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

Just the facts, man

I am intrigued as to how (the why is obvious) the MSM is allowed (well, that's pretty obvious too) to get away with the odd notion that what 'they' deal in is objective truth, whilst anything from the blogosphere is gossip, tittle-tattle, etc.

Especially, and quite clearly, when it's completely the other way around.

At almost any turn, what I see from the MSM is agenda dressed up as fact, from blatant spin to the selection of deniable interviewees such as Stephen Pound who can spout whatever they feel like unchallenged.

And such as the Guardian seem to have stuck it as far back in the online section as they can, with some blogs 'closed' early when things seem to be less to their tastes. I am not betting on a BBC HYS any time soon.

One thing seemingly ignored by all these 'reporters' and 'commentators' is to what extent most, if not any of these bits of information from such as Guido are in way inaccurate which, surely, is fairly key, if in the process of being willfully obscured.

The truth hurts. Thank heavens.

Telegraph - Blogs have changed politics forever: good news for libertarians, bad news for Lefties

Vine and chums

If Jeremy Vine's 'show' gets preserved, do try and catch today's, as I did driving back from a meeting.

First up we had what I call 'The Newsnight Twofer' (seems to apply here too) , where two extremes are brought in to comment, on this occasion on the latest expenses scam... er.. diversion.

I am not up to speed on the facts, but it seems taken as read there is someone leaking, though I have yet to find out where this originated. Oddly, no news reporters seem too concerned about that.

So we get some ex-Sun type, now a commercial London station DJ, basically in full 'geezer' mode. And in calm rebuttal, we have... a Guardian political commentator. Hey, balance! Thing is I was with the Guardian guy most of the way until he 'suggested' that it 'may' have been leaked by a Tory mole.

Er... at their distracting best, I thought the BBC, via its tame, carefully-selected invitees, were just try to push the £300k greed angle? Now it's a Tory plot? What the heck?!!!!

And while I think that touting for money does weaken our 'hero's' (I don't see the person, if they exist, as anything like that) case, there are a few points that came up that seemed not to get mentioned.

First, our Jezza and his mate from the Grauniad were pretty keen on the 'Why now when it was all coming out later?'. Er... with the state of our government these days, I imagine most that would have come out was going to be accidentally shredded waaay before Dear Leader's new deadline. Also, and this is no excuse, what are the prospects for an honest whistleblower? I say fired and stripped of pension at best. So £300k doesn't seem too bad really as compo for exposing the sick, hypocritical farce that is our government.

Speaking of which, we then get that paragon of fiscal probity and moral rectitude, ex-DPM Prescott on to pitch his book... um... discuss his inspirational relationship with his protege and poster child for the Labour revolution.... assault your teachers, get expelled, meet a 'celeb' pol given airtime, 'stay in touch', get a job, get knocked up ('...it were after I met John,' she confirms, sparing us a mental image too far. I guess we'll have to hark back to his secretary for word on his advice on contraception to those he mentors), leave job, stay in touch... and get touted as inspirational for being a bit miffed she hasn't be shoved up the benefits register further by now. But... she does want to be a lawyer. Bless.

Even Mr. Vine and almost all his callers were having trouble keeping that load of b*llsh*t down. Though one was accused by Mr. Prescott, of being a Tory troll (rhymes with 'mole'). If I were them I would sue the S.L.O.B (Senior Labour Outdated Bruiser) for libel. And the BBC and Mr. Vine for letting such a thing pass as a defence at their expense. Just because most folk are heartily sick of the sordid lot of them, the results of their failed experiments, and feel moved to comment, does not make all of us Tories. Though to the BBC, anyone not Labour must deafault this way.

But I am sure the Tristrams are delighted with the result, and ratings, but if called to account on Newswatch at dawn this weekend will grumpily assert that it was the public's right to be kept informed on senior Labour Party thinking and the aspirations of their voting, grateful, democratic power base, innit?

DD getting cancelled very soon. Anyone know what happened to Charles Moore?

Britain. And the world.

Lions cheated by crooks, overseen by ostriches employing weasels, reported upon by vultures.

The haves, and the have to earn a livings

As I watch the morning news, I am struck by a worrying imbalance.

And this is the sheer number of folk, from the public sector, quangos, 'not for profits', charities... and the media... all of whom are paid, and often paid well, pontificating about how those no so blessed as they should spend their money or behave.

It really seems a bit of a cheek in many cases to be doing so, without much concern for the consequences on paying mortgage, utility bills, fees (and fines).

I see a breaking point fast approaching. As I bang on on Junkk Male RE:view about growing populations and finite planet areas to sustain them, this is even worse.

As more and more move from productive, income-generating work to whatever the heck it is most of these parasites do, there will become a tipping point where the bean-makers can't sustain themselves and the new legions of bean-counters, commenters, etc, and all will starve.

Social is as social does

Something I had not heard before, from another blog poster, and feel worth preserving...

I seem to remember (from some depressingly deep recess of my memory) that it was Friedrich Hayek who said that putting 'social' in front of any term usually denotes something entirely opposite in meaning. Thus:

"social justice" = gross injustice and official discrimination
"social security" = poverty and insecurity
"social worker" = someone who does nothing
"social democrat" = someone who imposes their views on others after gerrymandering the vote
"social care" = neglect (possibly involving death)
"social contract" = the origin of totalitarianism (J-J Rousseau)
"social reform" = the reimposition of feudalism.

It may have been Popper, but the idea certainly has legs.

As one in the thick of it, I might be tempted to come up with a version for social enterprise, but that might be cutting off the hand...

Priorities

Ours is an interesting country, as least as far as the politico-media establishment goes.

Two vastly-paid blokes abuse just about everything and everyone possible, and after a while get suspended on full pay, while the liberal luvvies of London anguish over the fairness of it all still.

Meanwhile a woman 'blows a whistle' about a mammoth systems failure in childcare, and is sacked within days and then has a gagging order slapped on just for good measure, to protect... er...?

I guess it matters who you work for, and in what cause.

Lessons are being learned, apparently. I just hope it's by the public, and they will be able to give their verdicts in an appropriate manner at the right time. Though, for some, tomorrow would be too late.

Newsnight

Telegraph - Baby P was a victim of the quango state

Indy - Too many cooks

Gaurdian - Gordon Brown remains on top form in New York

Gaurdian - Where does the buck stop in Baby P case?

As the step-springed, sparkly-mooded, awesomely-adorned Mr. Brown bestrides the world stage in other pages here...

The only use of the word 'buck' needed here is tied to 'up', though I remain unsure whether the first letter of the first word is yet quite right

The author has posted an odd distraction by way of justification for the chatterati defence..

'Our first step towards understanding the death of this child should be not to blame social workers but to face the mother's experience of childhood...
Rather than dwelling on the horror, we should try to learn from the killing of Baby P'

I fear I then stopped reading this 'terrific piece', because I was getting my head round any number of crimes that may yet be committed, which I may be in a position to prevent and/or call upon paid professionals to resolve, but which instead I should sit back and observe dispassionately to first fully understand where the perp's coming from such that lessons may be learned.

As opposed to moving asap to stop it happening now, or again.

Which may, to the frustration of some posters, suggest getting back to those persons and systems and persons who make systems that failed before, failed this time and, without some kind of adequate response will fail again.

Hope pondering the dark side of humanity doesn't put a dampener on the Islington dinner parties ce soir. Or give pause to wonder how many other innocents may suffer (and never enjoy a nice Chablis) whilst good men... and women... engage in endless debate.

Gaurdian - This frenzy of hatred is a disaster for children at risk

I agree, if you mean the immediate, knee jerk frenzy of one media extreme (a sorry Guardian default these days) and its supporters against another, without actually addressing sensibly the problem of how protect at risk children now and in the future.

The tabloids are a fact of life, unfortunately. And equally at fault in using this, latest, situation to do the only thing their ratings require, namely stir up the mob.

However, two wrongs do not make a right, and getting distracted by, or using their behaviour as a distraction from the core issue, is disingenuous at best.

Ms. Toynbee, you are, lord knows why, in a position of power, if only through the influence and reach of these pages.

I can only thank heavens that you have no direct responsibility over the future of my children's generation if the immediate reaction to a catastrophic failure is to dive off and seek out those not helping the cause of sweeping the actions of those who have failed under the carpet.

Sadly, this role is still being ably carried out as we speak from Ed Balls up... and down... as more fingers point at ever more stats like a stat makes a damn bit of difference to a dead child.

As with any job, there are good workers and not good ones. In my line of work the not good ones usually don't progress too far and/or end up in other employment. And the worse that happens if they remain is profits are lower.

It would appear that across public service different systems, and standards, apply (well, other than internally in top level where you can bully scores of staff out of your departments at whim for not bearing a 'team player' with a single shriek or lob of a mobile phone. Naomi Campbell should go for high office), but the consequences can be more severe, and enduring, if not allowed to be resolved.

It seems a simple, inconvenient fact that, under the same council regime, under the same government of all the talents, with all the same, lame defences I read here, it took but 8 years for no more lessons to be learned than I believe will be this time, as the backside-coverers and excuse makers scamper about the print media and airwaves cited 'successfully-followed' procedures.

The system is failing, if not an ex-system. It needs changing. Deal with it.

Telegraph - Parents should be allowed to smack without ending up in a police cell

Telegraph - Ofsted points out failures - but too late for Baby P - What does that Of- prefix stand for? Obfuscate?

The Boy in the Bubble

I seldom post links to blogs because of reply posts, but this seemed worth it:

My response to the Telegraph journalist: the past is another country, think positive

'I read the Guardian every day ... on the web. I can't remember when I last bought a newspaper and can't imagine when I next will.

I bet newspapers in the '90s never thought they'd be in direct competition with the BBC. news.bbc.co.uk is the other newspaper I read every day.'

Have to agree I am intrigued as the the business model when I get all my news online, free. But I do try and ensure the spread I read is... more varied.

Though the thought of the Guardian and Aunty competing for his soul is fun.

Living la vida London... in the media... on £1

Inspired by a lady not in London, but now with a book, I noted this:

Cheap thrills: Can you live on a pound a day?

Whilst often entertaining, and possibly in part educational, I seldom find these things very realistic, not that this worries a media desperate for 'stories'.

Can't put it better than these posters:

"No you can't live in a pound a day. You can live on a pound a day for a few days as long as you know after that you will be living on several hundred pounds a day."

"£1 a day?? Very apt for the paper to run this article a day after they put the cover price up by 25%, from 80p to.... you guessed it, a £1! I'll try and see if the Independent can provide me with all the essentials I need for the day."*

Another 'challenge', much like many I see in the eco-field, that only work because of their finite nature, ignoring creating genuine realities, and I wonder how insiprational for being dropped like hot potatoes once over and the media round begins.

*I might add, rather suicidedly in a monetary sense, that my online experience has not been affected, remaining, for now... free.