This Blogger blog has now closed. I am still blogging, and under the same pseudonym, but on a Wordpress blog here.

If you have a link to this URL, please update it to the new one.

All of the posts and comments here have been copied over, so there is no loss of anything that has been written!

The RSS link should be the same. Please let me know if you are not receiving any of my posts on the new blog in your RSS reader!

ThunderDragon.

Back in January on my own blog, I talked about an e-mail that my educational institution had sent round about potential problems with blogging. Employers can (and according to this e-mail do) find out about blogs, and this can harm employability.
To be honest, I wasn't overly convinced, and thought that there might be scaremongering:

[Blogging's] a way to express yourself. Whilst Asp Bites originally started off as a "This is what I'm doing" blog, it's developed, and now I explain my opinion on various matters constantly. Some which, it's fair to say, are controversial.
I imagine that finding a prospective employees blog can also help them get a job. A well written blog, well thought out, can show intelligence. And a hobby outside of work/study." (Asp Bites - Blogging v Employment)

What I never thought about though was the potential of criminal liability from a blog. OK, obviously if I posted the recipe to build a bomb, perhaps I would attract the attention of MI5. And yes, there's Civil Liability if I defame someone. But other than that?

Besides, most of us in the blogosphere occasionally use our blogs to let off steam. Have a rant about someone or something. We might not mention names, but whilst in full flow you might not think clearly. It appears that that now may be a problem:
This in many ways is baffling. How did the officer and his wife find the quote to take offence at? How is that sentence, on its own, menacing. Without the benefit of hearing it being said, it could even be a polite thought.

What was interesting though is that the court looked at his site as a whole in answered that latter point. They determined that "the blog was articulate, detailed, specific and critical of the police and the CPS." Therefore "any reasonable person would find the words about the baby to be menacing in the context of the overall blog." Which suggests that if we're always offensive, people are able to consider any comments directed as them as just part of the rest of tone of the blog. Dont b 'articulate' in ur posts then [sic].

When he was arrested, Brent is reported to have claimed "You can write on websites because it's freedom of speech." Which the court right decided was a load of old nonsense - there's always got to be limits. But, when directing tirades at public figures, have you considered the option that you might be able to rely on your opinion and "freedom of speech" as a defence.

It's only a decision by a magistrate's court - so there's no binding precedent. Next court could decide differently on exactly the same facts. But, it does make you think. And, perhaps, occasionally stop before hitting "submit post"...

~ Asp

The most important result of the 1 May elections, the vote to select London's Mayor for the next four years, is in.

Boris has won! Absolutely fantastic news, which rounds off a great election for the Conservatives. More than 250 councillor up, plus one London Mayor. All we're waiting on now is the final GLA seat results.

Boris didn't just win - he won convincingly. He enjoyed an 8.1% [149,884 votes] lead over Ken, with 42.5% of those cast, after the first preference votes and although more second preference votes went to Ken - by about 11,000 - all of Ken's second preference votes didn't amount to more than Boris' first preference lead.

Londoners have made their choice, and have chosen a Conservative to be the second mayor of London and, what's more, they have done so convincingly. Corks should certainly be popping in CCHQ tonight.

Now it is just up to Boris to prove to the people of London that they have selected the right person for the job.

On a far more local note, here is the Watford Observer write-up on the Three Rivers council, for which I was standing, and achieved a decent swing in my ward for the length of time that I have been the candidate. Unfortunately, the BNP gained a seat on the council.

All the England and Wales council results are in.

This has been a disaster for Labour. More than just "disappointing" but disastrous. Losing 331 councillors and 9 councils is far more than any was predicting. This is the beginning of a melt-down. And it, really, can only get worse for them. If Ken loses London as widely expected then, well, there is no denying that 1 May 2008 will go down as a catastrophic day in the history of the Labour Party. That Brown's choice of General Secretary has also refused to take up the position makes 2 May a very bad day as well.

Conversely, for the Conservatives it had an absolute triumph. A gain of 256 councillors and 12 councils, when a net gain of 10-200 was said to be the expected area, and more than 200 being champagne cork-poppingly good. And this is even better than that. A "big moment" it was. A Boris victory in London would just be the icing on the huge celebratory cake.

The Lib Dems, despite some good gains, such as Sheffield and St Albans, have utterly failed to make any real impact. They are hardly "regaining momentum", but going backwards in the face of Conservative advancement, with their share of the projected national vote falling another percentage point for the fourth year in a row. Gaining 34 councillors and 1 council is hardly any sort of real advancement. The only real redeeming factor for them is that Labour got an ever lower projected national share than they did. And of course, Paddick has about as much chance of getting elected London mayor as I do.

Labour are in meltdown. This is a fact. A loss of nearly 300 councillors is hitting the extreme panic button region.

It is official: Gordon Brown has failed at his first electoral test as leader of the Labour Party. And failed miserably. With 100 out of the 159 councils who held elections yesterday having declared, Labour is down by 162 councillors - well in to the "bad case" scenario and not far off of hitting the panic button. The worst Labour electoral result ever. And the news that should the projected national vote share for this election be repeated at a general election, the Conservatives would have a majority of 138. I think that some Labour MPs will already be reaching for the panic button...

For the Conservatives, it has been a very good set of results. Gains of 147 councillors and 8 councils, well in to the "good result" bracket, and not at all far away from a champagne-cork-popping celebration. However, we must not get complacent. There is still a looooong way to go until a general election, and Labour's vote will inevitably be higher there. We as Conservatives must show that we are the best people to govern Britain, and that Labour cannot do the job. This needs to be done through coherent and joined-up policies.

As for the Lib Dems, this is a totally unremarkable night. They've made virtually no change to their councillors or councils and their vote has dropped again, even though it is now higher than Labours.

I'm now just waiting for my results to come through. The count is starting at 9.30am, and unfortunately I can't be there as I have to work. Which is annoying.

What the big result which we are all waiting for, however, is the London Mayoral results. There appears to be a consensus among professional political commentators that Ken has lost the race. But we can just wait for the results - and hope.

It has been a good night for the Conservatives. That much is clear.

And it has been a bad night for Labour. Nothing that has happened in these local elections can be claimed to have been a good thing for Labour.

As for the Lib Dems, well, they've done nothing really. The only good thing for them is that their projected national vote share is higher than Labour's, even if it is lower than their level last year. But as for the numbers of councillors and councils, nothing has happened in any real direction for them.

It is now 3am and time for me to go to bed, as I have been up with 5.30 thing morning, delivering leaflets to try and encourage people to go out and vote [preferably Conservative, of course]. And since I have to work tomorrow as well, I need to sleep.

But I shall leave you with some predictions for the morning:

• Conservative gains will be just under 200 councillors
• Labour losses will be between 150 and 200 councillors
• Lib Dems will neither gain or lose more than 10 councillors

And WebCameron has an interesting look at the developing situation from within CCHQ - even if it is more than two hours behind time:

Michael Portillo = Twit. He's just been talking on the BBC. Since when has 44% not been a bloody good result, at any stage in the electoral cycle? I'll tell you what's not good enough, and that's Portillo. And fancy saying that Boris will be a "disaster" as Mayor!

Labour have now moved in to "very bad result" territory as they now have lost 104 council seats and England and Wales, along with two councils - especially with their lowest ever projected national vote share, of just 24%, which moves them in to third place.

How much worse can things get for Labour? Well, they could always lose the London Mayor... which most commentators seem to be predicting.

Are Labour going to end the evening in third place? The BBC are painting a picture of extrapolated national vote shares of:

Conservative: 44%
Lib Dem : 25%
Labour: 24%

This not a good evening for Labour so far. No Labourite, however rabid, can claim that it is or even that it is "as expected". It is a massive blow to them.

And very good news for the Conservatives.

It's looking good! If this sort of thing continues all night, the cork-popping mark of 200 extra Conservative councillors may well be in reach!

Today is election day. The day that many of us have worked very hard for over the last few months, myself included. Personally, I have been fighting my very first election as a candidate [see above for a photo of my ballot paper] - to become a councillor in the ward in which I live - hence the lack of posts on this blog recently. You can see the two leaflets which I have been delivering in my ward here and here, along with many others across Watford and Three Rivers.

This morning I was up by 5.30am and went on a "dawn raid" in Watford, posting leaflets through doors reminding people that today was election day and that the Conservative candidate in their ward was the one to vote for. Then, after work, I went out knocking on doors and reminding people that they could still vote until 10pm. Some gave positive responses, some just said they "don't vote". But few gave particularly negative responses, which was nice.

The polls have closed across the country, and results are expected to start flooding in soon. Hopefully we will make good progress both across the country and specifically in Watford and Three Rivers.

Watch David Cameron casting his vote below:

Ken Livingstone has called Kate Hoey "a sort of semi-detached member" of the Labour Party after she has announced that she will work as an advisor to Boris Johnson on sport and the 2012 Olympics should he be elected on Thursday.

Oh, the irony of Ken - the man who originally stood and was elected for London Mayor as an independent, against the official Labour candidate, and only brought back in because Labour wanted a winner - of referring to anyone else as "semi-detached" from the Labour Party!

Oh, the irony! You really couldn't make it up.

Climate change is one of those things that no-one* really understands. So much is written about it, on whether or not the ice caps are melting, whether the earth is heating up by a degree each year, whether their is a "scientific consensus" on it or not. And it all just goes right over my head. So I have decided something: I don't care.

I don't care if the earth is heating up by one degree or more, or less, or not at all per year.

I don't care whether or not the ice caps are melting.

I don't care if there is a scientific consensus on climate change.

I don't care whether climate change is being caused solely, mainly, partly, or only a little bit by us.

I just don't care.

And why? Because we should do the same thing regardless. We should all try to reduce our so-called "carbon footprint" anyway. We should walk or cycle rather than drive when possible; we should turn the TV off rather than leave it on stand-by [after all, how hard is it to stand up and push a button?!]; we should recycle everything that we can, from aluminium cans to plastic bottles to garden waste. And so on.

Whether or not climate change is happening and whether or not it is us who is causing it - to whatever extent. We should conserve our planet's resources and reduce the amount to which we pollute our own environment. We should not go back to the Stone Age, but try and produce our electricity in more renewable and less polluting ways, where and when possible and feasible. It is just common sense.

These things should happen and be attempted by everyone, regardless of climate change. Because even if climate change is a myth or turns out to have nowhere near the effect often predicted, our own personal environment will be cleaner and we will all be better off.

* At least anyone who doesn't claim to be a climate change scientist, anyway.

Earlier this week, I read about possible connotations from the new Office of Government Commerce logo via Law Actually. Turn it 90 degrees, and the OGC's statement that:

... [it] is not inappropriate to an organisation that's looking to have a firm grip ...

takes on an entirely different meaning.

Of course, I quickly was reminded about the problems with the 2012 logo, previously addressed on this blog. And, more recently, the logo for Progressive Governance Summit had its errors...

What is it about changing of logos that always makes people find "problems" with it (although, to be fair, it didn't take long in either of the above two examples)? Why are re-brandings so widely condemned?

Very few people liked the Conservative Tree "scribbling". BBC's news rebranding in the past week hasn't been widely supported.

There has to be an element of "We fear change". We all like what's familiar to us. And, at least as far as I'm concerned, it gets annoying.

Familiarity breeds contempt, and some people seem to sit in their little box letting life go on in its old routines. I know some people who get disturbed when the postman's on holiday. But we can't live like that.

A change is as good a break. It's refreshing. It's far too easy for things to get stagnant and outdated. St John Ambulance recently had its rebranding; and we do now have a cleaner fresher look. Uniformity across the board - yes, there's been teething problems, but by the 2012 Olympics everything will be established.
I'm not saying the new logo is perfect. But, the old one had many problems (identification of vehicles, recognised our name wasn't "Caring for Life") - and these things have been addressed in the re-working.
Modification is needed. We shouldn't fear it.

I'm not saying that some re-brandings are a waste of space. Donington Park circuit changed their logo a few years back from a Stylised sidecar in the shape of the circuit to this monstrosity.

Apparently "The two swishes in the logo are fast and modern". How it symbolises motorsport though I've no idea.

But providing it's not two slodges of paint that a 4-year-old might draw, I don't see the problem with any of these logo. Heck, I even like the London 2012 logo - modern and vibrant.

So what if people can find a connotation to them - try hard enough, you can with most things. Stop fearing change though, and ensure that branding moves forward at the same pace a technology and the world we live in.

~ Asp

You couldn't make it up: