Once again the idea of not changing the clocks, changing them permanently, doubling the change or moving to some other time zone rears its head…
I don’t see that it makes much difference, really – you get the same number of hours of light and dark no matter what your watch says. But if it’s a serious discussion we’re after, here’s a thought – why not, for example, say to the Scottish Executive that England would benefit from using BST all year round, but Scotland could decide for itself whether or not to use it?
Or alternatively, if the change isn’t made, schools and offices in some places could – shock, horror – change their own working hours so that they had more light in the mornings, or whatever it is they want?
There’s no real reason for everyone to go from home to work or school for 9am, just as there’s no real reason for everyone to leave at the same time.
You could have micro-localism, where businesses, schools etc decided to start (for example) at 11am in the winter, and at 7 am in summer.
I think I like that idea a lot better than once again repeating the arguments from the 1970s…
No related posts.
The bell in Christ Church’s great Tom Tower—or ‘Wren’s Tower’ as one custodian referred me to it—can set the localisation example: each night at nine, old Tom rings at 9:05 GMT, signifying that ‘Oxford Time’ is always five minutes behind the Greenwich standard.
I’ve never seen any reason to change the clocks. Why can’t we simply say that midday for the UK is when the sun is due south at the Greenwich meridian and leave well enough alone?