Tony Blair will be as celebrated as Winston Churchill, claims Cherie
Her and whose army?
Good luck with that.
The Editors' blog is moving
11 years ago
30.9.08
We feel you pain..ish
I have just watched the BBC Breakfast News with one of the blondes, Sian Williams, conducting an incisive, in-depth interview with David Cameron.
Frankly I was moved to write in with a pithy comment to them, but decided against as there is simply no point, a feeling which the entity I co-fund might like to ponder.
Basically it surrounded/s her use of 'vox-pops' (with the good folk of Brum) to form the basis of her questions, which pretty much were as follows:
"What people are saying..."
"What I got from.."
Now those two in sequence are in their own right interesting. How the heck do I know who these catch all 'people' are? Who selected them? So far I have seen about a half dozen, over and over. How many were interviewed in total. Why did these make the cut and not others? Why? Who selected? Was it to help towards 'What I got from..?' as opposed any accurate reflection of public mood? I don't know, because of the unique way my national broadcaster is funded, and run, and overseen, no one is going to tell me honestly.
I'll leave others more qualified and with more resources to assess such things as matters of balanced reporting, but I now seriously question the value of these vox pops other than to add public voices to assist editorial agendas.
Then, speaking of 'the people' we get onto matters of empathy. All politicians will seek to convince us that they feel 'our' pain. Just as most media luvvies seem to think they are there to and do speak for 'us'.
Along with or Gordon Brown or Vince Cable, I very much doubt David Cameron really can know what most are going through. He's an MP, and they are not short of a bob or two. He's also a party leader so he has layers of 'people' in between him and any domestic, down-to earth reality. Or gets a lot from those Fiesta-driving, mortgage-lumbered, Tesco-shopping guys in our London media... not.
So I have to wonder why this lady dragged up Mr. Cameron's educational background (how often are other MPs' subjected to their schooling, as if this has any bearing on their financial situation now), rather oddly by saying she wasn't going to bring it up but others (unspecified) have...so how about it?
Mr. Cameron and his party have a lot of convincing to do, but when I hear soundbites that match Labour speeches coming out of pensioner's mouths and broadcast nationally as 'representative', and interviewers dragging up failed digs at background not applied to my hearing with anyone else, I sense something akin to the 'Get Palin' from certain quarters on this side of pond, and am starting to react accordingly. And not in a way the masterminds in our public propaganda system might be intending.
And if their efforts do backfire as I suspect they will, I truly hope those in power will take heed that I don't take kindly to any government/media axis of weevils telling me what to think, on what... and when.
Frankly I was moved to write in with a pithy comment to them, but decided against as there is simply no point, a feeling which the entity I co-fund might like to ponder.
Basically it surrounded/s her use of 'vox-pops' (with the good folk of Brum) to form the basis of her questions, which pretty much were as follows:
"What people are saying..."
"What I got from.."
Now those two in sequence are in their own right interesting. How the heck do I know who these catch all 'people' are? Who selected them? So far I have seen about a half dozen, over and over. How many were interviewed in total. Why did these make the cut and not others? Why? Who selected? Was it to help towards 'What I got from..?' as opposed any accurate reflection of public mood? I don't know, because of the unique way my national broadcaster is funded, and run, and overseen, no one is going to tell me honestly.
I'll leave others more qualified and with more resources to assess such things as matters of balanced reporting, but I now seriously question the value of these vox pops other than to add public voices to assist editorial agendas.
Then, speaking of 'the people' we get onto matters of empathy. All politicians will seek to convince us that they feel 'our' pain. Just as most media luvvies seem to think they are there to and do speak for 'us'.
Along with or Gordon Brown or Vince Cable, I very much doubt David Cameron really can know what most are going through. He's an MP, and they are not short of a bob or two. He's also a party leader so he has layers of 'people' in between him and any domestic, down-to earth reality. Or gets a lot from those Fiesta-driving, mortgage-lumbered, Tesco-shopping guys in our London media... not.
So I have to wonder why this lady dragged up Mr. Cameron's educational background (how often are other MPs' subjected to their schooling, as if this has any bearing on their financial situation now), rather oddly by saying she wasn't going to bring it up but others (unspecified) have...so how about it?
Mr. Cameron and his party have a lot of convincing to do, but when I hear soundbites that match Labour speeches coming out of pensioner's mouths and broadcast nationally as 'representative', and interviewers dragging up failed digs at background not applied to my hearing with anyone else, I sense something akin to the 'Get Palin' from certain quarters on this side of pond, and am starting to react accordingly. And not in a way the masterminds in our public propaganda system might be intending.
And if their efforts do backfire as I suspect they will, I truly hope those in power will take heed that I don't take kindly to any government/media axis of weevils telling me what to think, on what... and when.
29.9.08
Meanwhile, back at...
I hope the Conservatives won't go soft on localism
Worth getting eyebrows cranked at what any 'alternative' may mean.
Worth getting eyebrows cranked at what any 'alternative' may mean.
Amen
Despite all many say, and whatever such as me write, one fundamental is that almost all that has been dug to get us into this hole - PC legislation, 'old boys' club' pay & pension awards, 800k+ extra non-income-generating civil servant jobs, cannot be undone.
The bloated bureaucracy that is crushing Britain
The bloated bureaucracy that is crushing Britain
TAT(E)
Just watching BBC Breakfast..
First up, Mr. Richard 'How Eco Is My Spaceship' Branson selling his new book (quick plug), then a piece on the Tate awards. Had to be reacted to...
'Hey, art, eh?
Don't know about the works on display, but the guff spouted by the luvvie ladies with their carefully-placed 'explaining' all this that they get paid to be part of is priceless and does deserve an award.'
First up, Mr. Richard 'How Eco Is My Spaceship' Branson selling his new book (quick plug), then a piece on the Tate awards. Had to be reacted to...
'Hey, art, eh?
Don't know about the works on display, but the guff spouted by the luvvie ladies with their carefully-placed 'explaining' all this that they get paid to be part of is priceless and does deserve an award.'
Part Troll
Why you're more troll than you think
Love the cartoon. Didn't know it was possible for a computer screen to also act as a mirror.
And the piece resonates in its basic premise.
However, across the blogosphere (which I do inhabit perhaps more than I should), I am amazed how in complement to this piece there are so many telling me and many others that really we should not be having opinions, especially not posting them and really it should all be best left to those in the BBC, Guardian, etc who 'know better'.
Um... no.
Yours, Part Troll (sorry, Bill)
Love the cartoon. Didn't know it was possible for a computer screen to also act as a mirror.
And the piece resonates in its basic premise.
However, across the blogosphere (which I do inhabit perhaps more than I should), I am amazed how in complement to this piece there are so many telling me and many others that really we should not be having opinions, especially not posting them and really it should all be best left to those in the BBC, Guardian, etc who 'know better'.
Um... no.
Yours, Part Troll (sorry, Bill)
Money's worths
NEW - As all this is a done deal with our money and no reference to anyone (Alistair Darling says it was all OK'd a few months ago, so that's alright then) I think this Gaurdian masthead sums it up.NEW - Also complemented well, I think, by this cartoon by Matt in the Telegraph
Newsnight
Dear Messrs Prudence and Onwiththejob,
To cut out what seems to already be way too many highly paid and/or pensioned middle persons, I am leaving my wallet and what's left in it out on my currently debt/mortgage free home doorstep for any institution and individual - who you evidently hope will help you stay in power - to lift whatever they fancy from, to keep them in a manner to which you have let them become accustomed in over 10 years of 'oversight'.
Rgds, JM
ps: Not so sure on the income tax demand
pps: Aunty, licence fee is looking iffy, too.
Indy - Taxpayers run risk of a £1 trillion burden - Nice round number. Not.
Telegraph - Bradford & Bingley nationalisation damages Labour politically - Ya think? Oo - possible loyal (or at least buyable) voters. Let's throw lost cause voters' money at them!
28.9.08
I cannot tell a lie... it was my grandad wot dun it!
If Britain is a broken society, it's the Tories what broke it
Whilst snappy and a fairish rallying cry, I tend to agree that this is one call Mr. Cameron should have thought about more carefully before adopting from the Labour Party's most supportive newspaper (last archive 'ownership' I heard about, but maybe now with an earlier incarnation). It's hard these days to do anything without some media luvvie trimming context away to suit and gunning for a career-enhancing retort or, worse, fudge.
However, as defences of this Government of over a decade goes, I'd have to say anything that harks back that far is grasping. Maybe a crack was popped in; I can't recall. But the incumbents dropping the thing every year repeatedly on a annual, if not monthly basis thereafter is of more concern to me right now, and for the future, than anything any possible alternative's ancestors may have got up to.
Indy - NEW - Cameron retreats from his claim that Britain has a 'broken' society , as lobbed in, 'When did you last stop beating your wife' style, by...
Whilst snappy and a fairish rallying cry, I tend to agree that this is one call Mr. Cameron should have thought about more carefully before adopting from the Labour Party's most supportive newspaper (last archive 'ownership' I heard about, but maybe now with an earlier incarnation). It's hard these days to do anything without some media luvvie trimming context away to suit and gunning for a career-enhancing retort or, worse, fudge.
However, as defences of this Government of over a decade goes, I'd have to say anything that harks back that far is grasping. Maybe a crack was popped in; I can't recall. But the incumbents dropping the thing every year repeatedly on a annual, if not monthly basis thereafter is of more concern to me right now, and for the future, than anything any possible alternative's ancestors may have got up to.
Indy - NEW - Cameron retreats from his claim that Britain has a 'broken' society , as lobbed in, 'When did you last stop beating your wife' style, by...
Blooming good point
Reward without responsibility. Responsibility without accountability.
I don't pretned to undestand half of the workings and machinations betwen the City and our Governement, but I know what I don't like.
This makes a lot of sense to me.
... The malign role of the Big Four accountancy firms ("Spivs get rich. Greed prospers... ", 21 September). They aided and abetted the emergence of imprudent lending by banks. Henceforth, those banks deemed too large to fail should have their accounts audited by a government auditing agency. This would, in effect, act on behalf of taxpayers who will no longer tolerate picking up the tab for the banking sector's excesses.
And I can't see why not.
I don't pretned to undestand half of the workings and machinations betwen the City and our Governement, but I know what I don't like.
This makes a lot of sense to me.
... The malign role of the Big Four accountancy firms ("Spivs get rich. Greed prospers... ", 21 September). They aided and abetted the emergence of imprudent lending by banks. Henceforth, those banks deemed too large to fail should have their accounts audited by a government auditing agency. This would, in effect, act on behalf of taxpayers who will no longer tolerate picking up the tab for the banking sector's excesses.
And I can't see why not.
QUOTE OF THE DAY - Welcome to the petard
I reckon that in my writings there are a few ticking landmines that will come back to haunt me (and evolving views over time don't count), but until then, this tickled:
Two-way 'Mirror'
After 'The Sun' sponsored a conference debate, "Broken Britain", the 'Daily Mirror' ran a leader retorting "Broken Britain is a ridiculous Tory slogan". It's true the phrase is associated with Dave, but history records he didn't coin it. On 16 May 2006 a paper declared: "Broken Britain has to be fixed." The paper? The 'Sunday Mirror'.
Still, in their defence it was two whole years ago. Bless.
Actually, almost all the subsequent posts are epic, too.
Two-way 'Mirror'
After 'The Sun' sponsored a conference debate, "Broken Britain", the 'Daily Mirror' ran a leader retorting "Broken Britain is a ridiculous Tory slogan". It's true the phrase is associated with Dave, but history records he didn't coin it. On 16 May 2006 a paper declared: "Broken Britain has to be fixed." The paper? The 'Sunday Mirror'.
Still, in their defence it was two whole years ago. Bless.
Actually, almost all the subsequent posts are epic, too.
27.9.08
I wonder how Jesus would vote?
A bit like here, I rather think the US is stuffed in its choice of political leader. Frying pan or fire; you choose.Actually that makes it too interesting. More like the sub-prime or the ridiculous. And don't get me going on the VPs.
Speaking of which, I have to wonder how many minor-circulation US broadsheets run pretty much 60/60, 24/7 obsessive postings on every, and often totally unsubstatiated or outright spun piece of gossip from across the pond or solely from the capital for the... 'edification' or its transcontienntal readership?
These two are pretty much a tag-team, but I have to say they can still surprise. Have trowel, will smear it on.
Even with an obit of sorts.
I can see how they crank up the big reply numbers.
26.9.08
25.9.08
Why piss off a few when technology means you can do it to a lot more
Calamity Clegg strikes again
Just when I was thinking that they may at least be another 'least worst' to consider...
Bless.
Gotta say I didn't see that one coming.
Good job I am not gunning for high office, I guess.
Just when I was thinking that they may at least be another 'least worst' to consider...
Bless.
Gotta say I didn't see that one coming.
Good job I am not gunning for high office, I guess.
24.9.08
If in doubt, doubt. Then check.
The web encourages lies and deceit. It's impossible to know who lurks behind a funny nickname
How very odd. A Guardian writer thinks the state should muscle in on freedom of speech.
I remain yours, as ever... Junkk Male
Telegraph - Another voice expresses worry about internet
Telegraph - Derek Draper wants a rapid rebuttal unit for blogs
Telegraph - NEW - The fight against Futurechurch: blogging
Is there an out-of-touch, minority, self-delusional, unpopular, elitist, holier-than thou, we know better' entity that doesn't want to waste its time trying to herd eels or, failing that try and shoot them in the ocean?
Labour's Mr. Draper. The EU... and now this merry crew.
It would be funny if they were not serious. And dangerous.
How very odd. A Guardian writer thinks the state should muscle in on freedom of speech.
I remain yours, as ever... Junkk Male
Telegraph - Another voice expresses worry about internet
Telegraph - Derek Draper wants a rapid rebuttal unit for blogs
Telegraph - NEW - The fight against Futurechurch: blogging
Is there an out-of-touch, minority, self-delusional, unpopular, elitist, holier-than thou, we know better' entity that doesn't want to waste its time trying to herd eels or, failing that try and shoot them in the ocean?
Labour's Mr. Draper. The EU... and now this merry crew.
It would be funny if they were not serious. And dangerous.
Mee-iow
I tend not to refer to other scribes (professional courtesy? Cowardice? Mirror-phobia?), however the new breed of single-minded ticks employed by all the so-called 'quality dailies' to rabble rouse on a single issue is getting under my skin.
Tittle-tattle is OK in moderation, but witch hunts are counter-productive. And sharing gossip dressed as something more in the hope of it sticking an affront to intelligence.
Trying to avoid a troublesome priest moment, I would wish them un-employed, and those who hired them to subject upon the news-reading public to apologise for ever having down so.
Gossip, gossip, gossip...
Better post. Someone has to or I guess you may not get paid.
Here's how the story was 'billed':
'Dave Hill's London blog
Gossip, gossip, gossip...
Sep 23 2008: Ignoring journalists' questions about Mayor Johnson's team only makes them gossip more'
I think I can see the problem here. You have accidently mis-used the word 'journalist', you see. May explain a lot.
Tittle-tattle is OK in moderation, but witch hunts are counter-productive. And sharing gossip dressed as something more in the hope of it sticking an affront to intelligence.
Trying to avoid a troublesome priest moment, I would wish them un-employed, and those who hired them to subject upon the news-reading public to apologise for ever having down so.
Gossip, gossip, gossip...
Better post. Someone has to or I guess you may not get paid.
Here's how the story was 'billed':
'Dave Hill's London blog
Gossip, gossip, gossip...
Sep 23 2008: Ignoring journalists' questions about Mayor Johnson's team only makes them gossip more'
I think I can see the problem here. You have accidently mis-used the word 'journalist', you see. May explain a lot.
23.9.08
Brown Stuff & Wife
It deserves a whole new blog post..
Haven't seen it yet, and might not be bothered, but it is a concern that our national communicators of 'vision' seem to have even pro commentators confused as to whom some snipes were directed: Cameron or Milliband.
Newsnight
Sisters at War - I have been pondering a collective term for our current Government of all the talents...
Maybe it could be a 'Flounce' of Ministers?
Though 'Strop' is also good, unless you happen to be one of those being governed by this 'meritocratic-that's-not' system we now have to call democracy.
I'll have to check with my wife, when she gets back from real work, and we go over the finances and budget. Oh, the empathy....
'Sisters, keeping doing it...'
Food for thought
Sniggers aside, don't these defenders of the working class know the price of fish and spuds these days???
What kind of signal does this extravagence send out?
Popularity snapshot
No, it's too tempting. And as I work down the list see Barrie is there in the mod squad queue first.
The phrase ending '...on a plate' occurs, but I could have used that on the dinner list blog above, as he might have already.
Let's just see how it pans out.
And which hand gets used.
And what is in the other... if not in clear view.
No way to run a party, or government, or country... is it?
Me, I just await my chance to wield my vote... when the time comes.
Now, as to when THAT might be...
Old Etonians stick together - Meanwhile, back in the bubble...
'We're all peers together...'
So in the spirit of sticking together, the blood relative of a bloke being slagged off, if to an appreciative audience, by another bloke has a wee moment on the pause button, professionally speaking.
This being a German TV crew I am shocked, but not surprised. The world is going to pot, because the crisis is Global, see. I've been told that a lot, lately.
Can you imagine anyone from say, the BBC allowing personal feelings or editorial agenda creeping in to influence the flow of someone whose views they did not hold.
The very idea!
ps: technical point... is it possible to stop filming 'noisily'? Just asking.
Prospects for Tuesday 23rd September
'3. At 1:09pm on 23 Sep 2008, thegangofone
How about a pensions financial sector expert?'
Or... and here's a thought, a balanced, objective collection of moderate folk who know what they are talking about around the topic at hand, and not the usual ratings-cranking, PR/producer-concocted, extreme bookend, 'usual-suspects on the speed-dial' classic Newsnight 'twofer', at the expense of anyone who knows what's really going on and what the average joe can make of it all, much less do about it.
No? Oh, well. Plus ca change.
Telegraph
Sarah Brown surprises the Labour Party Conference - 'It's fair to say that the Lobby were rather charmed by Mrs B in China..'
Say no more, luv, say no more...
So long as you and 'The Lobby' are OK, all else will fall into place.
ps: Take that, from this MoP at least, as a 'No'. I have real issues to deal with and kids to support.
pps: And what is it with Mr. Fudge and shoving the ladies out of the lifeboat left, lefter and really left to try and pull the thing to safety (or is it to distract those few actually still trying to rescue anything... or one) as the menfolk discuss how they feel each other's pain?
First JKR and now the missus. Who next?
Not sure, but maybe even the last Labour voter who is waiting to switch out the lights might be keen on, oh, I don't know... some substance?
Old Flash is almost willing that hypocritical, well-spun pan to come arcing in.
Is Sarah Brown Labour's Sarah Palin? - Mrs. Fudge introduces hubby and the Westminster Village is whipped into a frenzy. Substance? Pah! Tonight's TV news and tomorrow's headlines write themselves.
Who'd have thunkit?
ps: She does do things right? And was elected to some office or other, I presume? Otherwise he may as well have been big upped by a set of moose antlers. Ah well, let the 4th rate estate go wild..
Gordon Brown wants to "rebuild the world's financial system" - Just on a diplomatic train of thought...
If he has spent all his time saying the mess we're in is all their faults, what is the likelihood of them letting him within a bargepole's length of even getting in the room for dealing with anything bar whose 'non-political accessory' spouse gets the tea and biscuits.
A Coke, maybe. Then he 'Can teach the world to sing...'
ANOTHER DAY DAWNS...
A blogger on a forum asked, and I answered... and then went off at a tangent...
Do they have editors ? Does anyone actually read or check stuff before it goes public ?
No. I know it is 'just a blog', but online I often have to ask Newsnight's Michael Crick if what he wrote is what he meant.
Often it can be funny, but on occasion meanings can be distorted... from the writings of a senior political commentator on a significant news blog from our 20k+ staffed, £3.5B funded national broadcaster. I'd have thought running it by more than the tea lady, security guard or work experience student (if he even does that) might be in order for professional integrity. As they often get left up I am not even sure they ever check back. 'Post & forget' seems to be the order of the day.
As to Mrs. Brown's hubby's Churchill moment...
'Churchill... what exactly will be happening and how will it be paid for...?'
'Ohhhh... yersh'
... credit to BBC Breakfast for revisiting the two (major statistical x-section there, mind) families they were tracking, neither of whom shared the Westminster Village and its media camp followers' shock and awe at the genius of wheeling out the family to say it will not be used as a prop.
When it comes to substance, I am reassured that the general public have more sensible heads on their shoulders than the hype and spin-obsessed numpties who think they speak for 'us'.
I await the blonde's moment with Dear Leader later with... well... 'interest'.
Telegraph - Gordon Brown pitches to stay in the game - I didn't think that Gordon's speech was particularly good until I saw the lack of withering comments on here !!
That good, ehh !!
I guess that rather depends on who you mean 'good' for?
Aside from the rather self-delusional opinion that what I have read here so far is 'lacking in wither' (I'd hate to be around if the authors really express their displeasure), it sort of sums up the state of play that only fouling up big time and being trashed only moderately can be deemed a good sign.
Odd way to run a country, mind.
ps: how many pitches, and strikes, does Mrs. Brown's hubby (aw... bless) get before he's out?
BBC - A quick e-mail having seen the BBC Breakfast interview:
Quick question for Mrs. Brown's hubby...
How many others of those seeking to be paid and pensioned to 'have a go' at 'leading' our country have not quite figured out what is involved running a country whilst also managing a family?
And may loyally choose, having run it by the Party Leader four months previously, 'totally understandably' drop this decision on him with truly exquisite timing?
Just how daft is the public thought to be?
Newsnight - Tuesday 23rd September 2008
Telegraph - Gordon Brown delivers a rare rapier thrust - 'As an obsessive about the inner workings of politics, my main interest is in who dreamed it up'
As a working joe who obsesses only about the tangible manifestations of politics on my family's future, I could give a rodent's pitootie.
Other than to note that if one accepts that communication of one's ideas is pretty key, if no one with real jobs seems to have a clue who or what he was an about yet, it seems to be about as much use as free theatre tickets to most who don't live inside the M25
Telegraph - Gordon Brown doublespeak: what it means for business - 'Getting it', even if true, is a tad different to doing it.
And after over a decade of saying one thing and not doing anything that has been other than the assembly of a pig's ear, I feel you are cutting waaaaaaaay too much slack for one who has long ceased to deserve it.
Indy - One of Brown's best, but history was not made - It was a speech, guys.
Gaurdian - Gordon Brown connected with his audience and bought himself time - Would that be the audience of a few thousand there (and wanted to be), or the other 60M in the real world?
Guardian - 'Re-energised' Brown puts Tories on the back foot -
A who put the who on the what now?
Well, everyone is entitled to their delu... opinion I guess.
Wishing it don't make it so.
Though it is sensible of them to stay mute, a small peep from M. C's merry crew would be nice once the real world has finished chewing over this stale bone you have become so attached to.
Newsnight - speaking of wives, hubbys, kiddies and the like...
'We broke the story last night.....but what's the truth behind Ruth Kelly leaving the Cabinet?'
Always a little intrigued how that works and why it matters, outside certain circles and pay grades.
Is there some investigative journalism at play, or just who happens to be on duty with the only national broadcaster around to share messages passed out at the time?
As to getting the truth from anything to do with this government, especially behind the locked doors of our 'Oh, I didn't realise this job would make juggling the family tricky until now' wooden Cabinet of all the talents, well, good luck with that.
I know you're trying.
Telegraph - Is there more to Ruth Kelly's resignation? - Actually, who cares if she told him to get stuffed?
Nope, sorry.
Still trying to figure out how one who fought tooth and claw to achieve one of the higher offices of the land hadn't quite sussed what it would take beforehand.
And then, knowing the impact bailing would have/has had these days, in four months chose last night to do the dirty.
I know to all in the bubble it is a silly game that needs playing, but to the likes of me outside trying to cope with the consequences, I fear faith in anyone worthy of governing or with the professional ability to report upon them is like the supply of broadband to my sons' glossy new PC toys before they retire (they are 12).
WSJ - Britain's Brown Bust - A view from abroad. Not saying this is a good or bad example, but I do pine for reporting and, yes, opinion that must be to a degree subjective, that is not immediately tainted by the partisan duties of the author's overlords.
Indy - NEW - Oh Sarah, you've just taken a step back for women - Actually, could as easily have been posted in the preceding post on 'Ladies who 'do' charity': 'Jetting off to New York to host a celebrity-laden lunch supports my belief that many famous women use charity as the ultimate form of networking – no matter how worthy the cause. When Sarah hosted a lunch in the UK, attended by Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, female journalists were thrilled to receive free tickets, ensuring a tidal wave of gush about Carla and Sarah. '
Observer - NEW - Why did my heart sink when Sarah stepped on to the stage?
As will mine if Mrs. Cameron comes within a mile of anything other than offering due familial support to her husband whilst looking after the fmaily when he is away from home.
Haven't seen it yet, and might not be bothered, but it is a concern that our national communicators of 'vision' seem to have even pro commentators confused as to whom some snipes were directed: Cameron or Milliband.
Newsnight
Sisters at War - I have been pondering a collective term for our current Government of all the talents...
Maybe it could be a 'Flounce' of Ministers?
Though 'Strop' is also good, unless you happen to be one of those being governed by this 'meritocratic-that's-not' system we now have to call democracy.
I'll have to check with my wife, when she gets back from real work, and we go over the finances and budget. Oh, the empathy....
'Sisters, keeping doing it...'
Food for thought
Sniggers aside, don't these defenders of the working class know the price of fish and spuds these days???
What kind of signal does this extravagence send out?
Popularity snapshot
No, it's too tempting. And as I work down the list see Barrie is there in the mod squad queue first.
The phrase ending '...on a plate' occurs, but I could have used that on the dinner list blog above, as he might have already.
Let's just see how it pans out.
And which hand gets used.
And what is in the other... if not in clear view.
No way to run a party, or government, or country... is it?
Me, I just await my chance to wield my vote... when the time comes.
Now, as to when THAT might be...
Old Etonians stick together - Meanwhile, back in the bubble...
'We're all peers together...'
So in the spirit of sticking together, the blood relative of a bloke being slagged off, if to an appreciative audience, by another bloke has a wee moment on the pause button, professionally speaking.
This being a German TV crew I am shocked, but not surprised. The world is going to pot, because the crisis is Global, see. I've been told that a lot, lately.
Can you imagine anyone from say, the BBC allowing personal feelings or editorial agenda creeping in to influence the flow of someone whose views they did not hold.
The very idea!
ps: technical point... is it possible to stop filming 'noisily'? Just asking.
Prospects for Tuesday 23rd September
'3. At 1:09pm on 23 Sep 2008, thegangofone
How about a pensions financial sector expert?'
Or... and here's a thought, a balanced, objective collection of moderate folk who know what they are talking about around the topic at hand, and not the usual ratings-cranking, PR/producer-concocted, extreme bookend, 'usual-suspects on the speed-dial' classic Newsnight 'twofer', at the expense of anyone who knows what's really going on and what the average joe can make of it all, much less do about it.
No? Oh, well. Plus ca change.
Telegraph
Sarah Brown surprises the Labour Party Conference - 'It's fair to say that the Lobby were rather charmed by Mrs B in China..'
Say no more, luv, say no more...
So long as you and 'The Lobby' are OK, all else will fall into place.
ps: Take that, from this MoP at least, as a 'No'. I have real issues to deal with and kids to support.
pps: And what is it with Mr. Fudge and shoving the ladies out of the lifeboat left, lefter and really left to try and pull the thing to safety (or is it to distract those few actually still trying to rescue anything... or one) as the menfolk discuss how they feel each other's pain?
First JKR and now the missus. Who next?
Not sure, but maybe even the last Labour voter who is waiting to switch out the lights might be keen on, oh, I don't know... some substance?
Old Flash is almost willing that hypocritical, well-spun pan to come arcing in.
Is Sarah Brown Labour's Sarah Palin? - Mrs. Fudge introduces hubby and the Westminster Village is whipped into a frenzy. Substance? Pah! Tonight's TV news and tomorrow's headlines write themselves.
Who'd have thunkit?
ps: She does do things right? And was elected to some office or other, I presume? Otherwise he may as well have been big upped by a set of moose antlers. Ah well, let the 4th rate estate go wild..
Gordon Brown wants to "rebuild the world's financial system" - Just on a diplomatic train of thought...
If he has spent all his time saying the mess we're in is all their faults, what is the likelihood of them letting him within a bargepole's length of even getting in the room for dealing with anything bar whose 'non-political accessory' spouse gets the tea and biscuits.
A Coke, maybe. Then he 'Can teach the world to sing...'
ANOTHER DAY DAWNS...
A blogger on a forum asked, and I answered... and then went off at a tangent...
Do they have editors ? Does anyone actually read or check stuff before it goes public ?
No. I know it is 'just a blog', but online I often have to ask Newsnight's Michael Crick if what he wrote is what he meant.
Often it can be funny, but on occasion meanings can be distorted... from the writings of a senior political commentator on a significant news blog from our 20k+ staffed, £3.5B funded national broadcaster. I'd have thought running it by more than the tea lady, security guard or work experience student (if he even does that) might be in order for professional integrity. As they often get left up I am not even sure they ever check back. 'Post & forget' seems to be the order of the day.
As to Mrs. Brown's hubby's Churchill moment...
'Churchill... what exactly will be happening and how will it be paid for...?'
'Ohhhh... yersh'
... credit to BBC Breakfast for revisiting the two (major statistical x-section there, mind) families they were tracking, neither of whom shared the Westminster Village and its media camp followers' shock and awe at the genius of wheeling out the family to say it will not be used as a prop.
When it comes to substance, I am reassured that the general public have more sensible heads on their shoulders than the hype and spin-obsessed numpties who think they speak for 'us'.
I await the blonde's moment with Dear Leader later with... well... 'interest'.
Telegraph - Gordon Brown pitches to stay in the game - I didn't think that Gordon's speech was particularly good until I saw the lack of withering comments on here !!
That good, ehh !!
I guess that rather depends on who you mean 'good' for?
Aside from the rather self-delusional opinion that what I have read here so far is 'lacking in wither' (I'd hate to be around if the authors really express their displeasure), it sort of sums up the state of play that only fouling up big time and being trashed only moderately can be deemed a good sign.
Odd way to run a country, mind.
ps: how many pitches, and strikes, does Mrs. Brown's hubby (aw... bless) get before he's out?
BBC - A quick e-mail having seen the BBC Breakfast interview:
Quick question for Mrs. Brown's hubby...
How many others of those seeking to be paid and pensioned to 'have a go' at 'leading' our country have not quite figured out what is involved running a country whilst also managing a family?
And may loyally choose, having run it by the Party Leader four months previously, 'totally understandably' drop this decision on him with truly exquisite timing?
Just how daft is the public thought to be?
Newsnight - Tuesday 23rd September 2008
Telegraph - Gordon Brown delivers a rare rapier thrust - 'As an obsessive about the inner workings of politics, my main interest is in who dreamed it up'
As a working joe who obsesses only about the tangible manifestations of politics on my family's future, I could give a rodent's pitootie.
Other than to note that if one accepts that communication of one's ideas is pretty key, if no one with real jobs seems to have a clue who or what he was an about yet, it seems to be about as much use as free theatre tickets to most who don't live inside the M25
Telegraph - Gordon Brown doublespeak: what it means for business - 'Getting it', even if true, is a tad different to doing it.
And after over a decade of saying one thing and not doing anything that has been other than the assembly of a pig's ear, I feel you are cutting waaaaaaaay too much slack for one who has long ceased to deserve it.
Indy - One of Brown's best, but history was not made - It was a speech, guys.
Gaurdian - Gordon Brown connected with his audience and bought himself time - Would that be the audience of a few thousand there (and wanted to be), or the other 60M in the real world?
Guardian - 'Re-energised' Brown puts Tories on the back foot -
A who put the who on the what now?
Well, everyone is entitled to their delu... opinion I guess.
Wishing it don't make it so.
Though it is sensible of them to stay mute, a small peep from M. C's merry crew would be nice once the real world has finished chewing over this stale bone you have become so attached to.
Newsnight - speaking of wives, hubbys, kiddies and the like...
'We broke the story last night.....but what's the truth behind Ruth Kelly leaving the Cabinet?'
Always a little intrigued how that works and why it matters, outside certain circles and pay grades.
Is there some investigative journalism at play, or just who happens to be on duty with the only national broadcaster around to share messages passed out at the time?
As to getting the truth from anything to do with this government, especially behind the locked doors of our 'Oh, I didn't realise this job would make juggling the family tricky until now' wooden Cabinet of all the talents, well, good luck with that.
I know you're trying.
Telegraph - Is there more to Ruth Kelly's resignation? - Actually, who cares if she told him to get stuffed?
Nope, sorry.
Still trying to figure out how one who fought tooth and claw to achieve one of the higher offices of the land hadn't quite sussed what it would take beforehand.
And then, knowing the impact bailing would have/has had these days, in four months chose last night to do the dirty.
I know to all in the bubble it is a silly game that needs playing, but to the likes of me outside trying to cope with the consequences, I fear faith in anyone worthy of governing or with the professional ability to report upon them is like the supply of broadband to my sons' glossy new PC toys before they retire (they are 12).
WSJ - Britain's Brown Bust - A view from abroad. Not saying this is a good or bad example, but I do pine for reporting and, yes, opinion that must be to a degree subjective, that is not immediately tainted by the partisan duties of the author's overlords.
Indy - NEW - Oh Sarah, you've just taken a step back for women - Actually, could as easily have been posted in the preceding post on 'Ladies who 'do' charity': 'Jetting off to New York to host a celebrity-laden lunch supports my belief that many famous women use charity as the ultimate form of networking – no matter how worthy the cause. When Sarah hosted a lunch in the UK, attended by Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, female journalists were thrilled to receive free tickets, ensuring a tidal wave of gush about Carla and Sarah. '
Observer - NEW - Why did my heart sink when Sarah stepped on to the stage?
As will mine if Mrs. Cameron comes within a mile of anything other than offering due familial support to her husband whilst looking after the fmaily when he is away from home.
Charity begins... well... let's start with a plane ride...
Another charity Chief Exec (I'm pretty sure flying coach and eating at Burger King - not very 'buzzy' to catch up with the gels in the Big Apple, I'm sure - won't be part of this... 'event') not exactly getting my name on the donation form:
Gordon Brown can make dramatic change for world’s poorest children
Wish he'd make a start with a couple closer to home.
Don't know why, but getting to this made me feel reluctant to take much else being written with any more than a pinch of self-satisfied, 'Mistress of the Universe', 'I'm all right, Jill', 'We need to pay these rates to get the talent' salt (on offer at twice the price of last year in the country's favourite discounter):
'I leave today for New York, for The United Nations High Level meeting..'
Thing is, while I have sympathy for the message, the chosen messenger and her style has intercepted that feeling. Like a lot of other areas of late.
Telegraph - Elle Macpherson and Sarah Ferguson on Brown Air
Telegraph - NEW - Wall Street gets $700bn so why not raise $25bn for dying children? - And a better class of fund-raiser, too! It's playing well here with, one presumes, a major target audience. I wonder what's she's paid...'because she's worth it'. Message/messenger springs to mind again. But, but... it's for... the children.
Gordon Brown can make dramatic change for world’s poorest children
Wish he'd make a start with a couple closer to home.
Don't know why, but getting to this made me feel reluctant to take much else being written with any more than a pinch of self-satisfied, 'Mistress of the Universe', 'I'm all right, Jill', 'We need to pay these rates to get the talent' salt (on offer at twice the price of last year in the country's favourite discounter):
'I leave today for New York, for The United Nations High Level meeting..'
Thing is, while I have sympathy for the message, the chosen messenger and her style has intercepted that feeling. Like a lot of other areas of late.
Telegraph - Elle Macpherson and Sarah Ferguson on Brown Air
Telegraph - NEW - Wall Street gets $700bn so why not raise $25bn for dying children? - And a better class of fund-raiser, too! It's playing well here with, one presumes, a major target audience. I wonder what's she's paid...'because she's worth it'. Message/messenger springs to mind again. But, but... it's for... the children.
ACRONYM - FINC Tank
As we almost daily get subjected to them, from them, I feel an acronym is required:
Facile Initiative: No-one Cares (the tank refers to how the thing will go down once the public gets to grips with that latest from these covens 'of all the talents'.
Facile Initiative: No-one Cares (the tank refers to how the thing will go down once the public gets to grips with that latest from these covens 'of all the talents'.
'Let them watch Pinter... online'
'Let them watch Pinter... online'
Gotta say, the latest from the Marie Antoin... er... Celest... er... Brownette 'bright idea a day' crew seems a winner.
Except, possibly with almost the entire electorate a wee bit keener on dealing with a few basics than yet more over-spun, over-hyped tinkering that most likely will never happen (at least I never seem to get informed officially) anyway.
Indy - PM pledges internet access for all children
Telegraph - Gordon Brown's speech is a health and safety hazard
Telegraph - Gordon Brown's promise of computer vouchers and theatre tickets won't save him
Guardian - If it acts as if the election is lost, Labour could still win it - Winning is an end, of sorts, but what does it mean without wanting to do so with a decent reason?
Gotta say, the latest from the Marie Antoin... er... Celest... er... Brownette 'bright idea a day' crew seems a winner.
Except, possibly with almost the entire electorate a wee bit keener on dealing with a few basics than yet more over-spun, over-hyped tinkering that most likely will never happen (at least I never seem to get informed officially) anyway.
Indy - PM pledges internet access for all children
Telegraph - Gordon Brown's speech is a health and safety hazard
Telegraph - Gordon Brown's promise of computer vouchers and theatre tickets won't save him
Guardian - If it acts as if the election is lost, Labour could still win it - Winning is an end, of sorts, but what does it mean without wanting to do so with a decent reason?
21.9.08
Brown stuff
Andrew Marr Show
Nice to see Mr. Brown prepared to be interviewed live after a long while.
Not so easy to sit through what seems a series of repeats: 'Not good enough', 'Lessons need to be learned', "We're going to look at this', 'We'll review that', etc. After how long in power?
Good of Andrew to ponder just how long one can point at history and everyone else (well, America) for why the UK seems to be in the unique situation it is. Is 'Global Financial System' - trotted out how many times per spinmeisters mantra - code for 'nowt to do with me!'.
Yet for all this, tangibly, I heard a man claim what may be wrong, yet then little could be done, especially by many of the systems that permitted excesses being put in place either by him or on his watch!
And if bonus-culture is to blame, why is his 'target-meeting over common sense'-administration riddled with this very practice... from public servants!
And I really, really would prefer that pols will stop telling me 'what the country wants' with no basis whatever to support that or include me.
The man's connection with reality is zero. And his default to not 'accept' fact to 'solve' his situation, at least in his own mind is ridiculous. Just like the head of the Ministry of Magic. And this voter knows it... longer term.
Telegraph - NEW - 'Ordinary' Gordon Brown's class war
Telegraph - NEW - Gordon Brown's preposterous excuses for the financial crisis
Actually, I rather expect before long to see a quango created, headed by great and good beneficiaries of FOG largesse, called the Excuse Ministry of Excellence, Or 'Excuse ME' for short.
Then it could be tasked with looking for any poor excuse for a Prime Minister.
Oh, too late
Telegraph - NEW - Gordon Brown warns Labour to focus on the economic crisis
Ch 4- NEW - LABOUR LEADERSHIP DEBATE
Everything’s fine with the Labour party it seems. There's no need to make the captain of the ship walk the plank, just because the engine room’s giving out a death-rattle.
Unlike the putsch against Tony Blair, there simply isn’t any credible alternative to Gordon Brown. So it is that the SS New Labour steams ever on towards the obvious looming iceberg of a general election.
Today’s Observer poll underlines the Titanic analogy. Nonetheless Gordon Brown evokes sympathy, with his heartfelt plea that he must do better, painful in its pathos, surely?
Meanwhile the big beast lurches around the mezzanines of Manchester. Charles Clarke is already repeating his belief that there can and must be a leadership challenge. Cue the other big beast of yesteryear, John Prescott, letting it be known that this would be a one-way ticket to oblivion.
Why I am I only minded of that surreal 80's music video with two clowns whacking each other in sequence?
Newsnight -
Telegraph - Labour party conference: Andrew Gimson's sketch - You know what is awful? I can think of no alternative. But what we have cannot endure. The unknown devil in this case is looking a lot better than what we have. He will have served a purpose if he purges the dross with him when he goes, but that is a void I fear will soon enough be filled. Then definition of the role and who best to fill has been corrupted... for now... but with luck not lost.
Indy - NEW - Rebels hold fire as PM fights back / Rebels hold fire as PM goes on the attack - I know it's just publishing a press release from the Labour Party, but I am intrigued as to the editorial thought processes behind labelling the limp, self-interested efforts of Mr. Brown with such martial words as 'fighting back' or 'going on the attack'.
When you get out of Westminster for an outing you might find some would prefer 'PM puts country before party to unravel unholy mess'.
Though the evidence of this interesting world-class (I think he has been dropped like a hot coal everywhere as tarnished goods) statement being passed on "..his vast experience after 10 years as chancellor makes him the right man to force through the international and domestic reforms needed to solve the global financial crisis." in this manner does not encourage.
Indy - All I hear is 'blah-blah-blah'
Order-Order - NEW - Peston "Fisks" Marrs Brown Interview
Gaurdian - NEW - Gordon Brown takes inspiration from Michael Foot -
He does like projecting himself pretty much anywhere but, well, himself, eh?
And to such great effect.
I think he'd best get some advice closer to home.
Maybe from one of the world's 'greatest living authors'?
She could perhaps suggest Cornelius Fudge (even the name has synergy)?
Seems to work. Well, maybe not for the rest of us, but you know what I mean.
Nice to see Mr. Brown prepared to be interviewed live after a long while.
Not so easy to sit through what seems a series of repeats: 'Not good enough', 'Lessons need to be learned', "We're going to look at this', 'We'll review that', etc. After how long in power?
Good of Andrew to ponder just how long one can point at history and everyone else (well, America) for why the UK seems to be in the unique situation it is. Is 'Global Financial System' - trotted out how many times per spinmeisters mantra - code for 'nowt to do with me!'.
Yet for all this, tangibly, I heard a man claim what may be wrong, yet then little could be done, especially by many of the systems that permitted excesses being put in place either by him or on his watch!
And if bonus-culture is to blame, why is his 'target-meeting over common sense'-administration riddled with this very practice... from public servants!
And I really, really would prefer that pols will stop telling me 'what the country wants' with no basis whatever to support that or include me.
The man's connection with reality is zero. And his default to not 'accept' fact to 'solve' his situation, at least in his own mind is ridiculous. Just like the head of the Ministry of Magic. And this voter knows it... longer term.
Telegraph - NEW - 'Ordinary' Gordon Brown's class war
Telegraph - NEW - Gordon Brown's preposterous excuses for the financial crisis
Actually, I rather expect before long to see a quango created, headed by great and good beneficiaries of FOG largesse, called the Excuse Ministry of Excellence, Or 'Excuse ME' for short.
Then it could be tasked with looking for any poor excuse for a Prime Minister.
Oh, too late
Telegraph - NEW - Gordon Brown warns Labour to focus on the economic crisis
Ch 4- NEW - LABOUR LEADERSHIP DEBATE
Everything’s fine with the Labour party it seems. There's no need to make the captain of the ship walk the plank, just because the engine room’s giving out a death-rattle.
Unlike the putsch against Tony Blair, there simply isn’t any credible alternative to Gordon Brown. So it is that the SS New Labour steams ever on towards the obvious looming iceberg of a general election.
Today’s Observer poll underlines the Titanic analogy. Nonetheless Gordon Brown evokes sympathy, with his heartfelt plea that he must do better, painful in its pathos, surely?
Meanwhile the big beast lurches around the mezzanines of Manchester. Charles Clarke is already repeating his belief that there can and must be a leadership challenge. Cue the other big beast of yesteryear, John Prescott, letting it be known that this would be a one-way ticket to oblivion.
Why I am I only minded of that surreal 80's music video with two clowns whacking each other in sequence?
Newsnight -
Telegraph - Labour party conference: Andrew Gimson's sketch - You know what is awful? I can think of no alternative. But what we have cannot endure. The unknown devil in this case is looking a lot better than what we have. He will have served a purpose if he purges the dross with him when he goes, but that is a void I fear will soon enough be filled. Then definition of the role and who best to fill has been corrupted... for now... but with luck not lost.
Indy - NEW - Rebels hold fire as PM fights back / Rebels hold fire as PM goes on the attack - I know it's just publishing a press release from the Labour Party, but I am intrigued as to the editorial thought processes behind labelling the limp, self-interested efforts of Mr. Brown with such martial words as 'fighting back' or 'going on the attack'.
When you get out of Westminster for an outing you might find some would prefer 'PM puts country before party to unravel unholy mess'.
Though the evidence of this interesting world-class (I think he has been dropped like a hot coal everywhere as tarnished goods) statement being passed on "..his vast experience after 10 years as chancellor makes him the right man to force through the international and domestic reforms needed to solve the global financial crisis." in this manner does not encourage.
Indy - All I hear is 'blah-blah-blah'
Order-Order - NEW - Peston "Fisks" Marrs Brown Interview
Gaurdian - NEW - Gordon Brown takes inspiration from Michael Foot -
He does like projecting himself pretty much anywhere but, well, himself, eh?
And to such great effect.
I think he'd best get some advice closer to home.
Maybe from one of the world's 'greatest living authors'?
She could perhaps suggest Cornelius Fudge (even the name has synergy)?
Seems to work. Well, maybe not for the rest of us, but you know what I mean.
20.9.08
May you live in less dull times?
Hank Paulson's legacy will be very dull financial institutions
I'm sure it has been mentioned already, so apologies for any repetition.
As one not living in the London bubble of Ministers, media and money, I could frankly live with my banks being, especially in the Chinese warning sense, a little less 'interesting'.
I believe the term is 'safe and sound'.
You want excitement? May I suggest the kicks are derived from something closer to home than my kids' futures.
I'm sure it has been mentioned already, so apologies for any repetition.
As one not living in the London bubble of Ministers, media and money, I could frankly live with my banks being, especially in the Chinese warning sense, a little less 'interesting'.
I believe the term is 'safe and sound'.
You want excitement? May I suggest the kicks are derived from something closer to home than my kids' futures.
Self-servants
Politicians should stop interfering with redundancies at Lloyds TSB-HBOS
I accept that rampant self-interest in all quarters is killing us quicker than a Death-Eater's breath (nifty JKR allusion there in advance of what I hope will be a rich seam once the circumstances of her 'gift' and its reporting sinks in), but... pause.... to be fair... pause, isn't looking after those who give you your vote pretty much inevitable and, indeed, what one's elected government representative is meant to do.
Maybe these guys just need whipping into 'one party fits all' shape so order is restored PDQ.
I accept that rampant self-interest in all quarters is killing us quicker than a Death-Eater's breath (nifty JKR allusion there in advance of what I hope will be a rich seam once the circumstances of her 'gift' and its reporting sinks in), but... pause.... to be fair... pause, isn't looking after those who give you your vote pretty much inevitable and, indeed, what one's elected government representative is meant to do.
Maybe these guys just need whipping into 'one party fits all' shape so order is restored PDQ.
Put up your Dukes
He has gone up in my estimation a lot:
Prince Philip told Downing Street to "---- off" over Diana funeral
Is there any other topic this suggestion can be levelled at in a similar vein?
Prince Philip told Downing Street to "---- off" over Diana funeral
Is there any other topic this suggestion can be levelled at in a similar vein?
Harry Potter and The Long, Drawn Out Downward Spiral of Denial
Fairness is still our guide
And the sword of social justice strong in its sheath?
Who writes this guff?
I guess... journalists:
Harry Potter author JK Rowling gives £1 million to Labour
I know everyone is at it, but I would have liked my national broadcaster and its crack squad of blonde Whitehall building attendants to help me understand one small thing that immediately struck me from such as this:
'But a source indicated that Miss Rowling's money would not simply be swallowed up in debt repayments, but would allow the party to continue with its work.'
Oddly this echoes the 'story' in the BBC, too.
Reads more like a press release than a bit of Whitehall chat.
Other than just how many 'sources' there are these days to issue such speculative gems, how does this work?
If I have massive debts and get some money, no matter what happens isn't the effect just to defray the debt and its effects slightly?
So If I owe the Government for tax or the BBC for its licence fee because I am broke (ironically thanks to their best efforts on behalf of my family), they can't come after it if it arrives in my bank account because 'it is allowing me to carry on with my work'?
Seems like a multiplicity of standards to me, at best, but I am sure there good and legal, if not ethical accounting practices to justify it all.
BBC - Newsnight - Won't let me post, amazingly, again, for some reason (who knows why? Apologies for the rerun, but I did need to tweak it a tad):
One for Monday maybe...
"Fairness is still our guide"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/20/economy.labour?commentpage=3&commentposted=1
"And the sword of social justice strong, still, in its sheath!"
Who writes this guff?
I guess... journalists:
"Harry Potter author JK Rowling gives £1 million to Labour"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/3021309/Harry-Potter-author-JK-Rowling-gives-1-million-to-Labour.html
I know everyone is at it, but I would have liked my national broadcaster and its crack squad of blonde and/or bald Whitehall building attendants to help understand one small thing that immediately struck me from such as this:
'But a source indicated that Miss Rowling's money would not simply be swallowed up in debt repayments, but would allow the party to continue with its work.'
Oddly this echoes the 'story' in the BBC, too.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7626589.stm
Reads more like a press release than a bit of Whitehall chat.
Other than just how many 'sources' there are these days to issue such speculative gems, how does this work?
If I have massive debts and get some money, no matter what happens isn't the effect just to defray the debt and its effects slightly?
So If I owe the Government for tax or the BBC for its licence fee because I am broke (ironically thanks to their best efforts on behalf of my family), they can't come after it if it arrives in my bank account because 'it is allowing me to carry on with my work'?
Seems like a multiplicity of standards to me, at best, but I am sure there good and legal, if not ethical accounting practices to justify it all.
Telegraph - Labour rebels call a truce for the party conference
Telegraph - Harry Potter says: Vote Labour - I think I like my headline better, but great minds. But I still see some mileage here: 'He who's name must not be spoken... Gordemort'. Oh rats... now I've said it. Maybe no one will notice. There seem to be a few other versions that have been conjured up (sorry) already.
Telegraph - NEW - JK Rowling must expect criticism after £1 million Labour donation
For the donation? Not so sure. Her money, her reasons.
For the press release that went with it? For sure. Head... parapet. You want to play in other areas, be ready to catch the attention of snipers.
And the sword of social justice strong in its sheath?
Who writes this guff?
I guess... journalists:
Harry Potter author JK Rowling gives £1 million to Labour
I know everyone is at it, but I would have liked my national broadcaster and its crack squad of blonde Whitehall building attendants to help me understand one small thing that immediately struck me from such as this:
'But a source indicated that Miss Rowling's money would not simply be swallowed up in debt repayments, but would allow the party to continue with its work.'
Oddly this echoes the 'story' in the BBC, too.
Reads more like a press release than a bit of Whitehall chat.
Other than just how many 'sources' there are these days to issue such speculative gems, how does this work?
If I have massive debts and get some money, no matter what happens isn't the effect just to defray the debt and its effects slightly?
So If I owe the Government for tax or the BBC for its licence fee because I am broke (ironically thanks to their best efforts on behalf of my family), they can't come after it if it arrives in my bank account because 'it is allowing me to carry on with my work'?
Seems like a multiplicity of standards to me, at best, but I am sure there good and legal, if not ethical accounting practices to justify it all.
BBC - Newsnight - Won't let me post, amazingly, again, for some reason (who knows why? Apologies for the rerun, but I did need to tweak it a tad):
One for Monday maybe...
"Fairness is still our guide"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/20/economy.labour?commentpage=3&commentposted=1
"And the sword of social justice strong, still, in its sheath!"
Who writes this guff?
I guess... journalists:
"Harry Potter author JK Rowling gives £1 million to Labour"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/3021309/Harry-Potter-author-JK-Rowling-gives-1-million-to-Labour.html
I know everyone is at it, but I would have liked my national broadcaster and its crack squad of blonde and/or bald Whitehall building attendants to help understand one small thing that immediately struck me from such as this:
'But a source indicated that Miss Rowling's money would not simply be swallowed up in debt repayments, but would allow the party to continue with its work.'
Oddly this echoes the 'story' in the BBC, too.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7626589.stm
Reads more like a press release than a bit of Whitehall chat.
Other than just how many 'sources' there are these days to issue such speculative gems, how does this work?
If I have massive debts and get some money, no matter what happens isn't the effect just to defray the debt and its effects slightly?
So If I owe the Government for tax or the BBC for its licence fee because I am broke (ironically thanks to their best efforts on behalf of my family), they can't come after it if it arrives in my bank account because 'it is allowing me to carry on with my work'?
Seems like a multiplicity of standards to me, at best, but I am sure there good and legal, if not ethical accounting practices to justify it all.
Telegraph - Labour rebels call a truce for the party conference
Telegraph - Harry Potter says: Vote Labour - I think I like my headline better, but great minds. But I still see some mileage here: 'He who's name must not be spoken... Gordemort'. Oh rats... now I've said it. Maybe no one will notice. There seem to be a few other versions that have been conjured up (sorry) already.
Telegraph - NEW - JK Rowling must expect criticism after £1 million Labour donation
For the donation? Not so sure. Her money, her reasons.
For the press release that went with it? For sure. Head... parapet. You want to play in other areas, be ready to catch the attention of snipers.
QUOTE OF THE DAY - Tactics, Mr Bean style
Big up to Rowan Atkinson, when asked to explain his tactics for a road race.
'Drive as fast as I can'.
All sports pundits/chatterati take note.
'Drive as fast as I can'.
All sports pundits/chatterati take note.
The messenger vs. the message
Or, maybe, 'Sen. Palin vs. Harry Potter'?
Small-town girl v big-city boy
It is all rather extraordinary, not least in the shadow of Clark County.
I really having trouble forming a view of the people and/or the policies involved, not that my UK opinion matters a jot to US voters, but such reporting standards have to create a backlash.
Trying my utmost to be objective, almost any 'fact' that gets unearthed seems to be trivial, given totally undue prominence considering the relative status of the object of focus... and is hard to look at as anything than spiteful hissy fits from a small, if vocal minority who don't think others are smart enough to vote the 'right' way.
It may be there are other, more balanced 'analyses' of the other protagonists but I honestly can't say I have noticed. This Sarah Palin obsession seems unrelenting. The Guardian and even The Telegraph has staff bloggers that run an endless drip of 'anti-Palin stories. Trouble is, most seem to be either based on heresay or are plain wrong, and these sad, weak diatribes pale in comparison to the often YouTube-loaded rebuttals that in many cases can skewer Messrs. Obama and Biden by highlighting that whatever Mrs. Plain is accused of, they are on record of actually doing.
Despite some deep concerns on aspects of her policies and beliefs (such is the volume of red flagged effort across almost all 'we know better' media that might be true it's hard not to), as a human being I have to confess she comes across as someone I would instinctively side with simply by who is ranged against her and the sheer clunkiness of these so called 'smarter than the average PR' commentator's dollops of bitchiness vs. the Governor's self-evident US-style 'sass' & 'class'.
I can imagine how that plays with a more average voter outside of Washington, New York, Hollywood or indeed London, Paris or Berlin.
Yet again the arrogance of the (plus the paid-for 'our' in the UK thanks to the unique way our national broadcaster funded) media elite establishment seems extraordinary.
But I have a theory, and it is that they are all indeed very smart, and are in fact seeking to reap all they sow in this way by design. Punt out obvious, nasty drip-fed digs playing the person rather than the ball in media no one reads or watches in the USA, but let the power of the internet bear the rebuttals across the pond.
It is hard to divorce the medium from the messenger, so when a foreign liberal media cabal say do one thing, I'm figuring the more conservative folk in the heartlands may just kick back.
A bit like how I just felt being told as top of story that Gordon Brown was a saint because the multi-billion earning author chum of his wife says so and has dropped some chump change on his bankrupt party. And especially via a dig a Mr. Cameron's (of whom I am no fan) Party's policy seeking to promote family units on the basis which the author deems nasty as she was a 'single mum'. Thanks to the BBC's relentless, celeb-obsessed, 'word of the Gord' coverage, I mainly heard a direct snub to some modest, middling family values and struggling ambitions ill-served in a decade by the incumbent Govt (we are £500 poorer, apparently), from another out of touch luvvie FOG (Friend of Gordon) who is empathising with her sisters. Which, by the nature of the coverage at least, is a tad different to most rich Conservative donors that will be cited in balance.
All these guys can do what they like, with however much they want but... and this is the key point... the way it gets served up is not playing as well with this one-person voting constituency as well as those who spin may have intended.
Indy - JK Rowling donates £1m to Labour - 'Prime Minister Gordon Brown said: "I am delighted that JK Rowling, who is one of the world's greatest ever authors, has made such a generous donation.' I know she is popular, and deservedly so IMHO, but... Bless.
Small-town girl v big-city boy
It is all rather extraordinary, not least in the shadow of Clark County.
I really having trouble forming a view of the people and/or the policies involved, not that my UK opinion matters a jot to US voters, but such reporting standards have to create a backlash.
Trying my utmost to be objective, almost any 'fact' that gets unearthed seems to be trivial, given totally undue prominence considering the relative status of the object of focus... and is hard to look at as anything than spiteful hissy fits from a small, if vocal minority who don't think others are smart enough to vote the 'right' way.
It may be there are other, more balanced 'analyses' of the other protagonists but I honestly can't say I have noticed. This Sarah Palin obsession seems unrelenting. The Guardian and even The Telegraph has staff bloggers that run an endless drip of 'anti-Palin stories. Trouble is, most seem to be either based on heresay or are plain wrong, and these sad, weak diatribes pale in comparison to the often YouTube-loaded rebuttals that in many cases can skewer Messrs. Obama and Biden by highlighting that whatever Mrs. Plain is accused of, they are on record of actually doing.
Despite some deep concerns on aspects of her policies and beliefs (such is the volume of red flagged effort across almost all 'we know better' media that might be true it's hard not to), as a human being I have to confess she comes across as someone I would instinctively side with simply by who is ranged against her and the sheer clunkiness of these so called 'smarter than the average PR' commentator's dollops of bitchiness vs. the Governor's self-evident US-style 'sass' & 'class'.
I can imagine how that plays with a more average voter outside of Washington, New York, Hollywood or indeed London, Paris or Berlin.
Yet again the arrogance of the (plus the paid-for 'our' in the UK thanks to the unique way our national broadcaster funded) media elite establishment seems extraordinary.
But I have a theory, and it is that they are all indeed very smart, and are in fact seeking to reap all they sow in this way by design. Punt out obvious, nasty drip-fed digs playing the person rather than the ball in media no one reads or watches in the USA, but let the power of the internet bear the rebuttals across the pond.
It is hard to divorce the medium from the messenger, so when a foreign liberal media cabal say do one thing, I'm figuring the more conservative folk in the heartlands may just kick back.
A bit like how I just felt being told as top of story that Gordon Brown was a saint because the multi-billion earning author chum of his wife says so and has dropped some chump change on his bankrupt party. And especially via a dig a Mr. Cameron's (of whom I am no fan) Party's policy seeking to promote family units on the basis which the author deems nasty as she was a 'single mum'. Thanks to the BBC's relentless, celeb-obsessed, 'word of the Gord' coverage, I mainly heard a direct snub to some modest, middling family values and struggling ambitions ill-served in a decade by the incumbent Govt (we are £500 poorer, apparently), from another out of touch luvvie FOG (Friend of Gordon) who is empathising with her sisters. Which, by the nature of the coverage at least, is a tad different to most rich Conservative donors that will be cited in balance.
All these guys can do what they like, with however much they want but... and this is the key point... the way it gets served up is not playing as well with this one-person voting constituency as well as those who spin may have intended.
Indy - JK Rowling donates £1m to Labour - 'Prime Minister Gordon Brown said: "I am delighted that JK Rowling, who is one of the world's greatest ever authors, has made such a generous donation.' I know she is popular, and deservedly so IMHO, but... Bless.
19.9.08
The picture of Peter M
When I was younger... a lot younger... I recall sitting in parties in a cider-fuelled haze pondering many key issues.
And some were far reaching.
Like, when I got old, would I still dig Deep Purple, or transfer my tastes to Frank Sinatra?
Easy. I still perk up when I hear 'Hush' on the new Jag ad, but now also get very mellow when old Blue Eye's voice meanders from the speakers.
Hence I remember where I was, savoured what I liked, and have added to my life experiences as it has progressed, leaving little I appreciated behind as I progressed.
However, I am stumped by a few things I come across now, usually prefixed with the word 'Old', now that I am.
'Old boy networkism' and 'Old fartism' are at the top of that list.
When I was young, and keen, and passionate, had a world ahead, and to save, the single greatest obstacles were old farts and the old boy networks they inhabited.
But now I have got here, and am one of them, I am confused to find that nothing has changed, almost as if I haven't either, but all around me have.
Now I am old, and keen, and passionate, with a world still ahead, and to make better for my kids, the single greatest obstacles I face are old farts and the old boy networks they inhabit.
Thing is, most of them were at those cider-fuelled parties with me. What the heck happened?
And some were far reaching.
Like, when I got old, would I still dig Deep Purple, or transfer my tastes to Frank Sinatra?
Easy. I still perk up when I hear 'Hush' on the new Jag ad, but now also get very mellow when old Blue Eye's voice meanders from the speakers.
Hence I remember where I was, savoured what I liked, and have added to my life experiences as it has progressed, leaving little I appreciated behind as I progressed.
However, I am stumped by a few things I come across now, usually prefixed with the word 'Old', now that I am.
'Old boy networkism' and 'Old fartism' are at the top of that list.
When I was young, and keen, and passionate, had a world ahead, and to save, the single greatest obstacles were old farts and the old boy networks they inhabited.
But now I have got here, and am one of them, I am confused to find that nothing has changed, almost as if I haven't either, but all around me have.
Now I am old, and keen, and passionate, with a world still ahead, and to make better for my kids, the single greatest obstacles I face are old farts and the old boy networks they inhabit.
Thing is, most of them were at those cider-fuelled parties with me. What the heck happened?
You pay me to tell you what I am doing so you pay me...
Should public bodies spend on PR?
Of course it is more complex than that.
Spending how much on who for what purpose with what public ROI would be a start.
I fear I am seeing 'Market Rate' a lot more as well, but not so much when it comes to pensions.
Of course it is more complex than that.
Spending how much on who for what purpose with what public ROI would be a start.
I fear I am seeing 'Market Rate' a lot more as well, but not so much when it comes to pensions.
The Boy in the Bubble
I seldom post links to blogs because of reply posts, but this seemed worth it:
My response to the Telegraph journalist: the past is another country, think positive
'I read the Guardian every day ... on the web. I can't remember when I last bought a newspaper and can't imagine when I next will.
I bet newspapers in the '90s never thought they'd be in direct competition with the BBC. news.bbc.co.uk is the other newspaper I read every day.'
Have to agree I am intrigued as the the business model when I get all my news online, free. But I do try and ensure the spread I read is... more varied.
Though the thought of the Guardian and Aunty competing for his soul is fun.
My response to the Telegraph journalist: the past is another country, think positive
'I read the Guardian every day ... on the web. I can't remember when I last bought a newspaper and can't imagine when I next will.
I bet newspapers in the '90s never thought they'd be in direct competition with the BBC. news.bbc.co.uk is the other newspaper I read every day.'
Have to agree I am intrigued as the the business model when I get all my news online, free. But I do try and ensure the spread I read is... more varied.
Though the thought of the Guardian and Aunty competing for his soul is fun.
He who pointeth...
I have had it suggested that Mr. Robinson is not in thrall of Labour/Mr. Brown so shall not go there.
However, this end/death of capitalism thing seems an odd one.
As far as I can see is that, within a system, a bunch of folk were either not as smart as they thought they were, greedier than even they could cope with and/or more crooked than anyone has a right to get away with so long.
And, crucially, were, and are being allowed to get away with either ineptitude or venality by a bunch of folk we pay to look after our personal and national interests. It's like blaming a crashing plane for plummeting when the pilots are all in 1st class swigging bubbly with their mates who are busy siphoning off the fuel to flog. Oh, and they are the only ones with parachutes.
I could really give a flying fig for anywhere else, but one bunch of clowns has had a lot of years in power to get a grip, which they have so far failed pretty much across the board to do. And now their PR cheerleaders (not all, I stress, but the big guns seem to still be 'on message', no matter how incredible it is getting) still keep straight faces, as they have with all sorts of stuff some still try and pin on Pitt the Elder, when we get some waffling pension (pol) pot emerging form their bunker to say 'it' is unacceptable, not good enough, lessons have been learned, a committee will be formed and something will... er, might...be done.
But don't expect a single person anywhere being held to account, in business or public service. Ever.
Guardian - The financial sector just bombed itself. Is this the end of capitalism?
However, this end/death of capitalism thing seems an odd one.
As far as I can see is that, within a system, a bunch of folk were either not as smart as they thought they were, greedier than even they could cope with and/or more crooked than anyone has a right to get away with so long.
And, crucially, were, and are being allowed to get away with either ineptitude or venality by a bunch of folk we pay to look after our personal and national interests. It's like blaming a crashing plane for plummeting when the pilots are all in 1st class swigging bubbly with their mates who are busy siphoning off the fuel to flog. Oh, and they are the only ones with parachutes.
I could really give a flying fig for anywhere else, but one bunch of clowns has had a lot of years in power to get a grip, which they have so far failed pretty much across the board to do. And now their PR cheerleaders (not all, I stress, but the big guns seem to still be 'on message', no matter how incredible it is getting) still keep straight faces, as they have with all sorts of stuff some still try and pin on Pitt the Elder, when we get some waffling pension (pol) pot emerging form their bunker to say 'it' is unacceptable, not good enough, lessons have been learned, a committee will be formed and something will... er, might...be done.
But don't expect a single person anywhere being held to account, in business or public service. Ever.
Guardian - The financial sector just bombed itself. Is this the end of capitalism?
Cosby & Hitler
Not often you'll see those together.
Which was the point, and actually another great example of the worst and best of our lives today.
Last night I was watching 'Whose Line Is It Anyway?' on TV, and specifically the US version hosted by Drew Cary. Personally, though the performers are often the same, I find it one of those rare cases where the US version is better.
However there was an interesting scenario played out last night, not least because, as a pre-recorded broadcast, what transpired was left in.
The show comprises many ludicrous scenarios, and one cropped up based on 'unlikely pairings'.
From all the crowd calls, guess which the hosts selected... initially. Because almost immediately a man in a headset came over to whisper in his ear, and that option was dropped.
But what was wonderful was the rest of the show, where host and all performers managed to work a certain German gent with a mustache into almost every skit.
A PC balloon pricked, and a small bit of faith in the wit and spine of the performing community restored in showing how humour is the best way to skewer those who would try and oppress us. And just how daft the superficial notion of not talking about anything that 'we', or at least some feel uncomfortable with is.
Which was the point, and actually another great example of the worst and best of our lives today.
Last night I was watching 'Whose Line Is It Anyway?' on TV, and specifically the US version hosted by Drew Cary. Personally, though the performers are often the same, I find it one of those rare cases where the US version is better.
However there was an interesting scenario played out last night, not least because, as a pre-recorded broadcast, what transpired was left in.
The show comprises many ludicrous scenarios, and one cropped up based on 'unlikely pairings'.
From all the crowd calls, guess which the hosts selected... initially. Because almost immediately a man in a headset came over to whisper in his ear, and that option was dropped.
But what was wonderful was the rest of the show, where host and all performers managed to work a certain German gent with a mustache into almost every skit.
A PC balloon pricked, and a small bit of faith in the wit and spine of the performing community restored in showing how humour is the best way to skewer those who would try and oppress us. And just how daft the superficial notion of not talking about anything that 'we', or at least some feel uncomfortable with is.
Who's laughing now?
Many, many years ago I was in competitive, if good-natured conversation with a friend who was a Master of the Universe in the City.
In response to a jibe about the value of my profession (with some truth as I look at the ASA rules - though ironically it's more failure in the regulatory system we all pay for) what I said in reply stays in my mind, especially now. Bear in mind that with some aspects I was exaggerating for effect/humour:
"So, let me get this straight. You organise deasl where our country's money is lent to guys like the Russian Mafia to build major capital projects for billions, for which you guys get millions in commission and bonusses. Then, when they don't build it and keep the money, we see nothing but yet you still get to keep the commissions and bonusses."
He laughed and assured me this was not the case. But I was unsure if his eyes joined in.
In response to a jibe about the value of my profession (with some truth as I look at the ASA rules - though ironically it's more failure in the regulatory system we all pay for) what I said in reply stays in my mind, especially now. Bear in mind that with some aspects I was exaggerating for effect/humour:
"So, let me get this straight. You organise deasl where our country's money is lent to guys like the Russian Mafia to build major capital projects for billions, for which you guys get millions in commission and bonusses. Then, when they don't build it and keep the money, we see nothing but yet you still get to keep the commissions and bonusses."
He laughed and assured me this was not the case. But I was unsure if his eyes joined in.
18.9.08
For those who still believe all they read, read on...
Posts and all, though...
Wikileaks posts a hack of Palin's e-mail account
This one I thought caught soem of the flavour:
Sep 17 08, 11:33pm (about 14 hours ago)
This article is so wrong, it's not even funny.
And for the guardian aswell, which prides itself on its web savvy.
1) the headline, as noted by kerin, is libellous - wikileaks did not hack Palin's email - if I was them I'd be coming after you with a brainspoon. Ok, you changed it pretty quick, your legal dept know their business even if your reporter doesn't.
And this from a pro-Obama person. A 'bang-up' job? After that, who cares about the rest of the story?
Wikileaks posts a hack of Palin's e-mail account
This one I thought caught soem of the flavour:
Sep 17 08, 11:33pm (about 14 hours ago)
This article is so wrong, it's not even funny.
And for the guardian aswell, which prides itself on its web savvy.
1) the headline, as noted by kerin, is libellous - wikileaks did not hack Palin's email - if I was them I'd be coming after you with a brainspoon. Ok, you changed it pretty quick, your legal dept know their business even if your reporter doesn't.
And this from a pro-Obama person. A 'bang-up' job? After that, who cares about the rest of the story?
THAT'S ALL WE HAVE TIME FOR
In the spirit of 'The Gord taketh, and the Gord, er, taketh yet more..'
I was just over at my Mum's, and sadly News 24 was already on. For this brief moment with the Chancellor on, in full waffle mode.
FULL CREDIT to the blonde for trying to make the point that the Europeans don't seem to be facing the same level of reaction in their banking community as does the UK in the face of this 'world crisis', especially in light of Mr. Brown's claim that the UK is well placed to weather this better than most.
Mr. Darling totally ignores this and goes straight back to talking about the bl**dy US situation.
He is either a liar or simply an idiot, yet will retire soon on a whopping pension co-funded by the likes of my Mum, who I have to care for.
However, and this is what gets me, this promising avenue of 'debate' is cut short...again (some Labour Pol waffling earlier seemed to be caught out on 'fact' by Rod Liddle in a piece on smoking, leaving me none the wiser as to what the truth was, and /or who these days is capable of speaking it)... probably to go to a critical skateboarding turtle update, by that most annoying of all news editorial/reporting/presenting mechanisms... 'THAT'S ALL WE HAVE TIME FOR'.
Why do we have 24/7 'news' if it is then incapable of running with a promising story as it unfolds!
New acronym - TAWHaTF (Thanks, but, what the F?)
I was just over at my Mum's, and sadly News 24 was already on. For this brief moment with the Chancellor on, in full waffle mode.
FULL CREDIT to the blonde for trying to make the point that the Europeans don't seem to be facing the same level of reaction in their banking community as does the UK in the face of this 'world crisis', especially in light of Mr. Brown's claim that the UK is well placed to weather this better than most.
Mr. Darling totally ignores this and goes straight back to talking about the bl**dy US situation.
He is either a liar or simply an idiot, yet will retire soon on a whopping pension co-funded by the likes of my Mum, who I have to care for.
However, and this is what gets me, this promising avenue of 'debate' is cut short...again (some Labour Pol waffling earlier seemed to be caught out on 'fact' by Rod Liddle in a piece on smoking, leaving me none the wiser as to what the truth was, and /or who these days is capable of speaking it)... probably to go to a critical skateboarding turtle update, by that most annoying of all news editorial/reporting/presenting mechanisms... 'THAT'S ALL WE HAVE TIME FOR'.
Why do we have 24/7 'news' if it is then incapable of running with a promising story as it unfolds!
New acronym - TAWHaTF (Thanks, but, what the F?)
The paper's worth
An initially positive story on about police being released to do the police job by having their paperwork reduced from an 18-page form to one sheet.
No real question as to why this previous bit of jobsworth box-ticking arrived, made no difference and has now gone, or who was responsible.
No real question as to why this previous bit of jobsworth box-ticking arrived, made no difference and has now gone, or who was responsible.
The Family. All in.
I was holding this, as it has to be a spoof.
The BBC has 'asked a family...' to be filmed, '...and they were brave enough to say yes'.
Yeah, right.
In this fame-obsessed, 'reality that never is' age, what utter tripe.
No, the, er 'stars' are on the sofa now.
Your licence fee at work.
The BBC has 'asked a family...' to be filmed, '...and they were brave enough to say yes'.
Yeah, right.
In this fame-obsessed, 'reality that never is' age, what utter tripe.
No, the, er 'stars' are on the sofa now.
Your licence fee at work.
Where there's smoke there's a bonfire
Just saw a snippet on the latest wheeze (geddit?) from our initiative-obsessed government.
Seems that, in the name of 'awareness', more money is being stuffed into a bit of a programme, plus attendant PR, to create squads of folk who will approach street smokers to offer to help them onto the path of righteousness.
Now, I am no fan of smoking, but now it's out in the open and not hurting me or mine I can pretty much leave smokers to do to themselves what they will, and leave to them the consequences, as no one can be unaware of what they might be. Frankly miserable, huddled types outside public buildings is about as good as it gets as a negative ad, to my mind.
Hence the money devoted to this latest brief flare of publicity designed to get a Labour Minister on the telly might be better assigned to DO something.
Of course, it took an inevitable twofer reactionary in the form of one Rod Liddle to undermine and hence highlight the vacuousness of this effort by leaving the Minister stuttering (and, possibly lying, as a 'fact' was disputed but not confirmed/denied by the moderators...again) when confronted with the 'claim' that the authority vanguarding this was listed as the worst for health delivery, and maybe sorting that out first may be a plan.
Seems that, in the name of 'awareness', more money is being stuffed into a bit of a programme, plus attendant PR, to create squads of folk who will approach street smokers to offer to help them onto the path of righteousness.
Now, I am no fan of smoking, but now it's out in the open and not hurting me or mine I can pretty much leave smokers to do to themselves what they will, and leave to them the consequences, as no one can be unaware of what they might be. Frankly miserable, huddled types outside public buildings is about as good as it gets as a negative ad, to my mind.
Hence the money devoted to this latest brief flare of publicity designed to get a Labour Minister on the telly might be better assigned to DO something.
Of course, it took an inevitable twofer reactionary in the form of one Rod Liddle to undermine and hence highlight the vacuousness of this effort by leaving the Minister stuttering (and, possibly lying, as a 'fact' was disputed but not confirmed/denied by the moderators...again) when confronted with the 'claim' that the authority vanguarding this was listed as the worst for health delivery, and maybe sorting that out first may be a plan.
Eggs. Baskets. Omlettes.
A samll snippet from todays' news of the last few days' financial shenangigans.
And that is the compo for savings of £30k is per group.
And that means, I regret to say, even the likes of me (associated with my Mum's savings) looking at moving funds to ensure a proper spread for security.
It is mazing how various fiancail institutions are linked and hence pooled.
And that is the compo for savings of £30k is per group.
And that means, I regret to say, even the likes of me (associated with my Mum's savings) looking at moving funds to ensure a proper spread for security.
It is mazing how various fiancail institutions are linked and hence pooled.
17.9.08
Kiss your pension goodbye
Or at least your licence fee demand rebate. I'm guessing we're talking the BBC here:
Andrew Lloyd Webber: How do you solve a problem like Eurovision?
Glug! The sound of one load of over-paid establishment luvvies p*ssing away small fortunes of 'not their money' down a big black hole that is one of their mate's little businesses... to 'solve something' that has gone/is going t*ts up.
What next, the government creating a a new quango to solve the credit crunch fallout? Oh...
Andrew Lloyd Webber: How do you solve a problem like Eurovision?
Glug! The sound of one load of over-paid establishment luvvies p*ssing away small fortunes of 'not their money' down a big black hole that is one of their mate's little businesses... to 'solve something' that has gone/is going t*ts up.
What next, the government creating a a new quango to solve the credit crunch fallout? Oh...
The very acme of 'when did you stop beating your wife' questions
Does capitalism still work?
Amen, brother. Here's another, like those I see in gadget mags:
'Could this be a question on par, smarts-wise, with a small box of rocks?'
I tend to steer clear of these discussions as I don't know much 'theory' and am one of those who likes to make and do rather than talk and, er, talk.
Plus I still have this odd notion of only spending what you have, and/or can afford. Silly, I know.
But I am not sure that this is contrary to the better aspects of capitalism, as I understand it/them.
What I would suggest that it seems to me that most, if not all the failures (or, 'not working') in this case were by a bunch of 'smart' folk, who were/are paid a mint and were not actually that smart and/or down right greedy or even crooked, who thereby messed up a system they had made over-complicated to profit from dealing in rather than making anything.
And were allowed to by pretty much the whole 'establishment' in theory paid to look after the interests of the majority of the people they represent and/or inform.
That would be government and most media, with many now closing, or calling for the closing of all manner of previously lucrative or vicariously irresistible doors once the horse has hopped into the Lear with some extra 'we must inject stability' wonga.
Thus leaving those without public sector or trust funds to pick up the tab, especially come retirement... again.
But maybe I have missed the subtleties.
'Jenkins, fire me up the expenses! I feel a jolly to New York to report on this is called for!'.
Amen, brother. Here's another, like those I see in gadget mags:
'Could this be a question on par, smarts-wise, with a small box of rocks?'
I tend to steer clear of these discussions as I don't know much 'theory' and am one of those who likes to make and do rather than talk and, er, talk.
Plus I still have this odd notion of only spending what you have, and/or can afford. Silly, I know.
But I am not sure that this is contrary to the better aspects of capitalism, as I understand it/them.
What I would suggest that it seems to me that most, if not all the failures (or, 'not working') in this case were by a bunch of 'smart' folk, who were/are paid a mint and were not actually that smart and/or down right greedy or even crooked, who thereby messed up a system they had made over-complicated to profit from dealing in rather than making anything.
And were allowed to by pretty much the whole 'establishment' in theory paid to look after the interests of the majority of the people they represent and/or inform.
That would be government and most media, with many now closing, or calling for the closing of all manner of previously lucrative or vicariously irresistible doors once the horse has hopped into the Lear with some extra 'we must inject stability' wonga.
Thus leaving those without public sector or trust funds to pick up the tab, especially come retirement... again.
But maybe I have missed the subtleties.
'Jenkins, fire me up the expenses! I feel a jolly to New York to report on this is called for!'.
Caution favours the, who again?
Good luck is ours. But bad luck is everyone else's
With all the usual 'how awful's', etc, I can but recall the conversation my wife and I had a few months ago:
'It will add a few quid, but should we pop this on the card to get the insurance and the credit card backing?' 'Yes, why risk spoling the holiday?'.
I don't blame the beneficiaries really, but there's a long and growing list of numpties who keep messing up and dipping in my pockets to buy themselves out of less cautious consumer's bad books by baling them out.
My vote awaits...
With all the usual 'how awful's', etc, I can but recall the conversation my wife and I had a few months ago:
'It will add a few quid, but should we pop this on the card to get the insurance and the credit card backing?' 'Yes, why risk spoling the holiday?'.
I don't blame the beneficiaries really, but there's a long and growing list of numpties who keep messing up and dipping in my pockets to buy themselves out of less cautious consumer's bad books by baling them out.
My vote awaits...
Where's a sub when you need one?
I guess Aunty is down to her last £3.5B to pay for things other than basic news management:)
Me, I have to use Blogger's Spellcheck, which is a) intermittent at best, and b) woeful. It won't try this post, at all, so here's hoping self-proofing won't lead to an own goal.
Clegg's gaffe Michael CrickWed 17 Sep 08, 08:00 AM With so many other important developments around at the moment - financial and political - Nick Clegg might just get away with his horrendous gaffe when he said the basic single state pension is about £30 pounds when it is in fact £90.70, three times as much. In normal times, it would be an error which Clegg would find hard to lie down.
In case I don't get creditted.. again... when they post-edit (which they should), I have of course kept a page capture. Such faith and trust in the national broadcaster I pay for:)
Me, I have to use Blogger's Spellcheck, which is a) intermittent at best, and b) woeful. It won't try this post, at all, so here's hoping self-proofing won't lead to an own goal.
Clegg's gaffe Michael CrickWed 17 Sep 08, 08:00 AM With so many other important developments around at the moment - financial and political - Nick Clegg might just get away with his horrendous gaffe when he said the basic single state pension is about £30 pounds when it is in fact £90.70, three times as much. In normal times, it would be an error which Clegg would find hard to lie down.
In case I don't get creditted.. again... when they post-edit (which they should), I have of course kept a page capture. Such faith and trust in the national broadcaster I pay for:)
We must fin... er... really try and look for the guilty parties, answers, etc
A tribunal must tell us what to fix. And whom to punish
This really puts me in a quandary:
'A tribunal must tell us what to fix. And whom to punish
The state shirked its role while City stupidity and greed slid into thieving.'
Yes. It cannot and must not be allowed to quietly ooze away, like all the others.
'When the crisis subsides, an inquiry is needed'
Oh, dear God. Another inquiry.
Like all the others.
This really puts me in a quandary:
'A tribunal must tell us what to fix. And whom to punish
The state shirked its role while City stupidity and greed slid into thieving.'
Yes. It cannot and must not be allowed to quietly ooze away, like all the others.
'When the crisis subsides, an inquiry is needed'
Oh, dear God. Another inquiry.
Like all the others.
Careful what you say...
Funny old world. I here share a very worthy read from one G. Monbiot:
How can the rich still be buying our silence with this 13th-century law?
How can the rich still be buying our silence with this 13th-century law?
Poll stars
Who has been the UK's greatest post-war prime minister?
Maybe because I'm an ad man and copywriter, and know about ambiguity and the value of well-structured polls...
Just went to this one.
Couldn't fill it in meaningfully, so didn't. So despite caring (a bit) and trying, I don't count I guess.
A useful metaphor for our 'all or nothing, black or white, for or against us, box-ticker's wet dream' society.
I think I am fairly well informed, partly though interest in history; partly through experience.
I could have managed 3 'worst' and 3 'best', though without context (other than 'post-war' as a defining factor, I would still have preferred 'for what?'... economy, social justice, security, etc, as opposed to what I guess you mean, namely 'for the country').
But, without knowing about how polls work, I would have though you would still have derived meaningful data on this basis. Possibly better by the current requirement excluding such as me and including those who, I suspect, might make up a large central chunk of it all, the results of which I am sure will be anyway be chewed over with much furrowing of brows by the chatterati without meaning very much at all.
Oh, another metaphor!
Maybe because I'm an ad man and copywriter, and know about ambiguity and the value of well-structured polls...
Just went to this one.
Couldn't fill it in meaningfully, so didn't. So despite caring (a bit) and trying, I don't count I guess.
A useful metaphor for our 'all or nothing, black or white, for or against us, box-ticker's wet dream' society.
I think I am fairly well informed, partly though interest in history; partly through experience.
I could have managed 3 'worst' and 3 'best', though without context (other than 'post-war' as a defining factor, I would still have preferred 'for what?'... economy, social justice, security, etc, as opposed to what I guess you mean, namely 'for the country').
But, without knowing about how polls work, I would have though you would still have derived meaningful data on this basis. Possibly better by the current requirement excluding such as me and including those who, I suspect, might make up a large central chunk of it all, the results of which I am sure will be anyway be chewed over with much furrowing of brows by the chatterati without meaning very much at all.
Oh, another metaphor!
16.9.08
Living la vida London... in the media... on £1
Inspired by a lady not in London, but now with a book, I noted this:
Cheap thrills: Can you live on a pound a day?
Whilst often entertaining, and possibly in part educational, I seldom find these things very realistic, not that this worries a media desperate for 'stories'.
Can't put it better than these posters:
"No you can't live in a pound a day. You can live on a pound a day for a few days as long as you know after that you will be living on several hundred pounds a day."
"£1 a day?? Very apt for the paper to run this article a day after they put the cover price up by 25%, from 80p to.... you guessed it, a £1! I'll try and see if the Independent can provide me with all the essentials I need for the day."*
Another 'challenge', much like many I see in the eco-field, that only work because of their finite nature, ignoring creating genuine realities, and I wonder how insiprational for being dropped like hot potatoes once over and the media round begins.
*I might add, rather suicidedly in a monetary sense, that my online experience has not been affected, remaining, for now... free.
Cheap thrills: Can you live on a pound a day?
Whilst often entertaining, and possibly in part educational, I seldom find these things very realistic, not that this worries a media desperate for 'stories'.
Can't put it better than these posters:
"No you can't live in a pound a day. You can live on a pound a day for a few days as long as you know after that you will be living on several hundred pounds a day."
"£1 a day?? Very apt for the paper to run this article a day after they put the cover price up by 25%, from 80p to.... you guessed it, a £1! I'll try and see if the Independent can provide me with all the essentials I need for the day."*
Another 'challenge', much like many I see in the eco-field, that only work because of their finite nature, ignoring creating genuine realities, and I wonder how insiprational for being dropped like hot potatoes once over and the media round begins.
*I might add, rather suicidedly in a monetary sense, that my online experience has not been affected, remaining, for now... free.
15.9.08
Why I like the net
The web: fact or fiction, asks Tim Berners-Lee
See, there's the thing. Who decides what is right and what is wrong in any medium? Or, even, what is true and what is false?
Personally I find applying a cranked eyebrow to multiple net sources often more satisfcatory than 'trusting' certain major media these days.
I do declare the BBC was chief amongst the black hole stirrers by my memory*.
*Gaurdian - Picking through the landfill - Er... proof?
See, there's the thing. Who decides what is right and what is wrong in any medium? Or, even, what is true and what is false?
Personally I find applying a cranked eyebrow to multiple net sources often more satisfcatory than 'trusting' certain major media these days.
I do declare the BBC was chief amongst the black hole stirrers by my memory*.
*Gaurdian - Picking through the landfill - Er... proof?
Let us tell you what to tell people what they need to think
I was just going to add this to my post that the facile pots in the Grauniad in support of NuLab were actually a secret plot to undermine through sheer parody.
However...
The Guardian's playing the blues
One angry Labour source says The Guardian rejected an article by Purnell for Thursday's paper, despite criticising him in the leader. Instead, the paper published a piece by the former minister Stephen Byers. "Why did they not take the piece from the Cabinet minister?" the source asks. Maybe because, for now, being at least commercially independent, they still can? Comes to soemthing when such as teh Gaurdian starts kicking back at those
However...
The Guardian's playing the blues
One angry Labour source says The Guardian rejected an article by Purnell for Thursday's paper, despite criticising him in the leader. Instead, the paper published a piece by the former minister Stephen Byers. "Why did they not take the piece from the Cabinet minister?" the source asks. Maybe because, for now, being at least commercially independent, they still can? Comes to soemthing when such as teh Gaurdian starts kicking back at those
14.9.08
What 'is'. What really 'is', What 'should be'. And who says.
There's a terrible disconnect in the world of luvviedom, especially that over-powerful section that is 'our' major media, but sparsely-populated (in % terms, though they do seem to be growing as the search for ever more 'content' widens) establishment.
After way too long having what a small minority think should be being pretty much the accepted 'is' of life, it's all going more than a little pear shaped, fortunately for the of the the up to now silent majority... for them.
Now I am the first to acknowledge and appreciate the vast intellects and talents that can be deployed across our news and entertainment media, but there seems to be a significant watershed being reached, where before, just because they think it is so, they must say it is so (still very much their right, of course), and hence it must be and hence needs to be so.
Sadly, for them, on this latter point, I must humbly disagree. And the facts I think are erring on my side more and more.
After way too long having what a small minority think should be being pretty much the accepted 'is' of life, it's all going more than a little pear shaped, fortunately for the of the the up to now silent majority... for them.
Now I am the first to acknowledge and appreciate the vast intellects and talents that can be deployed across our news and entertainment media, but there seems to be a significant watershed being reached, where before, just because they think it is so, they must say it is so (still very much their right, of course), and hence it must be and hence needs to be so.
Sadly, for them, on this latter point, I must humbly disagree. And the facts I think are erring on my side more and more.
Well, I do declare
I have tried very hard not to get too caught up on the accusations of BBC bias, being content to focus more on truly shambolic standards of professionalism and/or journalism, but staying in this twilight zone of naive belief is proving a trial.
No one is above a view or affiliation, but for sure if they are wheeled out it should be well known and shared. And I don't just mean Andrew Marr*:
BBBC
Imagine the scene:
-----
Saturday Editorial Meeting, The Andrew Marr Show
'Gordon's tanking all over the place; even his own party is turning on him. We've got a tame Minister booked, but what else can we do for a bit of balance?",
Moments of silence, and then Andrew Marr himself pipes up:
"I know! Was at a dinner bash only last night at Go... at a dinner party, and Mariella said she was free in tomorrow and didn't mind getting up early to rally the troops. How about her?"
Smiles all round.
"Perfect. Blonde celeb with a heart of gold. And she hasn't been on for, well...days!"
-------
Until these pages I had not realised she was also a close, personal friend.
Has it not sunk in with these numpties how such a selection might play? Or do they simply not care?
*Ms Frostrup is a close personal friend of Gordon Brown - she should declare that when trying to defend him in today's newspaper review
Stephen Jones, UK - On the feedback page which, oddly, and not for the first time, is restricted to a few comments but manges one twice.
No one is above a view or affiliation, but for sure if they are wheeled out it should be well known and shared. And I don't just mean Andrew Marr*:
BBBC
Imagine the scene:
-----
Saturday Editorial Meeting, The Andrew Marr Show
'Gordon's tanking all over the place; even his own party is turning on him. We've got a tame Minister booked, but what else can we do for a bit of balance?",
Moments of silence, and then Andrew Marr himself pipes up:
"I know! Was at a dinner bash only last night at Go... at a dinner party, and Mariella said she was free in tomorrow and didn't mind getting up early to rally the troops. How about her?"
Smiles all round.
"Perfect. Blonde celeb with a heart of gold. And she hasn't been on for, well...days!"
-------
Until these pages I had not realised she was also a close, personal friend.
Has it not sunk in with these numpties how such a selection might play? Or do they simply not care?
*Ms Frostrup is a close personal friend of Gordon Brown - she should declare that when trying to defend him in today's newspaper review
Stephen Jones, UK - On the feedback page which, oddly, and not for the first time, is restricted to a few comments but manges one twice.
When the going get's tough, the wimps cry Auntie
LAY OFF LABOUR
Shame there is not more 'on-record' attribution, but hardly surprising.
However, assuming it to be true, I did manage a slight smile at this... as a defence:
'...maybe he did not express himself very well and some people got the wrong end of the stick.’
For a professional communicator of objective stories for a national news broadcaster, I am coming to see how they justify those big bucks at senior level.
Maybe an 'away-day' with a 'consultant' to help improve on those skills? On us, of course.
Shame there is not more 'on-record' attribution, but hardly surprising.
However, assuming it to be true, I did manage a slight smile at this... as a defence:
'...maybe he did not express himself very well and some people got the wrong end of the stick.’
For a professional communicator of objective stories for a national news broadcaster, I am coming to see how they justify those big bucks at senior level.
Maybe an 'away-day' with a 'consultant' to help improve on those skills? On us, of course.
Flogging a dead, anything, if the money is right
WOSS - THE SIX MILLION WONDER?
I was going to start with 'to be fair', but will simply note that if media outlets ignored the siren call of PR then our airwaves would be a barren place.
However....
As we are on this site, talking about (in the main) just one broadcaster, one has to wonder why we have to pay for a supposedly ad-free entity when almost every aspect can be bought, cheap, merely by a special relationship existing between some London-luvvies in the BBC and their very good chums around town.
I can sort of live (though why I don't know. Shifting tickets for money is no different to flogging anything else for profit) with a plug for a show or book (though it's wearing thin wheeling out a gallon of peroxide under the guise of being 'this month's spokeswoman for..' when in fact all parties really want to do, and do do is ditch the charity quicksmart to get to the goss on the new B-list outing) but when even main news does it you have to wonder.
I can almost set my watch by our Declan having Sir Stuart Rose on with a rack of M&S stuff to flog in the name of something 'business-related'.
I know all the others do it but... repeat after many before me... 'we don't have to pay for them'.
This mythical Charter-thingy seems to be popped through the shredder more than the DG's monthly receipts.
Addendum: BBC Breakfast 17/09 - The above picture captured just a moment too late to have both as book ends holding up their mighty tomes for us to read and rush out and buy.
Quote of the Day - The wisdom of Dubya
From today's Times (I had never heard it before):
It proves the truth of a remark attributed to President George W Bush:
“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on.”
It proves the truth of a remark attributed to President George W Bush:
“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on.”
13.9.08
Mr. Blobby drops a whoopsie on Aunty's doorstep
Noel admits TV license evasion live on BBC news!
Whatever his past (a BBC largesse beneficiary no doubt), his Grumpy Old Man persona, self-promo, etc, he not only 'cancelled ' (well, says he did) his licence, but weighed in big time on a few other issues, too.
Credit the poor presenters who were surfing a 'Britain is broken' slag-fest initially, but then found their employers were rolled in to the mud-slide as major culprits.... they actually didn't clam up but giggled along pretty well.
It will be interesting to see if this gets quietly dropped or noisily picked up. Who is likely to do which I can't imagine. Depends how slow the news this weekend is.
BBC - Edmonds begins TV licence boycott - Credit for them sharing! Though I understood from his words that to call this a 'beginning of a boycott' is not, as such, accurate. Also the database might more correctly suggest potential evaders, and not very exactly. I am being harassed with threats for an S. Martin, albeit it at this address, who bought a TV a while ago. Nice one, BBC. I am not telling them because I don't like their methods one jot, just as I currently pay my licence not because I am honest, but because I have no choice. I don't fancy jail, though it seems that these days I might find my fellow lags to be a more amenable lot as the favoured targets of our screwed up legal system which leaves thugs on the street but will imprison a person who doesn't fill a bin correctly.
Daily Mail - Noel Edmonds: 'I won't pay TV licence because of 'threatening' BBC adverts
Telegraph - Noel Edmonds is wrong: Take away the licence fee and you also take away the Proms
Per Mrs.Merton: What was it that first attracted you to the generous profile and career enhancer, the BBC?
I no longer live in London, but such self-interest does not help one's voting intentions when deciding upon who is deciding what is in the majority interest.
One 'right' (...for who to enjoy what. where?) does not atone for many, many wrongs, especially when that right is optional and may not appeal to all, whereas the wrongs are imposed on pain of jail no matter how great their lack of appeal to many. And the price we all pay per 'free' ticket for you....?
The BBC is more and more coming across as an organ for a privileged minority to get paid a fortune (inside and, it seems, without) to impose their views on others, whether they like it or not. Not the smartest wagon for a populist pol to hitch their wagon to.
Gaurdian - The Midas touch of Noel Edmonds - Comes out 'fighting'. I wonder why?
You know, in some ways you are so... well informed. But in others, so predictable.
Which, when it comes to a view (Or series of them) that does not meet with yours (and hence must be wrong, seen to be wrong and hence pursued as wrong), leads to an inevitability: play the person; not the ball.
I don't defend Mr. Edmonds, nor some of his actions and/or statements. A few do indeed come across as a bit loopy. However, some do indeed strike a chord, which the former do not negate. So, looking at this interesting little piece I can't help but pick up on the summary:
'Yet Noel still has that annoying habit of fronting winning formats.... he just instinctively grasps what [most?] people want.'
Were it that such as the Guardian and those it pays to write for them could try and figure out why that might be, rather than instinctively attack anything that might be contrary to a rather minority, and often by exposure to such reactions further reducing, view.
Guardian - Aha!
StillBreathing & MoveAnyMountain [previous posters]
This section of the online CiF seems to have a new home page listing, such that I need to scroll page by page now.
And having done so back for a few days have noticed a rather odd series of what can only be described as rather single-minded, if not obsessive posts along the lines of 'Sarah Palin ate my hamster (and may also eat babies, too, I'm told)' by one person who has taken it upon himself to rummage in the gutter, if not having been tasked and paid to do so.
Thing is, and with no comment on my personal views of Mrs. Palin, almost all this effort seems to have been based on the very worst journalistic practices overseen by thoroughly dire editorial agenda, often highlighted by the efforts of such as your goodselves.
As to my personal view of the Guardian: 'You have totally lost the plot, guys'
Gaurdian - Enoch Edmonds? - Worthy on a few counts. Rivers of Blob? Mainly for playing the man. But they can muster at least 5 in support. The advertisers must be impressed.
Indy - Edmonds accused of hollow talk over TV licence row - Accused by whom, I wonder? Mind, I did note in my first post that his possession or otherwise of a licence was unknown, though I reckon irrelevant. Well, to most.
BBBC - NEW - 'Regardless of whether or not Mr Edmonds has a TV license, surely TV licensing should not release this information as this would be in breach of the Data Protection Act? Good Qu.
Whatever his past (a BBC largesse beneficiary no doubt), his Grumpy Old Man persona, self-promo, etc, he not only 'cancelled ' (well, says he did) his licence, but weighed in big time on a few other issues, too.
Credit the poor presenters who were surfing a 'Britain is broken' slag-fest initially, but then found their employers were rolled in to the mud-slide as major culprits.... they actually didn't clam up but giggled along pretty well.
It will be interesting to see if this gets quietly dropped or noisily picked up. Who is likely to do which I can't imagine. Depends how slow the news this weekend is.
BBC - Edmonds begins TV licence boycott - Credit for them sharing! Though I understood from his words that to call this a 'beginning of a boycott' is not, as such, accurate. Also the database might more correctly suggest potential evaders, and not very exactly. I am being harassed with threats for an S. Martin, albeit it at this address, who bought a TV a while ago. Nice one, BBC. I am not telling them because I don't like their methods one jot, just as I currently pay my licence not because I am honest, but because I have no choice. I don't fancy jail, though it seems that these days I might find my fellow lags to be a more amenable lot as the favoured targets of our screwed up legal system which leaves thugs on the street but will imprison a person who doesn't fill a bin correctly.
Daily Mail - Noel Edmonds: 'I won't pay TV licence because of 'threatening' BBC adverts
Telegraph - Noel Edmonds is wrong: Take away the licence fee and you also take away the Proms
Per Mrs.Merton: What was it that first attracted you to the generous profile and career enhancer, the BBC?
I no longer live in London, but such self-interest does not help one's voting intentions when deciding upon who is deciding what is in the majority interest.
One 'right' (...for who to enjoy what. where?) does not atone for many, many wrongs, especially when that right is optional and may not appeal to all, whereas the wrongs are imposed on pain of jail no matter how great their lack of appeal to many. And the price we all pay per 'free' ticket for you....?
The BBC is more and more coming across as an organ for a privileged minority to get paid a fortune (inside and, it seems, without) to impose their views on others, whether they like it or not. Not the smartest wagon for a populist pol to hitch their wagon to.
Gaurdian - The Midas touch of Noel Edmonds - Comes out 'fighting'. I wonder why?
You know, in some ways you are so... well informed. But in others, so predictable.
Which, when it comes to a view (Or series of them) that does not meet with yours (and hence must be wrong, seen to be wrong and hence pursued as wrong), leads to an inevitability: play the person; not the ball.
I don't defend Mr. Edmonds, nor some of his actions and/or statements. A few do indeed come across as a bit loopy. However, some do indeed strike a chord, which the former do not negate. So, looking at this interesting little piece I can't help but pick up on the summary:
'Yet Noel still has that annoying habit of fronting winning formats.... he just instinctively grasps what [most?] people want.'
Were it that such as the Guardian and those it pays to write for them could try and figure out why that might be, rather than instinctively attack anything that might be contrary to a rather minority, and often by exposure to such reactions further reducing, view.
Guardian - Aha!
StillBreathing & MoveAnyMountain [previous posters]
This section of the online CiF seems to have a new home page listing, such that I need to scroll page by page now.
And having done so back for a few days have noticed a rather odd series of what can only be described as rather single-minded, if not obsessive posts along the lines of 'Sarah Palin ate my hamster (and may also eat babies, too, I'm told)' by one person who has taken it upon himself to rummage in the gutter, if not having been tasked and paid to do so.
Thing is, and with no comment on my personal views of Mrs. Palin, almost all this effort seems to have been based on the very worst journalistic practices overseen by thoroughly dire editorial agenda, often highlighted by the efforts of such as your goodselves.
As to my personal view of the Guardian: 'You have totally lost the plot, guys'
Gaurdian - Enoch Edmonds? - Worthy on a few counts. Rivers of Blob? Mainly for playing the man. But they can muster at least 5 in support. The advertisers must be impressed.
Indy - Edmonds accused of hollow talk over TV licence row - Accused by whom, I wonder? Mind, I did note in my first post that his possession or otherwise of a licence was unknown, though I reckon irrelevant. Well, to most.
BBBC - NEW - 'Regardless of whether or not Mr Edmonds has a TV license, surely TV licensing should not release this information as this would be in breach of the Data Protection Act? Good Qu.
12.9.08
The lady is for U-turning?
I have some, if not much, sympathy for pols.
Pretty much every aspect of what they do, or say, falls in to 'damned if you do; damned if you don't'.
And one thing more than any other epitomises this: changing your mind.
Now it can be an evolution, a mitigation or even a total 180, but sure as eggs as eggs the very media hounding you for having a view will then show its gratitude to you coming round more to their way of thinking by serving it up as a less than complimentay 'U-turn'.
I pondered this as I glanced across at the latest Gaurdain take on their less than favourite potential US VP.
From this on the home page:
Palin makes climate change U-turn Republican vice-presidential nominee agrees human activity contributes to rising global temperatures
to this:
Palin reverses position on climate change After years of questioning the scientific consensus, the vice-presidential nominee has agreed that human activity contributes to rising global temperatures
I have noted the BBC is also very good at such subtle shifts betwixt the home page splash and the actual article it links to.
Now, Mrs. Palin is one I have yet to get much of a serious view upon, swept along as I am by the guff that all 'sides' are still throwing around.
However, I took a few moments to read this through, bearing in mind the context it was billed.
After years of questioning the scientific consensus, Sarah Palin switched her position yesterday on the origins of climate change, agreeing that human activity contributes to rising global temperatures. "I believe that man's activities certainly can be contributing to the issue of global warming, climate change," Palin told ABC news,
That, frankly, is pretty much where I am, and hardly the words of an eco-antichrist.
Palin had previously cast doubt on the cause of rapid Arctic sea ice melting in her home state of Alaska. One day before she joined the Republican ticket in August, she told conservative website NewsMax: "I'm not one … who would attribute [climate change] to being man-made
Still not quite seeing much more than a fairly common, and none too aggressive, view here.
But the Alaska governor also expressed sympathy with fellow conservatives who continue to believe – in the face of broad scientific consensus – that observed climate change is a natural variation unrelated to human activity.
As opposed to... what? Staking a claim on an extreme view that can only serve to alienate a lot of folk? Irrespective of her being allowed her beliefs, this would make little political sense these day.
"Whether it's entirely, wholly caused by man's activities or is part of the cyclical nature of our planet, the warming and the cooling trends – regardless of that, John McCain and I agree that we've got to do something about it," Palin said.
I'm really sorry, but that sounds downright reasonable.
She also challenged ABC anchor Charles Gibson to produce proof of her prior denial of the origins of climate change: "Show me where I have ever said that there's absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any effect or no effect on climate change."
Sounds like he didn't.. or couldn't. But even the article author's helpful fisking manages only this:
"I'm not an Al Gore, doom-and-gloom environmentalist blaming the changes in our climate on human activity". And before her 2006 election as governor, her spokesman said Palin believed "the jury is still out" on the origins of climate change.
I am again sorry, but that doesn't make anything like the connection attempted.
Now, many other aspects of this candidate's record , statements and future intentions need looking at carefully, along with the others, to see how she stacks up.
However, if this is the level of jounalism we can expect from the Gaurdian to try and put whatever 'case' they embrace forward, they need to be downright ashamed of their sorry selves.
For balance? Pit-bull Palin, enemy of the greens, could be McCain's Achilles heel
Pretty much every aspect of what they do, or say, falls in to 'damned if you do; damned if you don't'.
And one thing more than any other epitomises this: changing your mind.
Now it can be an evolution, a mitigation or even a total 180, but sure as eggs as eggs the very media hounding you for having a view will then show its gratitude to you coming round more to their way of thinking by serving it up as a less than complimentay 'U-turn'.
I pondered this as I glanced across at the latest Gaurdain take on their less than favourite potential US VP.
From this on the home page:
Palin makes climate change U-turn Republican vice-presidential nominee agrees human activity contributes to rising global temperatures
to this:
Palin reverses position on climate change After years of questioning the scientific consensus, the vice-presidential nominee has agreed that human activity contributes to rising global temperatures
I have noted the BBC is also very good at such subtle shifts betwixt the home page splash and the actual article it links to.
Now, Mrs. Palin is one I have yet to get much of a serious view upon, swept along as I am by the guff that all 'sides' are still throwing around.
However, I took a few moments to read this through, bearing in mind the context it was billed.
After years of questioning the scientific consensus, Sarah Palin switched her position yesterday on the origins of climate change, agreeing that human activity contributes to rising global temperatures. "I believe that man's activities certainly can be contributing to the issue of global warming, climate change," Palin told ABC news,
That, frankly, is pretty much where I am, and hardly the words of an eco-antichrist.
Palin had previously cast doubt on the cause of rapid Arctic sea ice melting in her home state of Alaska. One day before she joined the Republican ticket in August, she told conservative website NewsMax: "I'm not one … who would attribute [climate change] to being man-made
Still not quite seeing much more than a fairly common, and none too aggressive, view here.
But the Alaska governor also expressed sympathy with fellow conservatives who continue to believe – in the face of broad scientific consensus – that observed climate change is a natural variation unrelated to human activity.
As opposed to... what? Staking a claim on an extreme view that can only serve to alienate a lot of folk? Irrespective of her being allowed her beliefs, this would make little political sense these day.
"Whether it's entirely, wholly caused by man's activities or is part of the cyclical nature of our planet, the warming and the cooling trends – regardless of that, John McCain and I agree that we've got to do something about it," Palin said.
I'm really sorry, but that sounds downright reasonable.
She also challenged ABC anchor Charles Gibson to produce proof of her prior denial of the origins of climate change: "Show me where I have ever said that there's absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any effect or no effect on climate change."
Sounds like he didn't.. or couldn't. But even the article author's helpful fisking manages only this:
"I'm not an Al Gore, doom-and-gloom environmentalist blaming the changes in our climate on human activity". And before her 2006 election as governor, her spokesman said Palin believed "the jury is still out" on the origins of climate change.
I am again sorry, but that doesn't make anything like the connection attempted.
Now, many other aspects of this candidate's record , statements and future intentions need looking at carefully, along with the others, to see how she stacks up.
However, if this is the level of jounalism we can expect from the Gaurdian to try and put whatever 'case' they embrace forward, they need to be downright ashamed of their sorry selves.
For balance? Pit-bull Palin, enemy of the greens, could be McCain's Achilles heel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
