Monday, 29 April 2013

Is more CCTV the answer?

As is normally the case I missed Full council Thursday night, I was selfishly spending time with my family and
E4 Comedy night - my one and only vice.

As usual I did diligently read through some tweets from those more dedicated than I and it appears one of my favourite subjects was debated, CCTV.

I know that within Liberal circles it is somewhat of a dirty word, an obvious tool of the state to oppress and supervise its' citizens. This myth of the uniformed guard sat watching you as you walk down the street, that you are zoomed in on and examined has sprung up. As I've said in the past (though apparently I've accidentally deleted this!!!) -This is simply untrue.

There will be a disproportionate amount of cameras to operators in the control room, wherever that is, and the human eye can only view so many screens and interest is only piqued by something out of the ordinary. Watching crowds is like watching an anchovy ball in the ocean - you know what they're up to but you can't pick out a single fish and nor should you!

There are strict procedures for Operators and codes of conduct, there is also a level of training that all operators should go on which teaches you these important laws and codes. One important one for liberals is that you cannot zoom or follow an individual unless you have serious concerns, otherwise that is harassment, even if they are a known shop lifter walking through a Mall.

The other is that you only zoom in on someone to identify then then zoom out and you NEVER zoom in on a private residence. It is not only a sackable offence but can cause you to go to prison. So it isn't the evil all seeing eye many think it is.

There is another myth that it is the ultimate crime fighting tool. This too is flawed.

I do not deny that it is wonderful for capturing information and providing evidence to the Police. I've lost count of how many Police referrals I've signed or captured after the fact.

Also, for the sharper eyed operative you can spot potential trouble brewing and get law enforcement there or on standby and defuse a potentially deadly situation.

It is a fantastic tool for manhunts with freeze frames replacing dodgy photo fits for the public and police.

The big problem is they have to be facing the right way, sometimes - especially at zoomed in or at night, they can be too grainy for an accurate fix.

The other thing is, in my professional opinion as an SIA trained CCTV operator with some three years of doing this job, it doesn't cut crime.

It is hard to measure crime that isn't committed. It may deter some opportunistic crimes or move it elsewhere but it won't stop it.

I've seen footage of drunken brawls that have nearly caused death right in front of a security camera. I've seen thefts, break ins at a clearly labelled CCTV establishment and worst of all, I've watched a drunk guy accidentally take his own life and not been able to do a damn thing about it.

Alcohol or drugs lower inhibitions and people don't think of consequences until afterwards. Yeah, there is a good chance if all factors are favourable, that a criminal can be caught and convicted on the strength of CCTV footage and maybe they they will learn from it but at the same time there are ways and means of getting around it and the evidence. It is up to the operator to prove that the person urinating on a police car is definitely you.

Although I applaud the effect the limited deployment in Luton and Wayfield, I think that we shouldn't herald it as the solution to all our problems just yet.

Sunday, 28 April 2013

Cllr Juby on Politics, Thatcher, Law and Legislation

Local Liberal Democrat Group Leader Geoff Juby's recent column in the Medway Messenger:

Love her or hate her, I think the rumblings over Lady Thatcher's funeral will resound for some time. As someone who was very badly affected by her policies in the 80s I had very little time for the lady.

Like many others who are now feeling the pinch right now, I also take a jaundiced view of the suggestion that the costs to the nation probably totalled about £10 million

However, someone is involved in politics at a national level pointed out that it was a golden opportunity for the world's foreign ministers to meet up. High level international meetings are invariably over hyped with fairly rigid set agendas, and I am wondering how many quiet private meetings took place behind the scenes with no intrusive press questions to answer.

Maybe history, or an indiscreet autobiography, will one day reveal the answer.

On a different tack, there has been enormous coverage of the consequences of the benefits cuts, but the long term effects of the cuts to legal aid will probably be far more devastating.

We Brits have always prided ourselves that justice is available to everyone, but now access to the courts will be available to the wealthy. People who have been subjected to abuse will not have any recourse to help.

There is also the question of official powers - it is a dangerous situation when anyone in any position of authority, whether council, police or official security companies under contract, can feel confident that they can't be sued for unfair treatment or false accusations.

So much is happening so quickly that I sometimes wonder how much slips through the net of publicity and we are only going to become aware of consequences when it will be too late to change legislation.

I think Geoff hits the nail on the head with his final point - the benefits changes have been brought through under the banner of "Hitting the Scroungers" gaining support from voters only to find out that they are getting hit in the pockets too. NHS needing reform, which it does, could be a back door opening to Privitisation. We all need to be careful and scrutinise what is actually being said and for the love of all that you hold Holy - Don't take your MP, Councillor or MEPs word for it... Read the stuff yourself and then decide whether you agree or not and don't get sucked into the hyperbole of the media or Political spin - go to the Source.

Five reasons to vote Libdem by Nick Clegg

So why vote Libdem in the local elections this week?

Well, Nick Clegg would and has argued this...

1. We have cancelled plans for a law which would have kept records of all the websites you visit and all the people you communicate with on social media sites - the so-called snooper's charter. The proposals were an infringement of our privacy that wouldn't have worked to make us safer, so we said no.

2. This week's GDP figures showed the economy is starting, slowly, to get stronger, as we steadily bring borrowing under control and build confidence in Britain again. Liberal Democrats in government have focused on creating jobs and opportunities, especially for young people, and our commitment to a stronger economy is pointing us in the right direction.

3. Crime is falling - again. It's one of the untold stories of this government, but crime is lower than at any time since 1981. Of course, many factors affect crime rates but I firmly believe our drive on rehabilitation and treatment in prison and in the community is paying dividends.

4. Payday comes this week for millions - the first pay cheque to benefit from our £600 tax cut. Everyone who was affected by Gordon Brown's 10p tax fiasco now pays no tax at all on their wages.

5. The Green Investment Bank issued its first guarantee this week, enabling the conversion of Drax coal-fired power station to biomass, cutting carbon, creating jobs and shifting us to a cleaner, stronger economy.

And of course, our councillors are, quite frankly, better than the others!

Look at the record of Labour and Conservative councils and you'll find shocking stories of waste and inefficiency while services local people rely on are cut. One fact is illustrative: no Lib Dem council has closed a library this year, only councils run by the other parties.

This week has shown once again that our party is essential in politics. The Conservatives can't be trusted to deliver a fair society. And Labour can't be trusted to build a stronger economy. Neither stands up for the liberty of our citizens. Only Liberal Democrats fight for a stronger economy and a fairer society, enabling everyone to get on in life.

Saturday, 27 April 2013

Snoopers bill overturned and Nick Clegg's comment

I hailed the news of the defeat of the Snoopers charter with great relief.

I know the counter argument for the measures were to combat terrorism etc but the bill went to far. Keeping tabs of how everyone used Social networks, the websites you visit, the people you have been emailing...

Just seems far too draconian. After all I do a lot of reading about the German Airforce and the Third Reich which could lead those who do not know my interests to misguidely peg me as a Nazi or racist.

Also, with the checks on emails I'd ask this; How would you feel about the government keeping tabs on who you send letters too?

Yes, there are paedophille websites and Terrorist/Extremist websites out there that need to be watched but can't the sites be moinitered for who goes there rather than everyones?

We should be free of action and state monitering UNTIL we do something wrong.

Any way, here is what Nick Clegg had to say to Lib Dem party members in an email.

Today I’ve made clear that the Liberal Democrats will not support what people have dubbed a “Snoopers’ Charter” – a new Government law which means there would be a record kept of every website you visit and details of who you communicate with on social media sites.

In the Coalition Agreement we committed to ‘ending the storage of email and internet records without good reason’, moving away from Labour’s database state. But this proposal wouldn’t meet that test: expanding the collection of personal data without a solid justification for doing so, and without allaying concerns about the workability of these changes.

There is always a careful balance to strike between security and individual liberty and I have always agreed that we must help our law enforcement agencies keep up with the challenge of policing in the internet age – like the technical issue of what to do when there are more mobile devices with not enough IP addresses to go round.

But the idea of a wider Bill didn’t get the balance right. It would have been neither proportionate nor workable and would not have enjoyed widespread support in Parliament or across the country at large.
The police provide an invaluable service and we should give them our support to get on with fighting crime at every level. But the proposals on the table were not the right solution and will not go ahead.

Thursday, 25 April 2013

I Partially agree with Vince on Government and Council spending

In last week's Medway Messenger, Vince Maple, leader of the Medway Labour group wrote this in his
Labour leader, Councillor and all round good guy Vince Maple

Politics, local or national, is ultimately about priorities. When you have a limited amount of resources you have to decide about what is the priority. I think we have seen in the last few weeks the clearest indication of where the Tories' priorities lie.

Since my last Party People column, we have seen some changes in Welfare and taxation, which show the priorities of the Tory led Coalition and have been implemented by the Tory councillors here in Medway.

We have seen the bedroom
Tax, which is impacting on vulnerable people including the disabled, who are now having income deducted because they may need an additional room for their medical treatment.

More than 14,000 Medway residents, including disabled residents, those who are seeking work and those hard working on low incomes, would have received a council tax bill they simply cannot afford.

Many people are calling this the Pickles poll tax, named after Eric Pickles, the Tory Local Government secretary of state, who was happy to claim £280 expenses for his monthly food bill from the tax payer, but is now forcing literally thousands of residents in Medway to make the impossible choice between buying food or paying their council tax bill.

So what is the priority for the government if they are making these changes?

A tax cut for millionaires. Yes, at the same time as these changes we see people who are earning £1m getting a tax cut of £100,000 - hardly all of us in it together.

It is quite clear to me that when it comes to the choices and changes to be made, the Tories and their Lib Dems partners have got their priorities wrong.

I must say I agree with a lot of what he said however this was my response which was sent through to the Messenger and published today.

 I partially agree with what Vince Maple said in his Party People column last week.
The changes to the Welfare system and the Bedroom tax is and will have a serious impact on Medway's residents who are struggling by on low incomes or solely on benefits due to a lack of suitable work.

Further to that, families like mine are caught by the council's priorities. Cuts and funding changes to our local Sure-start centre have been announced and that my young son will not be accepted to nursery until next year. This means my wife cannot return to work and I will have to try and support my wife and two children on already stretched wages. At the same time the council is pumping money into the tunnel and an open top tour bus!

However I do disagree with his final point that the Libdems in government have their priorities wrong. Since joining the Tories in 2010 they have given free nursery places to two year olds, cut income tax on the first £10k earned a massive boon to Medway's residents, index linked state pensions, frozen fuel duties and have been fighting for a mansion tax for many years targeting the rich to support the poor.

The libdems, especially locally, are working hard for those in need against the cuts - believe me, I'm one of them!

Medway Council cuts negatively impact children and families

Ollie & Sophie
I've been becoming more and more disillusioned with the cuts and removal of services over recent years.

What started as efficiency savings and the trimming of dead and dying wood was necessary. However as time has gone by the cuts have gone to deep and with misdirection of the banner of attacking the "benefit scroungers" they are starting to attack those who genuinely need it.

Local Labour leader Vince Maple talked about governing bodies having different priorities in his recent article for the Medway Messenger and how they choose to act. He especially criticised the ruling Conservatives locally and nationally for their choices of where the axe should fall.

For example, and this is a personal example, Medway's conservatives have changed the way money goes into Sure Start centres which equates to a severe cut to their budgets.

Many of my regular readers will know that I have two children; Sophie (2 and 11 months) and Oliver (9 months) and my wife was getting ready to go back to work around the end of July. We'd put Ollie's name down and were waiting for the green light.

Last Saturday we received a letter saying that the centre would no longer be accepting children under two years old!

There has been talk of staff numbers being cut and the current staff, all of whom are excellent, having to reapply for their posts. A meeting has been called to discuss the changes and how it will effect services.

However, the big problem is, IF we can't get Ollie into a nursery then Sam cannot go back to work and our household income is cut by a third. It would be an impossibility for the four of us to exist on my wages alone what with utilities, council tax, rail fare and even food prices all rising.

Serious choices would need to be made and we might have to pull Sophie out of nursery all together, which could be bad for her development. Further to that choices will need to be made regarding power, water even food and heating in the winter. Our already cold house may have to become devoid of all heat in the winter save for low heat on the bedroom heaters which will impact all of our health, just so that we can get by.

In this times it would be reasonable to turn to the state for help but with the new welfare reforms can we expect much assistance?

What I am struggling to understand is that the Coalition are trying to get people back into work and supporting those who aspire and work hard. However thanks to, frankly, fiscal mismanagement, the local Conservative council have put a few people out of work and effectively blocking others from returning to their jobs and possibly forcing people to look at benefits?

It is nonsensical.

My family have always worked, we've never taken anything we haven't been entitled to and we live with in our means. The very epitome of what this Government is trying to encourage and yet we're being kicked in the nuts - and not just us but also the other families who have applied and the staff at the centre which will have a knock on effect on the development of the other children.

Thanks a bunch.

Tuesday, 23 April 2013

Stop your dogs messing our parks

Some would say I write a lot of crap on this blog. Some may be right.
However today, instead of writing crap I'd like to write about it, namely dog mess.

A while back I wrote about spitting in the street in comparison to allowing dogs to foul the pavement and since then I have started to pay a lot more attention to both in my daily life.

Usually I trundle along in my Apple sponsored bubble listening to loud 90s music or surfing the net trying to build the family tree yet some how manage to get home on autopilot. I'd only ever notice befoulment if I skidded in it and after cursing loudly go looking for a puddle or patch of grass.

It does seem to be fairly common on the streets of Medway, not as much as it was when I was a child but still too much.

This Sunday I went to Gillingham park with my family and was horrified when a little dog scurried past is and proceeded to relieve itself all of a metre from where we were having a picnic by the railings next to the play area!

I looked around for the owner who had conveniently turned their back having seen what was happening.

if I can't see it, it isn't happening

I looked around the park and just beyond the tea & ice-cream van was a red bin. So what was the excuse?

Anyone who has toddlers knows that no matter how much you watch them there will come a moment where you have to take your eye off them and in that split second they can move with exceptional speed. Usually into what they are not meant to!

I have no wish for Ollie or Sophie to play in crap and I'm sure you wouldn't want your children either. It is the most unsanitary thing and can cause blindness or worse.

The same is true for those parents who sit on the benches in the play area smoking, even though the sign asks you not to, and F-ing and blinding. I totally respect your freedom of speech but I don't want my two year old absorbing that language, also I want her little lungs to stay as clean as possible.

So, what are the solutions?

Well, unfortunately there are none. The only people to blame are those being inconsiderate and ask them to take responsibility for their actions. You could station a Community support officer at each park or every corner dictating the law but that is problematic.

We're all adults and part of a community. You wouldn't like it if I came and left a big pile of poo in your garden so why let your dog do it?

Saturday, 13 April 2013

Linkin Park "Numb"

This kind of sums up how I'm feeling about a few things at the moment...

I won't explain why, but those who know will know what I mean.

Wednesday, 10 April 2013

Cameron, Trident and North Korea

I thought on the day that is timetabled as the end of the world and the day Kim-Jung Un orders his men to march south, that I'd write a small piece on why David Cameron was wrong about Trident being a good thing going into this possible conflict and why ultimately it doesn't make any difference.

Nuclear weaponry is something that the world wishes it could un-invent. One of the reasons the Allies pushed to coming up with an atomic bomb was just to act as a deterrent to the Axis powers having them and maybe starting the cold war early. The problem was the Germans hadn't the materials or means to deliver such a weapon and little real understanding of what the device would be. One scientist told Feldmarschall Milch of the Luftwaffe that an atomic bomb would be about the size of a pineapple!

When it came to bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki the Allies only dropped the bombs to demonstrate to the Russians the power and awe that they had harnessed. Don't believe the argument that it shortened the war and saved the landing of troops as the USAAF, RAF, RAAF, RCAF and VVS all had enough munitions, aircraft and personnel to blast Japan back to the stone age with a lengthened aerial bombardment, the kind of firestorms and brute force that had been meted out to Germany's cities like Hamburg, Ulm, Dresden and Berlin.

The same is now true for North Korea. The UN and NATO have access to such a vast air fleet of strike aircraft, should North Korea go to start a war then within three days complete aerial supremacy could be attained. Don't be fooled, the CIA has got enough information on North Korea to properly assess their nuclear capabilities and their military strength and locations. This is no Cuban missiles crisis, nor the Balkans tensions in the late 90s when Russia and the West squared off over an airfield.

Nor is this a case of the Eastern bloc facing Democracy. The Warsaw pact powers no longer exist. Only China stands behind North Korea and they would back away should nukes start flying around the place!

Kim-Jung Un's nuclear delivery is really quite limited with only South Korea, Japan and maybe Guam falling in range. Though there are bigger rockets under development that could be used against Australia, Los Angeles and San Francisco they are far from ready.

As for Great Britain's contribution? Well last week David Cameron smugly stated that it was for moments like this it was a good thing we still had Trident.


The USA still has a massive arsenal of ICBMs and Stealth bombers able to launch from American soil and deliver a nuclear blast into down town Pyongyang.

What would they want our small fleet of submarines for?

England isn't under direct threat and our small amount of nuclear power would be a drop in the ocean compared to what America can fire.

The nation would be better off scrapping an obsolete relic of the cold war and investing the money into our ailing economy and job creation.

Monday, 8 April 2013

The passing of an icon - please show respect

Margaret Thatcher was a divisive figure in British politics and history. She will leave a mixed legacy and will be remembered differently by different people.

I was still at Primary School when she was deposed and John Major replaced her. I remember a few of us, at the age of 9 talking about who wouldst replace her and the favourite at the time was Michael Hesseltine.

At times like this it is easy for people to only remember the good and the achievements and not be balanced. The same is true for Churchill, remembered as a great war leader, not for his failings at Gallipoli and the Gold standard that caused the General Strike. Will Thatcher be remembered for her patriotism, her iron will and her Churchillian defence of the Falkland islands?

Or will she be milk snatcher, miners bane, poll taxer or privatiser?

I know that her policies had a nasty effect on mining communities and the privatisation of British industry and services has had a mixed results but as rail and utility fees working people are feeling the bite. There are people with a lot of anger and hatred for the Iron lady.

However, today is not the day to spout hatred or to celebrate in her death.

Someone's mother and Grandmother has just died, as well as a historic British icon and heroine to others. Let the family mourn and show some respect for the dead.

History will judge Margaret Thatcher's and although it is worth giving a balanced view and not get to caught up in hero worship let's keep it respectful and allow the family to grieve.

Sunday, 7 April 2013

Greg Mulholland to disestablish CofE???

Imagine my surprise last night, when I was leafing through the Evening Standard on the train home, and discovered that Greg Mulholland (Lib Dem MP for Leeds North West) is taking the first steps to disestablishing the
Church of England.

Er.... Are you sure Chris?

Afraid so. If you don't believe me the whole article was reproduced in the Huffingdon post.

To go into greater detail it isn't as bad as it sounds.

One of the most divisive parts of the introduction of Gay marriage has been the fact that basically the state is perceived as ordering Religious leaders to make it so and dictating rules on what people had to believe.

One of the problems that many probably had with the proposition of equal marriage was that the state was effectively telling them that their beliefs were wrong and correcting the word of God rather than any deep seated Homophobic views or hatred. The British government has no right to tell Muslims, Catholics or even Church of England what they can believe.

I know some scions of the Christian Church still view homosexuality as wrong or sinful and although, I personally have a more enlightened approach I cannot tell them that their interpretation of the scriptures and Bible are wrong. After all the freedom to practise your own spirituality and beliefs is one of the cores of Liberalism - as long as it isn't being actively used to persecute and restrict the freedoms of the Gay community.

So we reach an impasse of what is more important - something Greg has stressed in this online press release on the subject.

He states:

I also want to make it clear that, as a liberal, I do also believe that it should be up to each faith and belief based organisation to decide for themselves what they believe marriage to mean and who it should be open to. I also do believe that the current situation, where same sex couples in civil partnerships lack some of the rights of civil married opposite sex couples (notably on partner's pension rights) is not equal or fair and must be addressed.

Which I think is something we can all agree with.

It further makes sense that you should secularise civil and state marriages and leave them as a wholly
civil/state controlled affair.

I am a little shaky on the removal of the clause that means adultery can be used as grounds for divorce but lets see how that plays out.

This isn't the end of the Church of England, nor is it a great secularisation of State and marriage, rather a way of encouraging equality for married couples, no matter what your orientation, and giving religious bodies the right to practise their beliefs and definitions of marriage as they see fit. How can this be a problem?

Religion is not as big a part of a significant part of the nation's life anymore, unless you are dying or there is a major sporting event on and for many marriage is about the committing as a couple rather than before God. Attitudes have changed as well over the last fifty years and now Homosexuality is considered, and rightly so, as the norm where as my Grandad was a policeman at the time it was illegal and was involved in arrests!

Greg's motion is something that should definitely be considered and is the best liberal answer to a groundbreaking move within politics and society to finally make people equal in marriage. It is hardly the first step in disestablishing the C of E, but giving them the freedom to practise their beliefs without interference from the State.

Saturday, 6 April 2013

Catitonia: Mulder and Scully

Continuing my mid-life crisis and digging up music from my teenage years I thought of this song.

This takes me back to Sixth form days and the summer of 98 sitting about the common room playing Star Wars CCG - I never said I was cool!

Or sitting in my mate Tim's car in the carpark chillaxing to tunes.

ah... where have those days gone?

Still! Enjoy!!!

Friday, 5 April 2013

Defection, politics, turncoats and Benedict Arnold

Benedict Arnold is one of the most maligned figures in History.

Having been a very able commander within the American Colonial army, performing heroically during the campaign in Canada and then again in combatting General John Burgoyne at the battle of Saratoga you would have thought him a celebrated hero.

However he will always be linked to the act of treason at Westpoint and the death of Major John Andre in 1780.

Vexed with the way that the Colonial cause was being conducted, a growing fear and concern with how the country was to run after England had been repulsed. As the war went on he felt he had been maligned and forgotten by the Commander in chief, so Arnold began to look to the British cause and it all became clear.

British victory was in everyone's best interest. By surrendering Westpoint to General Clinton or providing them with the means to take it easily meant the British could gain the upper hand in the New York sector of the war.

Of course his cunning scheme went astray and following the capture of Major Andre, the British officer who'd been Arnold's go between, he was forced to flee to the British fleet and was eventually carried back to London, never to set foot in the US again.

He was viewed with disdain by the Americans and British who saw him as a turn coat who had offered his services for money and rank. Traitor, turncoat and dishonoured.

In there lies a lesson for defectors.

Every cause can faulter, everyone loses faith at one time or another, it is only natural.

Then again some causes are just plain lost and nothing you do or any amount of hard work you put in will come to fruition. It is then that you need to ask yourself some searching questions about the course you are set on.

Take for example, a hypothetical defection from the Libdems to Labour and dear reader, please don't read too much into this.

Nationally you could never agree with Ed, you still believe in liberal ideals and the hard work that Nick have put in (well most of it!) BUT locally they are the only opposition to a Conservative council that you think is mismanaging things.

Can you do what you said you would never do?

Of course it depends on your motivations. If election and power are your sole aim then, like Arnold, you will be seen for who you really are and treated accordingly.

If, at your heart, you do it to represent your community, to fight the perceived injustices, then surely that is a good thing?

Of course as long as you can swallow your principles for the local good, is it not just abandoning a sinking ship to try and achieve the same goals under a different banner?

Or is it better to stand on the deck as the water creeps up your ankle?

It is a decision that no one should take lightly, a decision that should be thought through thoroughly and not rushed. After all the second example should be respected more than the first though like Arnold, once you've left you can never go back and some bridges can never be unburnt, for you will always be a turncoat.

Thursday, 4 April 2013

Cllr Juby: Where is our money safe?

Cllr Geoff Juby's recent column in the Medway Messenger:

The recent crisis in Cyprus, where the more you save the more you lose seems to be called
for by the EU, is putting another nail in the coffin for ordinary people who struggle all their working lives to save for retirement, only to find that their savings are practically worthless.  At the moment it seems that if you are elderly you either have to have a very large savings pot, or none at all. Too many people find that their savings are not giving additional income because of low interest rates, yet they are deprived of benefits because they have a few pounds put by for a rainy day. We are trying to encourage young people to make independent pension arrangements, but what incentives are there for them?

We used to trust our banks, but events over the last few years mean that anyone with decent savings has to juggle money so that if a bank goes bust they don’t lose too much, and now we have the added worry that governments might just decide to help themselves to our cash to pay off debts which were partly incurred by bailing out the banks in the first place.

  Whatever budget steps are taken it always seem that the very rich seem to be protected (like the reduction to 45% tax on high earners). Small local businesses fold because business rates are at an unsustainable level for all except the massive high street chains. They force down the prices they pay for goods to a level which enables them to crowd out independent retailers and still return massive profits.

We can no longer trust in money investment in property, small business enterprise or gold – we will all end  up keeping our rapidly devaluing twenty quid notes under mattresses!