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.