Beware the Leopard

Impressive by any measure.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2009/09/the_axe_begins.html

174. At 5:28pm on 18 Sep 2009

This entry is now closed for comments

I guess in some sectors the day does indeed end at 5.30pm

Beware the Leopard.

http://www.planetclaire.org/quotes/hitchhikers/

The Vogons would approve.

Where's Robbie when you need him?

Newsnight

'..to hear people's views and its not good news for Gordon Brown.'

Not sure, but I think you'll find that going out anywhere, and not just marginal constituencies, might just end up with the same result.

I just worry the bloke is so bad folk are growing to need him for comic relief, like Dr. Zachary Smith in Lost in Space (an oddly apt metaphor there, too): http://www.heptune.com/lis/smith.html

Trouble is, he is still at the controls, not just trying to sabotage them

Aunty deigns to mix with the hoi poloi

New resource for citizen journalists

Good to see a new entry now 'open for comments' again. Well, until it isn't, I guess. That would be ironic.

I do love the drip drip in the mainstream about those that are not 'in the club'. You know, the one where "we don't own the news any more".

But amongst the grudging concessions, you do still get the gems.

'..people claiming their right to tell their story the way they want to.' As opposed to with narratives enhanced, events interpreted or emerging truths facilitated?

I do note the concession 'All BBC journalists should know the answers to these questions - or at least the issues involved in reaching the answers.' . Well, you'd hope, but that is a mighty big 'should', and the evidence would suggest that 'we' are all in this together, you and 'us'. Just ask the Queen, depending on which way she is headed.

'...to try to help find the appropriate answers to these and many other questions, we're developing a publicly available resource.

In the spirit of sharing and education this is of course welcome, though the definitions of what is 'good', 'conventional', etc to some, and possibly not others, will be interesting. One person's terrorist, 'n all...:)

'Our intention isn't to tell people what to do or what not to do.' Good show! It might be interesting to see the response if you did.

'Nor will it be an attempt to tell potential contributors what we want them to send us.' Well, fair enough, within reason. Your ball and pitch. Mind you, who is paying for it all?

Not sure if I see a link to any more above, so I look forward to hearing more when it transpires. Maybe with a more direct way to respond, too.

Addendum - not looking like they are quite getting the desired reaction so far

Journalism.co.uk - Q&A with the National Association of Citizen Journalists: 'We can help news companies'

Them, an' us

'...the public sector is creating jobs'

Well, at least one senior member seems to be doing her bit....er...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6200069/Baroness-Scotland-employed-illegal-immigrant-as-her-housekeeper.html

Another 'fine' (well, we'll see) Baroness Gordon has got us into.

This whole GOAT herd is really showing their mettle.

We'll have to see if, when it comes to the consequences of being in 'ignorance of the law is no excuse', some equal but more elevated members of society are treated more 'sympathetically' by their peers than the lesser orders.

I used to think the appellation Baroness was accorded at the end of a career of talented service. Now it seems to be more at the beginning of one to stuff our Houses with cronies... of evidently less than startling ability.

Guido - ++ Sunlight Reports Baroness Scotland to UK Border Agency ++

Red Rag - Why Baroness Scotland has no defence to the charge of employing an illegal immigrant.

Indy - Probe into law chief's illegal worker

Guido - More

Guid0 - Baroness Scotland Accused of £170,000 Expense Fiddle - Despite giving her his full backing, if Brown thinks Patricia Scotland can remain as Attorney General, he is stark raving mad - yes, well, we'll see, eh?

Guido - Sunday Sleaze Repeat - Hole. Dig.

Getting the message

Three Browns…

For some reason, I had imagined ‘,,,and you’re out’ to follow that. Wishful thinking.
Just watched his latest ex-bunker oratory exposition on the news, using one of the most teeth-grinding political presumptions one must endure these days.
When he says ‘What people are worried about…’ , in the same way as above, my mind takes over and overlays whatever default porky tripe he is waffling about this time, and substitutes… a) He will open his mouth, b) he will say something despite his foot still being in there, c) it will cost the country, me and my kids until they are grandparents, d) a small,oddly still powerful section of the media will ‘report’ it as his latest masterstroke and e) his very small, and shrinking Cabinet fanbase, will echo that he should be able to get on with the job as it is the right thing to do.

'Any leader' better than Brown - Yahoo! News UK

The Last Days of the Dreich

A doomed administration desperately casting around for ever more bizarre, ill-conceived and destructive ways to if not save their sorry hides, then at least make a mark (stain more like) in the history books.

Even more apt is the last of the Caledonia in the bunker (the original, full YouTube Downfall well worth a revisit) sending out callow Jugend in the form of water (and out of their) depth monitors Milibands D. and E. (future of labour, apparently) to lecture the world on the evils of flying (whilst rather ignoring a) how they go there and b) how where the left from is being pushed through for expansion) and this latest title-heavy, competence-lite entity to try and convince that if she thinks its common sense well, then, it just must be.

Bearing in mind previous and current levels of service delivery, the notion of a few (thousand... hundred?) extra public self-servants coping with vetting 1/4 of the population at all seems... optimistic, let alone in a timely and, crucially, effective manner.

The politics of naked self-preservation leading to gambles that can only serve the interests of the few, at best, on the slim chance that any of these desperate initiatives achieve anything.

You couldn't make it up...The World's gone mad...

...take your pick.

On SKY:

An MG worker feels hard done by because he is driving a car THAT IS 5 YEARS OLD when he used to get a new one every 9 months!

Meanwhile, the CRB nutters are looking for fresh blood.

One thing I didn't hear was that the thing costs money. Or is this new fine based on a free check?

And with a a relative who has one professionally, I cannot see how this 'check' is in any way thorough or enduring, and hence is little more than a money making, jobsworth-creating box tick exercise. See Ian Huntley. Another apt metaphor for today.

A few years back a few Darwin award winners dumped their kid off to the Cubs, despite it not meeting that night.

So I see this kid sitting, on his own, on a lonely strip, where he'd have been for a few hours.

He didn't know his telephone number or address, so I had to drive him around until he saw his house. Typically ungrateful parents.

Now I would either leave him there or, just maybe call our mighty, responsive police force.

Nice state to be in. Not.

Latest:

Looking right now at Baroness Morgan being interviewed.

She does not have a clue. A true ninny nanny from Gordon's GOAT herd.

And the notion that a serious law, with consequences, may or may not apply is a farce.

And the fact that at some magical point of regularity of contact with children a paedophile 'activates' is plain daft.

It's on a par with thinking such individuals don't know who to take a bus to prey elsewhere with the various area 'lists' also announced as 'solutions'.

It is either all or nothing or is meaningless as 'protection', though it is obvious that shuffling paper offers little enough of that.

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/126475

Labour’s Britain was exposed yesterday by the revelation that thousands of criminals, including rapists and paedophiles, were let off by police.

Another facile fudge form a spin-obsessed Government of no talents.

And their response to serious questions?: 'I don't want to get into that'.

Why come on then? We need honesty from these people; not insults to our intelligence.

Telegraph - Anger grows over 'paedophile checks' on parents who volunteer to help with children's activities - is it really called he Vetting and Barring Scheme,???

Gaurdian - Libertarianism on the rise?

Straight Statistics - Safeguarding a sinking ship

Quango! - Is it a bird, is it...

David Cameron: quangos and politicians for the chop

Odds on Dave will form a quango to discuss quangos

I rather fear that, once in power, the discussion paper for the Gloucester Old Spot Airborne Appreciation Board will soon be dug out to see just how many can be popped in on £200k + perks + index-lined + expenses + comms budget, to provide all necessary hands-off deniability or fake ‘independence’ to point out when a bit of dodgy policy needs some research to support it, that a new administration could wish for.

Choice for today: rubbish, or another kind of rubbish

A tad worrying that some in the chatterati classes seem to be buying into the the 'enemy of my enemy...' approach of the MSM a tad uncritically.

From setting up Murdoch as the alternative the BBC, to allowing the BNP onto QT, two wrongs still do not make a right.

Or maybe that's more 'inviting on an extreme right' does not make for 'balance'.

Yes, the BNP should get its platform equally to show its colours and be judged accordingly.

But if we are talking QT... on the BBC... any notion that it will be more than an agenda-dripping, rigged ratings-fest farce of heat over light is risible.

As with any 'panel' put up by the MSM today, especially when audiences, and their responses, are still in the hands of the few, who can invite on, and moderate off according to personal whim.

Yet still Yamato Brown blunders on

Brown rocked as aide quits over war

On his solo, symbolic suicide mission to satisfy Emperor Hubris with few on board save a 'loyal' senior GOAT herd of senior officers who really have no place else to go.

Plus, unfortunately, the press-ganged crew of the rest of the country who the guys upstairs in the driving seat have barely given a second's thought to as they aim for final pay offs, directorships and cushy lecture circuit fees.

If Mr. Brown gets rocked much more he will be spinning in place.

Hope springs...

I had to chortle at this:

Gordon Brown: 'I'll take pay cut to help jobless'

I have to say my first thought was to ponder if he might also consider a job cut to help... well, with everything really.

You disagree with me, therefore you are an 'ist'

The state of debate:

So I'm 'hard Right' because I'm in favour of liberal democracy?

It's a sad, true, but ultimately effective negotiating technique, if conceded by those to whom compromise is not weakness.

Pitch at a grotesque extreme, wait, gain, pitch further, wait...

Quango!

Quangos blow millions on ‘irrelevant’ celebs

Regional development agency claims are not credible

John Walsh: 'Quangos are absurd little organisations with large amounts of cash to splash' - little?

Has to be done.... DOWNING FALL

What goes around... (as in spin)...

Gordon Brown's Downfall - The Prequel

Hitler's BNP membership gets leaked

Gordon Brown saves the World at PMQs 10th December 2008

The BBC and Hitler are finished

Angry Draper

The Downing Street hand-shake

Downfall McBride

The McBride Downfall: The Sequel

Economy Question Time - The Elephant in the Room

Gordon Brown - the dance of the comedian

Gordon Brown - an edited homage

Jon Stewart to Jacqui Smith: What's with the list?

downfall - european election edition

Gainspotting

BEAN THERE, SEEN THAT, MADE THE T-SHIRT

A poster on a blog made a suggestion to which I had to reply:

Perhaps we should all work for the Government?

Or quangos, or any other of the myriad non-income generating entities that nonetheless do require money, from somewhere, to function.

The trouble with a bean-counting, bean-assessing, bean-managing and bean-taxing economy, overseen by a beano-philic national media, is that there is a slight problem with an ever-reducing number of folk actually making beans being burdened by all of the above.

They collapse, and we all starve. Even the parasites.

QUOTE OF THE DAY - Now I know why it is called "The Silly Season'

Michael Jackson's brain returned to family

QUOTE OF THE DAY - Ouch

Greek woman 'sets fire' to Briton's genitals

She will face a magistrate today to see whether the case will go to trial on charges of causing bodily injuries and of endangering private property.

It's Friday and, well, I found it funny. Even if I doubt the victim did

Too much son, not enough Illumiere

Something interesting has happened in the BBC blogosphere.

A fixture has gone on hols (like MPs, many in the state broadcaster seem to get the same as my kids), and the substitute is scoring well.

It has been noticed.

However, I have been minded to offer a cautionary comment to those who see her contribution as an improvement, and one to be retained.

However.... for some reason (I surmise below), the number of posts is currently significantly down.

This may be a problem. The market rate talents of the boxtickocracies need measures to justify their worth, and hence, regardless of the value of meeting the theoretical main remit (quality journalism) one tends to find that controversy pays better and hence gets hired and protected. Think Polly T in the Grauniad (at the BBC, on occasion). Or, for 'balance', the new Telegraph commentariat regime, where some new bloggers boast of being hired just to provoke. Any old nonsense will do as long as you can crank up a 500+ thread, even if it is folk going 'Huh?'.. or worse.

As many have already mentioned, I am settling in to savour more factual, objective reporting, with links and without narratives being enhanced or events being interpreted thanks to unique access and bestowed briefings resulting in little more than unsubstantiated gossip and spin.

Which may well mean I don't need to comment as the topic is served. Executives please take note. Numbers don't always mean quality. Noise need not accompany light for full sensory illumination.

Addendum

The author has penned another blog - Open primaries for all? - and I was struck by her use of 'left-wing' to describe a publication. I have found this happens rarely, and was moved to comment:

As, with many 'guest' commentators invited in at the drop of a producer's iPhone, it is a rare instance where I have seen a publication that is not 'right wing' or 'conservative' labelled as anything at all, I was wondering if there was, anywhere, an accepted (hah!), objective list/chart/guide where the political positionings of various reference sources was listed. I am not a big 'wing/ist/zi' designation fan.

If not, and to any degree of standardisation, I am in a variety of minds as to whether these appellations should be used. But for once I don't err on shades of grey. I think it should be one or t'other. The 'all' option is, inevitably, open to subjectivity. While 'nothing' remains, in the care of the reader's own eyes and independent thought, still mostly objective.

I am erring on the latter. That said, the provenance of a source is still often very pertinent to the take it/they provide, and of course there are also the numbers and extremity of views held that remain the gift of those who book individuals or quote stories.

Tricky. But as I suspect my preference will be in the minority, and as 'all' will... should be revealed, it can be refreshing to see the possible context of a quoted source and why some who use them may prefer that environment. So long as it is applied equally from all directions.

One also looks forward to certain 'research', by various 'think tanks', etc being framed by affiliations that might colour (blue, red, green...) their findings, being too often merely a means to introduce a spurious degree of separation from what are too often partisan opinions. And without the time or means to check more deeply, if taken at face value for some in the audience, this can stray into misrepresentation.

Sad, but not unexpected

Another day, another nail...

34. At 08:52am on 06 Aug 2009, you wrote:
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

3. At 8:52 am on 6 Aug 2009, JunkkMale wrote:
24. At 8:48pm on 05 Aug 2009, Rustigjongens wrote:

It is to be hoped if, on current evidence not expected, that the major media, and our 'government', might investigate and comment on the accuracy, and implications of the brief letter from Carol Rigby in today's Telegraph:

SIR – If the troops in Afghanistan have all the kit they need, why have I just received a letter from my son stating that he is looking at someone with the soles of his boots falling off and has been told they will not be replaced? Furthermore, their body armour is being held together with tape and the malaria tablets have run out.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/5978848/Assisted-suicide-denies-the-value-of-life-and-is-an-affront-to-Western-humanism.html

When they all return from school hols, after the 'silly season' passes and things get back to super 'normal' for those more privileged (Copyright: Alan 'the gift that keeps on giving' Yentob: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/5979697/Alan-Yentob-defends-BBC-over-Arlene-Phillips-ageism-claims.html ), that is.

ps: Having posted on another site, a 'defender' leapt in, missing the first line and pointed out he actually said 'ordinary folk' in the penultimate para. Indeed he did. Like that helped their case. LOL.

QUOTE OF THE DAY Defensive actions

From the mouths of Beebs. Or... the gifts that keep on giving...

Alan Yentob defends BBC over Arlene Phillips ageism claims

You have to hand it to the market rate talents, who 'we' might lose were they not paid massive amounts to be retained from going to... er... ITV?

'...normal people found it "difficult to understand" why they needed thousands of pounds for dinners and expensive gifts.'

Now, you might see where I am going here, but does this suggest that Mr. Yentob seem to be saying that they are 'not normal', or is it ab...

Ordinary Joe vs. the volcano

Following on form the last post on competence over perception.

Totnes Primary: now, how big is Sarah Wollaston's house?

It’s simply a fact of life, as there seems no ‘better’ way: the gatekeepers control the game because they own the pitch and the ball.

The players my change a tad, and the scores may vary, but running the game and its rewards is still theirs.

It’s true from anything from local awards juries to debating panel selections… to how ‘we’ get to ‘choose’ our leaders.

But, I have to say, this seems a tad better than before, and hence a direction to be applauded and supported.

If only for this: ‘…The career politicians out there should take note.’

And I could give a rat’s pitootie for what an MP’s house size is so long as they are paying for it honestly whilst doing the job they are meant to do, and well.

WUVI-journos, of all hues, take note.

The right person for the job is the right person

The problem for Harriet Harman…

…to assume that [this] balance* can best be achieved by a tick box quota…
*Plus, IMHO, most else.

However, in today’s world, and especially its governance, this seems pretty much to be the way things are ‘run’.

Which might explain our current, and future, predicaments.

However, in just a few areas, those of lifetime job security, unwarranted pay awards, index-linked salaries, etc, in just a few sectors, this policy does at least still seem more than rewarding.

Oddly.

Whipped into shape

Labour discipline is breaking down

There does seem to be a fine line between laudable discipline and rampant self-delusion, especially when it comes to governing/serving your country. That would be a democratic, freedom of speech-appreciating one that in theory elects proxy representatives and not tribal party rulers with Whipping boys and girls as their unacceptable 'fronts'.

IRONY ALERT - If a tree falls in the forest, and no one PR's it...

Gordon Brown's summer holiday – social working for a week or two

Especially this.

Equally unique

Tories will allow TV product placement

Cripes, I am running out of options to vote for come election time.

Certainly this writes off the Conservatives for me.

At best... a horde of new staffers to be wined and dined to 'objectively' shovel tat onscreen in the name of 'saving' money. PTOO! (Pull the other one!)

Or, at worst, there is even less connection between actions and accountability by 'losing' it in the Council Tax???! Barking.

When in doubt, play the person

And make sure your have a referee that is 'selective'.

Watched the Sunday Andrew Marr Show.

A very able substitute interviewer in Stephanie Flanders, though I did feel she softened a tad for her last guest (ms. Harperson). Sisterhood? As I have heard this 'if all else fails' strategy trotted out by Labour ad nauseam, and unclarified/checked by some who sit across from their spokespersons, is it really true that the Opposition is spending all its time 'arrogantly' claiming the election is in the bag. If so it would indeed by unwise, but I cannot recall personally having heard any such thing. The Conservatives can hardly be blamed for the claims of the media about them, much as some in the media might see merit in allowing a very tired Government to try and spin things this way.

Telegraph - Pandora's outbox: good luck burying bad news in the Internet age

Here was me thinking it was going to be a more political commentary in nature.
And I was going to challenge it.
Because, with a few notable exceptions, the Westminster brigade do a pretty good job of ensuring that what the MSM covers on TV and in print seldom comes close to what actually seems to surface and simmer a while in the blogosphere.
For instance, Ms. Harman is doing the rounds of the BBC claiming the Tories are crowing they have the next election in the bag, when I have heard no such thing (dumb if they did). Oddly, to date no interviewer seems to have been as rigourous as some out there in the ether in asking where they might see evidence of this.
As to this, I’d hardly put it under ‘burying bad news’. It’s more a caution on having odd reporting standards, poor editorial check and balance systems and how not to handle the PR crisis management of a cock-up subsequently.
Burying bad news is a whole new level of cynical news management and, sadly, too many are still getting away with it… or being allowed to by a way too comfy selection of lazy media types who seem to think they are an ‘elite’ by having access, in turn granted only by the audience their employers provide those with a story to spin (or hide).

Boycott Birmingham Airport

Birmingham airport parking charge a rip-off

Just got back from that greed-dripping, box-ticking farce of a system they now run at the airport.

Not only is it a total rip-off, there was a huge jam as several drivers hadn't twigged that they really were expecting you to not drop off but park, exit the car and pay before exiting. And no clear signage to deal with that not unsurprising lack of comprehension at how low these 'businesses' can sink.

So in fact the whole thing is designed to, and only increases congestion! So the 'claim' that this is to make things smoother and/or aid security is total b*ll*cks.

When the bean-counters and box-tickers rule the world goes to hell.

Where I have a choice, they are no longer one of them. Interesting business model.

QUOTE OF THE DAY - Weasel words

It's Friday, so I have been surfing a bit off track.

So I came across this:

Reporting on comedy's new offenders wasn't intended to offend

As it's a 'luvvie on luvvie' spat, in the Grauniad taboot, and even better about racism, there are all the elements of good spectator sport.

But, fresh from po-faced 'defences' of jounalistic opinion poorly disguised as objective commentary across the print and broadcast infirmament, I have to treasure this:

I took care to use words like "purported" hatred of Pakistanis, and "claims" to support the BNP, to distance him from these actual sentiments

I do rather wonder if such sincerity of intent is to the fore in most headlines I see these days, with key words in "quotes".

And the swine of it is...

An employee at a Swine Flu call centre speaks out…

I have no reason to doubt the veracity of this tale.

As an encapsulation of UK governance and the rigour of media oversight that acts as a check and balance, it really is....[insert here]

A new term - Pravda Press

Gilligan launches attack on Pravda press

Hard not to crank an eyebrow.

QUOTE OF THE DAY - If they say so

BBC executive says corporation should foster 'left-of-centre thinking'

Two for the price of one:

'He wrote: "If we didn't all think differently, have different ideas of what works and what doesn't, wouldn't our lives, and more importantly, our TV screens be less interesting? We need to foster peculiarity, idiosyncrasy, stubborn-mindedness, left-of-centre thinking."

He later denied that he had meant the comment to have a political meaning.

"Like 'left-field', it is a phrase that I use with frequency when talking to the creative community to encourage them to develop and approach their ideas from a completely new perspective," he said.

A BBC source said that executives believed that their casting of Boris Johnson, the Conservative Mayor of London, in an episode of EastEnders, proved that they did not have a left-wing bias.'

Bless.

All roads lead... er... that way... no... that way...

Leadership for the Nu Age: The definitive answer is Yes... or No.

Just watched on BBC Breakfast Mr. Burnham's on-air 'advice' regarding swine flu. If what he... er... 'said' is anything to go by, I don't hold out much hope for the value of his much vaunted swine flu 'advice line'.

Despite the interviewer's best efforts, he committed to, and hence said nothing of substance or value. Pure fudge when discussing the nation trying to get clear direction.

Which begs the question of what a Secretary of State is for, and why they bother with such appearances.

I am sure lessons have been learned, though.

And I'll bet Mr. Brown is just 'furious'. Again. Management by reactive anger. New Nokias, please, Ball-boy!

I asked the missus how we should 'consider our going into public places'.

She asked me what on earth I was talking about. Indeed. I said a senior member of Gordon's GOAT herd had shared this pearl of well-directed leadership.

Bless.

Us.

ps: How well qualified/trained for this role is the young Mr.B, in light of our country's Home Secretary role being entrusted to another such competent and confident a GOAT in recent times.

Maybe Sarah Brown as Minister for Tweeting, and then over to Climate Change and on to Defence by the end of the year before her Jimmy Choos get too troubled by all this knowing a blind thing about the department you run and its responsibilities?

Guardian - Conflicting swine flu advice for women causes chaos -

Those awful bloggers

Defensive, toi?

The End of Fortress Journalism

Mr. Horrocks is not one of my favourite senior media paragons.

And having watched awhile, I had eventually to leap in to what is a naked, doomed yet worrying attempt by some to set 'professional' journalism apart, and above, from other forms:

The problem is most people seem to be under the mistaken understanding that the likes of Twitter and blogs are actually news. They're not - they're nothing more than commentary. Each posting is simply one person's view of an event or issue... Unless the rules are changed to level the playing field the choice of news media will be a publicly funded broadcaster (the BBC) or inane one-eyed tweeters.

I have to say that I have used tweets that link to very valuable objective information. And I have, on more than one occasion, felt that news, even from the BBC, has been a combination of narrative-enhancing and/or interpretation of events that hardly makes it a balancing choice to the outlaw blogging Wild West that some are trying to claim.

I find my only hope is to try and gain exposure to a fair spread of 'fact' and 'opinion' - from individuals to uniquely-funded corporations - in coming to something approaching what is as opposed to what many would like to persuade me it should be to satisfy their often elitist, exclusive (and excluding) agendas and/or world views.

Addendum:

An 'interesting' view on how you take on board news and views vs. how you broadcast it without troublesome contrary opinion:

The Blog Is Dead.....oh no it isn't, oh yes it is...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/digitalrevolution/2009/07/the-blog-is-deadoh-no-it-isnt.shtml

Our own Nick Robinson has recently confessed that he's stopped reading the comments on his blog

As the politicians some 'reporters' so like to wallow with, if you only set to transmit and never on receive, you might get unpleasant surprises if those you think are meekly absorbing your missives actually react to just being talked at as opposed to being engaged with.

We seem to be at an odd stage where those who used to dominate the news agenda are not liking the erosion of their (often less than objective, or benign) influence, and are trying to get back to the 'good old ways'.

Good luck with that.

QUOTE OF THE DAY - So little rare...

From BBC Editors thread:

There are 'news' pages and there are 'opinion' pages. The first should inform the second. The second should never inform the first.

'Should' kind of puts today's situation in context.

Them and wuss

The End of Fortress Journalism

Some very insightful comments.

Days of the Jackals

Gordon Brown in the firing line

Just watched the clip.

As far as I could ascertain, every question posed was met with an evasion, a damned evasion or a pointless statistic, skipping from meaningless totals to equally sly percentages, and from specific instances to broad timeframes depending on which might seem less awful. The clown even tried to cite an opposition concession on the facts of one incident to try and apply to the totality of the overall conflict provision.

I don't know if our troops are being led by donkeys, but at the very top the decisions on where they get sent, why and with what, seems to be in the hands of bean-counting, box-ticking jackals.

A bit like the rest of the country's interests. I was going to say that at least our lives are not at stake, but even then in some areas one has to wonder what such self-serving ineptitude will inflict.

I hope they enjoy their hol... sabbatical.

Getting the results you want...

Why are we in Afghanistan?

A poll carried out for BBC Newsnight and the Guardian

As a matter of interest, as my experience is that polls often tend to reflect the views of those who commission them, how often has our objective national broadcaster shared itself in this way with the Guardian, and how often with other major national dailies? In the interests of balance, that is.

It sort of becomes pertinent when such as the Guardian rather defensively point at extensive coverage of one their pet campaigns across the BBC as justification for the rest of the media firmament (and, or perhaps with a hint of why, the public) not being quite as excited as the sisterhood has managed to get itself. In fact I'm rather expecting this coverage being covered back and forth enough on the basis that if it gets repeated enough...

After the last horro show that was the Politics Pen, might it not be an idea to stay away from any possible suggestions of pre-determinancy?

I would love to know if (and if so, how) Aunty has ever shared herself with, say, the Daily Express. Or, maybe more appositely, the NoTW. A slightly larger readership than the Guardian (in fact at either end of the ABCs' I believe) and, possibly, more empathy with the squaddies on the ground perhaps?

There are polls, damn polls, and 'Tonight, polls show...'.

We've dug up something from our Berlin correspondent...

... along with him:

The biggest media story in years - so why the silence?

I rather suspect they are in the process of answering their own question.

Junkketeer
13 Jul 09, 12:19pm (1 minute ago)

...the story went to the top of the BBC's bulletins and website. Andrew Neil, former editor of the Sunday Times...

And now presenter with...?

Not sure that quoting the heft accorded by another complementary media source works any better than trying to make a story out of something a bloke told you another bloke might have said.

Mind you, we might end up with Aunty quoting you quoting them so that, in the end, if it gets repeated enough it ends up true.

It has worked before.

Light vs. fire

The Press TV pantomime

In a world dominated by US news organisations terrified of upsetting the Israeli government, particularly TV (not to mention our own timid BBC) it is hard to work up much angst in the case of Press TV.

Hence the BBC seeing no real problem in wheeling on Press TV 'employees/commentators' to act as 'balance' I guess.

Fair enough, but it was rather odd t'other day to have a lady (I think Ms. Ridley) pretty much ranting in a debate, but with her status not billed as such by the national broadcaster who invited her on, and only having thus 'outed' by another guest... to much subsequent finger pointing all round as if two biases make things objective.

Is it not possible for major media to attract quality commentary more for illumination than the ratings of flames?

Now, here is the news..

Sunday, 12 July...

Guardian - Brown set to reinforce troops in Afghanistan
Two thousand troops could be sent to Helmand following a review after the bloodiest day

Indy - Revealed: Brown's secret plan to cut Afghanistan force by 1,500

I wonder which the BBC will go with?

Biter Bit

Journalists don't seem as able to take it as they like to dish it out.

I actually value this lady's missives usually, but then there is this:

Will blog commenters eventually leave journalists fragile husks of insecurity, sobbing in the corner?

What on earth did she expect, on a blog, by way of reply?

If commenters are complaining about lazy journalism, journalists have an equal bone to pick with lazy commenting.

Thing is, who owes who what?

I’m all for open commenting on blogs, but I every now and then I imagine a halcyon world where a bit of judicial editing leaves us with only the comments that are worth reading - negative or not.

Well, there is always that magical moderator’s delete facility, used every now and then for perhaps less than professional reasons, in the spirit of some speech being freer than others.

It would certainly save us all a lot of time currently spent scrolling through endless “First!” comments.

Forewarned, I will hence refrain from attempting to note the relative location of this comment in the current thread.*

Annoyingly, as I was penning my witty tailpiece, some other sod got in first and rather stole the thunder.

Sums

Culling the quangos (again)

Seems to me there are fewer and fewer folk actually generating money.

And more and more consuming it.

Now supplemented by a whole new bunch, also paid from the shrinking income generation sector, almost exclusively servicing the needs, demands, pay, perks and pensions of those consuming already. With near zero accountability imposed from any direction, especially when many voters do not bear fiscal responsibility for their actions. And of those that do, I defy most to understand, and hence affect what goes on in their names, and with their money, until it is too late.

Hard to see how this will end well.

Especially when we're already on tick for the next two generations.

Aunty, Irony and Me

Newsnight discusses quangos

"Cut the number of unelected quangos to save money and increase accountability"

These would be entities funded by the government and paid for by us (often via supplementary fees above and beyond various tax mechanisms), but with out of control empire-building aspirations, vast property empires, huge, expanding senior executive levels on vast, self-awarded pay packages, and less than clear, in theory objective remits, but often designed mainly to serve certain narrow interests, with secret internal reviews and near total deniability at every level, who can't even be voted out every few years as one can the representatives we choose to represent us on matters of life and death in Parliament... right?

Wonder who might get mentioned?

And who, as with their funding, may remain... unique.

Does Ofcom deserve it?

I am seeing a spirited defence of OFCOM in many quarters, often quoting its officers.

Quite right if only in response to questions solicited by the media.

Ironic if part of a well funded ad/PR budget.

I can't speak for OFCOM, but in the environmental sector I have serious issues, bordering on suspicions of conflict of interest, when public money is used on quango comms budgets that drive 'targets' that in turn reward bonus structures of boards signing off on the very comms efforts driving those bonuses.

Every quango in Britain

Speaking of troughers

Swine Flu Update

His daughter, and my dear old Mum.

Almost killed off by the system until I behaved very badly to get her into a hospital to be stabilised and then out asap into ’self-funded’ care.

I despair for all, and especially for the sandwich generation trying to deal with both. Then more so our kids as they inherit Gordon’s prudent legacy for mine.

‘Envy of the world’, we’re told, by various ‘trust us’ organs, from Guv to Aunty.

I. DON’T BELIEVE. ANY. OF. YOU. ANY. MORE!

In interestinf insight into political process

And which media say what about it (or nothing at all).

Talking Balls

Aunty will pay for you to buy her nice things. With other people's money.

This whole corphosp charade is turning into a right, and nasty can of worms all on its own.

From my private sector ad days, nine times out of ten the only folk involved... other than paying for it... were those signing off on a jolly they fancied.

Thing is, if it's a marketing or managing director* who enjoys rugger or fancies their chances with a celeb in the green room that's between them and the audit guys and/or the shareholders.

With Aunty, it is, of course, different*, and 'unique'.

*Or a DG who needs a quick bung to help the family travel plans along when several hundred thousand salary doesn't quite cover it.

Political reporting reaches new levels

In convenience Speakership exchange

If there is a joke in here somewhere, it's perhaps not the one intended.

Though 'Tales from the Urinal Gutter' does seem a promising avenue for political reporting from within Westminster.

Poll 'n count

The value of media 'polls', in a nutshell:

Daily Mail readers vote to allow gipsies to jump NHS queue

Something to bear in mind when... any time the results of same are used, po-faced, to make a comment on anything. Or, worse, used in justification of 'reporting' in any way shape or form as objective.

How do we love theee, let us count the ways..

Thank heavens, when we might be still distracted by high tax, low rent MPs, sleazy Speakers and their antics, in this zero-personality, 'it's all about the policies' age we have Dear Leader on hand to emote in the Guardian (Wot... no Mirror? Kevin Maguire finding a glimmer of integrity as Polly T starts to regret the dissent?) and take our mind off... 'things'.

And who better in complement than the BBC to round up and circle the wagons to dominate the airwaves in empathy with... a coven of Guardian journos!

Hearing what you want

A public element

I misheard and therefore misquoted her as saying she wished to be "queen" in comparison to "trusty old senators". She in fact said - as the metaphor should have made me realise - that she wanted to be tribune.

Easily done. 'Kw-een' vs. Trib-une'. Nearly identical to all but the untrained ear. Simples:)

Shame no devices exist to ensure checking and fidelity of reporting of fact if not objectivity.

Now, have we established who will she get to mow both her lawns on our tab?

One driver, or two?

In reply to:

Why ministers must never upset their drivers

And a few other political revelations, I have rather let fly:

I'd say that Ministers, and those that consort with them, might still be better advised not to upset a rather larger, and more critical collection of folk: the electorate.

Looking at the latest revelations, that doesn't seem too likely.

It's no wonder these guys are so keen to avoid paying tax to the state; they have first hand knowledge of how such money is squandered... hourly.

I'd be keen to know what this latest new job creation scheme was going to save... or cost the taxpayer.

Though it does pass through one's mind as to the calibre of Dom Jolyesque train-traveling, mobile-spouting, laptop-leaving numpties we entrust the competent governance of this country to who would ignore the compromises to self and national security of blabbing in the back seat in front of relatively junior civil servants, no matter how well cleared.

And...

Sorry to single out but one of many, but having seen the much-vaunted HoC FOI blacked-out 'releases', I suggest they are about as much use as, and hence can simply be shredded and used as just so much kitty litter.

Mind you, whilst the WUVis get excited on the inability to detect 'flipping', which is indeed as serious (if 'nuffink wrong') as it gets, as one just flashed by I am getting to grips with just how clean these guys homes must be for all we have been taken to their cleaners for.

How 'clean' they are as public servants... is another matter.

Black... is white

...Some say, and others report, to try and grab a tad more ratings or push their views using dubious proxies.

In a world revolving round the internet (which is catching on, and some now see merit in enhancing with lots more of other folks' money), with folk getting their time-poor news fixes from such as Google, Twitter, etc, I notice one often tends to get sample summaries, with URL, headlines and, crucially, possibly first lines of copy.

Upon which you form an first impression, and then decide whether to pursue further.

Hence I am a tad concerned about journalistic and editorial trends that employ the following technique, especially with the latter:

Headline (often also of dubious summary value, depending on agenda of the guys writing it)

Copy: [Rampant opinion/untruth/dodgy/claim], followed by an attribution to a [person, generic, unspecified 'them', latest daft research by quango/charity/thinktank with pension pot to top up], often with the added spice of being set in the future ['will say']. As in:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2009/06/the_return_of_p.html#comments

The country cannot afford it. It is no longer militarily necessary.

Tonight, Nick Clegg uses those arguments to become...

At best, that doesn't strike me as totally competent, or indeed kosher reporting.

IRONY ALERT - People in uniquely funded houses...

Check out this thread:

Stop the blocking now

It's about a regime preventing stuff they don't like.

Now check out the number of posts moderated out.

Yours, a snip at just £142.50pa

QUOTE OF THE DAY - That'll learn 'em

Just listening to a report on BBC West Midlands regarding the absconding of a convicted murderer from an open prison.

According the Prison Service: 'Being located in an open prison is a privilege and, if (if!?) captured, one likely (likely?!) to be withdrawn.'

I feel safer already.

And quite understand why the reporting team found it sufficient to let this pass without clarification, challenge or comment.

Not.

IRONY ALERT - At least some get a vote, even if it is rigged

From another blog...

Someone commented on the Editors' Blog Stop the blocking now, re the Iranian government blocking of the courageous and impartial BBC.

Now have a look at the comments to this blog entry, most of which say: 'This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules'

Absolutely most of them.

I don't think the Beeb grasps the irony of it.

Ah, but one is state-controlled suppression of free speech, and the other is, er, different. Or should I say, 'unique'.

Har-ping on

The Deputy Leader's name is unfortunate, all things considered.

So it does end up as the gift that keeps on giving.

On the Andrew Marr show Harriet Harman says her main mission in life is to arrive at a 50:50 split on women in politics and the Cabinet.

An interesting priority, and in light of all else facing us at the hands of various bean-counters, box-tickers and target-meeters (at the expense of any tangible, rational actions) one I would have liked to be delved into further.

Fun with words

I do confess, I am enjoying playing with this...

Newsnight neologisms needed

'Proxymoron' went down well, though 'enviROI' and 'helicopter environmentalists' passed without trace.

So I have lobbed a few more into the literary frag pit to see what might get flushed.

'Revoltaire' - New era democratic rallying concept, often supported and even promoted by soem who know what's best for us in the MSM ; 'We may not agree with what you say, but we will sort of tolerate it... so long as you are not an Israeli/BNP/[insert folk that you really... really don't agree with and hence reckon need silencing here]'.

Which is an odd caveat from those seeking to be seen as credible libertarians. But usually they are those as dogmatic and convinced of their rectitude as those they oppose.

So, to 'a little bit pregnant' I guess we need to add 'freeishdom of speech'.
complain about this comment

'Enhancing the narrative'
'Interpreting events'
'Emerging truths'

The first two are mechanisms by which objective facts can be passed through a special process managed by those who 'know better' to ensure 'news' is shared in a way that those it gets presented to get to think 'more correctly' about it all.

Often, when it really rather flies in the face of clear evidence, and may in fact be unsupportable, it can still be assisted to the point that it becomes an 'emerging truth'.

Poohbahood - the act of seeking, conferring and/or being conferred with ever longer and more daft un-earned, unwarranted titles in an attempt to confer long lost respectability and reverence, but which actually fools, and impresses few outside a very small world. And probably just makes things worse.

As in...

The Right Honourable Baron Mandelson of Foy in the County of Herefordshire and Hartlepool in the County of Durham, First Secretary of State, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and Lord President of the Council.

NKorean leader's son is 'Brilliant Comrade'

"Grandiose titles are part of a tradition to stimulate public support in a nation where the media is tightly controlled and little information about the inner workings of the government is available."

Boxtickocracy, Beancounterhood & Targetmeetering - All complementing versions of the same, less than startlingly successful form of nu-governance whereby anything tangible and/or possibly useful is suborned to simply looking like things are going to be done, being done and will be done as opposed to dedicating any funds or personnel to actually just doing a good job in the first place.

Interestingly, it seems that these systems all seem to cost a lot more to implement and run, and despite this are actually self-generating by virtue of limitless funds on tap (if now on the 'never never' - thanks, kids) and a culture of zero accountability, no responsibility and 'Whocaresaboutability?' (oo, another one) so long as the right boxes are ticked, targets are met and ... you get the picture.

Turning my stomach

MPs jostle in race for Speaker

What is this? A playground?

A role now evidently critical to the governance of the country and it's someone's TURN?

And with a thoroughly discredited entity trying to appeal to a disgusted and disenfranchised population, this about sums up the appeal of THEM getting to decide: 'There are more of us than there are Tories'.

I was reading about Gloucestershire, where about the only way the Labour incumbent could hang on is to toss his hat in the ring, because 'convention' requires his Tory opposition to stand down.

WHAT ABOUT THE ELECTORATE AND THEIR RIGHT TO DEMOCRATICALLY-ELECTED REPRESENTATION?

This is not trying to find the prom King or Queen.

Revoltaire

Was reading how the guys really in charge of the Iranian elections were a bunch called the Council of Guardians.

That all sounds suitably Marvel(as in comic)icious.

Sort of Voltaire-lite: 'We may not agree with what you say, but we will sort of tolerate it... so long as you are not an Israeli'.

Which is the odd caveat we seem to be seeing from libertarians closer to home.

To 'a little bit pregnant' I guess we need to add 'freeishdom of speech'.

Makes you proud to be in a cradle of democracy.

Something is sick

Time to stop the NHS shroud waving

My Mum is now recovering in hospital after a week of a series of medical types coming along, prodding her in the tummy and deciding the best and only course was to up her antibiotics another 100mg at each visit.

She's only in there because, when I suggested the cause be found out in hospital, the last one started muttering about how he couldn't 'justify' something to some other bunch 'who'd be asking him tricky questions', and promptly found himself alone with her and on the wrong end of the house keys that I tossed him. I did go back 5 minutes later to apologise, but then the ambulance arrived not too long after that.

I don't envy this whole sorry crew the problems they face, but when they force medical professionals to try and weigh care vs. box-ticking and money-grubbing, they risk a backlash like mine, writ large.

I got a result, but I don't like what I had to do to get it. And won't forget.

How to run a blog

I may have additional tweaks on mine, but it's hard to argue with this:

Order-order - New Here?

I still think he gets, and allows, too many ad homs and ranters to make scrolling worth much (other than to find mine at 567), plus the reply queue is a nightmare, but hey, 100k a day can't be argued with.

Having fun with words

And I have...

Newsnight neologisms needed

proxymoron - derived from 'proxy' - 'a person authorized to act for another - which one could argue is what the person you give your vote to is... er... was. Our beloved MPs.

The second part - oxymoron - is also relevant in more than a few contexts: 'a figure of speech that combines two normally contradictory terms'

There may well be other allusions, but I could not imagine what:)

Talking at, and not even with any more

And not even listening, much less hearing.

The last time I paid much attention to this lady was when she was one of the few who could be relied upon to get her jubblies out on BBC2. Teenage boys appreciated such 'art' in the 70s.

Glenda Jackson: How to beat the fascists? Build houses ...

You reap what you sow, Ms. Jackson.

I seek representation in Parliament, not the installation of whipped-into-shape media luvvie ciphers who seem to have the odd notion they are there to 'rule'. And misuse this privilege to obsess about trivia. It's not like you and your ilk are even being very effective in your core mission of seeking out and destroying those you don't fancy, even if they are rather unattractive. The only ones you can get rid of seem to be such as Ms. Kennedy. Way to go!

That your Leader has 'triumphed' again in some eyes, thanks to some odd, sycophantic internal popularity contest against the wishes of 85% of the electorate and the clear interests of the country, is something I will make those who made selfish, careerist choices NOW suffer for WHEN I eventually get my real chance at the next ballot.

It seems I am misguided

I read recently a good point.

A Labour MP was bemoaning that they were no longer deemed fit to rule.

A poster advised that, actually, they were really only keen on being represented.

Not something I also sense has sunk into the brains of our national broadcaster and too many employees too busy talking to actually listen, much less hear.

Fewer votes for BNP

As a voter, I am getting a teensie bit ticked off some trying, and others letting them 'explain' how 'we' either got it wrong, didn't understand or, in final desperation, were only 'sending a message' about the least awful aspects of the Government's litany of disasters for them to learn from.

Yes, I was, am and will remain less than impressed with the expenses scandal. And yes, though I can easily check what my MP has done and respond accordingly, there was an element of rather thinking the clowns in currently charge of the whole rotten, and decaying from the head system, should cop more blame than most.

Not helped by the shooting each other in the foot procession with the ongoing Titanic clay pigeon meet.

Or rigged rallies with bussed in audiences given full 'news' treatment.

Or a succession of self-interested, deluded troughers just trying to keep going long enough to enjoy that, last, wafer thin mint of a bonus payoff for dragging the country to the abyss in getting booted out rather than walking. Not like it makes CVs suffer much anyway. I wonder if Siralun will be reassessing his hiring policies: 'Screwed up and kicked out, eh? Come on down!'. I though you bought low and sold high. Not get bought and sell out.

And as we're on matters Pythoneseque... I have heard the dead parrot sketch used a lot. I am thinking the Black Knight from the Holy Grail, down to arm and leg stumps gushing.. 'It's just a nick.. a flesh wound. The people wouldn't thank me for not getting on with the job...'.

Oddly, a set of views trotted out by some still, and without much counter from those you might have thought had a smidge of professional pride left, but who also seem to see their fortunes tied to one last roll of the dice in case two sevens come face up.

If Gordon is the answer, I dread to think what the question is. Or why it seems to be the only one asked by too many in certain media.

PM's worst nightmare has become reality

I'd say the BNP are best damned by their own words and deeds, and given the full glare of public scrutiny without being managed by the media, um, elite, who seem to think they know what's better for 'us'.

Though true, this latter 'narrative enhancing' aspect has not perhaps worked so well for others as intended, any more than it worked against the BNP.

Maybe the public are smart enough to see, hear and experience things for themselves, find they don't fancy being steered so cack-handedly very much, and respond in a time-honoured, democratic fashion.

While they still can. Looking at the new, make that ever-evolving cabinet, 'being voted for is just so last year'.

Meanwhile I continue to watch the latest episode of the Media's Holy Grail, with ever more airtime accorded Gordon the Black Knight and his minions...: 'it's just a flesh wound.... you wouldn't forgive me for not continuing to fight.... and then getting back to the job a public [there is one left in the North East I think] is telling me they want me to do'.

Me, I was not best impressed with the expenses to be sure, but actually weighed a few other things up at the same time. And being told I didn't know my own mind, was wrong or was just being angry has rather confirmed what I thought and hardened my resolve.

That the intention, was it?

At a time when it is easy to think you cannot make a difference.

The Tiananmen Square tank man: full video

In a world of stage-managed hype and spin and edit-suite contrived spectacle, this is a beacon of inspiration for the triumph of courage and the human spirit in the face of massive odds.

It is bookmarked to remind me that one person can make a huge difference and, if you believe it is worth doing and your cause is just, it is always worth standing up and making a protest.

That it was so passive, so peaceful, and so effective, is poetry.

That we do not know who this man is and what his fate might have been is awful, and that it may not have been a good one a tragedy but, perversely, if it were the power of his actions would probably be sullied by the media 'systems' of today.

A timeless unknown hero.

But I always spare a thought for the driver and/or commander who did not simply run him down.

Celebrity/Cabinet Recall Afterwards Preservation site

Or CCRAP site. Inspired by:

Order Order

378. Mr Ned says:
June 5, 2009 at 11:08 am

He was on the BBC today saying Gordon Brown is the best thing since sliced bread. With judgement like that at the helm,

I think there is a case for a sidebar, separate site or whatever, just logging the various ‘great, good and all round goofy’ who seem to think going on record as saying stuff like that in what have seemed/seems a good idea then/now, and then available to call up in evidence from their own mouths in the future when been interviewed of judged for office, etc.

A bit like a FaceBook picture, six sheets to the wind, mooning a nun at the office party. Only a tad more damning as booze cannot be used as mitigation for such howlingly poor judgement.

Objective is as objective does...er...?

Just got an email telling me that a comment I made on BBC's Andrew Neil's Political blog was 'off topic' and had been deleted.

Odd, as I didn't recall making one for a fair while, and these little moderations tend to be fairly bud-nipping in alacrity.

Anyway, on having a quick gander it seems there has been a bit of a retroactive purge, and almost all have been removed. I am guessing as a consequence, belatedly, of this...

During the MEP and council polls, in line with political parties and other UK broadcasters, the BBC will not be reporting the election campaign or offering discussion about the campaign.

I suppose 'off topic' was the best template they could throw as an excuse, if not reason as of June 4. Check 48 thur 79.

However, as with all of Aunty's 'unique' ways, there do seem some, well one, allowed to remain...

75. At 10:18am on 04 Jun

I do not believe that is why Robinsons blog got shut down early, otherwise so would this one. Robinsons blog is starting to be hi-jacked by extreme people using all kind of insults and it is putting the sensible contributor off. It certainly is me, they are changing names to attack you under another name. However they slip up by using faces or phrases they have used under other names. I notice things like that. I honestly believe people should only be allowed one user name.

If the BBC are making an effort to clean this up to make it more civilized like this one has been I am all for it.

We can have disagreements without resorting to some of the insulting remarks I have had and seen lately.

Which, I presume, is the only one deemed, uniquely, 'on'.. topic.

Heck of a way to ensure that you are the last post standing. Not sure it makes the BBC look too objective, mind.

Newsnight - Not happy here, either

For the people, of the people, slipped by the people

Newsnight

7. At 6:45pm on 02 Jun 2009, ginadean wrote:
Please could someone explain how Mandleson who is not elected nor an MP could possible be put forward for a top job as forgien secretary in a reshuffle of the cabinet, again not elected?

Very good question. However, the answer might be a tad 'unique' for some in the MSM to feel like asking, much less answering.

Led by asses' asses

Shuffleboard on the Titanic. Bless.

I presume we elect, and pay a 'government of all the talents' to... er... lead?

Much as this farrago is providing ratings all round, it is hard to see it serving this country's best interests much.

In light of the military analogies abounding as the D-Day planning has gone about as well as any other of late, as a poor grunt in the trenches, it is hardly encouraging that our political classes, and especially those 'in charge', seem unable to do much other than juggling pulling their own pins, fragging the one next to them or sniping their own side.

So my morale is... suffering a tad. Especially to find myself an unwilling passenger on a Kamikaze mission, and especially when finding the flight crew have ransacked the rest of the cabin for all the golden parachutes and are bailing out as we head for oblivion.
complain about this comment

ps: and it is a tad galling to note the Observer corps in their barrage balloons gleefully happy to see which way the wind blows so they can gently land in the warm, privileged access embrace of the 'victors' (or, at least, lesser losers) to give it a few months settling in together until the whole sorry cosy circus kicks off again in another guise.

You know, I feel disinclined to go along this time. Out, and for a lot more than a blooming duck. The whole sorry publicly, and too often uniquely-funded shebang.

Why worry about reputation, when you can by another?

I have been pondering what factors affect actions (and words), especially amongst those who seek and/or crave the trappings of power and influence over others.

Well, there are rules. Well, it seems these are made to be... if not broken... 'interpreted' in unique ways.

Then there is the law. But it seems this comes in a variety of forms; one for some, another for the rest of us.

But how about money? In all its forms (pay, pensions, perks, privilege) I think that has indeed been shown to be potent, especially as it seems it can often be bestowed, often to excess, without question, while the chances of withdrawal, or better yet, restitution, are near zero.

And, of course, security. Especially of the money flow. Again, this seems a near guarantee, save for running over a nun whilst giving a BNP hitchhiker a lift and swigging neat gin at the wheel (though some Lords might even get a pass here depending on which cards are played, that our police and legal systems don't feel like tackling).

Which really only leaves how things feel (to the protagonist) and/or how they look (to others whose feelings and views they may or may not care about). This can manifest itself in a variety of ways: ethics, morals, sense of shame... honour. And could it be a significant restraint.

Well, at least it used to. Now there is just the money.

Which is an interesting legacy from the last 12 years, and 'a job' some still appear to feel the current incumbents (of the House, though I do hold the current government mostly accountable, as that is a long time not to get anything right, and indeed to also mess up so much else) should be allowed to 'get on with'.

Sadly, I fear I must disagree. And it is hard to feel much but for contempt for any in this rotten system who have long since given up on worrying about reputations since realising, or perhaps arranging, that compromise in this area does not need to affect a very comfortable standard of living funded on the backs of others who have been so consummately screwed.

From our man at the scene...

It's tragic and it's news for sure.

I am just unsure if this is how all will be reporting it:

Britons could be on lost jet - PM

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said he fears....

As with him finding time in his busy schedule to call fellow [insert too many similarities to count, plus a few differences... popular, voted for..] Scot Ms. Boyle, it seems Dear Leader is now personally in charge of finding out the news, commenting upon it, and then PR'ing that he has commented.

The BBC just seems to offer the bandwidth.

Is everything that happens now going to be shared with a 'Gordon hopes/thinks/says..' Headline and intro?

Money is not everything

As it is also a telling tale on population and economy vs. environment, this could as easily be over at Junkk Male RE:view.

Singapore’s population crisis in a nutshell

Having lived there for a decade, and still visiting since my family's departure a decade ago, the 'world in miniature' aspect of this once great city state is too important not to learn from.

I treasure (fading) memories of Singapore Slings at the original long bar in the original Raffles, to drives to Punggol for chili crab in lean-tos on shoreline shanties set into the jungle.

On our last visit, I am pretty sure that's where one of the several hundred 26 storey HDBs my brother in law and his family live in now stand. Not sure a family meal at Jack's Place in Parkway Parade had quite the same sense of cultural bonding.

Progress? There is a finite land area (well, they are trying to prove Mark Twain wrong daily, but international sea limits will eventually require either going down, or higher up as the only options). Maybe the era of Blade Runner-like living is not so far away.

All to 'sustain economic growth'. And then, when the last square inch of grass has been concreted over? What quality of life will those who have got to this point enjoy, now that the shark that needs to swim to survive has stalled and is gasping for more air?

Ironically, my 12 year olds have been written to to require they get ready for National Service when they are 18, and we are required to stump up $75k bond each should they not feel so disposed.

As I replied to someone who asked me if I was ever tempted to return: 'there has to be more to life than living in an a/c box from which you commute in an a/c box to work in an a/c box to earn enough to blow at nights and weekends in another a/c box. And I think my kids deserve better.'

So unless the govt. revises its policies a tad, they'll be missing out on 6 years' worth of tourist money and, who knows, the chance of two 18 year olds opting to do their bit for a few years in a Taiwanese swamp to get their chance at living in a... albeit potentially well-appointed... a/c box.

Governments would do well to remember that human beings don't respond well to coercion and can, surprisingly, even opt not to be bribed with trinkets.

Still, I'm sure the SDU (Social Development Unit (bless), better known as 'Single, Desperate and Ugly' with the humour I still take strength from knowing flourishes there) is finding its ad budget enhanced.

Lead by donkeys

Having watched our Dear Leader just now on the Andrew Marr show, I think we can home in on more specific body parts from that animal (which oddly suggests an alternative name immediately).

As I wrote to them:

Well, that was... er... vague.

Might one suggest that when a politician answers a question they don't fancy with 'The real question that needs to be asked is...' and rambles off on self-serving waffle ending with yet more 'looking at this', a big hook comes in from stage left and hoiks 'em off? And presuming to know 'what people want' should mean open season with the rotten fruit and veg from the stalls.

Any system that has operated so disastrously for over a decade really has little credibility left to be allowed to 'sort it out' or, worse, turning their dead hands to 'getting on with the job', 'dealing with the issues at hand'... and especially on the 'big issues'.

If Mr. Brown thinks he is the answer, then I dare not imagine the question.

I am not sure that even a cross in a ballot once every few years is now enough.

Telegraph - Brown alive, appears in public, nation breathes sigh of relief

Ask not what...

What a price a job? £700 says MBA graduate

"British man, 26, Oxford graduate, now with added MBA...looking for interesting work anywhere..,"

Good luck to Daniel. I think he has a fine future in PR at least, if the coverage gained on £700 is anything to go by.

Sadly, in the section of media I operate two words rule above all others: end benefit. And to be clear, that is to the customer, as opposed to for the sales person or, in this case, applicant.

Sadly nothing in the pitch above exactly helps me as a potential employer assess what advantage I'd gain from the hire.

But then again, looking at how the current establishment works (sic), I guess it might not matter.

SOSO... what?

What depresses, but does not surprise, is the collection of 'moving on' attempts I am now seeing.

Slightly more surprising is the motley collection of individuals who see themselves, and whose party evidently sees as being the best embodiment of this culture.

Er, no.

It minds me of a comedy skit (I wish I could remember which), where a confused punter is confronted by an ever-rotating collection of service representatives at the counter, who are in fact always clearly the same person. And saying the same, nonsensical thing over and over, if in different ways, as if that will satisfy.

What is worst in all this, are how many in the MSM now seem to feel this is fine, as the circus simply moves on.

I watched on SKY as the genuineness of the PM's smirk was shuttled too and fro in the edit suite several times to assess, and his 'performance', and that of others, rated by a self-satisfied collection of WUVI's, as if what they saw and now think has any bearing on what the rest of us can see and still think.

High on my list is that actions count, and a lot more from the past will need even more from the future, and changing the drapes in a house of ill repute doesn't make the professional practices within any different.

Try again guys. It ain't washing in Worcester yet.

Addendum:

Anrew Marr Show - Not featured. I suspect that it does not equate to their Plan B scenario,

Charles Kennedy 'hopes' there is is nothing in his expenses file that might be embarrassing, at best. After all that has gone down, if such as an ex-leader of a party doesn't know by now, the competency of the House members to judge much of anything be a worry.

I am still intrigued, bearing all that has gone before, that the overseer of MPs would still get chosen by them, and only them, as if the much touted secret ballot makes much difference.

Speaking of which, as it is evidently a role more important than I had before appreciated, I rather fancy now having more of a say, as the connect, or lack of, between the House of 'don't get its' and the public they are meant to serve, is so vast.

Still smells to me

I must say if our new political classless are 'getting it' at last, they have a darn funny way of articulating it.

Just watched a Minister pay homage to ex-Speaker Martin, 'who showed just what a person he was by his noble deeds for the sake of the country', or some such horse manure.

I don't think his tongue was in his cheek.

Which part of presiding over a decade of abuses, trying to cover everything up and clinging on by his fingertips until prized loose by his equally tush-concerned mate Gordon, all in trying to score one last, wafer-thin £130k, factored into this quaint notion?

I also find this latest 'gentleman's club' thing rather clever... for a politician of a certain hue, if not for any in theory objective media that go along with it.

Beyond being merely interested in what the actual balance of 'toffs' across all parties might be, as I have found some sport in whispering in the ear of Aunty's sisterhood, another might be to ask whether there are no female public schools (or at least that churn out anyone with a serious career), as this is the impression that seems to be created... with help from their male counterparts at almost every turn.

And I have yet to have explained how 'voting' in the next overseer, albeit in 'secret', by the very clowns who have a vested interest in who oversees them, is something that the public needs not to be troubled with.

Other than funding it, of course.

Again.

What price 'respect'

Around £130k, it would seem.

That is the hostage to fortune of our country vs. what I thought was a largely ceremonial but now realise is yet another hugely over-powerful unelected (by us) position: The Speaker of the House.

This is the amount this petty little man will 'lose' if he stands down now, rather than clinging onto the wreckage that is the credibility of our nation's Parliament to maximise his gilded retirement.

It is ironic that it all still boils down to money in a grubby individual, public 'servant's' pocket.

And as the attempts to make it just about him, and his office, continue, and fail to distract the public disgust at the whole rotten system, egged on by too many in the privileged media classes jockeying for position and favour in the new Westminster order, I am also struck by the disconnect of the way this little lot behave vs. the way they have required the rest of us to, often with ever more draconian laws and penalties.

What private organisation would be allowed to function for so long with rampant bullying? Even Mr. Martin's few supporters, eerily reminiscent of Mr. Brown's, seem to concede that while he can be affable, he has a vile temper and is not to be crossed.

Our country seems to be suffering from a culture of thugees who got to the top by truly awful behaviour and practices, and in their (inevitable - fear can command power, but respect is the foundation of true leadership) falls are more interested in dragging us all down with them for minor personal gains.

As I hear of the Tamil Tiger leader fighting to his last youthful acolyte before topping himself in yet another deluded Downfall remake, I wonder how often we are to be cursed by history repeating itself?

Addendum:

Quite proud of this one:

As to the hapless Mr. Martin and those who surround him (with the best and worst of interests at heart), to mangle another of Stephen Fry's inspirational heroes, maybe a case of 'The unspeakable selecting the next un-Speaker able'?

Couldn't think of a nicer bunch to watch at work.

Addendum:

I stumble somewhat over what I have just read in a newspaper report: 'one thing MPs should remember in making their choice is that the next Speaker will have more power than any of his predecessors.'

Until very recently, I thought it was some old geezer who dresses funny and says 'Order, order' a lot. Hey, whatever floats their yachts.

However, it has now been made quite clear that there is great power here but, unlike Spiderman, pretty much zippy by way of accountability. Especially to folk like me. You know; the public. Voters. Guys who foot the bill and shoulder the consequences.

So.... with the great job that has served the country so well so far in recent mind, the intention is to hand the choice of the next one... again... to our current 600+ 'government of all the talents' (including in all from all parties under that glorious misnomer).

'Because that is the way it has always been done'.

I. do. not. blooming. well. think. so.

Responsibility and accountability

Watching the Andrew Marr Show, with various new mea-culpa'd types putting out their stalls.

Other than Mariella Frostrup, rather missing the mood making a point on missing the public mood referring to an eco-issue by when she was diving in Honduras.

And it allowed me to distill a few thoughts about the sheer rottenness of 'the system'.

Labour MP Kate Hoey made a heck of a lot of sense and resonated with my views... mostly.

As did Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg.

However, while the former spoke to me, and indeed for me on MP expenses, the EU and the Taliban, I have never heard such tripe about the UN and the situation on Sri Lanka. Talk about naive, with a misplaced faith in an entity that makes the EU seems well-run. A blissfully glossed over fact which rather put the previous common sense comments on Parliamentary reform in another context.

Who do I vote for, when mandates are claimed when I patently don't agree with some pretty major aspects. Will I also have to comprise and prioritise just to afford my proxy to someone.

ps: on The Speaker, while the next, secret vote selection is a step forward might be 'better', in light of events as a voting individual I am not convinced, as it is obvious that even the most egregious abuses still see the perpetrators changing their own system. Not good enough.