Category: learning curve

10 years II – The Big South African Pool Cleaner Export Ban Explanation (sort of)

Posted on

Remember this post – where I suggested that the penalties for the seemingly innocuous crime of exporting a pool cleaner (or bits thereof) from the Republic of South Africa seemed rather harsh? (Not as harsh as those proposed for the proposed Severe Weather Warning Law,  at least in financial terms, but still pretty nasty.)

In terms of the section 2 of the Import and Export Control Act of 1989 (Act 45 of 1983), it is illegal to export Automatic Pool Cleaners and parts thereof. Section 4 of the Act provides that anyone convicted of exporting Automatic Pool Cleaners and parts thereof may be sentenced to a 10 (ten) year term of imprisonment and a fine of R40 000 (forty thousand rand).

Well, a lawyer read that post and she kindly did some background reading for us in a lawyer library place. I can’t make this bit sound particularly exciting I’m afraid, because it actually isn’t, but it is interesting and it is provided as a public service for Lisl who commented on the original about taking a small shark to Scotland.

Herewith a legal take on that warning on the box (which begins with the word “so”, but hey, you can’t have everything):

So, first off, the Act is wrongly cited – it is Act 45 of 1963, not 1983, which somehow makes a little more sense.

Secondly, the (ancient) Act does provide for the R40K or ten years’ imprisonment or both, but it’s a general section. In other words, it’s a section covering import and export generally – it doesn’t mention the specific goods which it covers. The Act itself does not mention the specific goods it covers, they will have been decided by the Minister:

“(1) The Minister may, whenever he deems it necessary or expedient in the public interest, by notice in the Gazette prescribe that no goods of a specified class or kind or no goods other than goods of a specified class or kind-

(a) shall be imported into the Republic; or

(b) shall be imported into the Republic, except under the authority of and in accordance with the conditions stated in a permit issued by him or by a person authorized by him; or

(c) shall be exported from the Republic; or

(d) shall be exported from the Republic, except under the authority of and in accordance with the conditions stated in a permit issued by him or by a person authorized by him.”

So the penalties would have been intended for export and import contraventions of a far more serious nature. Quite how the Automatic Pool cleaners got onto the list, I have no idea, but at least we know that the penalties were not instituted with pool cleaners in mind.

Act 45 of 1963 has been repealed in its entirety. I have absolutely no idea what Act is being referred to by ‘Import and Export Control Act of 1989’ – I can find no such act (not to mention, it’s nonsensical to refer to a 1989 Act and then cite, wrongly, a 1983 Act in brackets straight after it). The 1963 Act was repealed by a 2002 Act which is long and complicated, and sadly I don’t have the time to see whether pool cleaners make an appearance in terms of that Act. I doubt it.

In short, the packaging needs some work. At the very least, it cites the legislation incorrectly. At worst (and I will try to confirm this on another day!) it refers to legislation neither in force nor incorporated into current legislation. Does that help?

This all sounded very interesting to me (like The Bold And The Beautiful), but I understood very little of it (like The Bold And The Beautiful). Time for me to put it into layman’s terms then:

OK. Basically as I understand it, Automatic pool cleaners and parts thereof [APCs (apt)] were banned from import and export in 1963 (although they weren’t), 11 years before they were invented. Forethought.
So it doesn’t exist and if it did exist, it doesn’t anymore and even if it did exist and doesn’t anymore, it doesn’t/didn’t refer to APCs (apt).

So this is complete BS? In which case, why are they printing it on the side of their boxes?

I don’t get it and I don’t like things I don’t get.

This is why we need legal people. To find out what the other legal people have done/are doing wrong.

Oh, and why are Katie and Bill bickering about who Hope should be with?

To which I got this reply (again beginning with “so”):

Sort of. The legislation will have come into effect in 1963, or shortly thereafter. The Minister will have announced (presumably because it was ‘necessary or expedient in the public interest’) by notice in a Government Gazette that APC’s were of a kind or class etc to be covered by this section. For present purposes I will assume that, astounding as the South African government’s powers of fortune-telling were in 1963, this GG notice was made post the invention of APC’s.

I suspect that given the Kreepy Krauly is a South African invention, one of which (I’m told) we are very proud, the motivation to provide protection under this section was a result of the fact that intellectual property protection was in its infancy. Nowadays a patent would suffice but I’m pretty sure enforcement of international patents at that stage was a far trickier business. Adding it to the list of goods closely controlled for export and import purposes would have given the SA govt some control over the invention. That’s my guess anyway.

As to why they are still printing it on the side of boxes, yeah, you’ve got me there. Habit?

It is possible that APCs are still covered by current legislation and the legislative reference has just not been updated. But as I said, I doubt it.

So there you have it. A legal eagle suggests that you will possibly get away with exporting APCs (apt) from South Africa. I have her name and contact details should you need bailing out of the cells at Edinburgh Airport. That said, as she is a lawyer, this will cost you an arm and a leg, so maybe you’d be better just showing them this post and they’ll let you go. Note that this might not happen as my word has surprisingly little influence in Scotland, where they have only just mastered the basic vowel sounds.

Thanks @MingBean

I shall be quiet tomorrow

Posted on

That’s because I’m using my last R4 of Vodacom airtime to post this. Tomorrow, back in range, I shall revert to my MTN SIM and contract cellphone usage.
And then, tomorrow evening, back in Cape Town, I shall revert to the wonder of broadband internet.
Who ever said that this place wasn’t civilised? (Although if you could safely drink the tap water, it would help)

Blogging by other people

Posted on

This is great. While I’ve been out of the rhythm of writing blog posts and everyone else has been out of the rhythm of reading them, suggestions for blog posts have been coming in by email, facetube and twitter. It’s almost like you guys actually want me to write some stuff.

Do ya miss me? Huh? Do ya?

One such suggestion came from the UK, from an anaesthesiologist (I think that’s what she does, anyway?) and involved a retrospective cohort study, conducted in Australia, asking – after Amy Winehouse’s untimely but not entirely unexpected death and the fuss over the “27 Club” – whether 27 was really a dangerous age for famous musicians.

Of course, this isn’t the first time that Australian scientists have pondered important questions in the BMJ using cohort studies. Who could forget the seminal research of Lim et al at an Australia research institute back in 2005, investigating the disappearance of teaspoons from er… an Australian research institute?

This 2011 paper on the 27 Club (or, as it appears, the lack of it), comes from Adrian Barnett and others from Queensland University of Technology and uses complex statisical methods to analyse the mortality rate of musicians who had number 1 hits (albums) in the UK between 1956 and 2007 and compare them to the mortality rate amongst the general UK population. During this period 71 (7%) of the musicians died.

The sample included crooners, death metal stars, rock ‘n’ rollers and even Muppets (the actors, not the puppets). The total follow-up time was 21,750 musician years.

The authors used mathematical analysis to determine the significance of age 27. They found no peak in the risk of death at this age, however musicians in their 20s and 30s were two to three times more likely to die prematurely than the general UK population.

The research team found some evidence of a cluster of deaths in those aged 20 to 40 in the 1970s and early 1980s. Interestingly, there were no deaths in this age group in the late 1980s and the authors speculate that this could be due to better treatments for heroin overdose, or the change in the music scene from the hard rock 1970s to the pop dominated 1980s.

The authors conclude that the “27 club” is based on myth, but warn that musicians have a generally increased risk of dying throughout their 20s and 30s. They say: “This finding should be of international concern, as musicians contribute greatly to populations’ quality of life, so there is immense value in keeping them alive (and working) as long as possible.”

Their frame of reference begins with Frank Sinatra’s Songs for Swingin’ Lovers! on 28 July 1956 (dead), and continues through to Leona Lewis’ Spirit on 18 November 2007 (sadly still with us). However, as with any research, it has its limitations:

Our sampling scheme only captured three of the seven most famous 27 club members), as one fell outside our time period (Robert Johnson, who died in 1938), and three did not have a number one UK album (Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, and Jim Morrison).

Although we only captured three of the seven famous 27 club members, we did capture seven Muppets.

I can hardly wait to see what Australian statistical research provides us with in December 2017.

Thanks Lynn.

The 5 Best Toys Of All Time

Posted on

At a time when parents start panicking about Christmas gifts for the young ones, please enjoy this review of “The 5 Best Toys Of All Time” on Wired.com.

Here at GeekDad we review a lot of products — books, toys, gadgets, software — and I know it’s impossible for most parents to actually afford all of the cool stuff that gets written up. Heck, most of us can’t afford it either, and we’re envious of the person who scored a review copy of a cool board game or awesome gizmo. (Disclosure: that person is probably me.) So while we love telling you about all the cool stuff that’s out there, I understand that as parents we all have limited budgets and we sometimes need help narrowing down our wishlists.

So to help you out, I’ve worked really hard to narrow down this list to five items that no kid should be without. All five should fit easily within any budget, and are appropriate for a wide age range so you get the most play out of each one. These are time-tested and kid-approved! And as a bonus, these five can be combined for extra-super-happy-fun-time.

I went into the article, ready to disagree with some American subjective approach. I came out understanding and concurring with just about every word he wrote. “GeekDad” Jonathan Liu brings us a sobering reminder that childhood doesn’t have to be all about PS3, LeapPads and Wii.

His list – complete with reasoned argument for each entry – reads as follows:

  1. Stick
  2. Box
  3. String
  4. Cardboard tube
  5. Dirt

And yes, he’s correct, although I’d also possibly have ball, bucket, river, vuvuzela & rubber chicken on standby.

He’s even followed it up with another article, in which he rates water as the Sixth Best Toy Of All Time, pipping “rock”, “bubble-wrap”, “ball” and “tape” to the post. It’s worth a read.

New Pet Peeve

Posted on

This one’s pretty simple: people taking video of school events on iPads (or any other 10″ tablet, for that matter).

We all like to have a visual record of our children’s school shows. Hell, I’m there like a bear with my camera and the good old Sony camcorder, frantically recording each and every moment for posterity and my son’s 21st birthday party.
But here’s the thing – I don’t have a massive camera. It fits right in front of my face. The camcorder is even smaller – palm of your hand job. It could almost be used for covert surveillance – assuming that the person you were surveilling had some degree of visual impairment. My point is this – it doesn’t get in anyone else’s way. And that allows them to take photos and videos of their child, singing their heart out about some allegedly Wise Men chasing a comet.

Not so, the iPad. Like a Bishop’s Boy, it can’t wait to tell you that it is an iPad and – this year, for the first time – it can’t wait to get in your way when you want to watch your kid’s Christmas production:

Hold it up a bit higher, love – some people can still see past it!

The weather was terrible, the light was awful and most every one of my photos features Steve Jobs’ finest work to date. And let’s face it, he’s unlikely to top it now, is he?

Of course, I’m in no way suggesting that people shouldn’t use their iPads for videoing school concerts or other events. It’s a great way of recording proceedings and it’s absolutely lovely to know that you have an iPad. I’m merely saying that if your primary method of digitally preserving the school nativity play involves you holding something the size of a piece of A4 up above your head for the entire gig, maybe you should consider the people behind you, who have also come to see their kids’ performance.