This news is baffling. We have used the Telephone Preference Service to opt out of receiving sales calls. This opt-out appears to have had no effect whatsoever. Still the calls come. A page on the telephone preference website explains that this registration does not protect you from silent calls. Why? What is the difference between a sales call and an attempted sales call which fails? Elsewhere the telephone preference service apologises that "The Telephone Preference Service are happy to offer a complaint handling service as a value added service, however we are not the body responsible for enforcement and we are unable to take action against companies complained about". The Telephone Preference Service shares an address with the Direct Marketing Association. It says: "No money is received from the Government to run the Service, the direct marketing industry pays for it."

So to summarise: the Direct Marketing industry pays for a junk call opt-out service which

a) doesn't work
b) they don't enforce
c) doesn't stop "silent calls"

Ofcom already allows 3% of marketing calls to be silent calls, we are told. This is an amazing fact. Again: why? What on earth justifies a sales company phoning a random number and then letting the line go dead? Imagine that you are an elderly person, whose phone doesn't ring very often. You cross the room to answer a ringing phone. Then silence. It is spooky, it is upsetting. If a teenager did it, you would think them weird, "abusive". Done by a large corporation, apparently, it is OK.

Ofcom - we are told - is "considering" fining Carphone Warehouse. CW has until December to "make representations". My hunch is that CW will spend several tens of thousands of pounds in executive time simply preparing their case. How much can Ofcom fine them? £50,000 maximum. It is a pathetic gesture, given the vast quantities of calls that are being made in this way.

Favourite quote:

Allocate your fear properly
When it comes to building a web app, some things create more fear than they should…

Fear: We must sound serious
Truth: Trying to sound serious all the time makes you bland and unremarkable. It’s ok to be playful and have personality.

Robert Unwin = comedy God

Heads.

The customer service Sony Ericsson provide is scandalously poor.

Since I rely on contacts synchronisation to do my job, my phone is now officially a piece of junk.

My next mobile phone will be made by someone else.

The increasing power of both groups spell problems for Bush and Blair. The Shias are likely (though not certain) to become satellites of Iran. An independent Kurdish state will alarm NATO member Turkey and may provoke separate unrest in the North. What happens to the Sunni rump is less clear, though the Saudis over the border may well want to guarantee the safety of their co-religionists.

This is the bill for the invasion of Iraq. If you were generous you might say that this invasion was poorly thought through. If you were not you might say it was mendacious (the casus belli was fudged, or faked, depending on your level of cynicism), it was bungled (dismissing the entire, fully armed Iraqi army was a particular blunder), and it was corrupt (the no-bid award of the logistics contract to Vice President Cheney's friends at Halliburton springs to mind). So far it has absolutely failed to deliver on its broader goal of delivering a) a pluralistic democracy in Iraq; b) a wider peace in the Middle East; c) secure oil supplies.

Where do we go from here? Well, we have to stick it out. We have to contain the fall-out from this civil war. We have to work with the democrats and oppose the extremists.

On 2 June, I received a "Sorry, you were out..." card at my house in Canada Water, SE16. Usually, Royal Mail delivers these when I am actually in, because they hardly ever bother to ring the doorbell. However, on this occasion I was genuinely out. So, all OK thus far. First problem was that the sorting office listed on the back of the card was in Streatham, SW18 1QA. Usually, I would collect parcels from Mandela Way (formerly Spa Road) myself, because on every single occasion I have ever arranged a redelivery, the parcel has not turned up, and I have had to phone Royal Mail to find out where it is. However, because Streatham is a good half an hour away by train, I decided to ask for a redelivery. Of course, when I tried to call the redelivery line, no one answered. I tried 2-3 times a day for about a week, each time letting the phone ring until the line went dead (sometimes after about 30 minutes - I have a speakerphone, thank God). Eventually, I decided to travel to Streatham because the parcel in question contained materials I desperately needed for work (and still need, though we'll come to that later). Notwithstanding a recent foot injury, which left me barely able to walk, I was reluctant to go because the Streatham office seemed too far away to affect me like this - a good half an hour by train - but of course, I had no way of establishing where the parcel actually was without turning up in person (it was a 'Special Delivery', by the way, so I was later able to establish its last location by contacting the sender). When I finally hobbled into Streatham's sorting office yesterday (19 June), I was told - quelle surprise - that I should be at Mandela Way. "Why didn't you call the redelivery line?" the woman behind the counter asked. When I managed to control my breathing and explain the situation, she seemed genuinely apologetic, though not for the lack of anyone answering the Streatham redelivery line, of course. So, I got back on the train and went to Mandela Way. There, one of the staff told me that the parcel had definitely arrived, but that he couldn't find it. "Can I speak to your supervisor?" I asked. "No, I'm sorry, he's not here," came the reply. It was about 2.30pm. "Why isn't he here?" I asked, eyeing the TV behind the counter that was blaring out a World Cup match. The man shrugged. "The managers finish at 1pm," he said. He then took my mobile phone number and promised that a manager would call me the following day (today). "I'd really rather wait," I said. "Because, with all due respect, people at Royal Mail have said they will call me back before, and they never have." He shrugged again and said there was no alternative. It's almost 5pm, I've yet to receive any phone call and I'm not holding my breath. So far, I have "only" wasted about a day on this, although I am now running late on the work in question. In aggregate, over the past few years, I would estimate that I've wasted weeks over post problems. Would anyone consider joining me in a class-action law suit for loss of earnings? As far as I am concerned, the day Royal Mail finally collapses and is replaced with a competitive market place that isn't so heavily unionised, Britain should rejoice.

Poor guy! Woe betide the post office when competition is introduced.

It's not just the maundering voice of Mark Lawrenson, telling you that the losing team could improve their defending, or the epically moronic Mick McCarthy (come back Roy Keane, all is forgiven) ... it's the games themselves.

They just really haven't been, well, very exciting really, have they?

Is this the impact of all the good players in the world leaving South America and Africa and Asia to come to Europe and play for serious money in the Champions' League? (So that all the variety of footballing approaches disappears, everyone learns to play the "European" way, even Togo) Is it the impact of a much bigger competition, with a larger quantity of frankly no-hope sides? Is it that I am forgetting the duff games of yesteryear?

I don't know, but the fact remains, one Argentinian wonder-goal aside, this World Cup has been pretty thin stuff.

UK planning laws are onerous and unpredictable.

Developers are encumbered by planning guidelines, which insist (in Greater London) that for every dwelling they build to sell, they must build one for social housing. The result is that new housing starts have slowed to a trickle.

According to official figures 71% of Britain's 21.6m dwellings are owner-occupied. 11% are privately rented. Of the remaining 18%, 11% are local authority rented and 8% are registered social landlords.

Why the stipulation on developers to build 50% social housing?

Mayor Ken Livingstone would argue that it is because council housing stock is under-supplied, so that there is a shortage of affordable homes. Yet the policy of forcing developers to build 50% of social housing has effects which are diametrically the opposite of what the policy is ostensibly designed to achieve.

It cuts the supply of new housing, ramping up demand and the consequent house price inflation.

In her excellent survey of Britain's housing needs for HM Treasury Kate Barker observes:

* In 2001, around 175,000 houses were built in the UK – the lowest level since the second world war. And over the past ten years, the number of new houses built has been 12.5% lower than in the previous decade.

* Over the last 30 years, UK house prices went up by 2.4% a year in real terms – compared to the EU average of 1.1%. In Germany it was 0.0% and in France 0.8%. Latest evidence suggests the trend rate of house price growth has increased to 2.7% over the last 20 years.

The answer to the housing problem is to free developers from the cumbersome planning constraints imposed locally and at regional level, to create a presumption in favour of development and to put the onus on the local authority to demonstrate that development should not take place, where serious risks can be demonstrated.

This reform however, is opposed by two groups: the Left, who wish to retain the power of patronage offered by control of social housing, and the middle classes, who oppose developments that disturb their neighbourhoods and bring down the value of their property.

It is worth rehearsing Kate Barker's conclusions:

Taking as the baseline the level of private sector build in 2002/03 (140,000 gross starts and 125,000 gross completions) it is estimated that:

An increase in supply of social housing of 17,000 homes each year is required to meet newly arising need. Making inroads into the backlog of the most needy, coupled with the Report’s range of future price scenarios, mean that up to 23,000 additional social homes per annum would be required. These scenarios imply additional investment, building up to £1.2 (and £1.6 billion respectively), not all of which should necessarily come from Government.

The implications of this are that the market requires 120,000 privately-sold properties and 40,000 socially-let property a year to redress the balance. Mr. Livingstone's 50% social housing stipulation should be reduced to 25%.