Lies, damn lies. What pols say. And are allowed to.

I wonder how many people will get to read these follow-ups to widely broadcast claims?

Ch 4 Factcheck - Prezza pulls his punches & Hazel's claim in shreds

These are some of the highest officers of the land at best allowed to mouth incorrect information, or plain lying.

This country's moral compass has some serious problems at the top pulling it off course. With little (bar this brief attempt) check from our media.

It's good to talk.G

There's no such thing as a bad idea. Despite being a cliche, there is much truth in that.

Time to talk to al-Qaida, senior police chief urges

So, at first blush, I have to say that, in principle, 'jaw-jaw' is better than 'war-war'. Not one of Winnie's best, but it is still memorable.

Anyhoo, before going on, here are definitions (if by no means definitive) of nihilism, anarchy and religious fundamentalism.

I'm just a tad intrigued as to how one talks with folk pretty much operating on these bases. There is also the small matter of getting to talk with them at all to... um, negotiate, being that to do so you'd need to meet up and to do that you'd need to know where they were. This might prove... tricky.

I for the life of me cannot see the parallel with the IRA. Bar the odd Bobby Sands individual, they had an agenda, however warped, from which compromise was at least a possibility, combined with a desire to reap the benefits of their beliefs whilst still on this planet.

And this is a guy up for head of the Met?

"Do the public seriously want amateurs playing in this world?" No. But then again some 'professionals' might also be less than optimal, too.

BBC - Britain 'could talk to al-Qaeda

BBBC - some worthy extra input prior to mine

BBBC - I added more:

It's probably possible to negotiate with those prepared to fight, even at cost of their lives, FOR something.

I remain unconvinced there is much chance of sensible dialogue with those simply seeking to kill, especially their own, in the cause of being AGAINST everything.

Guardian - Terror and truth

Leaving aside the question of how and with whom you negotiate (AQ being now a loose franchise, so I doubt that even if OBL went on Wossy's show and cancelled the whole killing spree deal, many of a 'self and/or as many others' destructing bent would suddenly turn their swords into plowshares), there are a few historical precedents to bear in mind.

It's probably possible to negotiate with those prepared to fight, even at cost of their lives, FOR something. From Japanese kamikaze pilots to Booby Sands.

But I remain unconvinced there is much chance of sensible dialogue with those simply seeking to kill, especially their own, in the cause of being AGAINST everything.

Though the prospect of Sir. Hugh chatting mano a mano with a learning disabled suicide bomber (his noble handlers being unavailable for comment, one suspects) might be interesting.

Making (Up) The News

Just typing away with BBC West Mids News playing on the screen PIP.

Apparently, the people of Ross on Wye are 'worried that they are going to be flooded' because work on a relief tunnel is delayed.

Interesting. I am looking, from my position at a low level in the town, at the works now.

No one asked me, and as far as I know there has been no mention in the local papers of much 'worry'.

Factually there is not much to dispute. The tunnel is there to alleviate flooding risks, which have happened in the past, and about which those affected have every reason to be concerned. Mind you with summer coing the risk is not as much, buy which time the dealy will have been made up.

I just can't quite figure out what the point of this piece, in this manner, was.

Actually, of more interest to me is whether the thing will work, is it value for money, what the reasons for the delay were and who is bearing the costs.

But all I garner is that folk like me, apparently, 'are worried'. Great reporting.

Oh, look, a mirror. Ignore it!

Who do you blame for the rampant dishonesty on television channels?

Recently any one of any national daily newspapers might also have had this to say... pot, kettle, black. But, oddly, they didn't.

Sorry, didn't answer the question. At least, couldn't; not as posed. Shameless dishonesty is endemic in every function of society today... politics, media...

What a LOAD - BBC increase

Brand Republic

'It said most of this increase was not overspend, but the misallocation of £24.9m in overheads and costs to other budgets within the BBC, representing poor financial accountability.'

Careless

As in, 'couldn't'

And an interesting reaction from an equally interesting quarter:

Commenting on the BBC Trust’s review of bbc.co.uk which highlights a £35 million increase in the website’s intended budget, Liberal Democrat Shadow Culture, Media and Sport Secretary, Don Foster said:

“This report is a damning indictment of the management of bbc.co.uk.

“A cocktail of overspending and budget mismanagement has led to this huge increase.

“Future investment will only take place if accountability is increased. Not only has the BBC lost track of a phenomenal sum of money, but this mismanagement will now directly impact on the future development of this popular service.”

Lib Dem Press Release

Guardian - BBC website £36m over budget: Trust raps management - What does a 'rap' actually involve

Brand Republic - BBC's online services to face greater scrutiny

'It said most of this increase was not overspend, but the misallocation of £24.9m in overheads and costs to other budgets within the BBC, representing poor financial accountability.'

That's what 'it' said. OK. But is there a translation from someone who can explain numbers in a way this licence fee payer can understand?

Telegraph - The BBC is having its cake and eating it

Telegraph - BBC website faces budget cut for stifling rivals

Daily Mail - BBC rivals amazed at internet 'whitewash' as governing body insists £110m website doesn't stifle competition

The Register - BBC website suits slapped for cash splurge

Gaurdian - Beeb's budget blunder: Where does the buck stop? - Comments already closed, so I guess we await the answer.

Daily Mail - Do these BBC trustees deserve our trust? - A small point, but I have asked before if the only way to be 'in' with the BBC is to be married to another of its officers. Mind you, I wouldn't want my missus adjudicating on my actions.

Oh, how I h8....

This morning there was piece on the BBC news about 08... numbers.

I hadn't realised just how much of a con they are, or understand how they are permitted to exist as they currently are.

Thanks to a frustrating series of cock-ups at the other end, I had to make six phonecalls in succession to my card protection service, and pay to listen to the same selection of options that, it turns out, all end up at the same place. This... is plain crooked.

saynoto0870.com - An alternative, if not solution.

BBC - Price cut plan for 0870 numbers

Road rage, redux

It seesm that appearnaces are still all the rage, too.

He's got a reverse gear

I'm going for Trabant, only without the retro chic affection. So just useless then.

Looking weak vs. being constantly incompetent. Tough call.

What goes up...

Almost as good as statistics, graphs..

You think fuel prices are bad? Historically, they're not - and we've graphed it

Fascinating reading the comments.

Why I'm glad I am not a legislator

Every so often I come across stuff where it looks like no matter where you are in the debate you can't win... even having an opinion.

So... I won't.

UK to outlaw cartoons of child sexual abuse

Indy - We all want to protect children from sexual abuse – but this is an intrusion too far

All the rage on the road

BBC News is doing a piece on rampant fining by the authorities based on plain wrong rules and signage.

The incredible suggestion is that by paying up you are admitting guilt, so no restitution is necessary.

This is a very perverse, broken society we live in.

Having twice fought, and won, incorrectly imposed road penalty impositions, I remain amazed and disgusted that, every challenge on my part was met with ever-increasing fines and threats as a consequence, mainly from unthinking robot systems.

Yet upon vindication, all that happened to the council was that they were simply required to waive the initial, flawed demand.

There is NO incentive for them not to crank up the pressure as they have nothing to lose.

This is no more and no less than officially-endorsed extortion, and I believe continues to this day.

Being proven in the right should allow the road user at the very lest to enjoy the same level of escalating compensation as the authorities, which will certainly make them ensure their case is valid rather than acting like the Mob.

Addendum:

When asked about refunding blatant abuses of the illegal fining system, the LA spokesperson's best defence, amongst a ton of fudge and claims that no one knows the law, even the adjudicators, is that 'in serious cases, councils may consider reviewing refunds'. No way to run a country. Also, as I have written...

I just listened to the interview with yet another example of what gets paid, by us, to serve... us.

In counter to his gob-smacking claim on legal precedent to keep the proceeds of illegal fines, is this LA spokesperson really saying that should we the public transgress, just by a little bit, any of the myriad rules and regs he and his ilk trot out almost hourly, we can now claim the law does not apply and escape the consequences? I'll take that deal.

The law is now really an ass. Now being enforced by jackals. And protected, it seems, by ostriches.

Quelle Surprise

Trust in journalists plummets - but estate agents come last in new survey

But they.. er, we... are still better than estate agents. Now there's a well-raised bar.

Stand by for some selective comparative editing from the sin-list attached.... BBC journalists were more trusted than either ITV or Ch4!!!! (er... at only 20%....down). Thing is, we pay for them.

Gaurdain - Land of the Frei

Is this the objective news reporter employee of our funded national broadcaster who I read claimed the surprising reason for his being so dissed was because, apparently, whatever it is going to be, it is going to be rude.

No wonder our news media are held in such high esteem, even by the public they appeal to... or not.

Disagreeing to disagree

I'm in a small exchange over the direction of Newsnight (which I think has been dumbed down), with a fellow blogger. Though scrupulously polite, I have been poked with the one stick in this arena that really gets my goat, namely falling back on tackling the person (either in person or, as hear, their possible motivations/belief systems) rather than the argument.

Prospects for Friday, 23 May

Well, it seems well down on most counts (despite folk being out there, as the Milliband exchanges showed) to me, IMHO, and purely subjectively.

'NN did several surveys, which came up as pop-ups on the homepage; those with pop-ups disabled could have missed them. '

Could, and did. At least in my case. News to me (ironically). Makes you wonder why a survey would be carried out in a manner that might reasonably be predicted to exclude a large section of one's potential willing audience (no 'wingist' inferences intended, as it would encompass an even spread of all views. Just... fewer).

I try to shy away from accusations of bias based on rather loose and often pejoratively intended catch-alls shaped by perceived political leanings. Especially when personal views are stated as matters of fact.

If (which I doubt) Newsnight is 'dominated' by one grouping, maybe that's no more and no less a reflection of its viewership, in much the same way as, say, Guardian CiF might reflect its readership. I guess many inhabit where they feel most comfortable. From my experience, 'blasting' from certain strongly-held belief groupings is sort of an occupational hazard on a blog. You kinda have to live with it. Agreed, some often do try the 'you're an 'inger/'ist/'zi' card if the power of argument seems to be failing. Seldom works, mind. Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts.

If your considered reply elsewhere gets misconstrued it might just be down to how it is articulated, and in the spirit of debate maybe that's a good thing for those looking on at any ensuing clarifications you may take up with those who engage you. Otherwise in simply crying foul on matters of tone, one runs the danger of it sounding like no one is permitted an alternative view save agreement. Of course, extremist attacks that soon veer away from any sensible discourse are regrettable if, sadly, almost inevitable.

It is a shame if those of more delicate debating natures feel sided against, but if unfair or unacceptable that is of course what moderators are for, though this can be an unenviable task.

As to 'excessively demanding', I can't imagine what you mean.

But if it is having firm opinions, and the belief that you are allowed to articulate them in seeking truth or trying to solicit answers, then I am afraid I have no problem with this.

Hence I would quite support the notion of being 'excessively demanding', especially of my fee-funded national broadcaster, from whom I have and still learn much.

Which is why, in dealing with others who would seek to use its public forums, I do appreciate those who do not take no, hype, spin fudge or clumsy redirection as adequate in matters of public interest and debate, and will bang on until they get accuracy and/or answers.

Speaking of which, fantastic Jeremy tonight, by the way.

Easy for you to write

Trust me, dear reader

Whilst the sentiment is appreciated, anything that comes out of the mouths of most who engage with the public that starts with 'Trust me, ' is off to a poor start.

He shoots, he misses... he feels your pain!

At this period of upheaval, condolence letters from Prime Ministers to footballers for missing penalties.

Guardian -

All, inevitably, leaked.

The art of the own goal.

I don't think I'll be getting my people to employ his people.

Like, er, who cares?

I do believe I can see the whisper of a strategic thought from Nu Labour.

And it is capitalisingon either a mistake, or foolish tack by their opponents and the commentariat who wallow in endless discussions of style over substance (we'll come back to this).

There is now an eminently sensible attempt to point out that you don't have to 'like' a leader, as way too many critiques of Mr. Brown harp on his lack of mates, personality... etc.

I doubt I'd have been swapping anecdotes with Churchill down the boozer, and even in her heyday was more than grateful that Mrs. T was not in my front parlour but running the country. I sure as heck didn't/don't 'like' these political statespersons, but I surely respected them, and felt that my country was being run by them with its best interests at heart.

And there's the rub for this strategy. I may not like Mr. Brown or what he and his cabal of all the talents stand for, but I also have zero respect for them, and can only await with dread the next misguided idiocy that they come up with to run down this country still further.

Newsnight -

Addendum...

All that about 'image' said, there is also this bit of homely wisdom being spun in media such as the Guardian: "John Prescott, the former deputy prime minister, told the same programme that Brown should stand firm because he is a serious person. "I hear he doesn't smile. Well they used to talk about me not smiling: 'miserable beggar'. But I tell you what, when you get on an aeroplane, [do] you go and look in the cockpit, see if the pilot's smiling? Or you just hope there's a pilot there going to guide the plane, fly the plane and land successfully?"

Um... see where you're going, John. But actually I do a lot more than hope when it comes to enjoying a successful flight, and it's not too surprising that I may opt for another carrier (given the choice) if they are flying the friendly skies and greet you like they want your business. It also helps not to have crash landed on almost every flight.

Guardian - The country wants a leader with style and swagger

Indy - This is the chance to go down with all guns blazing

Go down? Taking whom with him?

Yet again, in that short, narrow line from Westminster to Fleet Street (with a detour to the coffee shops of Islington) it is all about the 'game' of staying in power, as opposed to serving the country.

I want a leader; not just a media star or a manager.

That said, given such a sorry choice I'd certainly have to opt against one who self-evidently can't even manage.

The truth hurts. Or not.

Des Browne ‘misled’ MPs on Nimrod spy plane safety

What the heck is this new term that seems to be a 'Keep you job free' card: misled?

If he lied that should be clear, and the consequences of that paid... immediately.

Big Brother. Like a Siamese twin.

Our barmy Ministry of Futile Tasks is at it again

Can you imagine the size of the workforce of civil servants required to monitor all this cyber-rubbish?'

I was coming to the conclusion that to solve various issues - unemployment, dwindling career-bound voting blocks, the inherent desire to meddle on everything from bins to sex lives - we were going to end up being imposed with our own personal civil servant. So that worked out around 30M.

However, these guys need to be monitored, too. Can a quango be created to outsource this requirement offshore? Maybe an exchange scheme with the EU?

Think of the alternative! Inspiring stuff.

A radioactive Gordon Brown is reaching the critical point

Much to agree with.

But as a resident of this country with a vested interest in it not being broken beyond repair, I still despair at the amount of energy being devoted, by our governing political establishment and their media groupies, to 'dealing' with the problem of staying in power.

Getting back to doing stuff, and doing it well, might be a good start.

'Get me and we all lose our jobs' to fellow bunker-fellows is hardly the national rallying cry I feel will resonate with an electorate looking for leadership.

Indy - Gordon Brown – Unsaveable?
Indy - Brown isn't working – and Labour has itself to blame
Telegraph - Prime Minister Gordon Brown, don't let their style beat your substance

If only God the gift he' gae us...

Some light-hearted fun on a Bank Holiday.

You gotta love those sassy New Yorkers.

In a piece about a rather fun art work that is a 'telescope' linking London with the Big Apple, sparkly BBC reporterette ponders what to write on her message board to hold up to our chums across the board.

'I know,' she gushes, coming up with the inspired (and not at all navel-gazing) notion that: 'all Americans love the BBC!' Which is what got duly presented to our transatlantic cousins.

Quick as a flash, she gets back: 'Only the comedies'.

To be fair, she ruefully acknowledged...'touche'. Actually, it was pretty funny.

I wonder what else from 'our' broadcaster's fine output did not seem as loved as she (and, one suspects, others in their ivory towers) fondly imagined might have been?

Je t'accuse

I concern myself more and more with the ability of those enforcing the law seeming to be unaware of what it actually is:

The cult of free speech

QUOTE OF THE DAY - Democracy in Action

Voter voxpop regarding the Crewe & Nantwich by-election:

"I've gone for Labour. As a single parent with four children I think they'll look after our interests better"

Make a good poster in some key marginals, I'd imagine.

I'm all right, Jack

Gosh. I do love those who see fuel price as the simple solution to the transport impacts on emissions.

Talk about Newsnight

'On a lighter note, it is very cheering, with oil heading to $150+ a barrel to hear all those friends of TINA [There Is No Alternative to the car..] suddenly having to consider that, yes, they too may have to consider public transport.'

Yes, but do spare a thought for those, such as Mohawk52, not well served by reasonable or less easily defined alternative transport, especially in more rural areas, and on whose lives the impacts of such costs are rarely considered by those setting policy or coping with world events.

My Mum's carer needs to visit about 10 clients daily around South Herefordshire. On top of a not huge salary and various other 'hits' by those safe and sound in well-salaried, pensioned and travel-compensated situations, the costs of doing her job are sky-rocketing.

And I doubt she's in a position to swap her 10 year old 205 for a Prius to tick a few tax boxes any time soon either.

Things do need to change, but the full consequences must be carefully thought through beyond the Westminster, Fleet Street or Islington.

You're F***ed!

NOTES FROM THE APPRENTICE

Seems to me we've ended up with a country pretty much shaped by the notions espoused and promoted by such as Dragon's Den or the Apprentice, then lapped up and served on by most media... who claim they don't actually approve, but pretty much do act like this too.

From rigged judging to enhanced truths, fake reality is shaping actuality. Working a treat pretty much across the board, eh?

All complicit must be so proud.

Media Week - Great TV But That’s Not How To Interview!

Uncomfortable? Hmmn.
There seems to be this odd notion, especially in some image-obsessed professions, that this reality show, and a few others, have any bearing on reality.
Or maybe they do, and this does explain the state of this country's government, business and media.

Taking the p*ss

I don't claim it's an easy line, but our messengers often seem to get pretty mixed up with how they share our messages.

For most of the lunchtime BBC news, we have had a gleeful collection of reporters and anchors falling over themselves to enjoy if not share in the fact that the victorious Man U side spent all night getting hammered.

So far, so inevitable.

I just wonder which irony-free numptie didn't think how that segued so smoothly into a sanctimonious piece about how 'we' as a nation were drinking ourselves into being banned from the NHS for not being healthy enough to be admitted.

It looks like it is a serious issue. I'm just not sure our national broadcaster is very serious in addressing it consistently in complement. Another propagandist Oh Lord HIAW HIAW Having it all ways (repeat) Having it all ways.

Trikki Wiki

Or... Wikimedia Foundation muzzles Wikinews

Rupert does it. Richard does it. Even the Guardian does it. The BBC certainly does. Heck, if cornered I do.

But why do they all claim they don't?

Thing is, as always, there are lines. The trick is walking them.

Quangolap

This is a term that has popped into my head after reading yet another swipe from the business community at those tasked with, and paid (handsomely) to help, but failing miserably in almost every measure.

Beyond the competence of any of these efforts, I actually believe that some forms of 'help' are necessary and welcome, but what keeps cropping up, again and again, is the sheer number of them who not only do the same thing, but by this fact actively compete with each other.

And I don't mean in a good way. They are all so busy defending turf and pleasing masters, they have almost totally lost sight of who they are meant to serve. Or have used up all the funds on themsleves first.

And here was me thinking it was the story that mattered

Seeing the world while the PR company picks up the bill...

There's just so much about this that troubles me I don't know where to start.

I thought it was a piece on journalistic objectivity and ethics.

Nope.

It's how to make the most of being paid for to spin a tale.

Corrections after the time of printing

No real comment, but it is an issue that interests me, and of which I wish stay abreast.

Guardian readers editor explains web corrections policy

Open door

It's tricky to be sure, but one that needs to be monitored. I am minded of a tailor who lets someone out their door in a fine suit, but then pats them on the back with a 'kick me' sign.

I personally think that, beyond minor typographical corrections, any substance has to be flagged.

In my blogs, these usually take the form of addenda, clearly labelled as new and in addition to the main body text.

Addendum:

I am indebted to a Biased BBC poster for sharing a pretty go (well, you choose a word) example of what is being discussed, citing a revision in the Indy.

'I'm glad you asked me that, Me'

‘Brown goes YouTube’

'...I noticed that Nodrog was NOT promising to answer anything, merely stating that the wider population should have an opportunity to pose questions.'

Ahhh, there we have it. More listening. No actual hearing. And certainly no blooming answering, unless it's to very carefully vetted questions from doubtless seeded questioners. Just like, as pointed out, DC.

But big up to Dear Lead...er... follower for waiting long enough to ensure something is safe to emerge from the bunker when the rest of the world has moved on to deal with more pressing issues.

Gaurdian - What should we make of Brown's YouTube initiative? - Love it. A minor advisor posts a blog and it's deemed a PM 'initiative'. Love the new party emblem comment.

Gaurdian - Brown braves the online battle - 'Braves..' ???! I am actually finding this 'faux' listening and selective replying in the guise of 'answering' less honest than simply issuing edicts.

Erosion by stealth

I now have a new word for the lexicon: 'shutters'.

Comments on ‘BBC's Today Programme shutters message board’

I do concern myself when those who believe they know better 'protect' me from the thoughts and opinions of others so I may be better guided to the 'correct' viewpoint that they seem to believe they are in a better position to judge... and moderate.

Whilst trolls and the like can be very wearing, one can always skip and/or delete grotesque viewpoints. But in seeking information it is often interesting what diamonds may be found in the slurry. Which makes wallowing solely in one's own comfort-zone mud hole a rather restricted exercise in navel-gazing.

Hence I lurk (and occasionally pitch-in, which can be... 'testing') across all sorts, from Biased BBC to Guardian CiF.

As to the BBC... well, I think they opened a Pandora's Box with 'free' (subject to moderation) comment, regretted it, and are trying to either kill it off or reduce it to a more manageable entity.

Under the guise of 'resolving' what was a totally inexplicable, but certainly woeful system (Error messages all the time), they have instituted a whole new effort that has reduced both numbers and quality of comment to a dribble... of mostly dribbling numpties. So where once I enjoyed participating on the BBC2 Newsnight blog, on top of the 'regulars with a bit too much time in the day' it's hardly worth it any more (lack of preview, no more hyperlinks, no user ID links, concerns of data security, etc). Certainly I have better ways to spend my day.

Just, one might imagine, what the were trying to achieve. 'First they ditched HYS because of all the nasty righties, and so I could not post....'

New day, new weasels, new words

BBBC - 'Truthiness'

So little rare..

'Do you trust the media?'

What an extraordinary question. And in trying to answer it you seem to have ended up, with more than a slight personal bias in hot water... and with some justification.

Falling into the same potential trap of rampant generalities myself, for such a complex issue might I ask:

Which media?

Trust it to do/say what?

FWIW, if we're talking about any medium with a hint of an editorial agenda, and/or desire to drive ratings, I wouldn't trust any, any more, to report the accurate colours of black or white. At least, without not first getting at least half a dozen other sources in support first.

Whether that is down to bias or simply sloppy journalism is another issue, but these days I'd put such as the BBC and the Guardian pretty low on my totems for trust on objective accuracy or acceptably clear subjectivity by any measure of media value.

I used to trust a lot more... a lot more. That has now been erased by too many 'lessons learned', 'being looked ats' and other such trite, insincere mea culpas when truth went out the window to serve another master. And got caught out.

Glad you asked?

The story, the less than complete story, and nothing like the story...

Another BBC gem. : Diane Abbott on Desert Island Discs

I must say that, for a mere review of a light entertainment show, it rather caused my eyebrow to crank at all it inferred.

'Should the BBC have surrendered editorial control in this way? It is paid for by us, not the castaways. If the whole programme is at stake, perhaps so, but should not listeners be told about it?'

I am beginning to seriously wonder what exactly is going on with what we do or do not get told about, with what we most certainly do still have to pay for.

I guess it could have been worse. Imagine if money, AND Robbie Williams was involved. Of course, has I phrased that 'money OR Robbie Williams', no imagination would be required.

No news is...?

BBC News?

I do note the 'decision' (by the political editor, rejecting the story of what seems to be a major scandal, on the grounds of having 'no news value') is referred to, rather coyly, as a 'blunder'.

Hmmn.

QUOTE OF THE DAY - Mouthes of BBabes

I have now heard it twice (once from the male and once from the female newsreader) in this morning's Breakfast news. Roughly:

'Senator Edward Kennedy was sitting up laughing in his bed. His brothers Jack and Bobby were both assassinated'.

This came on top of, the other day, the male presenter reckoning some in achieving 'hero status' had not 'had the advantage' of Sir. Ranulph Fiennes (excuse spelling) in ' losing his fingers'.

Whipping Boys, and Girls

I am interested in politics, but still not as aware as I could or should be on its nuances.

One thing I really need to find out about this 'Whip' lark.

It has cropped up before, but I really took notice today during a piece about stem cell research, when the reported explained that this was one of the rare cases when MPs can vote with their conscience, and is not 'told' how to.

In a democracy, when you essentially give your proxy to your MP to act on you will in Parliament, by my current understanding, at least on how it sounds, I simply have to question what the pint of my mandate to this person is worth.

Let me tell you what you think

An interesting insight into what can happen when some believe they know what's best (who for, is another matter):

Guardianistas upset by My Telegraph?

The only consolation is such attempts rarely work. Two words: Clarke County

John Rentoul: If Brown is slain by the press, who is its next prey?

What is it with 'the Press'?

Do you guys really think the people are incapable of thinking for themselves and need to be lectured on how 'we' are being led down the 'wrong' path by those others who 'you' view as having unacceptable viewpoints?

Such a tactic seldom works. At least when one goes from positive advocacy to negative derision... especially of the voters' own minds! Think Clarke County when a UK paper decided voters needed helping towards the course of electoral wisdom. Or the latest two outings here, assisted in no small measure by the likes of Jasmin AB and Polly T telling everyone they didn't know what they were thinking was wrong. Now this.

Even the positives can backfire, but can and should fail on the cack-handedness. For instance such as the the BBC-sponsored 'Brown fightback' is simply becoming silly in its naked hero-worship. As do pieces like these, which are simply offensive to those who have pride in our ability to make our own minds up.

FACT CHECKING

BBC - More or less

Ch4 - Fact Checker

Quote of the day - And they are allowed in power?

Ch4 - FactCheck: temporary 10p tax?

'To say, as the work and pensions secretary did yesterday, that it was always clear this had been a temporary measure is a rewrite of history. Not only was it never clear, it seems fair to say that it wasn't even suggested until very recently.'

This is from a man who is potentially up for the job of future PM.

Really this should go in Junkk Male Review

These petty buffoons who ruled over us

I know it was a very much pre-green era, but I am still trying to get my head around the mindsets that did not give an iota of consideration to the simple waste of money involved in resolving a hissy fit. And by two prudent, parsimonious souls, too. Who paid?

Who did they think they were... the Spice Boys?

ps: 'rul...ed'? Isn't one still ruling... or at least claiming the right to still try to do so?

Time Management

As one who works on his own, from 6am to 7pm daily, and most weekends, as a non-employer or employee my day is not much affected by the latest working time impact.

Watching the BBC News, with the inevitable twofer of the inevitable Sylvia Tidy Harris (Anti) and someone who thinks it's all terrific (Pro), I was struck by the bouffant and blonde Sofa Crew who noted they would not be enjoying such flexibility. So there are exceptions.

I really feel for any small business with this welter of employee-friendly legislation that thrusts the onus of making life easier almost totally on the time and pocket books of those... providing employment.

While creating a nice environment is obviously essential to attracting and keeping staff, frankly with times getting harder and a lot more folk chasing a lot fewer jobs, I am not so sure market forces are necessarily operating in favour of those demanding concessions.

Gordon - The Tour

Apparently the PM is touring studios to tell us all why he is the best man to run the country.

I might suggest actually trying to do a bet job of running the country might be a better place to start. And, if and when successful, then find a wee moment to tell us about it.

At the moment, the serious contradictory evidence of our own eyes, ears and wallets would suggest he has chosen an odd moment to say all is well under his guidance.

Gaurdian - No loser - nor yet a winner

Er, did you listen to the same Dear Lead...er... Follower interview on 'Today' as I did?

If that's fighting, then lord help us if we ever get bytemeister-spun, meaningless number-crunching waffling from the bunker. And while comment is free, the sheer volume of deluded semi-house-endorsed commentary on these pages is getting beyond the admittedly entertaining joke it has been the last few weeks.

The sheer magnitude of his... their...your inability to comprehend what people can see with their own eyes and feel in their own wallets... that is so totally at odds with what he/they/you is/are spouting... is breathtaking.

He needs to stop telling us he's the right man for the job (cheered on by whatever remaining groupies there are who can score a column inch)... and get back to actually trying not to make a great clunking fist of almost every aspect of trying to do it.

Guardian - A draft to bank on - I know every paper has its leanings, but this lot have lost teh plot. I know they are read by few and think they speak for us all, but really...

'...there are two different broad sets of arguments about why I am completely wrong about everything...'

Actually, there may be, and rather proving my coming point, a few (I count myself as one), neither left nor right, who are simply desperate to get back to seeing this country run on any sensible basis by anyone competent, and of these, those who see public service as something that has impacts beyond political career or ratings-driven sound-bites, especially outside of the London-centric Exclusion Zone.

You know, where there is no public transport to get to work in less than a day, so £1.30 fuel does rather have an impact of paying the soaring utility bills, LA pension-hole rates, etc.

Indy - Dominic Lawson: He appears to have robotic self-discipline. But inside, Brown is a ferment of emotion

Indy - Sanity seems to have hit Gordon. The end is nigh

I will have to revisit my notions of what constitutes sanity.

But then the lunatics have been in charge of the asylum long enough maybe there has been a different measure, and I simply didn't notice.

Consequences

Sometimes it's hard to see who can win... or how.

I was watching a slot on an attempt to ban by law a city centre morning cattle market, primarily on nice grounds as it is near a residential area.

At first I thought this was another one, like some Heathrow protests, where a bunch of folk seemed to have only just realised what they live next to having moved in.

However, it transpires the complaints may well be fair as the noise has got worse, because of the all the lorries' reversing beepers. These of course are now mandated to exist... by law.

Go figure.

A problem shared...

Watch out, the Gestapo are about

And if you think the service you are obliged to pay for is pants... tough. What are you going to do about it? Even our government can be voted out.

What value a fine that does not impact on the perpetrator

Over on Junkk Male RE:view I rail against fines as a method of control... on what you but in bins.

Here I simply question what the point of them is when they are imposed on one set of individuals, but actually paid for by others... with sick irony, the very people offended against: us!

Who is responsible... or held to account in a tangible way?

Daily Mail - Police pay Channel 4 £100,000 damages for accusing station of faking undercover mosque footage

Guardian - Time to say sorry

Ch4 - Police say sorry over mosque show - speaking of counting the cost..

Guardian - At last, an apology from foolish policemen

Seems like I am not the only one

Actually, the email I got was headed 'Dragon Doug Richard Says Business Support Is 'Confusing And Out Of Control', which I agree with, but goes on to read thus:

Dragons’ Den Entrepreneur Doug Richard Wants To Replace Business Link

Which I am not sure I do, even if, as with so many things, it would be at all practical even if there was the will. Too many folk with too many fingers in too many pies!

But, for sure, from personal experience, the system needs a kick in the pants to actually deliver end-benefits where they are going to do the most good, and not just a nice little number for endless £500 a day consultants to tick some boxes for a load more empire-squatting munchkins to review and send up to the EU masters... all on the public purse.

Growing Business - Putting the dragon among the pigeons

The secret bunker is here... look!

Gaffe... my a**e.

Government's secret fears over housing market exposed by minister gaffe

Too much to hope it was deliberate.

Or are we really being run by people this thick?

Buy the silly b...abe a folder.

Next time it could be a matter of national security.

Guardian - NEW - The truth about that see-through folder

Kick 'em while they're up

What brands and celebs do you hate?

I have taught my kids that there are few things that require, or deserve the negative energy of hate, especially people one has never met.

However, in terms of brands it is perhaps easier to imagine those who inspire empathy and those... less so.

Top of head, on the plus side: Google. I know the bigger they get, the more harm they seem to be doing, but it's free and makes my life a lot easier and more fun.

On the negative, any where the overpaid numpties at the top get together to think of cunning ways to make people think what they make/do is better than it could be than if they just concentrated on making it good rather than cutting costs to justify their bean-counter existences. And then getting caught out.

Money Pits

An age-old problem

No, there is not 'too little', and therein lies a major part of the problem.

Recently I asked for a review of my Mum, who I care for at home.

Other than the appalling insensitive way in which the discussion was conducted by these so-called 'care professionals', I was intrigued as to why two (and neither a trainee) were deemed necessary: one to ask insensitive questions and one to write down the answers.

At least as a consequence I did get to drop her off at a local care facility for a few hours break. About 10 other senior folk... and at least four staff to attend to them.

It is worth asking where all this money goes and if it is best directed. I don't know about chaos, but simple cost-effectiveness and efficiency would be a good start.

And I'm sorry, but this obsession with means testing is at worst a mean-spirited obsession with ensuring a few well off don't benefit at the expense of those who could, or at best a job creation scheme for legions of box-tickers, just like Tax Credits.

Gaurdain - Despite the baby boomers ageing, we can afford to care - Can we? How?

BBC - 'They paid taxes all their lives'

BBC - Call for debate on dementia care - talk is better than nothing, but still cheap

What makes a good leader?

Should prime ministers be happy?

When push comes to shove, in matters of leadership, especially at a time when it is needed in spades, it would be nifty to have someone at the helm that anyone has any confidence in following.

But irrelevant notions on the 'mysterious strengths within' can at least preoccupy Guardian columnists whilst the rest of us have some concerns about headless chickens being in charge.

Too late to add, but I don't recall Mr. (Black Dog) Churchill or Mrs. Thatcher being a bundle of laughs.

Taxing Peter to pay Paul's fine

What should the £10m TV deception fine money be spent on?

A reduction in the BBC licence fee? (To help offset what we paid on their fines)

Quote of the day - Publish, and be...?

It's not actually a question, but I sample from the Ch4 Snowmail for today to make it so:

'...Who makes money out of these biographies, given that hardly anyone ever buys them. Witness David Blunkett's great tome, for which hundreds of thousands were paid by the publisher and which 4,000 people bothered to buy'?

Darn good question, though. Just doesn't add up. Mind you, what about our country, and especially its 'leadership', does these days?

Inspiration from depression

I spend a lot of time slagging off the BBC Breakfast News.

That isn't likely to stop any time soon, at least so long as the standards of reporting and editorial emphasis still lurk in the current barrel bottom they do.

However, it does serve a useful function on occasion in a) highlighting a barking bit of official numptiness (sadly, rarely taking on the individuals responsible and holding them accountable, and certainly not beyond the next day) and, b) on occasion bringing to one's attention a truly awesome individual.

Kate Spall is one such. She has taken on the system... and won. And she's prepared to do it for others. Poor woman has just been given a national task, but seems up for it. Frankly, she deserves all the funding she can be given... by private benefactors who are keen to get things DONE, and keep things out of the hands of the legions of parasites who work in 'public services' these days, and who are measured more on money they 'save' than any service they provide.

Cancer drugs: how to appeal

We're hearing the story of how one woman's campaign for better cancer treatment, following the death of her mother. Kate Spall's website is named after her mother, Pamela Northcott.
The Pamela Northcott Fund

The ratings under the bed

Just had to write to the BBC about their story of 'SATS stress'.

With two 12 year-olds I have some sympathy for what the kids are going through with SATS.
But really... cartoons of monsters based in the fact that, when asked, kids don't like exams.
The wee girl I saw interviewed just now made more sense than any of the rest of you.
How to trivialise a serious issue and create unnecessary unease in parents and kids.

Polishing turds

We need a cure for these virals

Whatever happened to having a good 'product' and it succeeded in its merits?

We have a government and its compliant media supporters obsessing about how to win next time, when maybe getting back to doing a good job would be a start.

We have a national broadcaster that seems to have hired more folk and spent more money on looking like they are what they should be or excusing why they are not, than simply investing in doing what they do well... well again.

And here we have the music business. When was it last about a talented person making music that speaks to the audience simply by being good, pure and simple.

Uncivil self-serving?

Out-thought by the Tories

I see via the book-promo PR system that Cherie has indicated hubs is advising Dear Leader on how to win the next election.

Seems to be working a treat so far. Good luck with that.

Small point on the final notion, which does seem to cop up a lot.

Maybe getting on with running the country well, now, might be a more sensible priority.

Silly I know, but it might even have a positive effect on the only thing that seems to matter than the whole sorry crew who depend on Westminster.

The left is right. Apparently.

And voters can't be trusted. Apparently.

Keeping class in the British classroom

I think this is where I was meant to end up having followed a trail from a homepage picture entitled 'Is meritocracy dead?'.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Mr. Johnson voted into his position by the majority in a democratic vote?

And is not Mr. Cameron doing quite well in the polls?

All for each to lose, but naked attempts at trying to justify 'we wuzz robbed' seems a little desperate on the parts of some in the media firmament.

And speaking of those who the public have seen fit not to endorse, did Mr. Livingstone not previously enjoy the support and benefits of the system for two terms?

That's despite not enjoying the academic advantages of, I don't know, Messrs Blair and Brown?

I know it's darn inconvenient when the people don't see the rectitude of a view, but abusing position and privilege in having access to such pages is insulting.

Fortunately, as Clark County and others such as Zoe on these pages have shown, telling people what to do is about as effective as slagging them off for not having the 'correct' point of view.

All in the family

'You can't help who your parents are, but they can often help you'

Nepotism is a tricky thing. Where is the line between an innocent boost from Dad, Mum, Bro or Sis, and something less... acceptable.

With all the billions of fine folk on offer in the word's political or media stages, how odd it is to see the same names crop up, over and over, at the very top, and often concurrently: Bush, Miliband, Chakrabarti, Bhutto... the list of those who who lead us, in the family way, is long and legendary.

Maybe a bit too long?

All in the worst possible taste...

IPCC investigators called in after gun battle

I knew AGW was responsible for almost everything these days, but really...

Politics, and media, as usual

I have no problem with the Green Party. In fact I think there is much to laud.

However, in the Letters page of the Indy today, there was much to ponder about who does what, and what gets reported.

At least these points were printed, but our' listening but not hearing' government, I very much doubt that the media will any time soon get back to reporting in keeping with the objective facts of the population as a whole's interests or voting trends.

Listening but not hearing?

It seems the government is not the only one that says one thing but does (or does not do) another if it suits.

I blog on Newsnight a fair bit. One reason was that it had a live link so if people thought my comments had merit they could find my site.

That has now gone, it seems. There was recently a major upgrade, ostensibly to deal with some serious operational issues, but a lot of good babies got thrown out with the bathwater.

It's hard to see how it has worked. Well... comments are now well down, and a lot of serious commenters have departed. So I guess that's result for them.

Don't know about serious, but I am persistent. I raised some issues at the outset on Junkk Male Review, and then a few more. They seemed to get rather snitty. Then an IT poster raised some data security questions that an answer was promised on.

I saw none forthcoming, so I asked, and asked again (no 6). And now again (No 15).

'9. At 10:46 pm on 06 May 2008, PeterBarron wrote:

Yes, I'll be back. I have actually blogged since Carla - about the new blog.'

Super. Any chance of an answer (or pointing to where one was if I missed it) to Chloe-F's concerns on data security:

From No 25 on the 18th April -

I guess the live link is still not an option either? I suppose it's all still settling in, having seen some of the premoderated stuff that was allowed through and up which seemed to break every rule (can't speak for the stuff premoderated out of course, but it does seem interpretation is quite 'creative').

I feel a bit like JP asking over and over, but as it was offered it would be nice to know. Or are we in an era of 'listening but not hearing' Hoonian selectivity?

ps: Like Barrie, I also miss the preview.

None so deaf?

If only God the gift hae' ge' us..

ILL DESERVED VICTORY FOR THE EVENING STANDARD

Naked political bias and lack of balance in reporting and commentary by independent media is, of course, unfortunate, if inevitable. Mechanisms to try to prevent this do of course exist (see associated blog post on these pages about TalkSport firing an over-partisan DJ), but they are few and far between, not always applicable or effective.

I do not live in London so I was not exposed to The Evening Standard's shenanigans, but was certainly aware of those by others not mentioned here, such as The Guardian, for instance. It is in fact being noted now that by trashing the ability of the public to make a decision, in a democratic vote, by some who seem to believe they are better placed to know what's 'right', may have actually served in reverse of what was intended. Darn those independent minded voters... how dare they rain on other's agendas. The fools! Or succumb to the wiles of 'blonde Tory buffoon Boris Johnson..' who, apparently, is now '..where he can quaff champagne and caviar and wonder what the hell he has got himself into.' I guess London is just going to have to find out what IS going to happen, but will be guided, I am sure objectively, by many media outlets on the journey.

Will we also, I wonder, along with age be treated to the perceived (by whom, and what measure?) affiliations of all who get mentioned in future. Because, other than being right in this case at least, I don't recall reading before about YouGov as being 'run by Tory Peter Kellner, partnered with the Standard'. Ta for the heads up.

Like many, this has served me well. So, before hitting the keyboards in future, I think I might try a bit of Burnsian looking in the mirror first. Just to make sure I am not being as bad, or worse, than those I see fit to critique.

Gaurdian - Tough at the toff

Foot in mouth disease, again

TalkSport sacks James Whale over 'vote Boris' call

Crikey, there won't be anyone left at the BBC soon, then. Or do you have to actually say the words, as opposed to in every other way nodding and winking as good as...

Funny how broadcast seems to be held to such standards when online is not. And as for print... between such as the Evening Standard and The (You all voted the wrong way...you don't deserve a vote) Guardian, well...

I look for more dismissals following serious breaches in the days to come. Oh look, a flying pig!

Another cherished notion disabused

Times - Elections only prove that the system is failing

I, for one, did not know there was no longer a secret ballot. Good job it's not Zimbabwe, esel we'd have the goons round to 'persuade' us for next time.

That darn electorate again

'Listening' politicians are a menace

'If a politician does what I want and not what is best, that is not what I pay my taxes for'

To use a common political and media practice and take just one thing out of context, I just have to say, to this above at least... say what?

Who is it you think knows, and can be trusted to know 'best'.

The 'that's rich!' get richer...

Ian Blair admits he misled MPs over terror threat

One of the country's most senior police officers 'misleads', and admits to doing it.

Not even front page. And it seems he still is in his job, with all perks and privileges.

Now, what are the odds of me operating my life on a similar basis, and getting away with it.

Guardian - Found out: the chief constable who had a love affair on expenses - Maybe double standards are actually policy?

Bang, bang, you're dead...ethically?

Just saw Declan on BBC Breakfast share the 'news' of BAE, an arms manufacturer, looking at an ethical audit.

Good luck with that. Unless, of course, it is cherry-picked (the audit, not the report of course).

Guardian - BAE paid too little heed to ethics, says report - maybe I'm the only one to find it funny, in a sick kind of way.

The perils of meddling

Dear Limey assholes

Just for the archive, having been reminded myself by others, I attach here a link to the fallout that can ensue from some going a bit far (in this case literally) in letting others know how they think they should vote.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but they way such views are now being imposed (such as 'Operation Clark County') by an elite, on those deemed in need of re-educating on the correct path can often achieve a result quite the opposite to that intended.

Democracy inaction

Guardian - The clunking fightback

Just watched yet another Labour Minister on BBC trying to go with the 'it was bad with the Tories' (um, 12 years ago - not much listening and/or learning in this period, apparently) defence, and what is important is that the guy who IS our PM WAS the 'best Chancellor ever'. Which is about as reassuring, even if true, as being told the Captain of our sinking ship used to be a really good purser.

Good luck with that. I think zero has been learned, and the wrong folk are being listened to.

ps: as a person guided by the power of argument rather than tribal allegiance, might we ever see any mention of other players in the political firmament?

I know it serves the Conservatives well to sit back and bask in the sidelines whilst the incumbent and its media groupies engage in a cannibalistic dogfight, but am unsure if it serves the country's interests well.

And as a 'leading' media organ with a respected reputation (if with well known leanings. Fair enough, there are others who err in other directions) I'd rather hope that having won the election for Bush with overt, obnoxious, partisan meddling, a little less official support should be given to frankly out-of-touch paid commentators who seem perilously close to telling the electorate that they should not be trusted with the vote if they cannot deliver the 'correct' result.

I truly concern myself with the attitude of the liberal elite 'commentariat'. The Guardian or Indy may be dismissed by the actual size of the readership, but their influence is out of proportion due to who they think they are... and represent. However, such as the BBC is another matter.

I do not believe they are playing a double game by giving such prominence to such as Polly T, Jasmin AB or MPs such as Diane Abbott, but it is funny just how badly these outings have gone down and/or served the agenda intended.

Even just on logic. Whilst the Conservatives and Boris have everything to lose now they are tasked to deliver more than words, it is daft to try and raise the spectre of slick salesmanship as a wholly bad thing. We are all, in one way or another, salesfolk. Except, it seems, certain career pols, who do not deem good products combined with clear communication of them as necessary or of value. Speaking of career pols, it is a bit rich for those who never touched a real job in their lives bang on about inexperience running things... for the social benefit of people in real jobs (with unsubsidised housing, waitlists for dental, car and TV tax fees from their own pockets. 'Feel our pain' indeed. What an ass). And in any case, a great leader does not have time to do detail; they hire the best folk around them who can be trusted to handle it, and communicate between the leader and those below (or sideways, in the case of those whom they serve) effectively.

Guardian - All Gordon can do is fight on - and hope his luck turns - As Tina Turner once asked... 'What's luck go to do with it?" Try a little less fighting and a little more getting on with doing stuff that makes sense (as opposeed to this). It's a country that is supposed to be run, not a media popularity contest. I don't have to like my leaders, but I do need to respect them.

Nothing wrong with selling as such. It's the product that really matters.

I just listened to the current leader of my country on BBC and the SKY 'explaining' what he was going to do after what has recently transpired.

And my jaw dropped that the best he, and his crack squad, could come up with in the time since the series of drubbings is... more of the same bunker-denial: 'they have learned and are listening and are getting on the the job..'. and a score more hackneyed, meaningless and now discredited (hint: check the election results from the people) sound bytes!!!!?

This is a badly cracked record that is not playing... at all.

The interviewers could barely keep the incredulity out of their voices that fair questions could not elicit anything more substantive than vague, future-alluding drivel... ignoring the 12 years trying.

Interesting to note the main thrust of the 'counterattack/defence/whatever it gets spun as' , from a government either bereft of actual suggestions and/or replete with way too many that have gone pear-shaped, is to dismiss the opposition as just 'salesmen'.

Yes, so? I can think of no aspect of life that does not involve selling, and people who are good at doing it are pretty good leaders. Seems better than pretty much (looking at the polls) having policies no one is buying.

The Tories will now have to flesh out their substance a lot more now, and they have had a luxury by being in opposition a while now to enjoy the role of critic.

Thing is, it seesm optimistic for the incumbent to figure the best way to stay calm in the bunker is say nothing is wrong down there, and pointing everywhere else (including the electorate) as being at fault for not seeing this emerging truth.

Let's see what happens over the next 2 years. It's for the Conservatives to lose. And in my county even more, as Labour doesn't even bother to field a candidate, so there will be no sending messages or tactical stuff, just trying to see what might actually make the future worth.

Which was nice...

Explaining the need for the creation of this blog, I share this very self-absorbed link from last week's Sunday Times 'Rich List'.

Peter Martin and family

I am evidently doing better than I thought. An also looking pretty darn good for a near octogenarian!

Better yet, I wonder if we're related... and he's feeling philanthropic!