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.

QUOTE OF THE DAY - Details, details...

Jacquie Smith, Home Secretary, referring on BBC Breakfast to her mistakes and expense claims: '... for some reason, some folk keep focusing on the details..'

Heaven forfend the legal system she is a major part of should ever focus on the details!

Telegraph - Jacqui Smith admits 'serious mistake' over expenses

Telegraph - Eric Pickles has never partaken of the John Lewis list

'Over both sets of limitish, orificer?. Speeding and drunk? Now what limits would they be? Just...details!

Guardian - Parliament at 25% off?

Nice to see Dear Leader still has his hand firmly around the tiller of his ship of foo...GOATS.

Saturday - BBC Breakfast 'News' - A review

I have PIP on my PC and watch the 'news' as I work in the morning (two licence fees?). If I forget the night before to reset the satellite it seems to default to BBC.

Just watched Click, and very useful it was, too. Also looking forward to the Newswatch Mea Never Culpa with Uncle Ray and sulky guy in a blue shirt and brown blazer. If only to see whether they don't mention my complaint again.

However, the rest was... is, so far a trial.

Action Man - some lady from some funded 'charity' saying our kids will grow up psychos 'cos the MoD is letting Mattel trot out an upgraded soldier doll. Charlie State (who I actually think can ask some nifty questions at times) says 'he wasn't allowed one'. Probably on his CV and why he sailed through the job app. I had four. Spent all day in the garden digging trenches and making combat vehicles out of Meccano. But I wonder if Click will mention Call of Duty 4, where my kids now blow guys up on TV as opposed to with dolls. Much better now, I'm sure. At least I drew the line at Grand Theft Auto.

Michelle Obama - at some school with a mic reading a piece of paper to a carefully selected audience. Tears in her eyes. Mine too.

Jade - I think the coverage so far today should get some kind of an award, and the 'reporter' a pay rise for keeping a straight face.

Starvation - another charity has another bit of research, where people with 60" HD TVs can't afford healthy food for their kids, doubtless to deliver through the railings as schools force the little loves to eat lard-flavoured crisps.

Obama - he. is. the Big 'O"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I saw his speech yesterday, and can't deny the skill of the stage-managed oratory. But where are the legitimate questions on substance? This is not E! It's meant to be political news.

As comedy, with a hint of tragedy, it is almost worth it. Almost.

Speaking of Airy Replies

Just had to write to the BBC:

There's a certain irony that, as Pres. Obama and some other guys do some stuff that will slot in climate change, which will doubtless get full support and coverage of the national news broadcaster, I have been watching an empty car parked outside a building for a long while now, filmed from various positions, including a helicopter. Why?

Some speech is freer than others

To ban Chris Moyles from saying 'gay' can only add to his fizz

I often wonder whether the listeners are as a consequence of the talent, or the celebrity (and all its rewards) is spawned from the listeners.

Clearly there is an element of each.

Can it be that there is not more than one person in the UK able to occupy the prime slot of a national broadcast entity and do a pretty darn decent job of DJ'ing, playing music, chatting, entertaining and not seeing themselves as more important than all the rest, and possibly see access to audiences in the millions as worth doing a decent job over?

It might well help out Aunty's inflation-busting unique funding model by adding a smidge of competitiveness to the 'market rate' deals out there, and also cutting out the hordes of execs who 'negotiate' them, who subsequently have a vested interest in keeping the clubby gravy train going.

Personally, as I am 'out of demographic', Mr. Moyles can do and say what he likes to offend my dainty sensibilities as I am happy to judge him on his deeds and words and move on, but when it comes to how what he might say or do impacts on my almost teenage sons and how they treat others... I take an interest. Especially when it seems some suggest the solution is that I may be invited to switch off if I am not keen, yet oddly still have to co-fund it all.

There's also the matter of the consistency when the PC brigade break out in force, especially in certain quarters. If we are all going to get collective knickers in twists over perceived offences (look hard enough and one will come and find you) and unacceptable memberships, attitudes, statements, etc, it seems to me it should be all or nothing.

Once you get selective with your cause, and what's 'in' and 'out' based on narrow prejudice, agenda and cosy group-think, from Daily Mail to Guardian, it all rather falls apart. I'm still laughing at Gorgeous George's hypocritical bluster on why he shouldn't be persona non grata in other countries, but requires the power to deem others as unfit to grace our shores.

The BBC, and some supporters, have rather shown themselves to operate rather 'selectively' of late, based on an interesting collection of defensive, and often contradictory, parameters.

Two wrongs make a...

... well, about a week in today's politics.

Shoesmith's biggest mistake was not to be a bank boss

QUOTE OF THE DAY - He who makes the rules...

Maybe He'll Text Back

'Whilst I do not wish to be seen as criticising the judiciary, I find it strange that an accident where a driver causes the death of another gets 12 weeks, whereas a speeding motorcyclist who breaks the speed limit excessively but causes no injury whatsoever gets twice the time.'

March 6, 2009 11:53 AM

One law for...?

I have just listened to the Andrew Marr show.

I had to write in...

Did I just hear* a Government Minister, Harriet Harman, say, in effect: 'it may be legal but we think the court of public opinion takes precedence'.

Interesting precedent.

Mr. Marr seemed none to concerned.

Newsnight -

* heard it again**. Slightly more accurately: '... [this] might be enforceable in a court of law, but not in the court of public opinion'. I think I was still pretty right to crank an eyebrow.

**Better yet...

BBC - Nick Robinson's Newsblog -

405. At 11:08pm on 01 Mar 2009, labourwipeout

For those who have just arrived I quote Harriet Harman this morning on Andrew Marr

"...it might be enforceable in a court of law, this contract, but it is not enforceable in the court of public opinion and that is where the government steps in.

Just think about the consequences of what she has said .

I have been since I first heard them uttered. An interesting precedent indeed.

Oddly, many in the media seem not to have been so troubled as we are.

Telegraph - Harriet Harman wants a Bill of Attainder against Sir Fred Goodwin -

I have long been concerned about the trend towards retrospective legislation. With things like IHT it is bad enough, if only financial, and I suppose could be the same here. However, how long before you can be imprisoned for doing something that was once legal but for various reasons may subsequently deem not to be? An interesting legacy for any government to leave.

Oddly, and starting with the interviewer in question, many in the media seem not to have been so troubled as some of us are.

Telegraph - Sir Fred Goodwin's pension: a human right? - Another not so worried about Ms. Harman's 'notion'. Odd.

BBC - Nick Robinson - If you're at a Loose End...

When the going gets tough, those who keep saying 'tough'... selectively... leave the country? Though, it seems, we pay.

Had myself a little bet on what would make it on Aunty's screens and pages today, and what would not... by way of 'omissions' under the 'enhanced narrative', 'emerging truth', 'could have been better phrased' school of reporting that suits the agenda du jour.

Looks like I win. Sadly, it's in pounds.

Hope Mess(ers) Brown & Robinson have no need of the national currency whilst pursuing vital national interests elsewhere.

I knew the law was an ass. Now it looks like it is one that may be led by the nose wherever venal pols and lawyers may wish to direct it. Ably supported by some in the media. Sigh.

Indy - Harman says Goodwin's pension 'will not happen'

Newsnight - Another day, another redirection

Just thought I'd repeat this before the thread goes down whatever weird and wonderful exotic, high-brow or semantic route it inevitably takes these days.

I listened to the Andrew Marr show yesterday with him 'interviewing' Harriet Harman, when the topic of Mr. Goodwin (this Lord lark is rather devalued IMHO) came up.

And a Government Minister said, in effect: 'it may be legal but we think the court of public opinion takes precedence'.

If so, that is indeed an 'interesting' precedent.

Mr. Marr seemed none too concerned.

So I guess I need not be either.

It has many potential applications elsewhere that I can think of. Who needs to obey the law anyway, especially when it can be bent to fit on a whim? I must try it, say, with the licence fee? 'Hey public opinion, is this really worth an enforced £139.50?'

But looking at the blogs of some colleagues, while many, like me, do seem to think mob-rule from the top rather important, perhaps scooting off to the USA with the man who thinks it's all their fault is wisely deemed more 'fruitful'.

Then again, maybe extortionate money lending here might also be more appropriate to redire... er.. focus our attentions upon..

How much has my family had ripped from it, to give... lend to whom, for what and how much are we going to get by way of a return?

Anyway, just can't wait to see what the new administration's 'Global warming plan' will be.

Maybe... let's they can decide to call it 'climate change' instead? And even that term is proving a wee bit behind the public convincing curve, but best not to rush things, or stay at the cutting edge, eh?

Guardian - Has Harriet Harman gaffed?

Gaffed??? What the heck does that mean?

The minute it passed her lips I was on to the show, and pleasantly surprised that they posted my concern that a government minister was advocating a rather dodgy precedent.

Fortunately I resisted asking if the same might apply to, say, my not feeling like paying the TV licence because the interviewer who elicited this gem seemed blissfully unconcerned and rather remiss in his role.

Meanwhile, since this point, I have scoured the airwaves and blogs of the BBC's political elite, from Newsnight to Nick Robinson, and their attentions seem to have been, how to say... studiously anywhere but on this topic.

Maybe they see no problem with the principle?

Telegraph - Harriet Harman isolated after pledge on Sir Fred Goodwin pension

Times - Harman cut adrift over Goodwin pension comments

Guardian - Brown plays down Harman's threat to cut Fred Goodwin's pension

BBC - Brown targets Sir Fred's pension - Slightly different headline view, but the facts are there later, plus a view of the interview.

Iain Dale - Harriet Harman Let Off the Hook

Telegraph - Harriet Harman's raving almost made me think of siding with Sir Fred Goodwin

Is it 'cos I is untouchable?

I was just going to let this headline (and, I presume, an accurate quote) speak for itself (and the main protagonist).

It stopped me in my tracks.

Then I read this and this. They seem to go together.

Interesting also that the 'issue' was prompted by one party merely wondering if blowing vast amounts on ancient perceived affronts (especially nice little earners for those on the gravy train) was sensible.

Obviously some think it is, if they can get away with it.

People in glass houses...

... are lucky that some in the media are hard of seeing. Apparently.

The 'situation' regarding the ex-head of RBS is beyond parody. But then, so is the response of some in government and those who , er, report*, upon their words and deeds.

Driven to distraction

9. At 12:11pm on 27 Feb 2009, djlazarus
Obviously the irony of getting a gold plated pension and perks for doing a job incredibly badly is lost on Mr Prescott.

Reading the author's (what's his job again?) original post, I'd suggest Mr. Prescott is not the only one.

However, as we are now in favour of not rewarding those who have and/or are sucking us dry whilst not offering much by way of public service worth a damn, or indeed making things worse, covering up badly and all round just digging deeper holes, let's see where else our gazes and direct debit cancellations may alight:)

23. At 12:36pm on 27 Feb 2009, subedeithemomgol wrote:
If Prescott reads the replies to his blog on the Guardian site he'd be quickly disabused about the public opinion - he called for Sir Fred's pension to be shredded, most replies wanted to see his pension shredded.

Order-Order - Prescott's Pension Hypocrisy

Guardian - Sir Fred's just one of millions to do better under Labour - there's what the readers and viewers think, and then there's what such as the BBC and Guardian thinks

Telegraph - Meanwhile, Gordon Brown is getting ever deeper into denial - feeling confident in our 'leadership', are we?

Indy - Ministers criticised over civil service bonuses - I am still grappling with why and how a bonus culture exists in public service at all.

*I have just 'learned' that the BBC 'has learned' that the PM will be telling activists that Sir Fred's unacceptable behaviour is the most serious issue of the moment. If he, and they, say so. I think this episode and how it has been handled says a lot more about them, though.

Telegraph - Gordon Brown has as little shame as Sir Fred Goodwin - Ah, Dear Leader has waited and weighed in... and in as competent a way as always.

Careful what you wish for

What a perfect revenge on the arch snooper

It comes to something of an unpretty pass when it all boils down to media tips, 'outed' 'snitches' (interesting precedent in that not wholly less than inflammatory word when your 'report' ends up plastered all around. I presume these guys were willing to give up their names for their 15 minutes of flame), etc, when... and it may have been mentioned and I missed it... surely the police and other record holders know and have records of exactly where she was, is and doubtless will be.

I can see the last might need to stay a secret, but surely this might all have been dealt with easily and above board without recourse to the very dubious systems that are hanging our hapless home sec and her rep out to dry?

Were that some other 'friendly' media as keen to stay on top of a fairly clear case of foot in... well, across the wrong threshold, when so obviously looking at best a case of multiple laws for an ever-growing multiplicity of 'standards' between those who tell us what to do, and what they do themselves.

For example

Despite that cover-up by establishment stooges, Ms Smith is guilty of thievery (and I dare her to sue me)

Let's see who comes out well in this.

I'm guessing the country won't be.

Gaurdian 'journalist' has problem with bloggers scooping stories they'd rather keep quiet shock

Analysis of a storm in a teacup

'...really useful public service journalism on the net.'

I'd love a definition of that, as I rather suspect there's the 'I work for the MSM and hence get to tell you what I think you need to know, and in a way that helps you think the 'correct' way' notion, espoused by some not too far away from here and their 'narrative enhancing', 'events interpreting' mates, and the few left... oddly mostly bloggers... who seem to report facts, usually check them, and then let these, supported by clear links (and, as in this case) be the story. Mr. Draper is rather 'involved' in a fair bit of political activity, connected at senior level, is he not? I found this story rather interesting, am glad it was raised and credit those who did. As do most who read such things online, from what I can see. Hence the few sniffy dissenting views are more than interesting by being so out of step.

But, and I look in the mirror as I write this, there may be some merit in the whole 'pot/kettle' thing in having concerns with one writer plying their trade by mainly dissing another. But I think that ship has sailed.

How did that slagging off the Sun guy's story from Israel pan out anyway?

Lords of the ratings war

In a 24hrs that sees a furore over a private conversation between some people resulting in a firing:

Big Brother for children: Channel 4 demonstrates why it should be closed down

Yesterday's BBC Breakfast sofa was positively cooking with various folk promoting this... public ser... er.. study... er... rampant ratings grab in the guise of god knows what. To be fair there were a few 'uneasy' at the psychological aspects, so they 'understood' the anguish of parents desperate to be on the telly watching their kids desperate to be on the telly not exactly enjoying the experience of being on the telly. And, without having watched it (my small protest), having been through the edit suite to 'enhance the narrative' I bet most liked the result even less.

Ill-conceived and cynically executed from pitch meeting to press releases. With a complicit MSM ready and waiting to savour the incoming... and fallout. Sick.

Oh, and really, this alone rather puts the whole sorry charade in context: '...without their parents or other outside adult influences (apart from the adult camera crew which films everything they do).

ie: a complete fabrication with no value, but somehow a licence for some adults to mentally torture some minors for some money.

Getting on with the job?

Cabinet enforcers have to throw their weight around – but not like this

First we have this shrieking character who is on her nth staff member, and now this... individual.

And I understand our Dear Leader is not averse to expressing his displeasure with moving objects

As more and more edicts are issued on how we conduct our workplace and relationships within it, or else, is there any explanation as to why those in government seem to be immune from any consequences of their clearly outrageous work practices.

Or do they... we.... just keep paying the fines?

This GOAT-herd seems to be the ultimate in hypocrisy.

I am minded of the saying: "Great leaders make others feel small. Truly great leaders make others feel great".

These folk are not great. By a long chalk.

Do unto others...

I read this...

British voters 'turned off' by media hype and cynical blogs

So I went to this...

Not Nihilistic, Realistic

And read this....

'...after being tipped off that she was going to attack Guido in a speech later today to the Hansard Society. Guido also called the Hansard Society to arrange to attend the speech. He was told it was a closed meeting. The subject of the meeting, ironically, is political disengagement.'

There are many things that are set to turn this voter off, but two-faced hypocritical pols and their PR-printing glee clubs in the so-called 'major media' are pretty much top of the list.

Telegraph - Hazel Blears, bloggers and professional politics

Guardian - Nihilistic new media

Oh, dearie me.

What's the world coming to when a senior, respected Labour Minister comes to CiF on an outing for a bit of moral support and endorsement for one of their latest wheezes, and ends up being dissed by pretty much the whole crew.

You know what might be good, if not called for? Change.

From I have pegged. But I still I wish I knew to what.

But it's good to have a starting point in mind.

Indy - The Big Question: Is Hazel Blears right to accuse political bloggers of undermining democracy?

"Bloggers are not professional journalists and, often unedited and untrained, can be misleading."

"Is Hazel Blears right to accuse political bloggers of undermining democracy?"

Are the Independent and other homes of 'professional journalism', such as the BBC, who also often try on this argument, having a larf?

The edited and trained agenda-driven trash pumped out these days is not misleading (see the letter here from Sir Christopher Meyer for an example)? Give me a break.

Gaurdian - Is Hazel Blears right about the 'vicious nihilism' of the blogosphere?

Meanwhile from the 'Paranoia is knowing they are out to get you' files, a Macbethian (aka 'The Scottish Play' to those of superstitious thespian bent) tale of caution, with a bonus for any who appreciate the Hitch-hikers Guide to the Galaxy.

After wall to wall US 'news' up to and including today, to the exclusion of all else, I had cause to ponder on the BBC Newsnight blog today what else might get a mention, such as Glenrothes.

Seems special 'House Rules are in effect during Polling Days', meaning such discussion ist verboten. Hence my asking the national broadcaster for news about my country gets bounced. The people of Glenrothes must be wondering what their licence fee is for, if information beyond what they are fed on the day about their wee election matters.

So... nothing discussed that isn't fancied before, can't during, and only the possibility of passing reference afterwards, unless it works out better than expected, in which case it will doubtless be top of the news for days.

Where's a Vogon Constructor Fleet when you need one?

I'd say what is being discussed above is already here, with the enthusiastic support of some media who seem to have already decided where their loyalties lie.

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.

Watching the defectives

Huge pay rises for watchdog bosses

Who negotiates and/or approves these 'deals' to get the 'talent' 'necessary' for these 'vital' roles?

I know, Ministers should create a Regulator of Regulators!

Let me tell you what you think

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

Guardianistas upset by My Telegraph?

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

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

What is it with 'the Press'?

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

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

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

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

ILL DESERVED VICTORY FOR THE EVENING STANDARD

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

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

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

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

Gaurdian - Tough at the toff