Poll taxing, yet more

Brown bounces back

Ah, polls. Another which, amazingly, missed me and anyone I know.

But yes, everything is relative.

I do rather wonder what condition some entities are in if they do get to bounce, especially from such a height. A bit like the current state of this country, I'd hazard.

Which is why, before I move to the woeful alternatives I am confronted with, it's still ENABL, 'Enough Now, Anything But Labour'

Guess we'll find out when the electorate actually votes.

Thank you, and good night

Tonight from the Newsnight House of (Economic) Horrors

'Oh, what a tangled web that's spun, when saying all, and nothing, is how one, or others, have their fun.'

Ah well, rules were made to be broken.

But why do I feel my twins should still view the Menendez brothers as a bad example?

What good is a moral compass when the political one points any way the wind blows, and the media one is aiming straight through the bottom of the barrel, the cellar floor and is halfway to the PRC by now.

Apologies, for anything (from governments to employee behaviours) are not worth much more than such weasel words as 'unacceptable', 'aren't good enough' or those cited above, plus too many more.

Especially when we are in an era of no accountability despite responsibility still bringing many, index-linked rewards.

Choosing fights

Ok, look who is talking, but really...

Money to burn

'We must protect..'

Gotta love the Guardian and many of its writers.

Good luck with this mission. The windmill is over there. The horse has bolted that way.

Bless.

Got a column from it, mind.

Now, wash your mouth out with soap

Political hypocrisy - don't you hate it?

No matter how 'sophisticated', my contempt for any hypocrisy, from any profession, is total.

ps: For "uptight, right hypocrites", I'd suggest selfishly, self-interestedly, self-delusional... at best... might be a wee bit closer the mark.

IMHO, that we have now a politco/media establishment class who see 'Don't do as I do; do as I say' as a valid motivational piece of leadership explains quite a lot about where 'we' find ourselves these days.

Alastair Campbell's legendary college antics

Michael White has an essay on political hypocrisy this very day.

Many in the media would do well to read it... and this. Then look in a mirror... then look in their photo albums.

The idea that young (predominantly) men got gussied up in twatty outfits, drank too much and behaved 'poorly' in their late teens/early twenties.

The very idea.

Must have been a riot hanging out with most NuLab pols and their Westminster Village Useful Idiot cheerleading mates back when they were in short woolly knickers, drinkin' 1/2 pints and lecturing the huddled masses on their evil ways.

Lord help my boys should they ever be tempted into 'public service'. Prom night at their very fine state secondary usually results in some awesome material for the po-faced commissars of class: DJ's, stretch limos, etc.

I must caution them to cease having a life right away lest a stray spinner be given an outing by a compliant media matey. Or... not.

Class acting

Parody politics

Just watched an 'interview' with the man as a bit of BBC 'news'. There's TV show to go with, apparently.

It's supposedly a story about 'class', but what I saw was a total lack of it.

A point that the blonde and bouffant 'we just read it out' presenters, with their incisive interviewing style, failed to help our spinning moral compass-endowed ex-DPM to distinguish from education, money, Toffs, snobs looking down on folk, etc.

Like the lobbies of Westminster are not oozing with those who have got there by, and are now profiting from all the various systems of 'privilege' can confer.

A Republican ate my hamster!

Well, she had a crew cut, so I am sure she was one. Hard to tell, but you get a nose for these things...

Vandalising the Obamamobile

No, dude, this is, like, serious. And well worth a story in the Guardian. And I empathise. Let's think this one through...

Might have been Wolfie Smith still on a bender, a wee bittie out of his Sarf London 'hood (head West and keep on going beyond parody) and just lashing out in case it was a Bullingdon Club member's sweet ride.

I once had a 10 year old Mini keyed by someone I presume upset that they either only had an 11 year old Mini or... no car at all.

But they made it look like it was to save the trees as it was sort of in the shape of a 'T', or maybe they thought I was a Mrs. T supporter.

Or is 'eco' all like, sooo last week now?

A week is a long time in political interviewing

Just watched the Andrew Marr show.

Seems like Sophie was on to something last week.

Not that anyone is being accused of anything....

Going for a ride. Or being taken for one?

When they ask for sponsorship, tell them to get on their bikes

Some are just 'more' than others...

The Feral Beast: 'Times' gets close to the action!

Another day, another isnight into what 'we' get told by 'them'. And why.

'Guardian': no more Starbucks gags - run the taps, again, guys. You've bought off the green media! Must have doubled their circulation, too.

Law unto himself - access, one's flexible rationalisation

It must be true; it was on the BBC

Thanks to a survey... on the BBC.

Newsnight -

Any view from Newsnight and its extensive crew of US reporters/analysts/bloggers as to why 50% of the UK population is less than inspired by the ongoing shenanigans of an election in a foreign, if highly significant country whose votes we cannot, should not and do not have an influence upon despite the month on month, wall to wall, obsessive, partisan, often trivial coverage.... oh.

I just ask because a presenter on BBC Breakfast News opined that it may be due to 'a breakdown in the special relationship'.

Bless.

More WMD - word mangling dissembling

Not exactly on a par with 'truthiness', but close

Times - Now, in the pantheon of great public apologies, how do you think the following rates? “I have found a flaw in the . . . critical functioning structure that defines how the world works. I have been very distressed by that fact.”

That’s Alan Greenspan, the former boss of the US Federal Reserve, sort of confessing that the philosophy in which he believed, and on which the US economy was predicated, was, in the end, a nonsense.

Joined by a common, now very common, media

A neat essay from over the pond:

Editing Their Way to Oblivion: Journalism Sacrificed For Power and Pensions

Many years ago I was on a gap year from my native UK in the USA. A part of my stay was in a very small town in Texas, with a local paper whose masthead bore a line that made an impression that has lasted to the present day: 'Hew close to the line, and let the chips fall where they may'.

Simple, but still a pretty decent credo to follow as a journalist.

With a few exceptions, I had thought the spirit embodied in that still existed in the USA whilst publisher patronage and personal or corporate agenda has tainted almost anything here that goes under the well-abused term 'objective news'. Including, or should I say especially from the BBC, my national broadcaster and an entity I am forced to pay for.

It is sad to see that the desire of some to shape issues to suit personal beliefs and/or boost careers through ratings has dragged you guys down too.

Indy - In an age of instant news bites, one man thinks it's time to go back to contemplative journalism

What's worse (or more interesting) than being 'moderated'

Nothing to be proud of (mind you, for the 'reasons', mostly not given, I am not so sure), but I get 'moderated' every so often.

Usually I take it with poor grace and move on.

However, I seem to have hit on a new phenomenon: 'Comment Erased'. As in didn't, doesn't and won't, at least as far as the publication goes, exist at all... ever.

It's bit like those photos of the Politburo on May Day, with some dude Tippexed out.

Look at the time and date above: Oct 24 08, 11.39am.

Now have a gander at the thread I posted on: Tories talking Britain down

Scroll down to: ABasu - Oct 24 08, 11:35am, and then to the next, EuropeanOnion
Oct 24 08, 11:47am

What seems to be missing? Now I know I was 'edge of topic', but the point was/is valid, and applied to this author.

Not exactly Comment Is Free, eh?

A harbinger of things to come, I wonder?

There, there, Aunty will make it sound better

You just have to love how dumb some think the public is.

Mandelson accepts tycoon claims
Lord Mandelson confirms in a letter to the Times that he met Oleg Deripaska earlier than previously acknowledged.

Now why can't our objective national broadcaster summon up the cojones, or even journalistic/editorial integrity to suggest, in print, that 'accepting a claim' that had not been 'previously acknowledged' 'earlier' rather smacks of a pol being caught telling a whopping porkie and only when cornered facing up to it.

A bit like some other media, who we don't have to co-fund... or else.

Another for the 'Truthiness Files' of 'interesting wasy of articulating something so as to avoid it being, as such, accurate, whilst trying to claim it is.

'I accept that what I have been held to account on now is not what was previously acknowledged'. Try popping that in George W's famous quote: 'Father, I cannot tell a [ ]'

Skirting the issue

Newsnight

Much more importantly, to me in the UK and concerned with the BIG issues...

When are you going to be addressing (here's hoping) the vastly important, topical issue of... Mrs Palin's wardrobe. Everyone else is doing it!

Now, I have to say that I have in my wardrobe the same suit I had a decade ago for smart stuff, while the missus is on La Redoute's frequent buyer programme, so there is an 'issue' here.

As it wasn't mentioned on BBC Breakfast News, I still wonder who is paying, but if not the taxpayer whose business it is and hence who cares. Maybe Mr. Obama's helicopter has seats made from whale foreskins?

Maybe some are just still smarting over the expose over their bubbly bill... which is paid for by the licence fee and hence, in part...me.

When it comes to the BBC, might there be a danger of skirting (sorry) dodgy ground here, considering, how to say, more 'favourable', uncritical 'reporting' of the fashions sported by oh so many others 'approved' of (from Princess D through WAGS to Mrs. Brown), and from ladies who also don't seem to lob up each day in the same one-piece.

I merely note in passing a few of Newsnight's very own being involved, irony-free, with a progamme that is currently quite active in getting knickers in a twist over 'inappropriate' relationships.

Meanwhile, I have noted the ongoing quality of editorial riquor with their 'post 'n never check/read again' blogs...
McCain Suckered By Obama Over The Big Bucks

2. At 07:41am on 23 Oct 2008, JunkkMale wrote:
Just like New York...

McCain Suckered By Obama Over The Big Bucks

1. At 07:46am on 23 Oct 2008, JunkkMale wrote:
...New York... evidently a post that is thought so good, they post it twice!

(until it is without acknowledgement or explanation removed, put back in, taken out...).

Sorry, I appear not to be treating these with the gravitas some think they obviously deserve.

Can't think why.

Indy - Republican Party spent $150,000 on Palin's wardrobe
Obama still has questions to answer

Gaurdian - How to spend $1.5bn on elections - first lavish $150,000 on Sarah Palin's clothes
Tomasky talk: Palin v Tomasky clothing budgets

Like the money spent on other billboards is any different, or better, or of use to the poor.

Telegraph - US election: Sarah Palin's spending spree

Remind me, on whose dime was Jackie O's wardrobe when she was hitched to that geezer whose electoral chances seemed to do OK when she scrubbed up well?

Or is it OK only so long as the dosh gets blown on the arm candy? I remember thinking 'Nice barnet, Cherie. Worth every penny!'

Indy - Sarah Churchwell: Who's 'ordinary' in these clothes?

On a point of education for this non-US expert...

Where did these funds come from and how are they defined?

They money used is referred to as 'public funds' hence 'charg[ed] to the taxpayer'. Really?

Does that mean all electoral expenses, no matter what side of the political divide, are covered by the public?

In which case what are the party fund raisers for?

And of these public funds, might we learn what else, again from across the political divide, is spent by the various parties and (one presumes, on behalf of) the various candidates.

In a world of impressions the way a woman looks is given more heft. I seem to recall the media, well some, being quite happy with the image presented by Jackie Kennedy or, more recently, Sarah Brown when not being used as a prop by hubby. Or Cherie's multi-£ barnet.

I guess the message is that these ladies were somehow different? If not politically, maybe it's just that they were the main attraction's female eye-candy, so that's OK then.

Times - Republicans spent $150,000 on Sarah Palin's clothes - No answer to the above yet, but a quick Google leads me in a slightly different direction.

Telegraph - Barack Obama election night rally to cost Chicago $2 million - When in doubt... 2 wrongs! Ain't non-partisan, considered, objective media commentary just the best:)

Hotair.com - Jeri Thompson nukes Colmes, defends Palin’s wardrobe expenses

I guess I am capable of being swayed by a stereotype as the next... person... but Mrs. Thompson was simply the sharpest, most coherent and well-informed person in the exchanges. End of.

Frankly the BBC seems to have hyped an aspect and dropped it once the main line has served its function, namely Mrs. P blowing a wad on frocks. Little on the context vis a vis presentation or the activities of others in this regard.

Party funding is a wee bit more complex than that, and if running with an aspect I would maintain any sharing this either do it 'all or nothing'.

Mrs. T was not about to let Mrs. O get a free pass, but such 'two-wrongs' counters have to be skillfully used to a) make a point without sounding petty and b) giving the very entities that feel free to initiate such trivia techniques the opportunity to say, with all due pompous hypocrisy they can muster: 'well, we're not talking about that'.

Maybe the question should be asked more why they do not, in an even way, from the outset, from so-called 'objective' journalists who these days seem happy to be agenda-supporting shills for party Press Releases.

Telegraph - £92,000 on clothes in nine weeks? Way to go Sarah Palin!

Making the news tonight...

Gaurdian - One voter in three says George Osborne should resign

I'm going to the pub soon. Interesting x-section.

As again a doubtless countrywide, representative survey of the national 'Daily Politics' viewing public seems to have missed me & my mates, I'll maybe ask how many think some other political superheroes are running things, and whether the group would like them to keep on doing what they have managed so well until now.

If anything devastating crops up I'll be sure to let you know so you can break the bad news to you know who... and all his GOATs.

ps: Don't know about silly polls about silly pols, but anything with a negative courtesy of the BBC or certain other 'news' brands is not something I tend to get too interested in any more. Can't think why.

pps: 6pm update

Mind you, if I did pay any attention to such things, and it were phrased another way, I'd say that 4 out of 5 voters reckon Mr. M is not up to his new job, in power, with the current government might not reflect well on well, anyone involved really.

But I guess 80% negative is still a good result when it comes to reasons not to resign (again) in the Village, if it's spun well.

Ta for the share.

Ah well,

Blogs, Politics blogs, and...

One I may have missed

Irish voters were led astray, says European Commissioner

The politics of erosion.

Sad to say, yet another example of self-appointed 'them' deciding 'we' are too dumb to be trusted with a free vote, and seeing nothing remotely odd about saying so, is almost becoming so commonplace as to wash over one.

As a matter of interest, is there a mechanism to get such a person out still? If so, I also ask, rhetorically, without a massive wadge of wonga to compensate for trampling over hard-fought freedoms with barely a thought?

It got a reply.... I have answered

Dear Mr. G (hope I have spelled your name correctly)

Without knowing, along with who I support, or not, how you think I might count myself is your own affair, though it does rather confirm my view that there are some who like to put themselves, and others, in little boxes. It's a mentality I see a lot, especially amongst those who like ticking them for a living.

As to how smart I am, I tend to favour those espousing the politics of positive persuasion to get folk on side, rather than threat or insult.

You might like to try it some time. It may even reflect well upon you and your argument.

Meanwhile, atop a Kyoto-exempt column of greenhouse gasses...

Why are we giving India £1 billion in aid if it can afford Moon missions?

What goes up in smoke... stays up in smoke! It is the new UK fiscal strategy.

Now be fair, there's a Balti House in Dudley who has the contract for the in-flight meals, so some dosh comes back.

Run it up the old flagpole...

If the Union Jack is banned, let's burn the EU flag

To paraphrase some prominent European 'leader' who knew a thing or two (for a while)...

'Hoist a flag often enough, and soon those below it will salute'

Well, we do owe them money

I'll need to track down the story links, but wanted to share this now.

Just popped over to my Mum's and, in attempt to wean her off News 24 we tried SKY.

I actually stayed to watch a moving main piece about a Chinese dissident who has been banged up.

Thing is, he's up for a Nobel Prize. Until this point I was unaware of this, or indeed his plight.

Now, before the morning cadres get fisking and linking to Cbeebies to show it's there, I simply express the hope that this story gets the level of support across all media that it deserves.

The courage of this chap, and perhaps even more so his wife, seemed/s incredible.

Buy maybe a celeb with a book out is more what the public wants....? Not a peep that I have seen (important qualifier) from Aunty so far.

Indy - Warning to Nobel prize protesters - Now I know (and not thanks to many media) ...

To whom exactly would Beijng be issuing a warning over this year's Peace Prize choice (report, 26 September)? It seems that the Chinese government is under the same misapprehension as your reporter who writes that the "Norwegian government . . . appoints the Nobel Prize Committee".

In his will (1895) establishing the prize "for champions of peace", Alfred Nobel specified that it was to be awarded "by a committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Storting" [Parliament]. The Storting proceeded to elect five members. This committee is independent, and over the years it has become increasingly distanced from the Storting.

In 1937 the latter decided that cabinet ministers should not serve on the committee. The previous year, the prize had been awarded to Carl von Ossietzky, imprisoned by the Nazis in a concentration camp. The Nazi regime had warned Norway that such an award would be seen as an unfriendly act. The committee bravely ignored these protestations while the Norwegian government pointed out the independence of the committee.

Forty years later, the Storting decided that its members should not participate in any non-parliamentary committees that it might appoint. Until 1977, members of the Storting continued to play an important part in the committee. In the same year, it resumed its original name of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, after having been known since the earliest years as the Nobel Committee of the Storting.

If the Chinese government were to issue a formal protest following the award to Hu Jia or another Chinese dissident, the only precedent is Hitler's protestations mentioned above.

Telegraph - China furious at EU human rights award to 'criminal' dissident Hu Jia

What did you fight the war for again, Daddy?

Censorship Beijing would be proud of

Jobs worth?

Well, it's worth pay, perks, pension... all guaranteed for life, no matter what. No chance of being held to account for anything and certainly not losing job or any of the above no matter how egregious. With the provision of a wall of state-backed police and/or legal official obfuscation and/or threat and intimidation if challenged on any aspect.

Welcome to the Brown Blair Comintern that is today's UK after the last decade.

Now, I have a small problem with this...

Staff at SATs fiasco firm to get £4,000 bonuses

More than 100 civil servants who work for the agency that oversaw this year's SATs national curriculum tests fiasco have been awarded performance bonuses of up to £3,905.

Priorities

I post this not becuase of the main story, but the one that goes into its telling.

Harman makes a tough choice

A poster writes:

Um, is there a sentence or paragraph missing from the end of this piece?

On feminist issues Harman is one of nature's fundamentalists, brave enough to march into any minefield under enemy fire

??
Is it brave to engineer a cave-in?
Isn't this a prime example of hypocrisy from Harman, not fundamentalism?

And the author replies:

Well spotted, AlisdairCampbell. The above article was edited to appear in the Guardian and sometimes has to be cut. It's usually skillfully done, was last night, but a nasty ad popped up at the bottom of the page ( it pays our salaries!) and the last 150 words disappeared.
What i suggested there was that Harman must have been bound by collective ministerial responsibility to do what she would not otherwise have done, had she been acting alone. That's politics and I have no complaint, though others do, Polly Toynbee for instance in a column this week.
In both Scotland and Northern Ireland - in Ulster all the main parties are hostile to abortion and it remains illegal - it's a very hot and divisive issue; hence reserved to Westminster under devolution. Polly got cross about this in her column, but seemed to concede that public opinion in Northern Ireland remains anti-abortion, Catholic and Protestant.
That may be harmful to many women, especially those too poor to come to England for an abortion, but if it's hypocrisy - it is - it seems to be majority hypocrisy.

Thing is, after 8hrs, it does not look to have been addressed properly. At least the guy read his critics, but evidently not his own piece. Amazing. I have long suspected the Newsnight crew just 'post 'n forget', but even here, with subs and all, things just get stuffed up the same way.

CiF cleaner

I had to ask this:

Here will have to do, as it's sort of relevant. All the more so reading above (at least I know the CiF ed. might read it).

I refer to this:

We should be told
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/23/electoral-commission-chris-huhne

Apparently, For legal reasons, we regret this thread is not open for comments.

Why then is it posted on... 'Comment is Free'?

here:

How to be the perfect house guest

About this:

We should be told
For legal reasons, we regret this thread is not open for comments.

Gaurdian - Tories talking Britain down

You will hear every view. Some, more than others.

Question Time prefers Hattersley to McNulty

Just so's I am clear, this is my 'objective by Charter' national broadcaster and my democracy, free-speech endorsing government, deciding between them who the people of the UK get to see arguing between themselves in a balanced, even-handed moderation manner in front of a representative audience?

With my money and for my education, might I ask who actually chooses and who vetoes?

You can't touch me, I'm part of the...

Irish voters were led astray, says European Commissioner

The politics of erosion.

Sad to say, yet another example of self-appointed 'them' deciding 'we' are too dumb to be trusted with a free vote, and seeing nothing remotely odd about saying so, is almost becoming so commonplace as to wash over one.

As a matter of interest, is there a mechanism to get such a person out still? If so, I also ask, rhetorically, without a massive wadge of wonga to compensate for trampling over hard-fought freedoms with barely a thought?

Short 'n sw..

Blogging is passe: Official

People only read 140 characters b4 moving on.

Cld expln an awfl lot.

Gaurdian - Has blogging had its day?

I'd say, so long as those in the 'major', 'professional', 'paid' media think that they and only they should be guardian's (no pun meant) of what we see, learn and think, it's pretty safe.

Mind you, as the same PR was raised over at the Telegraph I learned that People only read 140 characters b4 moving on, which to my mind Cld expln an awfl lot.

Especially the actions of some editors who think what they stick in the headline and/or link can be mitigated by a line in para 37 'by way of balance'.

Ah, the new media age. Still with old media mentalities.

It's a bit like claiming the Reader's Digest will kill books. Some will only have time for it, but others will benefit from the time taken over the whole story.

Anything but medium

A thought in passing.

The status quo does not inspire interest. Cohesion does not lead to debate. Compromise does not generate ratings.

The media does not just abhor things being on an even keel though naked self-interest, it has an active incentive to make sure that whatever else, someone or something is either being pumped up or being shot down.

Speed thrills

Especially knee-jerk media.

BBC Breakfast is having a ball over Swindon Council deciding to reassign funds away from speed cameras.

A speed camera can't detect and address bad and/or dangerous driving, such as a truck 3' from your back bumper.

Spend the money on sensible policing of the law and safety; not a device that makes money from those few unaware of what covers a 100m stretch.

I am unsure wheeling out an array of distraught Mums of victims is serving the issue well.

Gaurdian - Should speed cameras go?

We have a dual carriageway near here that has two 120mph stretches with a 50mph bit in the middle. Meanwhile my kids walk home in a 30mph zone where 60mph is more the norm. It's a solution only a box-ticker could love.

And if they are not to generate revenue, why do they not have the correct speed on them?

Gaurdian - The end of the road for speed cameras?

Three Men in a Boat. And Aunty

If Mr. Osborne decided to fry his career and drop his party in the fire over an illegal £50k bung from a dodgy Russian he deserves all he gets.

However, before I try and figure out what else is going on 'out there' from between the lines of the rest of the ratings-chasing Westminster Village Useful Idiot media, with a national audience now well-primed by a certain national broadcaster, I so far have this from BBC Breakfast News:

The 'evidence', as outlined by a single wheeled-in studio 'expert' of uncertain objectivity: A bloke says another bloke asked another bloke in his hearing for an illegal donation... that did not transpire and hence serve anyone's interests... whilst they were all on a boat. And he has... a 'witness' (two against one=proof? In this murky world?). The second bloke denies this. That, so far, is it... what 'might' have happened is about as loose as it gets, and what didn't happen is in no doubt. This is NEWS???

Meanwhile, on possibly the same boat, a bloke in power and a current position of influence has conversations with a bloke... whose business interests (and hence incentive to take sides) end up gaining from the very outfit employing this first powerful person at the time.

Meanwhile, I am unsure on which dinghy half of Labour met Bernie E all that time ago, but I am sure the BBC will not find this of relevance either.

I am disgusted with the way ALL our media is trying to shape our mindsets in such a crass ratings or agenda-driven partisan manner, free of any hint of journalistic ethics or editorial objectivity.

But at least I can surf between them and drop those I don't rate, and certainly not support them with my money (bar a few extra visitor clicks).

I don't appear to have this option with the largest, and most pervasive of all. Why?

At the moment Mr. Osborne would appear to the chatterati to be at best a good excuse for a headline or at worst Sarah Palin's secret boyfriend.

As with a load of others Mr. Osbourne's judgement in a 'perceptions' era is pretty suspect and he is paying the consequences, but that these others are getting a free pass while he does is nothing sort of gob-smacking.

My life seems in the control of an unelected, unaccountable media elite (one of which I am forced to fund) that is itself out of control, and I am seeing the rather flawed 'but it's the best we have' concept of democracy being eroded in front of my very eyes as a consequence.

At least I can, for now, vote (no idea who FOR, but 'ENABL' (Enough, Now; Anything But Labour) is a cert for who NOT) out a shambles of a government, but tell me please how I have a say that counts in what happens to their state PR department?

Forget the bad joke that is Newswatch. Forget cookie-cutter issuing Complaints. Forget the most mis-named entity in the world: the Trust. And all the other options I have seen suggested are either the actual entity the BBC supports, or is beholden to them.

And no, I don't fancy not paying the fee... yet. It's illegal and gets me a fine or record, which I can't afford.

Newsnight - another friggin' 'gate' to chew on

Telegraph - Safe holiday destinations: a users-guide for Tory MPs

Indy - Exclusive (apparently): Osborne fights for political life

Gaurdian - Three men in a boat (to say nothing of the media mogul)

Guardian - The Corfu set

BBC - Duelling gentlemen

'The Tory party have been encouraging Tory newspapers and others, including the BBC – and we have resisted it so far – to make a lot of Peter Mandelson’s stay on a Russian billionaire’s yacht'

Have 'we' indeed?

Never mind, Mr. Robinson, for those suggesting the current 'day-job' is proving a trial, I just saw a re-run of 'Have I Got News For You'.

You can just sit there and get paid... and make fun* of others! And it's still on Aunty's dime.

Cushy.

*Though you do have to speak. And be funny.

Indy - What possessed Osborne to pick a fight with Mandelson?

Much as I can see how this little spat can amuse and give fuel the Usual Useful Westminster Village Idiots, does anyone else share my concern that a senior member of government revels in, and is lauded for his ability to mount spiteful campaigns to 'deal' with upstarts in the slime pit he inhabits?

Today's Indy cartoon is rare in pointing this out, and excellent in this regard.

But it's no way to run a country, and encourage it to be run...IMHO.

Indy - A full investigation is the last thing the Government needs

"This is a very serious matter," he said, "and I hope it is investigated by the authorities" - the PM's spokesman was entirely at a loss to explain this. Legally there's nothing to investigate. Even the "serious matter" was in doubt. What were the allegations?

And this... is who is in charge of my country? I will be interested in how many other major media note this latest example of 'inastatesmanship'.

Spectator - Osborne Stumbles: But Is There A Bigger Story About Mandelson?

Mail - While the BBC's knives are out for Osborne, Mandy is getting away with murder

Telegraph - George Osborne affair: the triumph of venal politics...

...added and abetted by some of us scurrilous denizens of the blogosphere...

I would like to take this opportunity to applaud many noble members of the blogosphere for taking to task most Westminster Village Useful Idiot gossip and tripe and suggesting a few paid, 'professional' members of the 4th estate stop telling us 'wot they 'fink' about what might or might not be, and get back to a bit of, oh, I don't know, non-partisan, ratings-driven, journalism based on what is, backed by facts.

The Editors - Storm over Corfu

At risk of being accused of not offering a skilled argument, I have read this 'justification' whilst watching the stern of a horse in a field over yonder, and what has just poured forth from the latter will at least serve the rhubarb, if not comparing in volume and aroma.

I look forward to a minion being shipped in to Newswatch at dawn to read it out again to Mrs. Noddy.

Telegraph - The BBC defends its hounding of George Osborne

Telegraph - Doesn't 'Yachtgate' give you that sinking feeling? - Plus tense: sunk

One man's noble image of sacrifice is another's...http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif

Photographs that capture the horror of fighting for liberty

A shame, in some ways, that such understanding, even in all due partnership with horror, of the consequences of liberation from oppression are not so clearly defined and hence understood these days.

You say tomato; I say 'uniquely funded'...

I have been trying to understand a strange transatlantic difference... beyond our common languages, of course.

Over 'there', an entrenched, deeply unpopular (it seems) incumbent administration is taking a drubbing mainly on the basis of the economy which, if many who post here are to be believed (and such links as I have seen provided bear out) has mainly been shaped by those who are set against them, from Clinton to majority Democrat voting subsequently.

Meanwhile, over 'here', an entrenched, deeply unpopular (it seems to me on the ground, but not so much in the rarified circles of our Westminster Village Useful Idiot media) incumbent administration is getting a free pass from many, especially around an economy which was in pretty good shape when they inherited it over ten years ago and they have been free and clear to play with ever since, unencumbered by many of the legislative hurdles our US cousins' systems can impose.

Both sides of the pond have 'left' and 'right' print and broadcast media, so why the discrepancy, he asked, rhetorically?

Tory activists brainwashed by the BBC - no idea who this geezer is, and he is for sure in one camp (hence the rather inevitable course of the post replies), but it was interesting on the topic of the perceptions here, even if it wandered off a bit on Mrs. Palin.

I am thinking... weightlifting

ie: my lardy butt off the sofa to the fridge

Cadbury is official confectioner of London Olympics

And to achieve this, I am inspired to immediately commence a diet of deep-fried Creme Eggs as part of my training regime, to add to as many Big Macs and Coke as I can cram in!

Repeat a lie enough...

Ta, Josef. You knew your stuff.

Newsnight - Monday, 20 October, 2008

Didn't watch so can't comment on the context, but might one enquire if the person to whom the comment was directed was indeed lying? And did the moderator assist the viewer to a conclusion?

If Mr. Robinson was not economical with the truth then Mr. Redwood's response would indeed reflect poorly upon him.

However, if the show is merely to allow voice to any old Pol's Porkies without being held to account, then I'd say it is both Mr. Robinson AND the host who need a bit of... um... help.

Frankly I am wondering what value most on-air interviews have these days when rampant untruths and/or errors of omission and/or selective claims are allowed to be made that demand immediate and total refutation by those who are paid, and should know enough of the actual facts, to put such things squarely in their places.

And if not at the time for whatever reason, then if demanded there should be follow up. Which is why I like the Ch4 Fact Checker, though 6 and 3/4 folk probably see it vs. the millions who get served a whopper and swallow it thanks to the 'integrity' of the medium it emanates from.

When it comes to holding those in power to account, I could therefore live with fewer displays of 'charm' if being sold a pup is the alternative consequence.

Allow a lie to be repeated enough...

Addendum - I have asked the man himself. We'll see.

Another 'Gate' opens..

Problems in the post for Mandelson

'..well he was cleared of any wrongdoing..'

What a trooper. I am always curious as to how, when, against or for whom, by whom and to what volume this phrase gets applied. It is, of course, deliciously ambiguous, providing almost anyone (including, and maybe especially the protagonist) the opportunity to make of it what they will. And hence has little value.

We are in an era of impressions. For instance, there may not be anything wrong for a senior Eurocrat enjoying the hospitality of a host whose interests are subsequently well served, but to those not invited on a daily basis to private islands or yachts it just looks as it smells.

But I guess its just down to one's political leanings when it comes to which gates get opened to see what horse might be persuaded to bolt into the traffic.

Telegraph - Why didn't the BBC report the Mandelson story?

Yes, is Sophie Rayworth now hanging on a hook in Andrew Marr's basement so he can show his dinner guests how they deal with those who don't foloow the party line?

I have got a bit fed up with penning 'Angry of Mayfair' (or, in my case, 'Cross of Ross') blogs on this.

How the heck does one go to to get some action? I don't like and don't want to pay for propaganda, especially under threat of fine.

I bumped into my MP t'other day. He's off next election so couldn't give a monkeys, so the Conservative and Lib Dem PPC's gunning for his slot can tell me what they'd do.

Any BBC mechanism is hardly worth thinking about, from the joke that is Newswatch through template-issuing 'Complaints' to the most woefully named entity in the world; The Trust.

My MP suggested The DCMS Secretary of State, but as this is an entity employed by the very outfit writing too many PR... er... news items for the BBC and its tame mouthpieces, and knows my vote is a lost cause, I suspect that is an unproductive line of attack.

Any suggestions that might make a darn difference? If the mounting unrest I am coming across, and often overt rumblings in many major media (even the Grauniad for heaven's sake) is anything to go by, it will need something pretty special to shake this uniquely funded institution out of its total self-belief that it can act any way it wishes... and get away with it.

Physician, heal thine own ad dept. first.

This from a guy who a wee while ago decried journos breaching professional respect levels.

A surprising Sunday Mirror online advert

Well, trying not to be one who weighs into a inter-professional media industry 'critique', I'd have to say that I usually get a bit more disturbed by climate-change nanny articles in some places right next to ads for 4x4s or jaunts to the Maldives.

Where's the AdSense in that?

But agreed, those big guys who have entire media departments to match equally huge editorial ones should no more be allowing inappropriate ads to be placed than they should use Wikipedia to get their stories.

But it still seems to happen.

I take on superman. And issue with his portrait painter.

On cartoonists' political leanings...

Well, you wouldn't want to give the Labour PM a good kicking for political reasons I guess, especially if you are 'left of centre'.

Here's me thinking satire was aimed at all bubbles that need pricking, but now I understand that dogma over-rides professional pride.

DC should of course get some stick, too, and deserves all he does, if well-targeted and funny. As it is here.

But glad you are not 'saying' GB is a a superhero, because that is what most of the Westminster Useful Idiot Village still is trying to claim (and somewhat at odds with those outside the bubble IMHO), so I wonder what you have drawn him as then?

I guess at least he is not flying but running. Frankly a crumpled mess at the phonebooth threshold would have seemed more appropriate.

Must just be my personal leanings showing through, as a taxpayer saddled with more debt and the promise of a ton of tax pain. Mind you, I also think that image would have been funnier, and more accurate, too.

Addendum (as he kindly replied):

I appreciate the reply; few originating posters do. And considering the 'head above parapet nature' of the situation that is often understandable if not very noble. I think you must have known what the reaction to the above may have been.

Speech is free. Or, in this case, a cartoon as well.

However, I think many (certainly myself) are getting a little tired with blatant personal or corporate agenda creeping in at every turn with so-called objective news media.

Hey, you can say what you like and the Telegraph can publish what it likes, as at least I can opt not to buy the paper or cease to provide the fuel of a click through. The choice is still there.

Though perhaps more honest than most, I guess I was just disappointed at what seemed a clear statement that whatever else your political affiliations meant that you would be giving our current Prime Minster a clear, or at least easy, ride, politically.

I also see this with some columnists' coverage of the US election, which have gone beyond partisan to parody.

Humour is a subtle, but effective tool. But then I look at such as this, from the BBC's Nick Robinson, which I do hope was meant to be tongue in cheek (but after his less than special outings in such as 'Have I Got News For You' who can tell?):

'...What's more, Gordon Brown, fresh from taking the plaudits for saving the world's financial system, is busy laying a new trap for the Tories. He's pledging to carry on spending and borrowing in the downturn...'

It might play well to the gallery of the Westminster Useful Village Idiots, but as one at the sharp end of what I consider (non-party politically) one of history's most woeful party/leader combos it is not that funny or a 'game' for the delight of the chatterati, with overt support seeded in at any turn reflecting poorly on professional standards.

Whether it's funny or not will always be subjective. But as to whether it is honest is another matter.

I now know where you stand, no matter what. and will in future have to view any future efforts in this light. For a political commentator that, I regret to say, reduces the value of output in my eyes considerably.

Mark Thompson: News is not a commodity – it is a vital part of our democracy

Agree. Though I'd be happy IF the BBC reported the news in an objective fashion, as required by its obligations to those who fund it.

This still-paying audience (who, oddly, has never been asked and hence rarely sees his views reflected in any of the 'the UK people say' research trotted out) doesn't think that's happening, no matter what you 'believe'.

Beyond 'facts' that can be shared more and more often than other 'facts', and hence shape agenda from the get-go, we're also treated to opinion or analysis of these by selected individuals, presumably to help 'us' 'understand' the 'right' way to interpret things 'better'.

As to lack of sensationalism, pull the other one.

Your salaries are based, and hence depend on one thing: ratings. That's how those odd parity calculations are made with the commercial sector so the 'talent' can be retained.... along with the bonuses.

Aunty would sell her own grandmother's 'story' if it meant a one day blip.

Quango!

An open-ended post (trust me)....

The Register - Top-slicing the Beeb: Clueless execs get busy - And this great quote:

'Some quangos, like jellyfish, seem to be able to reproduce asexually. It's what they live to do. What this means is that without any contact, parthenogenesis occurs and they simply spawn off a little version of themselves, which may grow as large as its parent.'

The TaxPayers Alliance - Quangos: The Unseen Government of the UK - a must read

The Times - It could be you – if you’re a lottery quango

Telegraph - George Osborne, look again - there are quangos in that cupboard

I clicked on this because I have a certain disquiet regarding the purpose, activities, expenditure, ROI, accountability and, in too many cross-political quarters, odd appeal of many quangos.

Then I read on. Including the comments. Funny what pops up.

Telegraph - Financial crisis: quangos want even more money
Pay packets to pad. Perks to secure. Bonuses to re-designate. Pensions to index link.
Oh, and voting blocs to secure.
Ain't democracy grand?

Telegraph - Time to wind up the Equality and Human Rights Commission

ADDENDUM :

I have noted a piece in The Sun that quotes one Gordon Brown in 1995, promising 'a bonfire of quangos'.

Just call me, Lord

Andrew Marr Show - sans its 'hero'. No bad thing.

Maybe not having dinner partners interview politicians is a good thing.

Go, Sophie!

If Peter 'Just call me Lord' M is an example of a government of all the talents being reassembled, Lord help us.

In several minutes of utter waffle, I could find no evidence of a fine mind or an ability to communicate, and whose final comments on his best buddy and unsubtle partisan ('you are just being Tory press smearing me if you question my judgement') lashings out betray a total lack of credibility, humility and sense of reality.

Times - Lord Mandelson flies high with hedge funder

Times - The secret world of Lord Freebie

Curses

Can TV do history justice?

If those making the programmes can do so without allowing personal or corporate agenda creeping in at any point possible, to shape a perceived social agenda under the guise of 'us' 'learning from the mistakes' of 'others', so some 'who know better' can ensure they don't get repeated.

So, in many, if not most cases... no.

Careful of all inclusive claims

As I know everyone else in this country is:)

Writers don't need bandwagons

More from the Brownstuffed

When the mine falls in on Gordon, he'll be quite happy

Oh, heavens.

The fate of my family and country is in the hands of Gordon 'Look at me, Ma, Top of the World!' Brown, and his Village useful idiot cheerleaders.

Super (no hero).

Times - If this is a triumph, I'd hate to see a disaster

Guardian - Brown gets room to breathe, not to boast - Not the piece, as they are now jokes; the comments: they are not laughing.

What the heck is going on? There is such a disconnect between what is, and is being portrayed, successfully, that Labour must have had a seance and dredged up Josef Goebbels somehow. Now who does he remind you of again? 'You just came and you took without giving... oh..'

Gaurdian - Banking rescue: Is this Brown's finest hour?

I just got an Xmas tat gadget brochure.

Every useless item headlined 'Could this be...?"

No, I ain't buying.

ps: If the best 'defence' Josef's new squad has is 'but think of what may replace him?', I'll take my chances.

Somone using the ship of state like The Titanic in an iceberg-filled dodgems (cheered on by the 1st class Village useful idiots already in the few lifeboats) is getting rather stressful.

Telegraph - Gordon Brown's most cretinous comment ever

Guardian - Northern Rock - nobody negligent

Bodes well for a certain heroic taxpayer's representative's offer to pad out the shark set's coffers still further by sickin' 'em on any miscreants from the latest bail-out.

Telegraph - Gordon Brown: After saving the EU, the world?

Or... not?

Indy - Game on: Brown recovery cuts Tory lead to single figures

Note to those inside the Westminster Useful Village Idiot bubble from one without, and suffering the consequences of too many playing with our futures as if it is:

'It is NOT a game'.

Just got my latest gas bill, too.

Guardian - Should Gordon Brown quit while he's ahead?

Please define 'ahead' in a way someone outside the Westminster Village Useful Idiot bubble may get to grips with.

Ch4 - Brown wades into Rock row

Indy - Experience can be too much of a good thing

'Gordon Brown is now a global superhero'

I must say that he, and those who buy into that, must be on a different globe.

Indy - Game on: Brown recovery cuts Tory lead to single figures

My comment:

'Note to those inside the Westminster Useful Village Idiot bubble from one without, and suffering the consequences of too many playing with our futures as if it is:

'It is NOT a game'.'

...has been challenged.

'A good lawyer will tell you to treat any serious case as if it were a game. When the stakes are high the last thing you want a government to do is freeze with fear like a rabbit in the car headlights. It's a game but a very serious game and you are a pawn in it.'

Well I have to say that with a Parliament packed with lawyers of various degrees of competence, I am unsure if where we find ourselves as a consequence makes it a very good thing to still be playing ball on a pitch chosen by the mindset of such a profession.

You are of course right when you say '... the last thing you want a government to do is freeze with fear...'. No evidence of that at almost any turn, then.

My concern is the 'game' played within a small chamber where a witty retort or a gambit that serves more to confound your opponents is given acres of excited coverage by those within the media bubble morning, noon and night. But too often at the expense of anything remotely that explains, engages or persuades with this pawn, who can still, for now, opt to not buy a paper, switch off a TV show and decide where is 'x' goes come voting time. Well, for now.

Telegraph - Why should I pay for MPs to have a comfortable retirement?

Gaurdian - Don't cut public pensions - Another view from another place. I'm sensing the 'taxes go up OR services go down' twofer is going to play louder than the third option.

Newsnight

As I have resigned myself to nothing about the UK cropping up any time soon I popped across to a blog by one Nick Robinson, and got to this...

'...What's more, Gordon Brown, fresh from taking the plaudits for saving the world's financial system, is busy laying a new trap for the Tories. He's pledging to carry on spending and borrowing in the downturn...'

Plus a few hundred comments.

At which point I wondered if he was actually laying it out, heavy with irony, for the audience as we are all too thick, or whether it really is better to lay traps and stuff for the opposition and get the glee club cheering rather than help the country get back on an even keel.

Hard to tell these days.

Guardian - Brown's dreams and reality: a poll apart

Well, golly. And that's a fact.

But really... Brown's dreams and reality????!

Too much to hope some from the Westminster Useful Village Idiot cheerleading troupe might have a wee gander in the mirror now?

I sure as heck am dreading the calibre of choices by way of alternatives, but PM Queeg and his merry crew in the Titanic Ice Dodgems Party have shown a level of ability on top of a past record that has me gagging for another category on my voting form to 'NOTA' (None Of The Above): 'ENABL' (Enough Now, Anyone But Labour)

Telegraph - Is this Gordon Brown's dead cat bounce?

Telegraph - Gordon Brown, not Iceland, acted like a terrorist

Laugh, and the world laughs...

Financial crisis jokes: Eight of the best

Heard the one about the politician who said no more bonuses, for this year at least... so the bankers only get lots of shares! Boom boom.

Well, I thought it was funny.

No wonder I'm a bit tense

Losing the war on trust

Los....(ing)??????!

Pay, perks... and pensions

I quote this as I suspect it may come up again...

Great pension divide: which side are you on?

'...those in the private sector are already paying more into the pensions of retired public sector ex-employees than they are into their own.'

In defence of democracy

Albeit with some difficulty. A forum has got excited about the BBC essentially erasing the BNP from debate in some areas.

One poster defended this by saying that they 'that only 1 in 7 support them in this area'

To which another pointed out:

'Only one in four voted the present government into power.'

While there are many in the political infirmament with whom I disagree, in a democracy I would prefer their words and deeds were allowed to exist in open contest so they may be defeated by more reasoned, persuasive words and deeds from others.

From such as the Guardian to those it recruits for, both behind and in front of camera, I am both astounded and depressed that there is not recognition that 'favouring' certain 'acceptable' views and giving them voice, decrying those who don't espouse them and, worse, actually telling voting public who go off message and support 'the wrong side' that they are 'misguided', is probably the most divisive and disastrous policy they can possibly follow.

Assuming, that is, they are seeking to encourage democratic, consensual politics and moderation.

Mind you, in the mess we are in, getting in power with 25% approval may be the best we have, but is woeful. However, the minute any pol tells me that they 'have a mandate from the people' on this basis is when they have lost my support for ever more.

Beware! Carrot chunks on the pavement!

Paris on the Clyde

Nice bubble, guys.

As one who has had to up sticks and travel the world in search of income these last few decades, and knowing many others whose career requirements have seen them moving self and family from Land's Ed to John O' Groats at a moment's notice as that's where employers need or whim directed them, getting in a tizzy because some luvvies in the BBC may be sent to another city (of many virtues I am sure) and don't like the sound of it is... quaint.

Why do I reckon the flight/train/per diem bill at Aunty is going to rocket as soon as this latest 'we're inclusive, us' initiative from the bonus brother(& sister)hood kicks in?

Another 'wrong' result. Apparently.

Curses, Canada!

I just have to add this to a growing list...

Guardian - Idiot voters deliver wrong result, again.

When will they ever learn how democracy works, eh (that last bit is in 'homage' to the people of your fair country)?

Meanwhile, back in this country, did someone mention 'nails' in a list that excludes leadership qualities...

'...a strange man with an awkward gait, an absence of social skills, and the dress sense of that guy at the back of the hardware store...'

Bless. At least another election at last gets a mention over here. Even if it has generated the 'wrong' result.

It's in the Grauniad, so it must be true...

Gordon Brown won't make his independent ministerial adviser independent

'But, if the prime minister retains ultimate authority, was it really necessary to appoint an "independent adviser" in the first place?'

So it's a kind of 'non-job' then, with pay and perks and pensions and all?

If so, dashed good point.

Now, about the other 7,999,999 beholden voting bloc of dubious tax/ratepayer value uploaded on on one G. Brown's watch....

Ain't democracy grand?

Rainy days. And Mondays. And Government bodies.

Spending watchdog had £10m in Iceland bank...

Just wonderin' 'n all, but why is a Government commission 'investing' money, especially a spare £10M they had 'lying around', in the first place?

Was it to help with the BBC's new BYOB policy on bubbly?

Scrap the Audit Commission

I, Objective?

McCain Steals Baby! Rocks Stones!

Tip for Newsnight: with this standard of reporting... commentary... whatever it is... you might like to consider a new theme intro to use to reflect the editorial slant being taken. I dunno... how about 'Paint it Black'?

You are supposed to be an objective UK news programme. I'd suggest the personal belief/aspiration blog output of your employees also attempts to reflect this.

Mind you, the best we could expect these days would probably be 'Brown Sugar'.

ps: I hope all (and there seem to be a lot) the BBC employees in the US enjoy the party... while it lasts

Picture Caption Addendum: See what £3.5B of Charter-controlled, Trust-managed objectivity gets you. This is on a story about UK green targets on Oct. 17 2008. Look at the date. And they have been told about it (by me) for the last 3 days.

A picture paints... @ 24fps

Another EU video nasty

And they say the Germans don't do humour!

All Aunty's Men

In writing this, I also refer any reader back to an earlier post where I articulate my relationship with the BBC.

It has some good bits about good folk*.

This, however, is not one. And while I feel for all the good folk, I have to say that if you don't deal with your masters soon, the whole edifice is in danger.

Interesting the gold-adorned (figuratively) Mr. T should come up...

BBC: Beeb bans champers

Gotta love some of the quotes:

'When we got the FoI request and added up the figures, we realised just how much we were spending and decided to stop that practice.'

I must try running my business on the basis of FoI requests submitted.

"In the current climate, it just doesn't feel right to spend licence payers' money on champagne. We had to take a view and ask ourselves whether we could defend this as a legitimate expense in the programme-making process and we decided we couldn't."

So... it doesn't 'feel' right, eh? At the moment, eh? And mainly it's whether we could get away with it, eh? Nice one, dudes.

'But some bills will be more difficult to cut as they are deemed essential for programme-making. ... £350,000 on bottled water**... "Things like that will be almost impossible to cut back on."

Hmnn. Harking back a few months, were they not running a 'planet ban-it froth and bother' on this issue?

As with almost all from the output of this entity I am forced to co-fund, to this...

'...we need to closely scrutinise everything we do to ensure that we are spending our public funds to the best effect."

... I fear my only thought is: 'best effect for whom?'.

I'm guessing, despite their favourite super-hero pay-dispener's (we still do the paying) vocal lead, that outrageous bonus cultures in this uniquely-funded entity will be a wee while longer in coming?

Simpson fears for the future of the BBC

"It may be better, but I somehow doubt it. What the hell do I care? I'll be 75 or something like that."

Bless.

Simpson was equally glum, reserving special vitriol for the men in grey suits... "I'll hate the so and so's – I hate them pretty much anyway, but I'll hate them even more."

Sounds a great place to work. I wonder if they fund dental?

Telegraph - BBC boss says Islam should be treated more sensitively than Christianity

'And in tonight's high-value quiz show use of licence fee-payers money, your whopping bonus question is...'

Order-Order - BBC Gets Ready to Celebrate Obama Victory

*Evening Standard - Outrage as BBC fatcats defy the credit crunch

** Ta to a fellow poster on a site I shared my thoughts upon for some contrary notions.

Charity stops at...?

Don't forget the third sector

I certainly say having a title like 'Chief executive of the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations (Acevo)' isn't great start.

I am presuming, at least, that these nice chaps and ladies are all working voluntarily?

There are changes afoot.

It used to be penning a plea in the Guardian would at least surround the author with love, and lots of it, if in the right 'industry'.

Not any more, it seems.

In the frame

I wonder what the legalities are these days of showing, well, intruding on the public in public places. Especially just to 'help' illustrate a story.

Today on the BBC news I have seen two sets of unfortunate folk leaving their place of (now ex-) business carrying their careers in a cardboard box.

I presume they gave permission?

Oh, and if any see the crew of an entity that is 'uniquely funded and hence does not have such work/life concerns as others' shooting outside, I wonder what the odds would be of getting featured if you write 'Nice one Gordon' or 'You're next!' on the side?

A twofer that worked

'BBC accidentally gets it right' (well, for me) shock!

Not sure it was intentional.

With a story on a new set of exams that essential use kids to measure schools to help box-tickers draw up targets and lists, we had the now typical 'Obviously went to SpecSavers' Government Bouncer-type (they all look like BBC DG Mark Thompson, all shaved heads and designer stubble, and are just as pugnacious) vs. a very erudite headmistress.

Boy, did she nail this bozo, with the blonde and the bouffant giggling nervously in the background.

'Just another layer' she shrugs to the layer-inhabiting paid and pensioned pencil pusher.
Priceless.

Snowball's in hell...

... is the chance that, having blown vast amounts of tax/ratepayer's money on bad investments, blowing yet more on yet more toothless 'show a bit but certainly no tell' inquiries will result in a single complicit person getting fingered and returning or being forced to refund one penny of what was paid in the 'consultancy' 'fees' that got us in this hole.

Makes a nice soundbite, though.

Note to BBC having just heard their latest press release read-out

Indy - Northern Rock drops legal claim against ex-directors - Now there's a coincidence. Time is a great healer, eh?

As Tommy Lee Jones' character in 'The Fugitive' might say...

I have had cause to comment (being it is CiF) on this contributor's choice of story and slant taken before.

I know it's not really from to tackle the man rather than the argument, but as he is staff and does nothing but have a go at people, and in a pretty single-minded way, I enjoy teasing him.

Ordinarily I'd admire a journo who takes the time to reply to posts on threads they initiate, but this chap is a worry.

Against rickshaws

I was going to say that 'Maybe you're in the wrong job?', but that falls foul of the mods (deleted from a Polly T 'analysis' of Dear Leader's awesome return on just such a basis only yesterday).

And in any case, I think silence may well prove more effective. Especially as I seem to be the only one to reward his sterling efforts on our behalf's, dawn 'til dusk. And hence he may need the stats.

ps: I was trying to make a serious point. Beyond the political fun, being Boris and Ken are claiming a 'green' aspect to their mayoralty I was wondering how these vehicles fitted into this, both in where they came from and are going to. Plus, journalistic, what the actual law might be. That 'Taxis don't like 'em... go see the webiste' is hardly reporting.

Voting in. Or out?

Newsnight

Do we get a chance to vote on what we actually thought of the trial last night?
Given all the hype about how...
_____

Hmnn, yes. I wondered about that. Wasn't going to... er... 'vote' as I don't like how the results of such... er... 'votes' can get played up.

Then again, if it's not looking like things may go quite the way intended, maybe it's best not to have one at all. Or explain.

There are a few around who have form in this regard, as I recall.

Telegraph - Less tea, Home Secretary

Who puts the lame into blame?

Newsnight - Credit Crunch: The Trial

What a hoot!

Ain't blame grand?

Without effective accountability in almost any area involved (the banks, regulators and those who told all to 'carry on' until they couldn't any more), I am a tad unsure as to the value of this exercise except to fill a programme hour... oh, ok.

From what I am reading there are a few who may have fallen on some swords, but they already seem rather comfy, ermine coated ones to be of much deterrent effect.

Equally, having hoovered up a few trillion of your and my £s to keep on doing what they do naturally, I remain unsure that a one year hiatus on bonuses will really bite too hard, especially as it seems it is not my government's job to get too intrusive in how it's all 'handled' once the dust settles.

However, at least we have bought a few % better ratings and global status points for some, which is nice.

As to good value... not so sure.

If you do get a talking head on, do try and get at least a few pertinent questions answered, and preferably without defaulting to 'it only just happened, it's a global problem.. and the last decade doesn't count'.

What is the point of an interview if no question get answered

I almost switched off the Andrew Marr show this morning for the most bizarre selection of guests to review the news.

One was basically Gordon Brown's best mate to fight his corner.

Then there was some batty lady who was so determined to plug her book despite an ineffectual BBC ban on such things that, well, she did. And then told anyone who didn't share her personal loathing of Sarah Palin that they are idiots and should not be allowed a vote.

However, I stayed on and, towards the end found Andrew Marr 'did not quite understand' during an interview with a Government Minister.

And as he asked and didn't get any answer, neither did I.

Hence I have to wonder what this woman was/is/will be for, or such as him, other than to suck up pay and guaranteed pensions that few others will enjoy.

Addednum:

Mine didn't make the cut. These did:

Kick off all the pundits ...retain Simon Wolfson ('Next' CEO), he is all you need, if you really want sensible assessment. Saw him on 'Question Time' two weeks back, again this morning - he is spot on.
Having seen Robert Peston floundering to justify his own performance (and hopefully no longer glorying in the misdirected hype of his over-egged 'scoops') how refreshing it is to have a "non-journo' pouring scorn on the 'huge media fest'" which we have to tolerate.
When will you chaps realise the damage you do?
Colin Burn, UK


Listening to Yvette Cooper wax lyrical about 'what we want to do. what the banks ought to do...what government does not want to end up doing' on today's show. If they (HMG) are going to bail-out/rescue or whatever else they will call it tomorrow then the British taxpayer certainly deserves to be protected against any CEOs of defaulting banks, insurance companies and 'get-rich-at-someone else's expense' organisation from taking a 'golden parachute'.
Raymond Batkin, UK

Really to listen to Yvette Cooper MP talking about the global credit crunch and going on as if all this is out of the hands of politicians and is the result of the USA's financial dodgy dealings is false.
For over ten years the New Labour government knew what was going on and encouraged capitalism. Now she goes on desperately trying to do the 'right' thing makes one more than cynical about their behaviour. If they don't have power what is their point!
For what a vote is worth New labour won't be getting mine!
Clem Alford, UK

Why did you not ask Yvette Cooper where the money for the bank bail out was actually coming from.
Is the government lending the money from the banks and then lending it back from them.
Gary Armstrong, UK

The comparison between Brown and Churchill made me livid. Churchill saw the looming threat from the Nazis well ahead and was working to galvanise people. Did Brown see the credit crunch coming?
Did he ever for one moment even stop to wonder where all the credit was coming from? From our houses?
Richard, UK

My Sunday mornings are too short to spend them with Ann Leslie. The rest of Andrew Marr's programme may well have been most interesting and informative.
Who in the BBC thinks she can offer any apposite contribution to intelligent debate ?
John Batey, UK

I thought that Ann Leslie's contribution to the programme today was similar to a judge in a reality show. If I wished to see Strictly Come Dancing or X Factor then I would watch them not them.
Part of Andrews's job is to ensure that other guests' voices are heard and not continually interrupted by someone obviously looking for more fees from the BBC.
Duncan Gillespie, Scotland

Have I just heard one of your guests describe Barack Obama as an "uppity black"? I don't know the name of the guest but she appeared alongside Ken Follett reviewing the paper.
Her general attitude seemed to be one of narrow-minded ignorant bigotry. Is she a Mail/Express journalist?
Jon Gomez, UK

I think my asking how the BBC found these goons was not to their taste.