanwhile, today’s paper tells a lovely story (warning: it includes “offsensive”, although not “grossly offensive”, language) that will prompt sympathy from anyone – including myself – who has spent hours on call waiting when phoning NTL.

When taxi driver Ashley Gibbins called the helpline of NTL hoping to have broadband installed, he was told that all its operators were busy right now, but if he cared to hold the line his call would be dealt with as soon as possible.

So Mr Gibbins held. And held. Then held some more. Eventually, after an hour, Mr Gibbins decided he had had enough. He put the phone down and decided to wreak his revenge.

By chance, Mr Gibbins discovered he could alter NTL’s recorded message, and after he’d tinkered with it people seeking help were met with something altogether more blunt.

“Hello, you are through to NTL customer services,” they were told. “We don’t give a f** about you, basically, and we are not going to handle any of your complaints. Just f*** off and leave us alone. Get a life.”

What it doesn’t explain (understandably) is how Mr Gibbons managed the reprogramming.

One of the Government’s many and varied excusesreasons for introducing ID cards is the reduce crime.

I won’t repeat the arguments so let’s take it as read that ID cards won’t significantly reduce benefit fraud and isn’t the best use of untold billions to fight terrorism. Establishing the identity of a suspect is not a big problem for the police.

So what effect will the introduction of ID cards have on crime levels? The total number of new offences created by the Labour Government since 1997 must be pushing 700 now. The ID cards bill will create “a string of new offences“, although mostly civil, rather than criminal, offences. However – if I understand this correctly – failing to pay a fine imposed as a civil penalty would be a criminal offence.

As people refuse to register for ID cards, forget to inform the Government of changes of address and miss appointments for biometric scanning (for example because their child is off school sick), excessive civil penalties will be imposed and criminal offences will inevitably follow.

Then there are the additional crimes that will be committed in order to work around the new system. Illegally gaining access to the database will surely be attempted, probably successfully on a number of occasions through insider access before hacking is even considered. And then there’s ID card forgery itself, a new crime that will prove popular with certain types of criminal gang.

This is obviously conjecture but rather than a concrete assessment, this is intended to make a point: that despite the Government’s professed intentions, ID cards could actually increase crime.