Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Ban on council prayers still in place?

Coming from the Wyre Forest Agenda where it appears our local council are still including prayers as an official part of the meeting despite the High Court ruling that they can't. Ah but it's okay as Eric Pickles has rode to the rescue by pushing forward the Localism Act 2011 which will restore the right to hold prayers; but does it?

Here's the key point in the Local Governments Act 1972:

Without prejudice to any powers exercisable apart from this section but subject to the provisions of this Act and any other enactment passed before or after this Act, a local authority shall have power to do any thing (whether or not involving the expenditure, borrowing or lending of money or the acquisition or disposal of any property or rights) which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the discharge of any of their functions.
To parse that down this is a power granted to councils with restrictions. Now to the new Localism Act 2011 that grants the council a general power to do that which an individual can:
If exercise of a pre-commencement power of a local authority is subject to restrictions, those restrictions apply also to exercise of the general power so far as it is overlapped by the pre-commencement power
where a:
“pre-commencement power” means power conferred by a statutory provision that—(a)is contained in this Act, or in any other Act passed no later than the end of the Session in which this Act is passed, or(b)is contained in an instrument made under an Act and comes into force before the commencement of section 1.

Everyone understand that?  Any restrictions in place to a power contained in a previous Act apply to the general power granted in this Act. Given that the Localism Act 2011 does not rescind the Local Government Act 1972; nor does it specifically amend section 111  then its power with restrictions still apply to the general power granted by this new Act.

In other words a council is still restricted only to those acts that "facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the discharge of any of their functions" which has been decided doesn't include prayer.

Monday, February 27, 2012

More Mitton Street roadworks

Or maybe not seeing as someone's blocked off the left-hand lane of Mitton Street from its junction with Worcester Road all the way up to Lion Hill (leaving enough room for ingress and egress and gaps for access to frontages) without apparently doing any work.

Worse yet not only could I not see any notices as to who was carrying out the work (with emergency contact numbers) but on the approach from Gilgal two signs have been placed either side that completely obstruct the footway with no accommodation made to get around them.

It does seem petty to have to keep pointing out these things, but those whose job it is to monitor these things can't be anywhere and I feel that roadwork crews have been getting away with lax adherence to the rules for too long. As such it's something we the public have to keep on top of.

[Update 28/2 - Still there last night with no work being done; still there this morning. If there's still no work being done they're obstructing the public highway which is a criminal offence and a matter for the police]

[Update - The council have been assured by the contractors that there is work going on now which of makes one question why these restrictions were put up yesterday. I've also pointed out that they're pushing vehicles into the right-hand lane too soon and that the lane-ahead closed sign on Gilgal is nonsensical because their left-hand lane (to the island) isn't closed]

[Update 29/2 -At long last some work was being done - one of the residents was taking the opportunity of the lane closure to paint their fence. As for the reason for the lane closure - the road was still unblemished leaving no reason why vehicles couldn't use it. I did note this morning that one of the roadwork signs in Gilgal has been removed and the other shifted to allow pedestrian access; the incorrect lane closure signs are still up though.]

[Update - Two days and they've just started doing something that justifies having shut the lane down - pathetic]

Friday, February 24, 2012

And still the Tesco crossings

Yes sorry, but you know I wouldn't have to do this if the council actually provided the information rather than make me dig it out or ring them up to get ahold of it.

I noted that a sign had gone up on the junction of Mitton Street and Vale Road (church corner) stating that the Road would be closed for 4 days. This is wrong on multiple counts:

  1. The order has yet to be correctly published;
  2. It's only the junction that will be closed not the entire road as this could be seen to imply;
  3. According to the inaccurately published order and the information from Worcestershire county council it should only be closed between the hours of 09:30 and 15:30hrs each day.
I bet they're as fed-up with me ringing them as I am at having to do so.

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Discrimination as a market commodity

This isn't about the gypsy/traveller situation per se; but is just tied in to various commentary I've picked up in a wide area mostly from bigots. The argument that is made or at least colours their comments is that it shouldn't be up to the government to punish people for discrimination. People should be allowed to discriminate and it's up to society to penalise them for doing so if it wants to. If it chooses not to who are the government to step in and say that we the public are wrong? It's an application of free-market forces to society.

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Blue lights on vehicles

Over the past week I've been spotting more vehicles porting blue front LEDs. "Huh" I thought "Aren't blue lights reserved for emergency vehicles only?". Turns out maybe they're not.

Outlook and Exchange

Remind me never to do that again. Just tried to set up an Exchange Account on Outlook with minimal information on a system where there's already a default POP3 account in place.

First of all the delightful bit that although it's possible to tell Outlook to set-up such an account one cannot be done while Outlook is open. So why give me the damn option?

So anyway chastened I scurried to Mail in the Control Panel; added in the information I had and hit Resolve and was told that the name couldn't be resolved unless Outlook was "active"; oh gee thanks for that. Seems the information was wrong.

So I cancelled out; fired Outlook back up and up popped a balloon telling me that send/receive wasn't working as there was no default store. "Huh?" The store was there and happily populated. Checked the accounts and everything was pointed in the right direction except... the default store was no longer the default store. Hit the default button; waited; closed Outlook; re-opened it and everything was fine.

In other words despite cancelling out of the creation of an account Outlook went ahead and started to set one up anyway and didn't bother to change the settings back. Delightful!

Workfare - yes or no?

If you haven't heard about Workfare where have you been? In essence it's a scheme to get the long-term unemployed back into work; which sounds great. However issues have been raised about its nature.

To begin I'm in two minds about this. Fundamentally I see the need for this type of scheme. Having been unemployed I know how difficult it can be to get out of that mindset and back into a 'work' mindset; particularly when it seems you're getting paid for doing nothing. Add in those who graduate from education straight onto the dole and it must be particularly difficult to shift.

Likewise I can see the need to force people onto this scheme. Given the choice to be paid to do nothing or something; who can be blamed for choosing the nothing option?

Given all that why is there a problem? Firstly there was the alleged disingenuity of the premise - the scheme was voluntary however once volunteered it became compulsory. The second major point was the companies being targetted as providers of this service - big billion pound profit companies. Which makes the third point even worse - these companies weren't paying for the services.

We the taxpayers through the government were paying people to work at companies returning massive profits. Backlash!

As more details emerged this seemed even more unfair. Allegedly miss a day of work and your 'quota' would be reset. Companies were obliged to provide a job interview at the end of the period; but not an actual job. This meant a company could 'hire' someone to do the job for free; interview them at the end and say "Sorry no job" and then 'hire' another person for free to do the same job. All at our expense. Why would the companies do that though; surely the time taken to have to induct a new set of trainees outweighs the 'freeness' of their work. Well yes if what they were doing was trained work; it's not it's all unskilled work that requires little to no training with minimal supervision required.

In short the companies were essentially being placed in charge and being appeased; hardly surprising of the Conservative Party though.

What could make this scheme work though? Firstly the company pays the trainee directly and then claims the money back from the government; and the amount paid post-tax must be equal to the JSA. This is important as it puts the trainee on the companies books and they become protected by the standard employment laws.

Secondly if after the trial period has finished the company decides whether or not to employ that person for that position. If they decide not to hire them then they cannot take on another trainee for that work unless they explain why the previous trainee wasn't suitable.

Thirdly the layoff terms must be balanced - the company can 'return' the trainee if they find them unsuitable (again with an explanation); but the trainee must also be able to leave the company without forfeiture (again providing an explanation).

All this should get the long-term unemployed into a work habit without leaving them open to exploitation by the companies.

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Muslim Aniconism

Frequenting many different atheist and secular sites it's hard not to spot someone in a predominantly Muslim country condemning someone for disrespecting Mohammed or producing images of him. This is interesting to me because taken at a particular level of the Islamic faith this acts against the faith.

Annoying prices

One minor one - a single pack of Digestives £1.05; a double pack £1.90 a saving of 20p. Except the single packs are on offer at buy 2 for £1.70; insane.

Anyway the major annoyance to me is once again film packs. Fringe Series 1 on Blu-ray £17.99; series 2 - £29.99; series 3 - £29.47. Total price - £77.45. Fringe series 1-3 on Blu-ray - £39.99. Guess who already owns series 1? [Sigh] once again buying the two series I don't have is more expensive than buying all three and gaining a duplicate.

The crossings for Tesco

My questions have been answered even the ones I didn't ask - how do pedestrians gain access to Tesco; and how is the traffic from Severn Road supposed to exit onto the near blind corner of Mitton Street?

The answer is simple, but not one you'd discover from the plans submitted. As detailed on the site plan internally labelled as 6046-P10 a splitter triangle is to be placed at the mouth of Severn Road; again as shown two "pedestrian link[s]" will be added across the mouth joining the splitter. What isn't shown is that an additional pedestrian link will be placed across Mitton Street to connect to the splitter.

Both this and the Severn Road links will be a set of "phased traffic lights" or to put it in layman's terms - a normal set of traffic lights that alternate between red and green though apparently they'll be set and "tweaked" to only switch when there is actual need. What does this mean? It means traffic rounding the corner of Mitton Street and being confronted by a set of lights; it potentially means traffic in the left hand land being blocked be traffic being halted at the mouth of Severn Road. As a consequence traffic will stick to the right-hand lane until they know the left is clear.

Due to this traffic coming down the Worcester Road towards the island and subsequently into Mitton Street will instead head down Discovery Road and into Severn Road because they know even more traffic wants to enter the right hand lane of Mitton Street so that junction will be treated as a priority more so than it is currently and thus become blocked up; while at the same time it offers the certainty of being able to enter Mitton Street unhindered from Severn Road rather than hoping to be able to get out at the island. In other words they've created a rat-run.

It gets better - I've never seen any plans that show the three puffin crossings at the Vale Road end of Mitton Street nor the one crossing Mitton Street at Severn Road and thus, if I'm not mistaken, the public has had no opportunity to object to this proposal.

But hey it's all going to be okay because they've modelled it using real data -

"So what if the model or the data is wrong; what if it all becomes one big mess; is there a process to have these removed?" I asked
"But the model won't be wrong; if it is there's bigger concerns" came the reply.
"But what if it is? Is there some method of having it all taken away?"

But so long as the data is reliable there's no problem; expect how good is it? For example queues form along this stretch of the road. Given road counters that measure traffic flow over them how does such a counter distinguish between a queue of traffic whereby the queue only progresses by one car every 10 seconds and a free-flowing stream of traffic with the cars separated by 10 seconds of time?

Monday, February 20, 2012

Energy prices

Vaguely topical, but yet again it's time to renew the business's energy prices and yet again the price being offered is hilarious. This time they've put the price up but only by £1,800 a year so they're getting better.

It gets better the renewal letter details the increased unit charge, but makes no mention of the standing charge. It doesn't amount to much but it's hardly a 'contract' when they miss off one of the tariffs.

Turns out they'd offered us a landlord's tariff - you know the one they don't advertise and you specifically have to ask for where there's an increased unit rate, but a zero standing charge; ideal for vacant properties when you don't want the costs to disconnect and reconnect the power.

A revised tariff is now 'only' £800 more. Others have offered tariffs that amount to roughly £300 more, but they're all one year contracts. The question is - will electricity prices increase beyond that i.e. in a year's time will I be renegotiating at a higher price?

If I state our current price at 0 then using our existing supplier will result in +800; for a two-year contract +1600. If we use a new supplier then that will result in a +300, but only for one year. Okay so imagine the prices return to the 2010 levels of our existing supplier.That would produce a +1000; add in the new suppliers and that's +1300 for two years.

In order for it to reach the full +1600 next years prices will have to be higher than anything we've ever paid in the last seven years.

Friday, February 17, 2012

The new puffin crossings for Tesco

Not withstanding the confusing Public Notice which they've acknowledged and had spotted; the question arose as to exactly why they were shutting down all four arms sequentially when crossings were only going up on three? Also that the Order for the crossings themselves referred to Lower Mitton Street which doesn't exist.

In the first instance they'll be doing kerbing work on the fourth section hence a need for the temporary closure; however the the Lower Mitton Street produced something interesting.

Apparently there are only going to be three crossings rather than four due to access to a Scout Hut; now I can only assume they mean the vehicle entrance to the old TA headquarters which does indeed sit right on that corner. Except that corner is the one people need to be able to reach in order to get to Tesco. In others words using the crossings will result you being on the wrong side of Mitton Street to reach Tesco which calls into question why the heck these crossings are being added in the first place.

Sadly the guy with the knowledge won't be in until Monday; so I'll expect a call then.

A rather confusing public notice

It seems Tesco are going to be adding some pedestrian crossings to Lion Hill and Severn Road next month; to be precise "4 puffin crossings". One in Severn Road and one each at the arms of the Vale Road/Mitton Street junction and one at the Lion Hill/Mitton Street Junction. Judging by the use of "Lower Mitton Street" I can only assume that this is Hollybush side rather than the town side; that would be the only one that made sense.

The joke on that score is that they're expecting those using Lower Mittons Street to walk up and past the new Tesco site over to the Lower Mitton Street/Vale Road crossing on to the Lower Mitton Street/Lion Hill crossing and then all the way back down to get to Tesco due to the lack of pavement further back on the Tesco side of Mitton Street. IOW:

But that's not the dumbest thing. In order to carry out this work the roads will need to be temporarily shut during the day for three days each and the order to do so appears at the same time as the order to carry out the work (so if you've a problem with the siting- tough).

Pay attention to the one-way system shown above and then read the following:

Temporarily prohibit turning right onto A451 Mitton Street from A451 ValeRoad. [sic]
Temporarily prohibit turning left onto A451 Mitton Street from A451 Lion Hill.
Temporarily prohibit turning left onto A451 Mitton Street from A4514 [sic] Vale Road.
Temporarily prohibit turning right onto A451 Mitton Street from A451 Lion Hill

I have no problem with any of these prohibitions on the grounds that we can't do them anyway! Due to the one-way system you cannot turn either way from Lion Hill not Vale Road into Mitton Street.

Seeking clarification I took at look at the future road closures list and:

No right turn Mitton Street to Vale Road
No left turn Mitton Street to Lion Hill
No left turn Mitton Street to Vale Road

The fourth doesn't appear because that's in April and this only covers Feb/Mar. So someone somewhere has mightily screwed up and legally if they don't correct it any such closures will be illegal.

Oh and just to add more fun when the shut down the lanes into and out of town this is the diversion they're expecting you to follow:
 That's a 17 mile detour due to approximately 20 yards of road closure.

Thursday, February 16, 2012

PS3 EULA tangle

Another update from Sony for the PS3 that (about time too) updates the browser; and amazingly it does seem more stable even it is still rubbish with javascript handling.

However yet another one came out shortly afterwards. Checking the changelogs nothing exciting, but I did notice the following:

When I download directly I have to agree to the EULA as we've all come to except. For the most part it's remained unchanged since version 1.4 of December 2009 with the latest version on display here.

Visit Sony's own site to download and install manually and you have to agree to version 1.3 instead.


Wednesday, February 15, 2012


Another lively discussion in the Shuttle comments amazingly not on the GTTS site proposals; but on another topic close to Middle England's heart ;-) - speed cameras.

It seems that mobile speed cameras are being set up on a couple of roads in Kidderminster; now personally I have no problem with them as I also attempt to maintain my speed slightly below the limit set (I say attempt as I can't stare at my speedo at all times and when someone rushes up the back of you or zips away in front my speed my go slightly over before I can correct it); however it's one particular road where these are being added that has inflamed my ire - Chester Road South.

Take a look for yourselves at this wide road with separate cycle lanes and displaced footways and ask "Why is this a 30 mph limit?". In this case the limit was dropped from 40mph in 2002 the reasons for which are probably still filed away at the District Council offices (viewable during office hours); but hey I'm sure they were logical and reasonable. So why do I still have a problem? Because having driven down this road multiple times I find it almost impossible to stay at or below the speed limit due to the road surface. In short the road surface undulations - it has ridges in it. Drive in my car at 20-30mph and it starts to jolt slightly; continue and it shivers as if there's a problem with the suspension; but pick up speed to 35-40mph (where the limit used to be) and the shaking stops.

In other words on this particular stretch of road they're setting up traps to capture people driving at a speed that the road itself forces you to. For my part shortly after the change and subsequent shivering I found myself experiencing I now completely avoid this road altogether.

The main gist is that rather than set up deterrents and punishments for those who exceed the posted speed limits perhaps first the question should be asked as to exactly why people speed here?

On a related point - personally I have little problem with speed limits, but it would be nice to be able to easily discover why they've been changed.

One final point on this road 66% of drivers exceed the limit and 15% travel above 38.7mph. Beyond that rather specific measurement that means that around half of the drivers are likely to be within the 10%+2mph margin of error that the speed enforcement agency uses and thus unlikely to be fined anyway.

Monday, February 13, 2012

Misfits from E4

I've had a marathon session of all three series of E4's Misfits. The first two were fun; the third not so much. Sadly one of the main characters decided to leave; so the production had a choice. Leave him out; replace the character with another actor and produce some in-world reason for the change in appearance; or bring in a completely new character.

Sadly they went for a mix of the second and third options by bringing in a new character fulfilling almost the exact same role as the previous one. Brought nothing really new and just emphasised how much better the previous actor was in that particular role.

Also although able to suppress the knowledge of goofs and plotholes simply to enjoy the entertainment one such event in series 2 couldn't leave me alone due it being brought up time and time again in the "Previously" section to explain Simon and Alisha's current situation. For those who've seen the series the following should makes sense; for those who haven't there's little spoiler information:

Simon finds Alisha with The Photo, but this occurs during the Milk Man incident that never gets to happen.

So as this never happened it can't be used to explain their current situation; yet it is time and time again. Just so irritating for a relatively consistent show.

Not going to stop me from watching it again though; good series, but I think a fourth would be pushing it due to the necessary changes that occur at the end of the third.

The new telephone system

I thought it had all been done, the system had been installed and everything seemed to be working. I came in this morning and checked everything and all was A-OK - except DaBosses remote extension seemed to be permanently off the hook.

Time passed and it didn't change. Perhaps one of the kids has been messing around? Time passed and no incoming calls. Odd. I tried the phone and just got nothing. Tried again and a da-da-da tone. I wasn't even trying to get an outside line.

I called our provider from my mobile. They checked the line; except they couldn't as they don't provide it. We tried the switch-off switch-on of the main switchboard with no success.

"It could be the lines" she said
"Except I can't call internal extensions either" I replied.

Seeking extra help she'd call me back. In the meantime I dug out the spare separate phone in case of power failure and plugged it into the main socket. No problem; I called my mobile and my mobile called it.

Post consultation I'm now expecting an engineer visit - what fun.

Thursday, February 09, 2012

TV licencing

Every so often we get a story in the Shuttle about catching TV licence evaders and it seems that every time we get one or more people not understanding how it works. To be fair I'm not surprised.

TV licencing is covered by Part 4 of the Communications Act 2003 and doesn't make a legible read and is hardly assisted that the definitions of terms used, including that of what a television receiver actually is, is covered by another piece of legislation the Communications (Television Licencing) Regulations 2004. Add in the proliferation of devices that can now receive television broadcasts and it can get quite confusing.

In reality stripped of all the legalese there's only one simple concept to grasp: the use of a public broadcast.

If you use a public broadcast you need a licence; if you don't then you don't.


If you're watching a programme through your aerial you're using a public broadcast.
If you're watching a programme that you recorded through an aerial you were using a public broadcast.
If you're watching a programme through a satellite dish you're using a public broadcast.

If you're watching a programme that you recorded through a satellite dish you were using a public broadcast.
If you're watching a programme through a cable connection you're using a public broadcast.
If you're watching a programme that you recorded through a cable connection you were using a public broadcast.


If you're watching a programme from a DVD you are not using a public broadcast.
If you're watching security feed footage you are not using a public broadcast.
If you're watching a catch-up programme via iPlayer/Sky Anytime/etc. you are not using a public broadcast.

The key point is not in the possession of equipment that can receive a public broadcast but the using of said broadcast.

Fear 3 PS3 review

I've enjoyed the FEAR series I've found it a good horror story fitted to a first-person shooting mechanism; sadly the latest in the series didn't meet up to my expectations having turned into a first-person shooter with horror elements.

Friday, February 03, 2012

The Gypsy site situation

From the beginning I was opposed to the Gypsy/Traveller/Travelling Showpeople (GTTS) site survey. Sadly the human tendency to think in binary terms meant that for some this automatically placed me on the side of the bigots and racists. However I was never against it because of who it targeted, but because it targeted any one group in the first place and the methods being used to justify it.

Rather than explain that this particular community is unfairly discriminated against our council simply waved the fact that they had to do this by law. A disgusting show of 'We don't want to do this it's the law making us' that is part of the negative discrimination the law is trying to counteract. Worse yet this feeble excuse simply stokes up the ire of those who aren't benefiting from this -' Why should they get special treatment when I don't?' that in turn creates more negative discrimination and ironically reinforces and justifies the need for the law.

However I'd 'come out' on the side of the bigots and another human tendency that once a decision has been made stick with it meant that any arguments along these lines I produced meant I was either trying to weasel my way out of the situation or being an apologist for said bigots.

The next call came when over 50% of the report was essentially ignored by the Cabinet and sites were put forward for public consultation that were predominately skewed towards one town and one area of said town in particular.

I didn't think these particular sites were suitable for any residents; but by this time as soon as anyone attempted to speak out some would pop up to point a finger and shout Bigot or Racist at them. In a misguided attempt to educate I pointed out that some of the statements made were factually true; that simply discounting them and using names were means to shut down rational discourse; and that both sides were using the same methods to fight one another when we (the non-bigots) should be better than that. I turned the arguments around and again misguidedly attempted to show that rather than demand they produce evidence to back up their claims by simply using names or stating they were wrong it placed them in the strong position of being able to state "Prove me wrong then!" which should have been our position.

I'd already been labelled though and so this just reinforced my position as an apologist.

Again I tried to make my position clear - I didn't think sites should be allocated just for the GTTS community, but be open to anyone who lived in a caravan particularly those on the council waiting list for accommodation. I didn't think the sites were suitable for any residential development and not just GTTS sites; but nope I'm a bigot and it seems nothing was going to change some people's minds on that.

So what's been the outcome of all this?

Groups of people have been brought together not to oppose residential development but to specifically oppose GTTS development and thus directly against this community. By opening up a constrained public consultation the council have taken the side of these most vocal groups with the expected benefit of being re-elected next term. By using various excuses the council have reinforced their position that this is somehow distasteful and that the public are right to oppose it.

The only good things that's come out of this is that more people are becoming aware of how heavy-handed the council and in particular the Cabinet have been; and that I've noted a marked tendency for those who commented the most on this to explain and use facts to support their positions. However that's been far overshadowed by the spotlight one single community, who essentially want to be left alone, have been placed under.

Hidden discrimination

It was with some disgust that I read the latest piece in the Shuttle regarding the ongoing Gypsy/Traveller/Travelling Showperson site placement. Thanks to the public decision making process we've been left with sites that have received the least complaints and surprise surprise they're all going to end up on the Sandy Lane Industrial Estate in Stourport next to all the existing ones.

So is that the reason for my disgust? No. It's the news that due to this efforts are being taken that should the need arise for new sites Stourport will be exempted.

Yes it has been deemed that Stourport has already taken on more than its fair share of this burden and it's only right that this unpleasantness is shared around the other areas of the district.

Excellent work people. What a perfect way to reinforce the existing idea that locating sites for the GTTS community is some sort of nasty little problem that just won't go away, but still has to be dealt with whether we want to or not.

What a neat method of hiding bigotry by using sort of imaginary quota  to determine when it's some other area's turn to have to deal with this problem.

How delightful to keep the cycle running by leaving the final decision to politicians who have to be concerned with being re-elected by an electorate who make their voices heard in a chorus of "Anywhere but here!".


Thursday, February 02, 2012

Slow Internet

Sporadic internet connection this morning - it's been a little off for a few days now. I checked around just to make sure it's not just us and others have been in the same boat.

Given that these are several different connections with several different service providers all having similar problems it suggests something at the exchange level; so I called BT.

Excellent they can't do anything as we're not a BT customer we all have to ring our individual line providers/ISPs

The weird thing is how specific it is - Blogger is slow, but obviously working. The Shuttle site is a little sluggish; Orange isn't there at all. Transmission seems to be normal it's the receiving end.

Now I know that BT are working in the area to upgrade the systems to Infinity, but it would be nice if they could tell us this and that this was the cause of the rate drops.

[Update - spoke to our ISP and they tell me there's a national fault that's affecting everyone but they don't know the cause. They'll call me back once they do. Odd that it doesn't appear on the news sites though]

[Update 2 - Turns out that national means national for that ISP in other words it's everyone using PlusNet due to a "problem that has arisen during maintenance of our traffic management platform"]