On Thursday (15/12) a by-election took place in the parliamentary constituency of Feltham and Heston. It offered voters in West London the opportunity to cast their verdicts of over eighteen months of the Con Dem nation. The voters chose to overwhelmingly reject the coalition, with both the Tories and Liberal Democrats taking a massive hit.
Unsurprisingly, the broadcasters opted to make the lousy turnout of 28 percent the story of the election. One could almost sense their disappointment that they had to concede the poor turnout was due to stormy weather and the proximity to Christmas, when a big story about political disengagement throughout the public would have been more desirable.
There were few surprises in how the parties responded to the result. It gave Labour the chance to remind the public that Tory policies were "hurting, but not working". There is truth to that claim: Tory cuts, leading to more unemployment, less tax revenue and more benefit payments, therefore putting government finances under more pressure, will not help Britain in the short or long term.
The Tories' responses ranged from the very dignified speech by their defeated candidate Mark Bowen, who paid tribute to the late Feltham and Heston MP, Alan Keen, to the sour grapes from Baroness Warsi, who complained of the election being won with just 12,000 votes. That response is evidence in itself as to how bitterly disappointed the Tories are with the result. Off the back of a fortnight when David Cameron went on a European wrecking mission, much to the delight of the press and a reasonably Euro-sceptic public, little gloss can be put on the 8.4 percent swing to Labour.
Meanwhile, Simon Hughes, the straight-talking Liberal Democrat, somewhat arrogantly conceded the government losses are to be expected when in government. There was no suggestion of an inquest to find out why the voters are deserting the Con Dems, despite their repeated claim of how they are trying to clean up the mess they 'inherited' from the last government. (One of the things I learned from the Feltham and Heston by-election coverage is they still fail to realise the electorate is turned off by the 'inherited mess' line of argument. If I have realised that, why are party strategists yet to do so?)
Unless the Liberal Democrats are more prepared to look inwards at why they are losing so many voters, then the 5.87 percent they polled in Feltham and Heston will become the norm. There is no point being arrogant about the trappings of power, when a 'generation of voters' have been lost. The loss of a 'generation of voters' are not my words, but the words of Liberal Democrat MP, Adrian Sanders.
It is true that governments often fare badly in by-elections, but they usually have to become unpopular first. Labour continued to sweep up by-election post successes, even after their post-1997 election victory. The Feltham and Heston result suggests the Con Dem coalition is already losing the public, with Labour making a comeback.
Election summary; Feltham and Heston 2011: BBC NEWS
Friday 16 December 2011
Saturday 19 November 2011
Con-Dem government sell Northern Rock at a loss
The incompetent Tory-led government have sold Northern Rock - the bank rescued by their predecessors during the credit crisis. The price at just £747 million is almost half the £1.4 billion invested by the taxpayer, though there is the possibility of a further £280 million. Angry? You should be.
Over thirty years, the Tories have repeatedly shown they have failed to learn from history and are doomed to repeat their own mistakes. In the same way they handed over Britain's utilities for the financial equivalent of peanuts in the 1980s and 1990s (those utilities that now change hands for billions, and charge their customers extortionate fees), they handed over the bank, almost at the first opportunity.
If a director of your company paid to acquire a struggling company, steadied the ship, then sold it for less than paid for it, would you have confidence in that director? No you would not. And I do not have faith in this government.
Over thirty years, the Tories have repeatedly shown they have failed to learn from history and are doomed to repeat their own mistakes. In the same way they handed over Britain's utilities for the financial equivalent of peanuts in the 1980s and 1990s (those utilities that now change hands for billions, and charge their customers extortionate fees), they handed over the bank, almost at the first opportunity.
If a director of your company paid to acquire a struggling company, steadied the ship, then sold it for less than paid for it, would you have confidence in that director? No you would not. And I do not have faith in this government.
Chiles and Bleakley lose Daybreak gig
After some rather poor ratings for ITV's Daybreak, the finger of blame has finally been directed towards the overexposed presenting duo of Christine Bleakley and Adrian Chiles. It has been reported in the press that they have fallen on their swords and will no longer present the breakfast programme.
Christine Bleakley, I know little about outside of her television work but seems harmless enough. Chiles, the slightly grumpy person who used to present Match of the Day 2, has shown more than a glimpse of character on his own Sunday evening television programme.
The problem was never the duo themselves, but a combination of pay and height of expectation from the pairing. ITV paid them a fortune to present Daybreak, off the back of their work on The One Show. The lesson to be learned is that before paying people a small fortune to present a programme, check whether the programme they presented before is genuinely popular or only watched because there is little else worth watching at the time!
Christine Bleakley, I know little about outside of her television work but seems harmless enough. Chiles, the slightly grumpy person who used to present Match of the Day 2, has shown more than a glimpse of character on his own Sunday evening television programme.
The problem was never the duo themselves, but a combination of pay and height of expectation from the pairing. ITV paid them a fortune to present Daybreak, off the back of their work on The One Show. The lesson to be learned is that before paying people a small fortune to present a programme, check whether the programme they presented before is genuinely popular or only watched because there is little else worth watching at the time!
Wednesday 16 November 2011
Sir Cliff Richard songs banned by new 60s radio station
He has sang on pop records spanning six decades, but there is no place for Sir Cliff Richard on a new 1960s radio station being spawned by Absolute Radio.
Quoted in the Daily Mail, presenter Pete Mitchell said: ‘His songs don't fit the cool sound of the swinging sixties we're trying to create on our new station'. In other words, his songs do not fit the conceptualisation of what is 'cool' by Absolute Radio.
For those who are new to Absolute Radio, here is a brief introduction. It is the current name for the former Virgin Radio, launched in the 1990s as an at-the-time much needed radio station to address the adult-oriented rock (AOR) much-neglected elsewhere on the radio.
The station already has 1980s and 1990s versions on digital radio. I listen to both sometimes, and they are good. The 1990s version does at times resemble a bad 1990s Britpop mixtape, with the inevitable top guns Blur, Oasis and Pulp, but also plays the work of many other acts caught up in the wave, some of which were awful.
All things considered, Sir Cliff is not typical of what Absolute will be playing to their target audience (expect lots of Beatles and Kinks). And I see no reason why such a big deal has been made out of the fact he will be among a number of singers who will not be finding their way on Absolute. So why make a big deal about it? The station launches on November 22nd. I will leave it at that.
Quoted in the Daily Mail, presenter Pete Mitchell said: ‘His songs don't fit the cool sound of the swinging sixties we're trying to create on our new station'. In other words, his songs do not fit the conceptualisation of what is 'cool' by Absolute Radio.
For those who are new to Absolute Radio, here is a brief introduction. It is the current name for the former Virgin Radio, launched in the 1990s as an at-the-time much needed radio station to address the adult-oriented rock (AOR) much-neglected elsewhere on the radio.
The station already has 1980s and 1990s versions on digital radio. I listen to both sometimes, and they are good. The 1990s version does at times resemble a bad 1990s Britpop mixtape, with the inevitable top guns Blur, Oasis and Pulp, but also plays the work of many other acts caught up in the wave, some of which were awful.
All things considered, Sir Cliff is not typical of what Absolute will be playing to their target audience (expect lots of Beatles and Kinks). And I see no reason why such a big deal has been made out of the fact he will be among a number of singers who will not be finding their way on Absolute. So why make a big deal about it? The station launches on November 22nd. I will leave it at that.
Introducing Vulture Funds
Picture the scene: you are broke, you need money, you borrow money from someone who knows you cannot afford to pay it back, who then kindly sues you for 100 times what you borrowed. This BBC report explains the controversy of a character called Peter Grossman, who runs what the BBC describes as a 'vulture fund which buys up the debts of poor nations cheaply and then sues for 10 or 100 times what they paid for them'.
At a time when there is a global financial crisis, such a practice is a highly unappetising thought. It is also a reminder that while many people around the world suffer financially, there are people out there who are profiting from the misery of others.
Illegal in the UK, charities are calling for a block on Grossman's gross attempt to sue the DR Congo for £100m through a loophole that enables him to make the claim in Jersey.
And rightfully so.
At a time when there is a global financial crisis, such a practice is a highly unappetising thought. It is also a reminder that while many people around the world suffer financially, there are people out there who are profiting from the misery of others.
Illegal in the UK, charities are calling for a block on Grossman's gross attempt to sue the DR Congo for £100m through a loophole that enables him to make the claim in Jersey.
And rightfully so.
Tuesday 30 August 2011
Twitter, Facebook and the wreckage of past Internet fads
There is no doubting Twitter has captured the imaginations of millions of people throughout the world. It has provided something people never knew they needed, yet made a part of their life. In a way it is much like text messaging, but the result is altogether more public. The great noise of thousands upon thousands of people trying to be noticed means that Twitter is possibly the closest reflection of human nature yet to manifest on the Internet.
I have been inspired by an article about social networking, written by a dear friend and available here because in a way we are all discovering Twitter more or less at the same time. Every Internet phenomenon has a spike of interest, and Twitter is arguably in the middle of its spike. We are all learning how to write as succinct as possible (a skill never over-rated), how to use hashtags, and how to use online applications designed to optimise the Twitter experience.
Unlike my friend, I do not feel that those who I have followed on Twitter and vice-versa are my friends. Often the dynamic is a silent one, that of two interested parties following each other's tweets. It is quite nice when a lot of conversing occurs with someone I have never met though, and better still to find others who have the same outlook of the world.
Twitter seems to be having a growing influence on my Internet activity at precisely the time my interest in Facebook is waning. If you turn back the clock two years, Facebook was making all the headlines. Rightly so; I will never underestimate Facebook - it did more to bring long lost friends and family back to me than any family or school reunion could ever have done. I am literally back in touch with people I have not spoken to in almost 15 years. That is powerful stuff.
The problem with Internet phenomenons is they seem to have a life cycle. When I first joined Facebook, its design was strictly targeted at university students, to socialise outside of lectures online and arrange events. Once it burst through those borders there was no stopping it. Anyone and everyone with an Internet connection signed up, resulting in mass reunions, new friendships, love, new modes of communication, photo sharing, game playing, stalking, abuse and in some cases psychotic behaviour. Oh dear, that last sentence did not quite go to plan.
Facebook's success, you see, is also its problem. It is a fairly open directory, but one which explains in itself why people used to take themselves out of telephone directories back in the days when we used the telephone. There have been some less pleasant episodes. I personally have witnessed good friends of mine, er, shall I say... 'exhibit' themselves too much (and lose their account in the process due to Facebook's rather strict tits, arse and knob policy). Others have used it to call out their enemies - in capital letters usually, and in a manner which would shame a teenager. Other people, who I thought were decent, gave away a few of their rather less palatable political views on there leaving me having to play the diplomat.
Then I know one or two people who simply could not hack the brutal nature of Facebook. I know Facebook is supposed to be 'not real' (tell that to those who have been reunited with old pals) but I still wonder how some people can be so unemotional about pruning their friends lists, sending a few 'transitional' friends to the cyber scrapyard, once they decide they went a bit too far during their (early) 'adding phase'. If I have ever removed anyone, it was only because they were intolerable. It would not be possible for me to unemotionally remove someone, for behind the PC that is a real person. Being on the receiving end of it is hard, but I am big enough to handle that, as well as the multitude of other spirit-crushing issues the website can create. Many cannot, and after a hissy fit take themselves off forever.
Whatever the case, for me Facebook has become a bit of a haven for exhibitionists and photographs of them gurning at parties. For every friend I seem to lose on Facebook via the graveyard procedure summarised above, I gain one on Twitter. My Twitter activity increases by the day; my Facebook activity declines. The only reason I persevere with Facebook is because that it where my closest friends reside - Twitter remains too wordy for some. Ultimately though, Facebook has peaked for me. Any old friends interested in signing up have already done so.
Yet I can already see the first signs of a similar downturn in Twitter. The problem is when something becomes popular the bulk of the public get on board, but also so do the bulk of the idiots. By idiots, I mean the sort of people who managed to get a topic about beating up women 'trending' a few weeks ago. (Trending is a reference to a topic which is being 'tweeted' a lot - Twitter has created a new vocabulary.) Also, I have identified some other potential problems.
I have already witnessed people trying to gain attention by being controversial. Others flood the timeline with tweet after tweet of nonsense. There is also the feeling at times of being ignored, especially when someone with not a great deal of followers ignores a direct message. Then there are the numerous spammers, who follow you because you mentioned something in a tweet vaguely related to something they happen to sell. Then there are those unscrupulous sorts who follow to get a follow, then withdraw their follow once they have got their follow. In short, Twitter is in danger of going bad as well.
As things stand I am still loving the Twitter experience. However, as with Facebook, those running Twitter will do well to keep in mind Myspace, Napster and other examples which are still around but are also thought of in terms of Internet history. I still remember the time my Internet searches were carried out using Alta Vista, on my Netscape Navigator browser. How times change.
I have been inspired by an article about social networking, written by a dear friend and available here because in a way we are all discovering Twitter more or less at the same time. Every Internet phenomenon has a spike of interest, and Twitter is arguably in the middle of its spike. We are all learning how to write as succinct as possible (a skill never over-rated), how to use hashtags, and how to use online applications designed to optimise the Twitter experience.
Unlike my friend, I do not feel that those who I have followed on Twitter and vice-versa are my friends. Often the dynamic is a silent one, that of two interested parties following each other's tweets. It is quite nice when a lot of conversing occurs with someone I have never met though, and better still to find others who have the same outlook of the world.
Twitter seems to be having a growing influence on my Internet activity at precisely the time my interest in Facebook is waning. If you turn back the clock two years, Facebook was making all the headlines. Rightly so; I will never underestimate Facebook - it did more to bring long lost friends and family back to me than any family or school reunion could ever have done. I am literally back in touch with people I have not spoken to in almost 15 years. That is powerful stuff.
The problem with Internet phenomenons is they seem to have a life cycle. When I first joined Facebook, its design was strictly targeted at university students, to socialise outside of lectures online and arrange events. Once it burst through those borders there was no stopping it. Anyone and everyone with an Internet connection signed up, resulting in mass reunions, new friendships, love, new modes of communication, photo sharing, game playing, stalking, abuse and in some cases psychotic behaviour. Oh dear, that last sentence did not quite go to plan.
Facebook's success, you see, is also its problem. It is a fairly open directory, but one which explains in itself why people used to take themselves out of telephone directories back in the days when we used the telephone. There have been some less pleasant episodes. I personally have witnessed good friends of mine, er, shall I say... 'exhibit' themselves too much (and lose their account in the process due to Facebook's rather strict tits, arse and knob policy). Others have used it to call out their enemies - in capital letters usually, and in a manner which would shame a teenager. Other people, who I thought were decent, gave away a few of their rather less palatable political views on there leaving me having to play the diplomat.
Then I know one or two people who simply could not hack the brutal nature of Facebook. I know Facebook is supposed to be 'not real' (tell that to those who have been reunited with old pals) but I still wonder how some people can be so unemotional about pruning their friends lists, sending a few 'transitional' friends to the cyber scrapyard, once they decide they went a bit too far during their (early) 'adding phase'. If I have ever removed anyone, it was only because they were intolerable. It would not be possible for me to unemotionally remove someone, for behind the PC that is a real person. Being on the receiving end of it is hard, but I am big enough to handle that, as well as the multitude of other spirit-crushing issues the website can create. Many cannot, and after a hissy fit take themselves off forever.
Whatever the case, for me Facebook has become a bit of a haven for exhibitionists and photographs of them gurning at parties. For every friend I seem to lose on Facebook via the graveyard procedure summarised above, I gain one on Twitter. My Twitter activity increases by the day; my Facebook activity declines. The only reason I persevere with Facebook is because that it where my closest friends reside - Twitter remains too wordy for some. Ultimately though, Facebook has peaked for me. Any old friends interested in signing up have already done so.
Yet I can already see the first signs of a similar downturn in Twitter. The problem is when something becomes popular the bulk of the public get on board, but also so do the bulk of the idiots. By idiots, I mean the sort of people who managed to get a topic about beating up women 'trending' a few weeks ago. (Trending is a reference to a topic which is being 'tweeted' a lot - Twitter has created a new vocabulary.) Also, I have identified some other potential problems.
I have already witnessed people trying to gain attention by being controversial. Others flood the timeline with tweet after tweet of nonsense. There is also the feeling at times of being ignored, especially when someone with not a great deal of followers ignores a direct message. Then there are the numerous spammers, who follow you because you mentioned something in a tweet vaguely related to something they happen to sell. Then there are those unscrupulous sorts who follow to get a follow, then withdraw their follow once they have got their follow. In short, Twitter is in danger of going bad as well.
As things stand I am still loving the Twitter experience. However, as with Facebook, those running Twitter will do well to keep in mind Myspace, Napster and other examples which are still around but are also thought of in terms of Internet history. I still remember the time my Internet searches were carried out using Alta Vista, on my Netscape Navigator browser. How times change.
Monday 29 August 2011
Where has all the money gone? (Part Two)
Almost a month has passed since I pondered the causes of all the seemingly missing money in the world. Apart from the reminding ourselves countries have run out of cash, that banks are not flush with cash and the general public certainly have little in their pockets, nothing is clearer. As a self-certified non-economist, the best I can do is produce crude theories. Here is one such theory.
I see the world as a massive game of poker. And it follows logically that there are only so many chips on the table. We all know that governments try to avoid printing money because it makes bad things happen, such as hyperinflation. So there is always a limited number of chips.
Eventually one person ends up with all the chips in the game of poker. As far as I can make out, something remarkably similar has happened to the world financial fluidity. Of course this game of global poker is so large no individual ends up with all the chips as they would in poker, but some definitely end up with greater piles than others. Worse than that, just as with poker, when someone has a big pile of chips, it becomes easier for them to take a great deal more chips from others.
It is enough to convince me that the theory of economic success is in fact a fallacy. A successful company is based on a flawed notion that those industries and companies (who, in poker analogy, have most of the chips) must keep increasing their income year-on-year. For example, company X may make a £275m profit on the year, but this is considered failure because the previous year they made £300m. What happens when all this money is lying around static in corporations? What happens when someone retires as a Chief Executive with more money than he or she will ever be able to spend?
The answer is we end up with money that is fenced out of the system and leads to a constraining of future economic success, as well as the limitation of the economic capability of those who have to share the rest of the shrinking pot between ourselves.
What does everyone else think? Have I got it completely wide of the mark - as Tories with economic qualifications will take great delight in saying I have? I may not be an economist but I do not think so. More to follow on this no doubt....
I see the world as a massive game of poker. And it follows logically that there are only so many chips on the table. We all know that governments try to avoid printing money because it makes bad things happen, such as hyperinflation. So there is always a limited number of chips.
Eventually one person ends up with all the chips in the game of poker. As far as I can make out, something remarkably similar has happened to the world financial fluidity. Of course this game of global poker is so large no individual ends up with all the chips as they would in poker, but some definitely end up with greater piles than others. Worse than that, just as with poker, when someone has a big pile of chips, it becomes easier for them to take a great deal more chips from others.
It is enough to convince me that the theory of economic success is in fact a fallacy. A successful company is based on a flawed notion that those industries and companies (who, in poker analogy, have most of the chips) must keep increasing their income year-on-year. For example, company X may make a £275m profit on the year, but this is considered failure because the previous year they made £300m. What happens when all this money is lying around static in corporations? What happens when someone retires as a Chief Executive with more money than he or she will ever be able to spend?
The answer is we end up with money that is fenced out of the system and leads to a constraining of future economic success, as well as the limitation of the economic capability of those who have to share the rest of the shrinking pot between ourselves.
What does everyone else think? Have I got it completely wide of the mark - as Tories with economic qualifications will take great delight in saying I have? I may not be an economist but I do not think so. More to follow on this no doubt....
Monday 22 August 2011
Analysis: How the England Riots split the left
This week the unthinkable happened - I was accused of being a Tory. I was not alone. In his excellent Friday night Talksport broadcast, leftist broadcaster George Galloway had the same absurd allegation levelled against him during an otherwise cordial exchange with a dissenting phone caller. Has left suddenly become the new right? And where are these cruel accusations coming from all of a sudden.
The explanation is as follows; the recent riots that occurred throughout England have created a point of intellectual separation between the liberal left and the more authoritarian left. By authoritarian, I do not mean the hardline position inspired by Stalin that the liberal left seem to be unaware of - remember, according to these types, the call for sanctions against those causing disorder is supposedly the preserve of Tories. Instead, I mean those who actually want to see the law applied substantively to the kinds of people who burn homes and businesses, attack and violate passers-by and, in some cases, commit murder.
The problem is there are some who believe that because the riots largely occurred in deprived areas, home to the impoverished, that in some way the perpetrators should be sympathised with. This position however represents an incorrect diagnosis of the cause of the riots as well as a misunderstanding of the character of leftist protesting and campaigning, both of which will be summarised in turn.
First, the diagnosis: This was not a confrontation against elites or capitalism. If it was, those rioters would not have been burning the cars and homes of their neighbours. Neither would they have been vandalising and looting corner shops, run by people working as many hours as possible to make ends meet. This was a confrontation against their fellow citizens.
Second, the position of the good leftist: It is virtuous for an active citizen to stand up for those who work hard for a living, as well as those who want to contribute to society but find themselves in a position of inequality, in turn lacking both financial and social capital. This is how workers' movements came about. It means supporting those who rightly condemned the riots, those who were killed and those who had their rather small enterprises torched.
To condemn the rioters as 'reliant on benefits' and without direction is not to metamorphisise into a Tory, nor is it to condemn those who face genuine need for welfare. Furthermore, this position of disapproval does not preclude the overlooking of the real social causes of the recent troubles, which should result in a review of youth unemployment and access to education.
It is dispiriting though that some people handle deprivation inappropriately, criminally and irresponsibly by becoming a predatory force upon those around them. Solidarity during these tough times is not defined by violating your own equals.
It is a shame those who are extreme liberal, or will stop at nothing to find an excuse for a scrap, cannot identify with this. Instead they choose to erroneously defend the actions of these rioters through the prism of left politics, blaming an admittedly incompetent government when these problems have been decades in the making. It is true however that Thatcherite politics resulted in the closure of many of the workshops of this once-great island. The jobs they created could help a few of the vast numbers of 18 to 24 year-olds currently out of work.
In the meantime, we have to deal with the predators and the rioters, safe in the knowledge that those in government setting the judicial discourse will have no objections to any accusations of them being Tories!
The explanation is as follows; the recent riots that occurred throughout England have created a point of intellectual separation between the liberal left and the more authoritarian left. By authoritarian, I do not mean the hardline position inspired by Stalin that the liberal left seem to be unaware of - remember, according to these types, the call for sanctions against those causing disorder is supposedly the preserve of Tories. Instead, I mean those who actually want to see the law applied substantively to the kinds of people who burn homes and businesses, attack and violate passers-by and, in some cases, commit murder.
The problem is there are some who believe that because the riots largely occurred in deprived areas, home to the impoverished, that in some way the perpetrators should be sympathised with. This position however represents an incorrect diagnosis of the cause of the riots as well as a misunderstanding of the character of leftist protesting and campaigning, both of which will be summarised in turn.
First, the diagnosis: This was not a confrontation against elites or capitalism. If it was, those rioters would not have been burning the cars and homes of their neighbours. Neither would they have been vandalising and looting corner shops, run by people working as many hours as possible to make ends meet. This was a confrontation against their fellow citizens.
Second, the position of the good leftist: It is virtuous for an active citizen to stand up for those who work hard for a living, as well as those who want to contribute to society but find themselves in a position of inequality, in turn lacking both financial and social capital. This is how workers' movements came about. It means supporting those who rightly condemned the riots, those who were killed and those who had their rather small enterprises torched.
To condemn the rioters as 'reliant on benefits' and without direction is not to metamorphisise into a Tory, nor is it to condemn those who face genuine need for welfare. Furthermore, this position of disapproval does not preclude the overlooking of the real social causes of the recent troubles, which should result in a review of youth unemployment and access to education.
It is dispiriting though that some people handle deprivation inappropriately, criminally and irresponsibly by becoming a predatory force upon those around them. Solidarity during these tough times is not defined by violating your own equals.
It is a shame those who are extreme liberal, or will stop at nothing to find an excuse for a scrap, cannot identify with this. Instead they choose to erroneously defend the actions of these rioters through the prism of left politics, blaming an admittedly incompetent government when these problems have been decades in the making. It is true however that Thatcherite politics resulted in the closure of many of the workshops of this once-great island. The jobs they created could help a few of the vast numbers of 18 to 24 year-olds currently out of work.
In the meantime, we have to deal with the predators and the rioters, safe in the knowledge that those in government setting the judicial discourse will have no objections to any accusations of them being Tories!
Monday 15 August 2011
Red letter day: singer Adele is looking for love
My rather dull life has been lifted by the news that the lovely singer Adele is looking for someone to love, or as The Sun describes it "someone to sleep with". Well, they have to sell the article to their audience I suppose.
If the article is anything to go by, the main qualification for any potential lover is their ability to make her laugh. This is worrying, because I thought the only thing I needed to do was keep myself looking youthful and fresh. It turns out I need a personality transplant as well - and I do not know anyone who provides such a service. Life is unfair!
Thankfully I have been working on this skill myself - trying to be funny - and quite often succeeding at it unintentionally as well. I have no idea if that is a good thing. I had to work at my humour though because nearly every female I asked about desirable traits replied "sense of humour" first and foremost. With that in mind, The Sun has done well to create a story from some rather unsurprising news that a popular singer also likes someone with a sense of humour.
In any case I will make my pitch and hope I get a response. A lot of people criticise how Adele looks because she is not a stick-thin "beauty" but I have always thought the size of lady is the difference between her looking like a girl or a hot young woman, and the former does little for me. I like the way Adele looks and sounds. She appeals to me.
She sounds great in interviews as well, bubbly and full of personality. She has a grounded nature which belies the massive success she has achieved already in her life. I would adore her and ask nothing of her. In the unlikely event we were ever married, far from her asking me to sign a pre-nuptial agreement, I would insist on signing one myself.
Back to reality, the humour is still a work in progress. Anyone know any good jokes?
If the article is anything to go by, the main qualification for any potential lover is their ability to make her laugh. This is worrying, because I thought the only thing I needed to do was keep myself looking youthful and fresh. It turns out I need a personality transplant as well - and I do not know anyone who provides such a service. Life is unfair!
Thankfully I have been working on this skill myself - trying to be funny - and quite often succeeding at it unintentionally as well. I have no idea if that is a good thing. I had to work at my humour though because nearly every female I asked about desirable traits replied "sense of humour" first and foremost. With that in mind, The Sun has done well to create a story from some rather unsurprising news that a popular singer also likes someone with a sense of humour.
In any case I will make my pitch and hope I get a response. A lot of people criticise how Adele looks because she is not a stick-thin "beauty" but I have always thought the size of lady is the difference between her looking like a girl or a hot young woman, and the former does little for me. I like the way Adele looks and sounds. She appeals to me.
She sounds great in interviews as well, bubbly and full of personality. She has a grounded nature which belies the massive success she has achieved already in her life. I would adore her and ask nothing of her. In the unlikely event we were ever married, far from her asking me to sign a pre-nuptial agreement, I would insist on signing one myself.
Back to reality, the humour is still a work in progress. Anyone know any good jokes?
Thoughts about social backdrop of England riots
The English youth of today had many labels applied to them over the past week, including fickle, feckless, lazy, angry and violent. It has even been suggested, hopefully in jest, they lack the determination to sustain a riot for more than a couple of days. Whatever the labels, following last week's riots, the public have now taken a social role of judgement over the events.
As people try to make sense of what they witnessed, whether live or on the television, many questions are now being contemplated. Was there a cause behind the riots? Were the riots indicative of societal breakdown. Are particular age groups and races more implicated than others by what occurred? Many words have already been spilled, at times recklessly, trying to ascertain the answers.
The term 'riots' is being used as a blanket term, which covers a number of activities of variable severity. The riots followed a peaceful protest over a fatal police shooting. They included battles with riot police, the burning of cars, the burning of homes, the burning of small businesses, smashing shop windows, looting and murder. No doubt there were ringleaders, participants and those there to make up the numbers. It is not easy to sort the alienated in society from the scum.
Those who are definitely scum include thugs who murdered those protecting their property, who burned down retail outlets and smashed up homes. No amount of accusations that describing people as 'scum' dehumanises them will shift me from that position. These people are criminals, and their punishments must reflect their deeds.
The problem is what to do with those who committed lesser crimes of varying severity. One person has already been jailed for stealing bottled water, its seriousness being contextualised by the rioting that facilitated the theft. Then, the future needs to be dealt with and how to prevent more rioting.
Disorder has rarely had legitimacy in Britain as a means of bringing about change, even when the cause seems apparently clear, for example the vandalism that occurred on the same day as peaceful anti-cuts protests in London. When there is no definable cause, the chance of significant public sympathy may as well be zero.
Excuses for the disorder ranged from stealing from the rich, getting goods from wealthy people that can be sold on, loose definitions of 'respect' and 'having a laugh'. Without a unified cause, it is difficult to see how their actions can be looked upon with anything other than contempt.
In the absence of an overall cause, the only consistent theme is the acquisition of assets. Whether it is youths hoping to sell on their gains or people rioting through general anger regarding the rich/poor divide, the concept of what someone does not have is the one which recurs the most.
This is a capitalist society built on desired goods, ownership and possessions. Owning particular goods are viewed as a benchmark of success, which makes those in possession more attractive to potential peers and partners. The youngest in society, trying to write their futures, are inevitably going to be the most ambitious in pursuing material goods to achieve their ends. It should be no surprise that when there are no jobs for them and no scope to further their education they begin to live their lives outside of the law.
The tough standards which this society is constrained by create much unhappiness. One columnist described the riots as being an England he "didn't recognise." Sadly, I recognised it very well. I recognise it from the jobs I have had in a public facing role. I recognise it from the unpleasantness I have to witness as a user of public transport at various times of the day. England has more of its fair share of nice people, but we have to accept we have some very nasty citizens in our midst as well who will stop at nothing to enrich their own lives and make the lives of others a misery.
Other observers are trying to frame last week's trouble in terms of colour in a cheap attempt to package the riots as a black problem. This is nonsense. An attempt to arouse the public into a race conflict is both dangerous and unnecessary. Nobody needs to be told that a significant proportion of the rioters were black. Instead, people need to be told the reasons a significant proportion of the rioters were black.
There are two immediate theories that spring to mind. Firstly, the ever-difficult relationship between young black people and the police. Secondly, and even more illuminating, is that the location of the riots were in the most deprived areas of the country - and these areas of deprivation have a high percentage of black people living there. These hard facts will not prevent knuckledraggers from continuing to force-feed idiots a fallacy that criminality is determined by skin colour.
The government response can hardly be said to be any more intelligent either. David Cameron is typically talking tough and has brought in respected American 'super cop' William Bratton to advise on dealing with the rioting. This move has been widely criticised as being disrespectful to British police forces. To that, criticism can be added that the riots have happened, were brought under control, and at the very least equal attention must now be given to social solutions.
Is there a strategy for making young people more active in society? Will there be a reversal of closures to youth centres and the scrapping of Educational Maintenance Allowance? What can be done to create more employment for our excluded youth? The answer is there will probably be no such strategy when it is easier to strut around and give indirect satisfaction to the prejudiced and the racist with promises of tough sanctions.
As people try to make sense of what they witnessed, whether live or on the television, many questions are now being contemplated. Was there a cause behind the riots? Were the riots indicative of societal breakdown. Are particular age groups and races more implicated than others by what occurred? Many words have already been spilled, at times recklessly, trying to ascertain the answers.
The term 'riots' is being used as a blanket term, which covers a number of activities of variable severity. The riots followed a peaceful protest over a fatal police shooting. They included battles with riot police, the burning of cars, the burning of homes, the burning of small businesses, smashing shop windows, looting and murder. No doubt there were ringleaders, participants and those there to make up the numbers. It is not easy to sort the alienated in society from the scum.
Those who are definitely scum include thugs who murdered those protecting their property, who burned down retail outlets and smashed up homes. No amount of accusations that describing people as 'scum' dehumanises them will shift me from that position. These people are criminals, and their punishments must reflect their deeds.
The problem is what to do with those who committed lesser crimes of varying severity. One person has already been jailed for stealing bottled water, its seriousness being contextualised by the rioting that facilitated the theft. Then, the future needs to be dealt with and how to prevent more rioting.
Disorder has rarely had legitimacy in Britain as a means of bringing about change, even when the cause seems apparently clear, for example the vandalism that occurred on the same day as peaceful anti-cuts protests in London. When there is no definable cause, the chance of significant public sympathy may as well be zero.
Excuses for the disorder ranged from stealing from the rich, getting goods from wealthy people that can be sold on, loose definitions of 'respect' and 'having a laugh'. Without a unified cause, it is difficult to see how their actions can be looked upon with anything other than contempt.
In the absence of an overall cause, the only consistent theme is the acquisition of assets. Whether it is youths hoping to sell on their gains or people rioting through general anger regarding the rich/poor divide, the concept of what someone does not have is the one which recurs the most.
This is a capitalist society built on desired goods, ownership and possessions. Owning particular goods are viewed as a benchmark of success, which makes those in possession more attractive to potential peers and partners. The youngest in society, trying to write their futures, are inevitably going to be the most ambitious in pursuing material goods to achieve their ends. It should be no surprise that when there are no jobs for them and no scope to further their education they begin to live their lives outside of the law.
The tough standards which this society is constrained by create much unhappiness. One columnist described the riots as being an England he "didn't recognise." Sadly, I recognised it very well. I recognise it from the jobs I have had in a public facing role. I recognise it from the unpleasantness I have to witness as a user of public transport at various times of the day. England has more of its fair share of nice people, but we have to accept we have some very nasty citizens in our midst as well who will stop at nothing to enrich their own lives and make the lives of others a misery.
Other observers are trying to frame last week's trouble in terms of colour in a cheap attempt to package the riots as a black problem. This is nonsense. An attempt to arouse the public into a race conflict is both dangerous and unnecessary. Nobody needs to be told that a significant proportion of the rioters were black. Instead, people need to be told the reasons a significant proportion of the rioters were black.
There are two immediate theories that spring to mind. Firstly, the ever-difficult relationship between young black people and the police. Secondly, and even more illuminating, is that the location of the riots were in the most deprived areas of the country - and these areas of deprivation have a high percentage of black people living there. These hard facts will not prevent knuckledraggers from continuing to force-feed idiots a fallacy that criminality is determined by skin colour.
The government response can hardly be said to be any more intelligent either. David Cameron is typically talking tough and has brought in respected American 'super cop' William Bratton to advise on dealing with the rioting. This move has been widely criticised as being disrespectful to British police forces. To that, criticism can be added that the riots have happened, were brought under control, and at the very least equal attention must now be given to social solutions.
Is there a strategy for making young people more active in society? Will there be a reversal of closures to youth centres and the scrapping of Educational Maintenance Allowance? What can be done to create more employment for our excluded youth? The answer is there will probably be no such strategy when it is easier to strut around and give indirect satisfaction to the prejudiced and the racist with promises of tough sanctions.
Thursday 11 August 2011
This is our scum - London riots examined
England has been on fire this week. The patience and tolerance of even the most liberal of people were stripped bare as young rioters vandalised, looted and burned the homes and businesses of some of the most deprived towns and cities in the country.
It was a disgraceful display of violence by a rabble of criminals, many of whom we are already discovering have 'previous' as their cases are fast-tracked through the courts. There was no cause. Many could not explain convincingly why they supported the rioting.
One girl attempted to argue she wants her taxes back (she sounded 12). Another said the riots were about about taking resources back from the rich people. One sage was on the BBC arguing the riots were justified because of all the people migrating into the country, i.e. people from Poland. Did he actually see any of the riots, or understand the issue that initiated the first one in Tottenham? In short, these imbeciles have no idea why they are rioting.
Every cloud has a silver lining though, for many proficient criminals are set to be taken off our streets. Great news, if not only for police forces but for law abiding citizens disgusted by what they witnessed in their living rooms.
These views may appear uncompromising, but I am no social conservative who elevates myself above the perceived inferiority below. I grew up on a council estate with others who struggled through the early years of our lives. We made the best out of the hands we were dealt, mostly consisting of similar low cards. And we did it lawfully. I like to think it is people like ourselves most disappointed by the activities of the scumbags, who unapologetically resort to criminality and blame others for their own failures. It has not been easy for any of us, but we avoided violating others.
However I have become intolerant of the views of those who want to see understanding and sympathy. Were they not watching the news? These rioters were not asking for sympathy. They did not want understanding. Many were shamelessly bragging about their actions for the TV cameras and microphones.
I have seen bloggers arguing that labels such as 'scum' dehumanise the offenders. As far as I am concerned, they dehumanise themselves with their behaviour, and by wearing dehumanising hoods and face masks.
Sentencing has to be fair though. Lengthy sentences for offences such as stealing bottles of water are simply unacceptable. Nobody should be locked up for six months for stealing a resource that can be acquired for free in our homes. The sentences must fit the deeds. Arsonists and vandals should be given more porridge in the cells than those who stole water and crisps.
We must also not ignore the social formation that facilitated these riots. Riots may have been arranged via Blackberry phones and Twitter, but we must remember it does not follow that the perpetrators are well off financially. The gap between rich and poor continues to widen, as British governments have spent over three decades sustaining a neo-liberal economic consensus built on private enterprise and market forces.
Also, these Blackberry phones have come down in value over recent months and years. They are frequently bundled in with £30 per month phone contracts, making them one of the few treats affordable to the impoverished as long as they can pass the necessary credit checks. The truth is, most of these people do not own their homes and many do not drive - their Nike Air trainers and fancy telecommunication devices are the only items of value they own - and they like to show them off.
Yet young people continue to be bombarded by messages of consumerism, and the importance of the ownership of goods. However, there is a major problem with youth unemployment in this country. This problem is set to be exacerbated by the number of young people who cannot continue their education because of the abolition of Educational Maintenance Allowance for college students. With no money, no jobs and no hope, it should be no surprise the chickens are coming home to roost. It has been confirmed in a news article most of those charged with riot offences are young, unemployed and male. Even though rioting by idiots is not the answer, wider society ignoring the problem is not an option either.
A good government needs to deal with the immediate problem, which involves mobilising police back on to the streets and ensuring those who work for the emergency services are not made the victims of cuts. Then, steps must be taken to refinance the education of young people. These are the first steps to help us move on from this awful week.
It was a disgraceful display of violence by a rabble of criminals, many of whom we are already discovering have 'previous' as their cases are fast-tracked through the courts. There was no cause. Many could not explain convincingly why they supported the rioting.
One girl attempted to argue she wants her taxes back (she sounded 12). Another said the riots were about about taking resources back from the rich people. One sage was on the BBC arguing the riots were justified because of all the people migrating into the country, i.e. people from Poland. Did he actually see any of the riots, or understand the issue that initiated the first one in Tottenham? In short, these imbeciles have no idea why they are rioting.
Every cloud has a silver lining though, for many proficient criminals are set to be taken off our streets. Great news, if not only for police forces but for law abiding citizens disgusted by what they witnessed in their living rooms.
These views may appear uncompromising, but I am no social conservative who elevates myself above the perceived inferiority below. I grew up on a council estate with others who struggled through the early years of our lives. We made the best out of the hands we were dealt, mostly consisting of similar low cards. And we did it lawfully. I like to think it is people like ourselves most disappointed by the activities of the scumbags, who unapologetically resort to criminality and blame others for their own failures. It has not been easy for any of us, but we avoided violating others.
However I have become intolerant of the views of those who want to see understanding and sympathy. Were they not watching the news? These rioters were not asking for sympathy. They did not want understanding. Many were shamelessly bragging about their actions for the TV cameras and microphones.
I have seen bloggers arguing that labels such as 'scum' dehumanise the offenders. As far as I am concerned, they dehumanise themselves with their behaviour, and by wearing dehumanising hoods and face masks.
Sentencing has to be fair though. Lengthy sentences for offences such as stealing bottles of water are simply unacceptable. Nobody should be locked up for six months for stealing a resource that can be acquired for free in our homes. The sentences must fit the deeds. Arsonists and vandals should be given more porridge in the cells than those who stole water and crisps.
We must also not ignore the social formation that facilitated these riots. Riots may have been arranged via Blackberry phones and Twitter, but we must remember it does not follow that the perpetrators are well off financially. The gap between rich and poor continues to widen, as British governments have spent over three decades sustaining a neo-liberal economic consensus built on private enterprise and market forces.
Also, these Blackberry phones have come down in value over recent months and years. They are frequently bundled in with £30 per month phone contracts, making them one of the few treats affordable to the impoverished as long as they can pass the necessary credit checks. The truth is, most of these people do not own their homes and many do not drive - their Nike Air trainers and fancy telecommunication devices are the only items of value they own - and they like to show them off.
Yet young people continue to be bombarded by messages of consumerism, and the importance of the ownership of goods. However, there is a major problem with youth unemployment in this country. This problem is set to be exacerbated by the number of young people who cannot continue their education because of the abolition of Educational Maintenance Allowance for college students. With no money, no jobs and no hope, it should be no surprise the chickens are coming home to roost. It has been confirmed in a news article most of those charged with riot offences are young, unemployed and male. Even though rioting by idiots is not the answer, wider society ignoring the problem is not an option either.
A good government needs to deal with the immediate problem, which involves mobilising police back on to the streets and ensuring those who work for the emergency services are not made the victims of cuts. Then, steps must be taken to refinance the education of young people. These are the first steps to help us move on from this awful week.
Wednesday 3 August 2011
Where has all the money gone? (Part One)
It seems as though the world has been consumed by a vacuum, which has taken all our money from us. The UK is struggling to make ends meet. The USA legislatures have spent the week scrambling around to increase the country's credit limit. Greece, Portugal and Ireland are among a group of countries that have teetered on the brink of going under because of their debts. Who is owed all this money and where has all the money gone?
Are the debts owed to other countries? If so, which ones? If the USA cannot pay its bills, then I doubt many countries are doing any better. Or maybe these countries have borrowed from the banking sector? That cannot be the case either, as governments had to bail them out for their incompetence.
The problem is I am no economist, so I do not have the answer. It seems as though dollar bills and pound notes have just vanished off the face of the earth. Maybe an economist has an explanation for this. Is it possible for money to just vanish? More reflections to follow later in the week or at the weekend.
Are the debts owed to other countries? If so, which ones? If the USA cannot pay its bills, then I doubt many countries are doing any better. Or maybe these countries have borrowed from the banking sector? That cannot be the case either, as governments had to bail them out for their incompetence.
The problem is I am no economist, so I do not have the answer. It seems as though dollar bills and pound notes have just vanished off the face of the earth. Maybe an economist has an explanation for this. Is it possible for money to just vanish? More reflections to follow later in the week or at the weekend.
How much will the new football season cost?
The new football season is approaching and once again the clubs are ripping off fans with admission prices that would make eyes water across continental Europe. Even fans of League Two side Port Vale can expect to pay a minimum upwards of £20 for a ticket.
The BBC website researchers have been hard at work, producing a summary of ticket prices based on information given to them by the clubs in the four top English leagues and the one relevant league in Scotland. I will let you draw your own conclusions about the obvious methodological flaw, but needless to say in 2011 there are still some football clubs attempting to claim their lowest priced tickets are a mere £10, often based on concessions and special offers.
The issue of admission fees is a topical one. Miniature earthquakes could have been caused in west London by the amount of feet stamping by supporters of Queens Park Rangers because of the increase in their ticket prices. They have been raised to a minimum of £47 for an adult ticket. Ouch.
It could be argued the increased fare to climb aboard the QPR Premier League bandwagon comes with the premium product now being offered at Loftus Road. Last season their visitors in the league included Scunthorpe. Next season they will be hosting Manchester United.
The downside of course is the home team is still QPR, so no fixture will have the same appeal as a match between any two of Manchester United, Manchester City, Arsenal, Liverpool or Chelsea. £47 for QPR versus Wigan? You decide.
The price of football continues to rise because we mugs pay above the market value for tickets, and football clubs in turn pay above the market value for players, the latter being the only winners in all this. Some prices, especially £47 to watch a probable relegation battle, is outrageous. The day will come when fans of all clubs cannot do it anymore.
The BBC website researchers have been hard at work, producing a summary of ticket prices based on information given to them by the clubs in the four top English leagues and the one relevant league in Scotland. I will let you draw your own conclusions about the obvious methodological flaw, but needless to say in 2011 there are still some football clubs attempting to claim their lowest priced tickets are a mere £10, often based on concessions and special offers.
The issue of admission fees is a topical one. Miniature earthquakes could have been caused in west London by the amount of feet stamping by supporters of Queens Park Rangers because of the increase in their ticket prices. They have been raised to a minimum of £47 for an adult ticket. Ouch.
It could be argued the increased fare to climb aboard the QPR Premier League bandwagon comes with the premium product now being offered at Loftus Road. Last season their visitors in the league included Scunthorpe. Next season they will be hosting Manchester United.
The downside of course is the home team is still QPR, so no fixture will have the same appeal as a match between any two of Manchester United, Manchester City, Arsenal, Liverpool or Chelsea. £47 for QPR versus Wigan? You decide.
The price of football continues to rise because we mugs pay above the market value for tickets, and football clubs in turn pay above the market value for players, the latter being the only winners in all this. Some prices, especially £47 to watch a probable relegation battle, is outrageous. The day will come when fans of all clubs cannot do it anymore.
Friday 29 July 2011
Phone-hacking review - July 2011
The phone-hacking scandal continues to keep us amused and entertained while most of us should have been doing something better with our time. Rather than cover the details, here is a slice which covers the most important developments. To put it another way, a bluffer's guide with a little detail included.
1. The scandal has actually been going on for years, but most of the British public - understandably - had a 'tough shit' attitude to it when it was celebrities and politicians having their voicemails hacked by investigative journalists working for newspapers. In other words, it was a scandal, but one only media-types cared about.
2. The 'smoking gun' which turned phone-hacking from a scandal to a storm nobody could put out was the news that murdered teenager Milly Dowler's phone was hacked, while she was still missing. By nightfall my anger had turned to a feeling of non-surprise about the inevitability of it all. The silver lining in this awfully dark cloud is that Rupert Murdoch's empire and its power over the regulatory powers of British government would finally come under scrutiny.
3. The scandal led to typically British gallows humour. Yes, we realise Mystic Meg saw none of this coming, including the closure of the News of the World - so far the greatest day in British publishing history. Hopefully those talented and honest writers out of work will be promptly snapped up by other newspapers.
4. The death of the News of the World has already led to one frightening prospect. Rumours abound our friends at the Daily Mail plan to create a downmarket Sunday tabloid to fill the void created by the News of the World.
5. An early highlight of the scandal was Rupert Murdoch being chased by reporters. Welcome to the world of your papers' victims, Rupert.
6. Another highlight was the archive footage of former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, embracing Rebekah Brooks. Meanwhile a randomer was flapping her arms around like a seal attempting to prevent any filming. The right-wing were all in this one together (read Blair's autobiography and judge for yourself how 'lefty' he was in government).
7. The usuals have been making interesting and valid observations. George Monbiot predicted something along the lines of when the dust settles, we would be just as disillusioned with the role of the Metropolitan Police in their failures regarding dealing with the phone-hacking.
8. The usuals have been embarrassing themselves too. Mel Phillips claimed on her Twitter the campaign against Murdoch was that of anti-Semitism. This is despite the fact I always assumed Murdoch's religion was the mighty Dollar. Let us not forget a dead girl's phone had been hacked. Let us consider that people were concerned about Murdoch's discourse-shaping powers, courtesy of his press and media holdings. Or let us not - it turns out we are just prejudiced and full of hate.
9. Those involved in the Times and ex-News of the World have been saying silly things throughout. David Wooding stated 'never has so many jobs been affected by so few'. Miners' strike, anyone?
10. But prize for grand idiocy goes to Roger Alton. As Executive Editor of The Times, he brought his newspaper into disrepute with his diatribe against the website Mumsnet, describing users of it as fair trade tea drinkers and organic shortbread eaters. As someone against the News of the World's actions myself, I can confirm I do not eat organic shortbread, nor am I female.
11. Many jobs have fallen as a result of the phone-hacking scandal. Rebekah Brooks fell on her sword. High-ranking members of Plod have also accepted their P45s for employing ex-News of the World executives as press officers. Naturally, our Prime Minister, David Cameron, believes the idea of his resignation for the same offence is ridiculous.
12. Thankfully, after all the recent madness, the phone-hacking scandal has now calmed down, which means we will be hearing less of the excellent Tom Watson who has campaigned throughout this scandal. Except.......
13. Yesterday it emerged that Sara Payne, the mother of murdered Sarah Payne, may have had her phone hacked by News of the World. Considering the rag made the campaign for Sarah's Law the centre of their moral universe, it is fitting Tom Watson has described the possibility of Sara's phone being hacked as 'the ultimate betrayal'. We wont be hearing less of Tom after all.
14. So far then we have learned of the culture at the News of the World that was a disgrace. Those people the newspaper claimed to be friends of were betrayed by the rag they trusted. Every revelation that goes by must leave Rebekah Brooks feeling a little more sick; a little more disinclined to get out of bed in the morning.
This summary could not begin to collect up everything that has occurred during the phone-hacking scandal, least of all the interminable committees briefly made interesting by the actions of an attention-seeking idiot. However, there will be plenty more to come. No doubt there will be another update soon.
1. The scandal has actually been going on for years, but most of the British public - understandably - had a 'tough shit' attitude to it when it was celebrities and politicians having their voicemails hacked by investigative journalists working for newspapers. In other words, it was a scandal, but one only media-types cared about.
2. The 'smoking gun' which turned phone-hacking from a scandal to a storm nobody could put out was the news that murdered teenager Milly Dowler's phone was hacked, while she was still missing. By nightfall my anger had turned to a feeling of non-surprise about the inevitability of it all. The silver lining in this awfully dark cloud is that Rupert Murdoch's empire and its power over the regulatory powers of British government would finally come under scrutiny.
3. The scandal led to typically British gallows humour. Yes, we realise Mystic Meg saw none of this coming, including the closure of the News of the World - so far the greatest day in British publishing history. Hopefully those talented and honest writers out of work will be promptly snapped up by other newspapers.
4. The death of the News of the World has already led to one frightening prospect. Rumours abound our friends at the Daily Mail plan to create a downmarket Sunday tabloid to fill the void created by the News of the World.
5. An early highlight of the scandal was Rupert Murdoch being chased by reporters. Welcome to the world of your papers' victims, Rupert.
6. Another highlight was the archive footage of former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, embracing Rebekah Brooks. Meanwhile a randomer was flapping her arms around like a seal attempting to prevent any filming. The right-wing were all in this one together (read Blair's autobiography and judge for yourself how 'lefty' he was in government).
7. The usuals have been making interesting and valid observations. George Monbiot predicted something along the lines of when the dust settles, we would be just as disillusioned with the role of the Metropolitan Police in their failures regarding dealing with the phone-hacking.
8. The usuals have been embarrassing themselves too. Mel Phillips claimed on her Twitter the campaign against Murdoch was that of anti-Semitism. This is despite the fact I always assumed Murdoch's religion was the mighty Dollar. Let us not forget a dead girl's phone had been hacked. Let us consider that people were concerned about Murdoch's discourse-shaping powers, courtesy of his press and media holdings. Or let us not - it turns out we are just prejudiced and full of hate.
9. Those involved in the Times and ex-News of the World have been saying silly things throughout. David Wooding stated 'never has so many jobs been affected by so few'. Miners' strike, anyone?
10. But prize for grand idiocy goes to Roger Alton. As Executive Editor of The Times, he brought his newspaper into disrepute with his diatribe against the website Mumsnet, describing users of it as fair trade tea drinkers and organic shortbread eaters. As someone against the News of the World's actions myself, I can confirm I do not eat organic shortbread, nor am I female.
11. Many jobs have fallen as a result of the phone-hacking scandal. Rebekah Brooks fell on her sword. High-ranking members of Plod have also accepted their P45s for employing ex-News of the World executives as press officers. Naturally, our Prime Minister, David Cameron, believes the idea of his resignation for the same offence is ridiculous.
12. Thankfully, after all the recent madness, the phone-hacking scandal has now calmed down, which means we will be hearing less of the excellent Tom Watson who has campaigned throughout this scandal. Except.......
13. Yesterday it emerged that Sara Payne, the mother of murdered Sarah Payne, may have had her phone hacked by News of the World. Considering the rag made the campaign for Sarah's Law the centre of their moral universe, it is fitting Tom Watson has described the possibility of Sara's phone being hacked as 'the ultimate betrayal'. We wont be hearing less of Tom after all.
14. So far then we have learned of the culture at the News of the World that was a disgrace. Those people the newspaper claimed to be friends of were betrayed by the rag they trusted. Every revelation that goes by must leave Rebekah Brooks feeling a little more sick; a little more disinclined to get out of bed in the morning.
This summary could not begin to collect up everything that has occurred during the phone-hacking scandal, least of all the interminable committees briefly made interesting by the actions of an attention-seeking idiot. However, there will be plenty more to come. No doubt there will be another update soon.
Which women's fashions do men dislike?
Many women spend a lot of time over their appearance. Sometimes it may be to impress someone, most of the time it is simply to look good. Inspired by one of those recent MSN articles-by-numbers (those effortless things their editors throw together on a Friday afternoon), I aim to explain why this article slightly misses the spot in terms of trends men 'hate'. At least this man, anyway.
The article in question has caused uproar. Even allowing for the usual tirades of criticism online articles and posts usually attract, the article has attracted criticism from men and women alike. From men, there are claims the writer Sarah Hecks has simply got wrong what men dislike. From women, the understandable response is they dress for themselves, not for the benefit of men.
With that in mind, I am sure my opinions will barely register - though I am prepared to express them.
Some of the trends Hecks argues men dislike, I do actually (shock, horror) dislike, though I have to admit most of them us men can surely live with. The first picture (number 10) is very showy, but when I see someone wearing something similar on the street, my head tends to move towards the clouds and my thoughts become consumed with the word 'awkward'. Short shorts are great, but they ought to cover up what is necessary.
But other fashions, such as the large beach bag and string bikinis, are fine when used in the right context - on the beach. However, there are some inclusions I for one am delighted about.
The oversized sunglasses are currently big among the posh ladies in south-west London. Do I... (a) tell them they look ridiculous, (b) I have just seen Katie Price (Jordan) wearing them in the above article I refer to, or (c) say nothing and have a good laugh to myself? Okay, I will dispense with the suspense - (c) is the only option.
There are one or two current monstrosities I am disappointed not to see in Hecks' article. First of all, leggings. Ladies, just because your legs and bum are covered in an opaque black material does not mean you look 'decent'. Often that awful material clings to everything, and you are left leaving nothing to the imagination. There is one crumb of consolation though - that material would look ten times worse on men.
And finally, tracksuits. I feel great lounging around in them at home. But for men, and certainly women, they look dreadful.
The article in question has caused uproar. Even allowing for the usual tirades of criticism online articles and posts usually attract, the article has attracted criticism from men and women alike. From men, there are claims the writer Sarah Hecks has simply got wrong what men dislike. From women, the understandable response is they dress for themselves, not for the benefit of men.
With that in mind, I am sure my opinions will barely register - though I am prepared to express them.
Some of the trends Hecks argues men dislike, I do actually (shock, horror) dislike, though I have to admit most of them us men can surely live with. The first picture (number 10) is very showy, but when I see someone wearing something similar on the street, my head tends to move towards the clouds and my thoughts become consumed with the word 'awkward'. Short shorts are great, but they ought to cover up what is necessary.
But other fashions, such as the large beach bag and string bikinis, are fine when used in the right context - on the beach. However, there are some inclusions I for one am delighted about.
The oversized sunglasses are currently big among the posh ladies in south-west London. Do I... (a) tell them they look ridiculous, (b) I have just seen Katie Price (Jordan) wearing them in the above article I refer to, or (c) say nothing and have a good laugh to myself? Okay, I will dispense with the suspense - (c) is the only option.
There are one or two current monstrosities I am disappointed not to see in Hecks' article. First of all, leggings. Ladies, just because your legs and bum are covered in an opaque black material does not mean you look 'decent'. Often that awful material clings to everything, and you are left leaving nothing to the imagination. There is one crumb of consolation though - that material would look ten times worse on men.
And finally, tracksuits. I feel great lounging around in them at home. But for men, and certainly women, they look dreadful.
Sunday 10 July 2011
Phone hacking and our fickle tabloid friends
So now you know who your friends really are – and it is certainly not those at the British tabloid press.
They do not provide public service, though they might like to think they do. They do not act in the interests of the people, though they might say they do. They are there to make money by selling copies. They sell copies by digging out stories. They get stories by leaving their morals at the office door when they arrive for work.
The phone hacking activities revealed to have taken place at the News of the World were beyond contempt. Each revelation was worse than the one which preceded it. The newspaper, and around 200 careers associated with it, laid in ruins as owner Rupert Murdoch brutally closed down the beleaguered publication following a string of destructive headlines as the newspaper suddenly became the big story.
Phone hacking was always a scandal, even when the victims were ‘just’ politicians and celebrities. To learn that the phone of a dead Milly Dowler had also been hacked, as well as the phones of dead servicemen, is sickening. To cap it all off, we learn that the police were paid by News of the World journalists for information. As George Monbiot pointed out, when the dust settles, the police collusion will be equally as big a story as the hacked phones.
Make no mistake, the News of the World became more than a newspaper. It became a criminal network. Until the muddy waters clear, nobody knows who knew what, who is guilty, who is innocent, who will be charged, and who will be released. However, a law qualification is not required to realise the crimes listed above are serious enough to ensure someone is going to jail – and that someone will probably have more than just a few ex-colleagues for company.
The most depressing aspect of all this is the News of the World actually turned out to be the enemy of those it tried so hard to be a friend of. It was this newspaper that led aggressive naming and shaming campaigns of child molesters, often leading to its more uneducated readers to mistakenly attack the wrong targets. All the while, it campaigned on behalf of victims’ families.
I have no doubt the News of the World anti-predator campaigns had the best of intentions. But behind the scenes its investigators were violating the same families of those violated by the likes of Levi Bellfield and Ian Huntley. The newspaper, far from being the victims’ mate, added to the misery already heaped upon those families. It was the newspaper which promised so much, but could only deliver a pack of sordid lies.
Out of this darkness however may come light. The model of cosy relations between our party political leaders and the key people in the print media is now discredited. And while the allegations against the News of the World are strong and clearly with foundation when considering the defensive stance of its management, few people believe the News of the World was alone in unscrupulous practices. When considered as a whole, the days of a free press are over – and the loss of that freedom may not be a bad thing.
No longer should publications with such large circulations be allowed to tell people how to vote. This would bring it in line with broadcast media, where a plurality of views must be represented. This is the only way to cut the strong bond between politician and press. Headlines such as The Sun’s 1992 “lights out" if Kinnock wins must never happen again. A balanced democracy needs a balanced media with balanced levels of freedom as opposed to total freedom. Gone are the days when people can write whatever they like.
We must also take our share of the blame for legitimising the misdeeds of the press. We laughed, smirked and sneered when the complicated private life of a certain Ryan Giggs was released on websites, then in the House of Commons, then in the press – drip-by-drip. Will we ever know how all the incriminating evidence was collected? Given the events of the past week, it is not unreasonable to assume more than just a sprinkle of skullduggery.
Then there was the parliamentary expenses scandal. We applauded the ‘outstanding journalism’ which exposed Members of Parliament. We chose to overlook how the data came into the hands of journalists, because it was inconvenient to our collective sense of outrage at the time.
It is easy to full into the trap of thinking those who bring us the exclusives are our friends. They are not. They make money. They set the political agenda. They get Tories elected with the minimum of fuss. Now it is time for change.
They do not provide public service, though they might like to think they do. They do not act in the interests of the people, though they might say they do. They are there to make money by selling copies. They sell copies by digging out stories. They get stories by leaving their morals at the office door when they arrive for work.
The phone hacking activities revealed to have taken place at the News of the World were beyond contempt. Each revelation was worse than the one which preceded it. The newspaper, and around 200 careers associated with it, laid in ruins as owner Rupert Murdoch brutally closed down the beleaguered publication following a string of destructive headlines as the newspaper suddenly became the big story.
Phone hacking was always a scandal, even when the victims were ‘just’ politicians and celebrities. To learn that the phone of a dead Milly Dowler had also been hacked, as well as the phones of dead servicemen, is sickening. To cap it all off, we learn that the police were paid by News of the World journalists for information. As George Monbiot pointed out, when the dust settles, the police collusion will be equally as big a story as the hacked phones.
Make no mistake, the News of the World became more than a newspaper. It became a criminal network. Until the muddy waters clear, nobody knows who knew what, who is guilty, who is innocent, who will be charged, and who will be released. However, a law qualification is not required to realise the crimes listed above are serious enough to ensure someone is going to jail – and that someone will probably have more than just a few ex-colleagues for company.
The most depressing aspect of all this is the News of the World actually turned out to be the enemy of those it tried so hard to be a friend of. It was this newspaper that led aggressive naming and shaming campaigns of child molesters, often leading to its more uneducated readers to mistakenly attack the wrong targets. All the while, it campaigned on behalf of victims’ families.
I have no doubt the News of the World anti-predator campaigns had the best of intentions. But behind the scenes its investigators were violating the same families of those violated by the likes of Levi Bellfield and Ian Huntley. The newspaper, far from being the victims’ mate, added to the misery already heaped upon those families. It was the newspaper which promised so much, but could only deliver a pack of sordid lies.
Out of this darkness however may come light. The model of cosy relations between our party political leaders and the key people in the print media is now discredited. And while the allegations against the News of the World are strong and clearly with foundation when considering the defensive stance of its management, few people believe the News of the World was alone in unscrupulous practices. When considered as a whole, the days of a free press are over – and the loss of that freedom may not be a bad thing.
No longer should publications with such large circulations be allowed to tell people how to vote. This would bring it in line with broadcast media, where a plurality of views must be represented. This is the only way to cut the strong bond between politician and press. Headlines such as The Sun’s 1992 “lights out" if Kinnock wins must never happen again. A balanced democracy needs a balanced media with balanced levels of freedom as opposed to total freedom. Gone are the days when people can write whatever they like.
We must also take our share of the blame for legitimising the misdeeds of the press. We laughed, smirked and sneered when the complicated private life of a certain Ryan Giggs was released on websites, then in the House of Commons, then in the press – drip-by-drip. Will we ever know how all the incriminating evidence was collected? Given the events of the past week, it is not unreasonable to assume more than just a sprinkle of skullduggery.
Then there was the parliamentary expenses scandal. We applauded the ‘outstanding journalism’ which exposed Members of Parliament. We chose to overlook how the data came into the hands of journalists, because it was inconvenient to our collective sense of outrage at the time.
It is easy to full into the trap of thinking those who bring us the exclusives are our friends. They are not. They make money. They set the political agenda. They get Tories elected with the minimum of fuss. Now it is time for change.
Monday 27 June 2011
Thatcher's Children Turn on their Teachers
It is a sick government, in terms of depravity rather than wellbeing, that uses the nation's children as pawns in a political game with the not-particularly militant teaching unions. The suggestion that parents could help keep schools open while teachers strike, a perverse idea by Education Secretary, Michael Gove, is perhaps the most dispiriting of all the divisive ideas coming from this government.
He is proof there is a bit of Thatcher in all of today's Conservative party. Is this a surprise? Not at all. Many of today's Tory parliamentarians were fresh-faced recruits during the days of Thatcher and soon after. Thatcherism drips across the Conservative party, perhaps more so than during her own time in power.
I grew up in the 1980s when teaching strikes happened occasionally. We would be given work to do at home. We loved it because it gave us a day off school. And however much inconvenience this may cause parents, they should be sticking with the teachers, not being encouraged to campaign against them.
'Big Society' was David Cameron's big idea for public participation in social affairs. It is something he talks about because it sounds nice, but parents and children being politicised in a struggle between teachers and government is not my idea of the 'Big Society' in action.
It makes me glad I am not a child in today's nasty society (which sounds more realistic than this 'Big Society' nonsense). I would not want to be the one beaten up on the playground by other children, blamed for keeping the school open by classmates who hoped they would be getting an unscheduled holiday. I would not want to be the one who the teachers give less assistance to in the classroom because their parents undermined their industrial action. Some militant teachers may be temped by this, mark my words.
The truth is, despite my use of the word 'militant' above, teachers are generally not that militant at all. They are not known for striking. The ATL (Association of Teachers and Lecturers) is a union definitely not renowned for striking, so you can be sure if they have downed tools, then they are not happy.
If last minute talks could avert a strike this Thursday, even at this late stage, nobody would be more happier than the teachers themselves. After all, they go into teaching because of a wish to help and develop young people. It certainly is not for the money, or the abuse they have to take from those they try to do their best for.
The lack of militancy from the teachers makes the fighting talk by Gove all the more exasperating. I would say roll on the next cabinet reshuffle, but the pool of Thatcher's children is hardly likely to produce anyone more sympathetic to society's educators.
He is proof there is a bit of Thatcher in all of today's Conservative party. Is this a surprise? Not at all. Many of today's Tory parliamentarians were fresh-faced recruits during the days of Thatcher and soon after. Thatcherism drips across the Conservative party, perhaps more so than during her own time in power.
I grew up in the 1980s when teaching strikes happened occasionally. We would be given work to do at home. We loved it because it gave us a day off school. And however much inconvenience this may cause parents, they should be sticking with the teachers, not being encouraged to campaign against them.
'Big Society' was David Cameron's big idea for public participation in social affairs. It is something he talks about because it sounds nice, but parents and children being politicised in a struggle between teachers and government is not my idea of the 'Big Society' in action.
It makes me glad I am not a child in today's nasty society (which sounds more realistic than this 'Big Society' nonsense). I would not want to be the one beaten up on the playground by other children, blamed for keeping the school open by classmates who hoped they would be getting an unscheduled holiday. I would not want to be the one who the teachers give less assistance to in the classroom because their parents undermined their industrial action. Some militant teachers may be temped by this, mark my words.
The truth is, despite my use of the word 'militant' above, teachers are generally not that militant at all. They are not known for striking. The ATL (Association of Teachers and Lecturers) is a union definitely not renowned for striking, so you can be sure if they have downed tools, then they are not happy.
If last minute talks could avert a strike this Thursday, even at this late stage, nobody would be more happier than the teachers themselves. After all, they go into teaching because of a wish to help and develop young people. It certainly is not for the money, or the abuse they have to take from those they try to do their best for.
The lack of militancy from the teachers makes the fighting talk by Gove all the more exasperating. I would say roll on the next cabinet reshuffle, but the pool of Thatcher's children is hardly likely to produce anyone more sympathetic to society's educators.
Friday 10 June 2011
Why is it taking an Archbishop to oppose the Tories?
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, is doing what all decent religious figures would be expected to do - rightfully slam the government for the impact their policies are having on the most needy in society.
David Cameron is accusing the Archbishop of expressing political views. There is no question that some of the Archbishop's comments about voter expectations are political, however it is right that a senior religious figure should be speaking up on behalf of those in society less able to participate and articulate their frustrations.
Dr. Williams is the closest thing Mr. Cameron has to an opposition at the moment. Ed Miliband is likeable, but at this week's Prime Minister's Questions, he yet again failed to land as much as a decent strike on the Prime Minister. This is despite a difficult week with justice and NHS reforms and some rather sloppy work by ministers.
And the large bulk of the print media are completely geared to keeping the Tories in power. How Labour are ever able to win elections with such a major chunk of the media constantly against them is a miracle in itself. It is interesting how after a couple of (what should have been) very uncomfortable days for the Prime Minister, the Daily Telegraph has typically intervened with a diversionary tale about the role of Ed Balls in a campaign to remove Tony Blair from Number 10 following the 2005 election.
Timing is everything when it comes to weathering a storm. How much help can one political party get, and what does it say for democracy?
Interestingly, phone hacking is in the news again. It makes you wonder how little of the information newspapers receive is acquired legally. Maybe we should be slower to sympathise with the press the next time they unite to whinge about superinjunctions.
It is taking an Archbishop to oppose the Tories because nobody else is up to doing so. I wonder how many others will follow my lead and receive their news bulletins from the Archbishop of Canterbury in future.
David Cameron is accusing the Archbishop of expressing political views. There is no question that some of the Archbishop's comments about voter expectations are political, however it is right that a senior religious figure should be speaking up on behalf of those in society less able to participate and articulate their frustrations.
Dr. Williams is the closest thing Mr. Cameron has to an opposition at the moment. Ed Miliband is likeable, but at this week's Prime Minister's Questions, he yet again failed to land as much as a decent strike on the Prime Minister. This is despite a difficult week with justice and NHS reforms and some rather sloppy work by ministers.
And the large bulk of the print media are completely geared to keeping the Tories in power. How Labour are ever able to win elections with such a major chunk of the media constantly against them is a miracle in itself. It is interesting how after a couple of (what should have been) very uncomfortable days for the Prime Minister, the Daily Telegraph has typically intervened with a diversionary tale about the role of Ed Balls in a campaign to remove Tony Blair from Number 10 following the 2005 election.
Timing is everything when it comes to weathering a storm. How much help can one political party get, and what does it say for democracy?
Interestingly, phone hacking is in the news again. It makes you wonder how little of the information newspapers receive is acquired legally. Maybe we should be slower to sympathise with the press the next time they unite to whinge about superinjunctions.
It is taking an Archbishop to oppose the Tories because nobody else is up to doing so. I wonder how many others will follow my lead and receive their news bulletins from the Archbishop of Canterbury in future.
Sunday 22 May 2011
Beware the super-injunction
This week we became not so much legal experts as moral judges. It is strangely reassuring that at a time when there are hyperactive journalists who worry about the moral state of Britain, so much public condemnation has come the way of a footballer who took out a super-injunction to hide his infidelity.
The actions of those who have spent the past few weeks passing on the identity of the culprit on Twitter show that people feel when someone has been 'found out', their behaviour should then be exposed.
The footballer at the centre of the controversy clearly failed to read the situation as well as he can read a game of football. By ramping up his legal activity this week with legal threats to Twitter, he is only serving to further agitate Twitter users angered by his behaviour.
The player in question may be a force to be reckoned with on the pitch, but his mid-life crisis seems to have come very early.
The people who have suffered most are his wife and children. It makes us wonder who the player was keeping the secret from with his little injunction.
The club's fans? Possibly. However, the fans are a forgiving bunch. His team-mates have been forgiven for various atrocities over the years.
The wider public? Most likely. This is backfiring though, because of the easy access of information on the Internet.
Other potential mistresses? Most worryingly, if only for the player, is that other mistresses or opportunists may come forward if and when his identity is finally revealed in the lucrative press.
Wife and children? Most disgraceful if so - nothing else to add.
So what have we learned about this week's protagonists?
"Sir" Fred Goodwin: There is not a lot we did not know already, but a dishonourable mention goes to this banker, who was named in the House of Lords as having taken out an injunction to suppress a story about infidelity. The sceptre of financial and moral bankruptcy is never far away from him.
Imogen Thomas: The lady at the centre of the footballer's super-injunction. Who knows what is true and what are attempts to discredit her and make her appear a sex-crazed gold-digger? All that matters is she is beautiful and a married footballer fell for her charms. We all know that anyone whose name begins with the words "Former Big Brother Contestant" should come with a danger sign. What has happened is the responsibility of the footballer though - not Imogen.
Footballer: Proves what we already know about those who play football at the highest level. The sport would not happen without those who have the talent, but also these players are leeching from the sport. They are overpaid and personify greed. Many of our present top-flight players are a good advertisement for bringing back wage caps.
The actions of those who have spent the past few weeks passing on the identity of the culprit on Twitter show that people feel when someone has been 'found out', their behaviour should then be exposed.
The footballer at the centre of the controversy clearly failed to read the situation as well as he can read a game of football. By ramping up his legal activity this week with legal threats to Twitter, he is only serving to further agitate Twitter users angered by his behaviour.
The player in question may be a force to be reckoned with on the pitch, but his mid-life crisis seems to have come very early.
The people who have suffered most are his wife and children. It makes us wonder who the player was keeping the secret from with his little injunction.
The club's fans? Possibly. However, the fans are a forgiving bunch. His team-mates have been forgiven for various atrocities over the years.
The wider public? Most likely. This is backfiring though, because of the easy access of information on the Internet.
Other potential mistresses? Most worryingly, if only for the player, is that other mistresses or opportunists may come forward if and when his identity is finally revealed in the lucrative press.
Wife and children? Most disgraceful if so - nothing else to add.
So what have we learned about this week's protagonists?
"Sir" Fred Goodwin: There is not a lot we did not know already, but a dishonourable mention goes to this banker, who was named in the House of Lords as having taken out an injunction to suppress a story about infidelity. The sceptre of financial and moral bankruptcy is never far away from him.
Imogen Thomas: The lady at the centre of the footballer's super-injunction. Who knows what is true and what are attempts to discredit her and make her appear a sex-crazed gold-digger? All that matters is she is beautiful and a married footballer fell for her charms. We all know that anyone whose name begins with the words "Former Big Brother Contestant" should come with a danger sign. What has happened is the responsibility of the footballer though - not Imogen.
Footballer: Proves what we already know about those who play football at the highest level. The sport would not happen without those who have the talent, but also these players are leeching from the sport. They are overpaid and personify greed. Many of our present top-flight players are a good advertisement for bringing back wage caps.
Sunday 15 May 2011
Women: "Slut Walks" or self-preservation?
Women should enjoy the freedom to wear whatever they want. It is what differentiates our culture from those where women are influenced to believe it in their interests to cover-up all their features, separating themselves from other people in society in the process.
Conversely, it is their right to be able to cover up as well. There should be no rulebook on who should wear what. This is why the thoughts of Michael Sanguinetti, of Toronto's police force, notably the comment "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimised," should have been kept to himself.
As a consequence of Sanguinetti's loose talk, a protest movement called "Slut Walks" has emerged in North America. Women (and many men as well) are marching in protest, dressed sexily, and displaying various messages in order to make a statement of defiance.
Most decent folk are capable of self-control. They do not view females in minimal attire as those to be manhandled, violated and victimised. Unfortunately, not everyone thinks like that. This leads to an uncomfortable truth, and that truth is women who rightly took offence to Sanguinetti need to consider the deeper meanings behind his moralist and prejudiced rhetoric.
What follows is not another dose of 'victim blaming' - nobody deserves to be victimised, regardless of what they wear. But for too long, debates such as these have been framed in gendered terms - and it has to be remembered that some radical feminists reject the body exhibiting culture which is socialised into young women by the media.
The fact is that if something is easily accessible, the risk of that something being violated is higher. It is simply wrong to suggest that encouraging women to dress more conservatively is male patriarchy in action, while men can live without boundaries.
If men go out and get stupidly drunk, then the risk of violation of them is increased as well, particularly through theft or attack.
If men carry expensive items visibly, they are at a heightened risk of robbery.
And so if women lower their security, they too run the risk of violation. That is the world we live in.
A slightly more condescending, but more virtuous message could have gone something like this:-
The best we can do as individuals is to manage the risk. People, male or female, should go out in groups when being social during rather unsocial hours. Non-essential valuables need not be exhibited. If you feel you may be at risk, it is basic self-preservation to use the means to reduce it. That involves - sadly - covering up a little if necessary. Not only that, but arrange lifts from people you know, as even licensed taxis are no guarantee for they are effectively driven by strangers.
As this argument shows, the need is to put a safety message, not make moral judgements and call people sluts.
Conversely, it is their right to be able to cover up as well. There should be no rulebook on who should wear what. This is why the thoughts of Michael Sanguinetti, of Toronto's police force, notably the comment "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimised," should have been kept to himself.
As a consequence of Sanguinetti's loose talk, a protest movement called "Slut Walks" has emerged in North America. Women (and many men as well) are marching in protest, dressed sexily, and displaying various messages in order to make a statement of defiance.
Most decent folk are capable of self-control. They do not view females in minimal attire as those to be manhandled, violated and victimised. Unfortunately, not everyone thinks like that. This leads to an uncomfortable truth, and that truth is women who rightly took offence to Sanguinetti need to consider the deeper meanings behind his moralist and prejudiced rhetoric.
What follows is not another dose of 'victim blaming' - nobody deserves to be victimised, regardless of what they wear. But for too long, debates such as these have been framed in gendered terms - and it has to be remembered that some radical feminists reject the body exhibiting culture which is socialised into young women by the media.
The fact is that if something is easily accessible, the risk of that something being violated is higher. It is simply wrong to suggest that encouraging women to dress more conservatively is male patriarchy in action, while men can live without boundaries.
If men go out and get stupidly drunk, then the risk of violation of them is increased as well, particularly through theft or attack.
If men carry expensive items visibly, they are at a heightened risk of robbery.
And so if women lower their security, they too run the risk of violation. That is the world we live in.
A slightly more condescending, but more virtuous message could have gone something like this:-
The best we can do as individuals is to manage the risk. People, male or female, should go out in groups when being social during rather unsocial hours. Non-essential valuables need not be exhibited. If you feel you may be at risk, it is basic self-preservation to use the means to reduce it. That involves - sadly - covering up a little if necessary. Not only that, but arrange lifts from people you know, as even licensed taxis are no guarantee for they are effectively driven by strangers.
As this argument shows, the need is to put a safety message, not make moral judgements and call people sluts.
Time to acknowledge Manchester United's classic season
Manchester United's achievements have been grossly understated all season. With the 2011 Premier League title in the bag and a Champions League final to come, will the pundits finally admit Manchester United are having an extraordinary season?
Equally as irritating is the constant 'best club side in the world' tag which is lazily hurled at Barcelona because they have arguably the world's best player, Lionel Messi, on their books and the football they play is a joy to watch.
I look forward to seeing Barcelona play the Premier League champions on the 28th May to see how they fare against England's best football team.
Equally as irritating is the constant 'best club side in the world' tag which is lazily hurled at Barcelona because they have arguably the world's best player, Lionel Messi, on their books and the football they play is a joy to watch.
I look forward to seeing Barcelona play the Premier League champions on the 28th May to see how they fare against England's best football team.
Sunday 8 May 2011
Electoral reform for our benefit? No!
The AV decision was a tough one for me. In the end, despite the disgraceful 'no' campaign, I used my own judgement and voted 'no'. It was close. If I had been a constituency and not an individual, the exit poll would have been 51 percent 'no' to 49 percent 'yes'.
Ultimately, the 'yes' campaign failed to make a good sell. Their key arguments - less safe seats and making MPs work harder for votes - had little impact.
Explain to me how a seat where the lead party already has over 40 percent of first preferences is going to find the seat any more difficult to win under AV. Then explain why that would give the MP an incentive to work harder.
The gerrymanderers in government are presently embarking on an undemocratic process of fewer parliamentary seats and fixed five year terms. Good luck if you want to get rid of despised politicians.
These bigger constituencies will make safe seats even safer. If anything, there should be far more MPs, paid less and presiding over smaller and more volatile constituencies.
The current Westminster reform plan will see less competitiveness - all in the name of electoral reform to supposedly please the public. Nice.
Ultimately, the 'yes' campaign failed to make a good sell. Their key arguments - less safe seats and making MPs work harder for votes - had little impact.
Explain to me how a seat where the lead party already has over 40 percent of first preferences is going to find the seat any more difficult to win under AV. Then explain why that would give the MP an incentive to work harder.
The gerrymanderers in government are presently embarking on an undemocratic process of fewer parliamentary seats and fixed five year terms. Good luck if you want to get rid of despised politicians.
These bigger constituencies will make safe seats even safer. If anything, there should be far more MPs, paid less and presiding over smaller and more volatile constituencies.
The current Westminster reform plan will see less competitiveness - all in the name of electoral reform to supposedly please the public. Nice.
Bin Laden's death and excessive liberalism
BBC's Question Time ought to come with a health warning. Not a week goes by without the programme raising my blood pressure, often due to my irritation with intolerant right-wing panelists. This week's death of Osama Bin Laden led to an unusual changing of sides, whereby I found myself allied to the panel's neoconservative.
There were mitigating factors. The liberal element of the panel were represented by the unusually erratic former Liberal Democrat leader, Lord Ashdown, and Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. Alibhai-Brown is highly intelligent, but her delivery makes it difficult to warm to her. It was not helped that both took the position of arguing that as with all criminals, Bin Laden had human rights and should not have been killed.
As they discussed his rights to having a fair trial, I suddenly found myself trapped alone, with an equally difficult to warm to neoconservative, in the real world.
In this real world, my limited knowledge of the rule of law and terms of engagement were over-ruled by a sense of relief that Bin Laden no longer walked the earth.
In this real world, I felt that Bin Laden's right to a fair trial was pointless convention. What was he going to do? Plead not guilty to the atrocities he has frequently boasted about on tape?
In this real world, I realised that dead or alive, Bin Laden was a huge trophy that would have sent blackmailers into overdrive?
In this real world, the comparisons between Nazi war criminals and Bin Laden were false comparisons because the nature of the conflict is different. When the Nazis surrendered, the game was up for them. Al-Qaeda is something more fluid and evolving. Nazis on trial did not inflame their dead ideology. Bin Laden on trial would have been a massive wind-up.
The fact of the matter is those leftist intellects mean well, but often find themselves in the position of defending the indefensible. As someone also coming from the left, my kindness does not stretch infinitely and sometimes I wish I could shake some of the others.
I admire the ideals coming from many writers of columns often seen in The Independent, The Guardian and The Observer, but often their thoughts are simply not palatable to the public. If they were, then perhaps they would sell more than a few hundred thousand daily papers. Trying to sell the idea Bin Laden was a man with rights is a difficult one.
The last word should be with Barack Obama, who I believe when he said Bin Laden's death makes the world a safer place. It will be safer, but not entirely safe of course. There will continue to be risk, but I find it hard to believe that Bin Laden being alive today would be of help to anyone. I am not even convinced it is what Bin Laden himself would have wanted.
There were mitigating factors. The liberal element of the panel were represented by the unusually erratic former Liberal Democrat leader, Lord Ashdown, and Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. Alibhai-Brown is highly intelligent, but her delivery makes it difficult to warm to her. It was not helped that both took the position of arguing that as with all criminals, Bin Laden had human rights and should not have been killed.
As they discussed his rights to having a fair trial, I suddenly found myself trapped alone, with an equally difficult to warm to neoconservative, in the real world.
In this real world, my limited knowledge of the rule of law and terms of engagement were over-ruled by a sense of relief that Bin Laden no longer walked the earth.
In this real world, I felt that Bin Laden's right to a fair trial was pointless convention. What was he going to do? Plead not guilty to the atrocities he has frequently boasted about on tape?
In this real world, I realised that dead or alive, Bin Laden was a huge trophy that would have sent blackmailers into overdrive?
In this real world, the comparisons between Nazi war criminals and Bin Laden were false comparisons because the nature of the conflict is different. When the Nazis surrendered, the game was up for them. Al-Qaeda is something more fluid and evolving. Nazis on trial did not inflame their dead ideology. Bin Laden on trial would have been a massive wind-up.
The fact of the matter is those leftist intellects mean well, but often find themselves in the position of defending the indefensible. As someone also coming from the left, my kindness does not stretch infinitely and sometimes I wish I could shake some of the others.
I admire the ideals coming from many writers of columns often seen in The Independent, The Guardian and The Observer, but often their thoughts are simply not palatable to the public. If they were, then perhaps they would sell more than a few hundred thousand daily papers. Trying to sell the idea Bin Laden was a man with rights is a difficult one.
The last word should be with Barack Obama, who I believe when he said Bin Laden's death makes the world a safer place. It will be safer, but not entirely safe of course. There will continue to be risk, but I find it hard to believe that Bin Laden being alive today would be of help to anyone. I am not even convinced it is what Bin Laden himself would have wanted.
Vote 2011 review - Lib Dems trounced
Who would be a Lib Dem right now? This week's trouncing in the local election is the latest in a string of calamities since leader Nick Clegg entered the coalition with the Conservatives.
Rocked by student protests, resignations from grassroots activists and the ongoing appearance of fronting unpopular Tory policies have led to the party's collapse in support.
Clegg had, up until now, pushed the argument that the Lib Dems 'did not win the election' suggesting it limited his options. While this is true to some extent, Thursday's results demonstrate the public dissatisfaction with their conduct.
The confusing part is the other mixed messages sent by the electorate. On one hand, the Lib Dems have been punished for what are, in effect, destructive Tory policies. On the other hand, the Tories actually gained seats. Some punishment that is!
It has to be said the British, or more specifically the English, have a peculiar relationship with the Conservative Party. Despite public unease about their policies, people keep voting for them.
It is little wonder the Scottish National Party has made great strides in Scotland. Perhaps the Scots are becoming increasingly sick and tired of being governed by Tories voted for by slavish Englanders and who can blame them? (I am English, by the way.)
So with the Tories emerging more or less unscathed, precisely why was it the Lib Dems suffered most? Political and social scientists will already be hard at work on this, but here are a couple of provisional theories.
Firstly, though there may be two wings of the Liberal Democrats within the party - a left and a more economically liberal right - many of the voters are (perhaps unsurprisingly) social liberals who do not support non-welfarist conservatism. In many affluent areas, the Lib Dems are the Tories' natural opposition. If they have a state-stripping coalition placed in front of them with near 100 percent collegiality, what motivation is there to vote Lib Dem in these areas?
Secondly, there have been some major Lib Dem calamities which have proven totally unforgivable to some voters. On a personal note, I spent three years campaigning to fellow university students that the Lib Dems was the party against student fees. The decision to go ahead with the trebling of fees devastated the Lib Dems' youth vote.
The outcome of this policy, which was to smash the Lib Dems to pieces, was a result beyond they wildest dreams of even the most tribal Conservative.
That is assuming the Tories did not already forecast the impact of forcing through the student fees legislation. As Vince Cable stated earlier today, the Tories are tribal. It would be no surprise if their strategists were canny enough to realise who would pay the political price for for increased student fees. Shame on the Lib Dems for falling for it.
For many students and former students alike, campaigning for the Lib Dems is now untenable. How can they expect to retain their vote? Nick Clegg and his band of dodgy policy salesmen cynically toured university campuses with a signed pledge to abolish student fees. In my view, this gave the policy more salience than a typically breakable manifesto pledge. There is no question the issue of student fees should have been a red line in the coalition agreement. The number of Lib Dem voters between the ages of 18 and 25 who are lost forever does not bear contemplation.
I have worked alongside dedicated grassroots Lib Dems. Some of them were worryingly too liberal for their own good, others more rugged, but all of them worked hard fighting Tories up and down the country. They would fight for every single vote. Every letterbox was an opportunity. Every doorstep was a point of access to a potential voter. All their best efforts lay in tatters because of their useless/useful* (delete as appropriate) idiot.
Their failings surfaced on Thursday for all to see. It was the day Britain returned to two-party politics (simply replace Conservative with SNP north of the border). In the unlikely event the Lib Dems gain enough seats to force another hung parliament, I cannot see them rushing into another coalition any time soon.
Rocked by student protests, resignations from grassroots activists and the ongoing appearance of fronting unpopular Tory policies have led to the party's collapse in support.
Clegg had, up until now, pushed the argument that the Lib Dems 'did not win the election' suggesting it limited his options. While this is true to some extent, Thursday's results demonstrate the public dissatisfaction with their conduct.
The confusing part is the other mixed messages sent by the electorate. On one hand, the Lib Dems have been punished for what are, in effect, destructive Tory policies. On the other hand, the Tories actually gained seats. Some punishment that is!
It has to be said the British, or more specifically the English, have a peculiar relationship with the Conservative Party. Despite public unease about their policies, people keep voting for them.
It is little wonder the Scottish National Party has made great strides in Scotland. Perhaps the Scots are becoming increasingly sick and tired of being governed by Tories voted for by slavish Englanders and who can blame them? (I am English, by the way.)
So with the Tories emerging more or less unscathed, precisely why was it the Lib Dems suffered most? Political and social scientists will already be hard at work on this, but here are a couple of provisional theories.
Firstly, though there may be two wings of the Liberal Democrats within the party - a left and a more economically liberal right - many of the voters are (perhaps unsurprisingly) social liberals who do not support non-welfarist conservatism. In many affluent areas, the Lib Dems are the Tories' natural opposition. If they have a state-stripping coalition placed in front of them with near 100 percent collegiality, what motivation is there to vote Lib Dem in these areas?
Secondly, there have been some major Lib Dem calamities which have proven totally unforgivable to some voters. On a personal note, I spent three years campaigning to fellow university students that the Lib Dems was the party against student fees. The decision to go ahead with the trebling of fees devastated the Lib Dems' youth vote.
The outcome of this policy, which was to smash the Lib Dems to pieces, was a result beyond they wildest dreams of even the most tribal Conservative.
That is assuming the Tories did not already forecast the impact of forcing through the student fees legislation. As Vince Cable stated earlier today, the Tories are tribal. It would be no surprise if their strategists were canny enough to realise who would pay the political price for for increased student fees. Shame on the Lib Dems for falling for it.
For many students and former students alike, campaigning for the Lib Dems is now untenable. How can they expect to retain their vote? Nick Clegg and his band of dodgy policy salesmen cynically toured university campuses with a signed pledge to abolish student fees. In my view, this gave the policy more salience than a typically breakable manifesto pledge. There is no question the issue of student fees should have been a red line in the coalition agreement. The number of Lib Dem voters between the ages of 18 and 25 who are lost forever does not bear contemplation.
I have worked alongside dedicated grassroots Lib Dems. Some of them were worryingly too liberal for their own good, others more rugged, but all of them worked hard fighting Tories up and down the country. They would fight for every single vote. Every letterbox was an opportunity. Every doorstep was a point of access to a potential voter. All their best efforts lay in tatters because of their useless/useful* (delete as appropriate) idiot.
Their failings surfaced on Thursday for all to see. It was the day Britain returned to two-party politics (simply replace Conservative with SNP north of the border). In the unlikely event the Lib Dems gain enough seats to force another hung parliament, I cannot see them rushing into another coalition any time soon.
Sunday 24 April 2011
Clegg vs Cameron - ROUND ONE - The gloves are off!
Ever since the Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg informed his close friend, political ally and colleague David Cameron that they would have to find something to disagree on, I have been waiting patiently for the moment they would finally have their little tiff.
Well it seems as though it has finally happened. So what is it over? Taxation? How to bring the banks into line? Tuition fees? None of those. Their argument is over, of all things, whether or not it is right for young career-minded types to gain an internship through family members or other contacts. Could they have found anything more bourgeois to argue over?
Well it seems as though it has finally happened. So what is it over? Taxation? How to bring the banks into line? Tuition fees? None of those. Their argument is over, of all things, whether or not it is right for young career-minded types to gain an internship through family members or other contacts. Could they have found anything more bourgeois to argue over?
Celtic v Rangers - The Sunday Supper cure
The historic rivalry between Scotland's biggest two football clubs, Rangers and Celtic, reached new depths this week when it emerged that high-profile figures associated with Celtic, including manager Neil Lennon, were sent parcel bombs through the post. Thankfully the parcels were dealt with accordingly and nobody was hurt.
This latest episode however marks a new low in behaviour which has marred the rivalry between the clubs, which so far this season has included dozens of arrests, public bust-ups between the clubs' management staff and players and rather unhelpful poppy-day protests by the Celtic supporters. Even earlier today, when in light of recent events supporters were on their best behaviour, there were still arrests and others pointlessly walked around parading banners of their symbols of choice, none of which had anything to do with football.
Feeding into this rivalry is the additional fact that the Scottish Premier League is one of the least competitive top-flight competitions in Europe, if not the world. It is effectively about two clubs - Rangers and Celtic. This brings further intensity and relevance to the rivalry. So far this season, league and cups, they have played each other on seven separate occasions. Familiarity really does breed contempt.
The Sunday Supper remedy is to de-legitimise the less savoury aspects of the rivalry, with the potential by-product of a more competitive Scottish Premier League. Here are the suggestions:-
1. The matches between the sides, known as 'Old Firm' matches, should be played behind close doors on one occasion at both grounds in the event of extreme misbehaviour at any match.
2. The matches should be played in front of a reduced capacity crowd if this would be considered to make policing easier.
3. Familiarity breeds contempt. They should play each other less often. A Scottish Premier League with 16 or 18 teams and only two (instead of four) rounds of matches would facilitate this.
4. Fine them heavily when appropriate.
If these ideas were put in place, it would quickly emerge that the idiots are spoiling the game for everyone else. It is time to get tough.
This latest episode however marks a new low in behaviour which has marred the rivalry between the clubs, which so far this season has included dozens of arrests, public bust-ups between the clubs' management staff and players and rather unhelpful poppy-day protests by the Celtic supporters. Even earlier today, when in light of recent events supporters were on their best behaviour, there were still arrests and others pointlessly walked around parading banners of their symbols of choice, none of which had anything to do with football.
Feeding into this rivalry is the additional fact that the Scottish Premier League is one of the least competitive top-flight competitions in Europe, if not the world. It is effectively about two clubs - Rangers and Celtic. This brings further intensity and relevance to the rivalry. So far this season, league and cups, they have played each other on seven separate occasions. Familiarity really does breed contempt.
The Sunday Supper remedy is to de-legitimise the less savoury aspects of the rivalry, with the potential by-product of a more competitive Scottish Premier League. Here are the suggestions:-
1. The matches between the sides, known as 'Old Firm' matches, should be played behind close doors on one occasion at both grounds in the event of extreme misbehaviour at any match.
2. The matches should be played in front of a reduced capacity crowd if this would be considered to make policing easier.
3. Familiarity breeds contempt. They should play each other less often. A Scottish Premier League with 16 or 18 teams and only two (instead of four) rounds of matches would facilitate this.
4. Fine them heavily when appropriate.
If these ideas were put in place, it would quickly emerge that the idiots are spoiling the game for everyone else. It is time to get tough.
Sunday 17 April 2011
The Grand National - horse racing must escape the shadow of death
It has been a week since the most deadly Grand National in recent years. The horse race at Aintree Racecourse accounted for two horse deaths, and yesterday its Scottish equivalent accounted for two more. The events at Aintree were even more shocking because unusually they were caught graphically on national television. It has left me reconsidering my own relationship with the sport.
Racing has been personal to me for many years. I loved the sport as a child. In particular, the spectacle of the Grand National captivated me. The flat, and events such as The Epsom Derby, seemed uneventful by comparison. In my early adult years, I chose to work in the industry.
It was there where I learned how barbaric the sport really is. Betting shops up and down the land show dozens of horse races every day from a number of courses. The coverage is more saturated than ever. Yet even at smaller courses, with fences nowhere near as formidable as those Grand National obstacles, horses are routinely killed. With clearly fewer cameras than those used on a big race day, betting shop customers are fully exposed to the horrors of horse racing - on the screen.
These horrors take different forms. Some horses break their legs and the viewers witness them struggling, unsuccessfully, to return to their feet. On rare occasions, a doomed horse may be able to get back to its feet, where viewers are then 'treated' to the sight of a soon-to-be-dead creature hobbling around with a snapped and dangling leg impeding its gallop.
A horse breaking its back is more unpleasant still. The horse may be able to lift its head before returning it to the canvas trying to comprehend why its body is busted.
Luckier horses die instantly, particularly if they land on their head and break their necks. The signal here is the post-death spasm when an already-dead animal shudders violently, legs quivering. Again, all captured on live racing feeds going into the betting shops.
The only obituary these dead animals receive is a 'dead' comment in the race results in the following day's racing industry press. For example: Horse Name (fell); started strongly, mistake first fence, fell 3rd, dead. Lovely.
Many betting shop customers are immune to it. As one such punter disturbingly responded to an obvious horse fatality, 'that horse has just killed itself'. Yes, it was the horse's fault for jumping the fence like a fool.
Unlike such heartless souls, I never really built up an immunity to it. I have always seen it as an unacceptable feature of a sport I assume will always be here. As the sport is always going to be here, then reform is needed.
The issue of horse fatalities has now reached the public consciousness, but not just because this year's Grand National meeting was significantly more brutal than previous events. Twenty horses have died on the Grand National course since 2000 - a shocking record for a course which is only substantially used twice annually.
It has reached the public consciousness because this time the cameras did not miss the carnage as they usually do. The viewers, therefore, were subjected to a sample of what the betting shop customer is frequently exposed to.
During the race, as the horses thundered around the circuit for the second time, a decision was taken to bypass the two fences where the two horses were killed on the first circuit. I have no idea why this course of action was chosen - I cannot recall it ever being taken in the race previously. As a result, the dead horses were not scraped off the track and dumped to the side, off-camera, as they usually would be.
As the fence was bypassed, viewers witnessed a bulge on the floor in front of the fence itself covered in a sheet. Two fences later, the horses bypassed another fence where screens had been erected to protect public eyes from what was occurring behind them.
It does not take a great mind, nor a knowledgeable racing enthusiast to deduce the horrors those canopies were covering.
The resulting uproar has demonstrated just how unacceptable this is to the general public. It is no exaggeration to say the sport lost many casual fans last Saturday, particularly those more sheltered from the danger the race brings.
Following the race, the industry has closed ranks with the usual excuses. 'The horses love it or they would not do it' is one. 'They get a good quality of life and are pampered' is another. This is a little like saying 'I have a slave, yes, but he is very well fed and has nice living quarters, so he can be grateful for my benevolence'.
These excuses will not wash this time. Racing simply must act. Softening the Aintree fences has not stemmed the flow of deaths as the above statistic testifies. There are many more precautions that could be taken. Firstly, are some of the horses good enough to do what is being asked of them? Secondly, what can be done to ensure the race is run on softer ground, which ought to provide a slightly safer landing?
Change is difficult without a plurality of voices though. Despite the outrage, I can only recall one notable opponent by name, and that is Andrew Tyler, whose Animal Aid organisation has been campaigning against the race, and jump racing in general, for many years. His voice has been heard on the radio and television, and his words have been read in the press. However, without plurality, Tyler will be treated dismissively by the guardians of racing's reputation as a minority voice against the sport. The usual excuses will continue to be wheeled out.
True, the tabloid press reported the deaths and gave a public voice to public outrage, but this is mainly for the benefit of powerful headlines. These same publications were printing sweepstakes for the race earlier in the week and will do so again next year, along with the usual free bet offers. They are unreliable allies.
Where are the other voices? Where are the other animal welfare organisations? Where are the politicians? There must be one MP in that house in Westminster who finds the treatment of this revered animal as objectionable as the hunting down and savagery of the fox.
Once a range of voices emerge, the issue will suddenly become too potent to ignore. It moves from animal welfare groups, to the media and eventually the public. When it does, other issues regarding racing animals soon emerge.
Thousands of thoroughbreds are bred every year. Many will never make the grade as a racehorse. Those that do join thousands of other horses on the track until they are no longer competitive. No calculator is required to realise that many of these spent horses will not be happily running around on fields when they are deemed not worthy of racing.
Since horse meat is a continental delicacy, my guess is a significant number end up at the abattoir to be slaughtered for their meat. Suddenly the Grand National fatalities seem small fry, excuse the pun.
Despite everything, racing has a future and can have a virtuous future. It is a massively popular spectator sport. In a reversal of my childhood, these days my passion has shifted to the flat, for reasons above. The biggest races on the flat calendar are high-value events involving high-value animals. These horses truly are revered, and many will have a career in breeding after they are finished on the race track.
It is worth noting though that the emotional value of these horses is always proportional to their financial value. There will always be more tears, more column inches in the racing press and more statements about the loss of a beloved animal, if that dead animal was successful on the track and worth a lot of money. These deaths are less common on the flat, for flat racing does have a far lower attrition rate of horses than the jumps.
There is too much racing though, and it leads to horses being over-bred and used as cheap commodities. With so much racing, the lowest value races have prizes of less than £2,000 to the owners of the winner. What use is that to a horse owner?
Applying market theory, fewer racing events will increase the value of the events, the horses and the race meetings. Betting shops may be less enthusiastic though - having race events constantly going off keeps the wheels turning on a race day. As things stand though, there is something of the market failure about horse racing, with the main victims being the horses themselves. Therefore, racing must get its house in order. The public are now aware of the death and destruction surrounding the sport - and are not about to forget.
Racing has been personal to me for many years. I loved the sport as a child. In particular, the spectacle of the Grand National captivated me. The flat, and events such as The Epsom Derby, seemed uneventful by comparison. In my early adult years, I chose to work in the industry.
It was there where I learned how barbaric the sport really is. Betting shops up and down the land show dozens of horse races every day from a number of courses. The coverage is more saturated than ever. Yet even at smaller courses, with fences nowhere near as formidable as those Grand National obstacles, horses are routinely killed. With clearly fewer cameras than those used on a big race day, betting shop customers are fully exposed to the horrors of horse racing - on the screen.
These horrors take different forms. Some horses break their legs and the viewers witness them struggling, unsuccessfully, to return to their feet. On rare occasions, a doomed horse may be able to get back to its feet, where viewers are then 'treated' to the sight of a soon-to-be-dead creature hobbling around with a snapped and dangling leg impeding its gallop.
A horse breaking its back is more unpleasant still. The horse may be able to lift its head before returning it to the canvas trying to comprehend why its body is busted.
Luckier horses die instantly, particularly if they land on their head and break their necks. The signal here is the post-death spasm when an already-dead animal shudders violently, legs quivering. Again, all captured on live racing feeds going into the betting shops.
The only obituary these dead animals receive is a 'dead' comment in the race results in the following day's racing industry press. For example: Horse Name (fell); started strongly, mistake first fence, fell 3rd, dead. Lovely.
Many betting shop customers are immune to it. As one such punter disturbingly responded to an obvious horse fatality, 'that horse has just killed itself'. Yes, it was the horse's fault for jumping the fence like a fool.
Unlike such heartless souls, I never really built up an immunity to it. I have always seen it as an unacceptable feature of a sport I assume will always be here. As the sport is always going to be here, then reform is needed.
The issue of horse fatalities has now reached the public consciousness, but not just because this year's Grand National meeting was significantly more brutal than previous events. Twenty horses have died on the Grand National course since 2000 - a shocking record for a course which is only substantially used twice annually.
It has reached the public consciousness because this time the cameras did not miss the carnage as they usually do. The viewers, therefore, were subjected to a sample of what the betting shop customer is frequently exposed to.
During the race, as the horses thundered around the circuit for the second time, a decision was taken to bypass the two fences where the two horses were killed on the first circuit. I have no idea why this course of action was chosen - I cannot recall it ever being taken in the race previously. As a result, the dead horses were not scraped off the track and dumped to the side, off-camera, as they usually would be.
As the fence was bypassed, viewers witnessed a bulge on the floor in front of the fence itself covered in a sheet. Two fences later, the horses bypassed another fence where screens had been erected to protect public eyes from what was occurring behind them.
It does not take a great mind, nor a knowledgeable racing enthusiast to deduce the horrors those canopies were covering.
The resulting uproar has demonstrated just how unacceptable this is to the general public. It is no exaggeration to say the sport lost many casual fans last Saturday, particularly those more sheltered from the danger the race brings.
Following the race, the industry has closed ranks with the usual excuses. 'The horses love it or they would not do it' is one. 'They get a good quality of life and are pampered' is another. This is a little like saying 'I have a slave, yes, but he is very well fed and has nice living quarters, so he can be grateful for my benevolence'.
These excuses will not wash this time. Racing simply must act. Softening the Aintree fences has not stemmed the flow of deaths as the above statistic testifies. There are many more precautions that could be taken. Firstly, are some of the horses good enough to do what is being asked of them? Secondly, what can be done to ensure the race is run on softer ground, which ought to provide a slightly safer landing?
Change is difficult without a plurality of voices though. Despite the outrage, I can only recall one notable opponent by name, and that is Andrew Tyler, whose Animal Aid organisation has been campaigning against the race, and jump racing in general, for many years. His voice has been heard on the radio and television, and his words have been read in the press. However, without plurality, Tyler will be treated dismissively by the guardians of racing's reputation as a minority voice against the sport. The usual excuses will continue to be wheeled out.
True, the tabloid press reported the deaths and gave a public voice to public outrage, but this is mainly for the benefit of powerful headlines. These same publications were printing sweepstakes for the race earlier in the week and will do so again next year, along with the usual free bet offers. They are unreliable allies.
Where are the other voices? Where are the other animal welfare organisations? Where are the politicians? There must be one MP in that house in Westminster who finds the treatment of this revered animal as objectionable as the hunting down and savagery of the fox.
Once a range of voices emerge, the issue will suddenly become too potent to ignore. It moves from animal welfare groups, to the media and eventually the public. When it does, other issues regarding racing animals soon emerge.
Thousands of thoroughbreds are bred every year. Many will never make the grade as a racehorse. Those that do join thousands of other horses on the track until they are no longer competitive. No calculator is required to realise that many of these spent horses will not be happily running around on fields when they are deemed not worthy of racing.
Since horse meat is a continental delicacy, my guess is a significant number end up at the abattoir to be slaughtered for their meat. Suddenly the Grand National fatalities seem small fry, excuse the pun.
Despite everything, racing has a future and can have a virtuous future. It is a massively popular spectator sport. In a reversal of my childhood, these days my passion has shifted to the flat, for reasons above. The biggest races on the flat calendar are high-value events involving high-value animals. These horses truly are revered, and many will have a career in breeding after they are finished on the race track.
It is worth noting though that the emotional value of these horses is always proportional to their financial value. There will always be more tears, more column inches in the racing press and more statements about the loss of a beloved animal, if that dead animal was successful on the track and worth a lot of money. These deaths are less common on the flat, for flat racing does have a far lower attrition rate of horses than the jumps.
There is too much racing though, and it leads to horses being over-bred and used as cheap commodities. With so much racing, the lowest value races have prizes of less than £2,000 to the owners of the winner. What use is that to a horse owner?
Applying market theory, fewer racing events will increase the value of the events, the horses and the race meetings. Betting shops may be less enthusiastic though - having race events constantly going off keeps the wheels turning on a race day. As things stand though, there is something of the market failure about horse racing, with the main victims being the horses themselves. Therefore, racing must get its house in order. The public are now aware of the death and destruction surrounding the sport - and are not about to forget.
Some thoughts on the alternative vote system
What difference will AV make? In principle I like it. No vote is wasted. Voters rank their choices in order of preference, and when their favoured candidate is eliminated their ballot papers are then counted as their next preference. And so on, until one candidate gets more than half the vote.
While people are getting a little rattled about infinite hung parliaments and the probable rare instance of a third-placed "first choice" candidate coming first in the final round, I am not sure how much of a difference AV will really make.
It is argued it will make MPs with a thumping majority work harder for their votes as there is an increasing chance they could be turned over. Somehow I doubt the MPs in the safest seats in the land will have much to lose sleep over. It will just add to the uncertainty in the marginals.
Having said that, I am aware of the limitations of first-past-the-post. It is hardly democratic that someone who wants a parliamentary career can get one if they say the right things to the right people, then win a safe seat from the comfort of their mansion. While unconvinced, if AV can take away some of that sort of certainty, I would support it. It is hardly full proportional representation though.
While people are getting a little rattled about infinite hung parliaments and the probable rare instance of a third-placed "first choice" candidate coming first in the final round, I am not sure how much of a difference AV will really make.
It is argued it will make MPs with a thumping majority work harder for their votes as there is an increasing chance they could be turned over. Somehow I doubt the MPs in the safest seats in the land will have much to lose sleep over. It will just add to the uncertainty in the marginals.
Having said that, I am aware of the limitations of first-past-the-post. It is hardly democratic that someone who wants a parliamentary career can get one if they say the right things to the right people, then win a safe seat from the comfort of their mansion. While unconvinced, if AV can take away some of that sort of certainty, I would support it. It is hardly full proportional representation though.
Sunday 10 April 2011
Old
Probably the shortest title ever written on this website, earlier I was locked in discussion about old people, and what sort of prejudice they face. In a world where racism and sexism are long identified issues, the issue of ageism has come to the fore in recent times. How bad is it?
In the previous paragraph, I deliberately used the word 'old' and not elderly, as the world 'old' is seldom used politely. It is quite rare for the word 'old' to be used sensitively, for instance 'old dear', but regularly compounded with an insult. Here are a just a few examples of the lovely phrases associated with the word 'old':-
Old git
Old codger
Old bastard
I could go on, but you get the picture.
Still, it is good to see that ageism is not institutionalised in this country - unless you ignore the fact that unemployed over-50s find it incredibly difficult to find work (link). Despite the BBC Panorama episode investigating this problem, let us not take too many lessons from the corporation since the BBC has recently suffered the indignity of having its ageist practices shamefully exposed when former Countryfile presenter Miriam O'Reilly won her employment tribunal against the corporation.
Maybe when I will migrate when I reach the big 5-0. At the very least I wont have to suffer any jibes.
In the previous paragraph, I deliberately used the word 'old' and not elderly, as the world 'old' is seldom used politely. It is quite rare for the word 'old' to be used sensitively, for instance 'old dear', but regularly compounded with an insult. Here are a just a few examples of the lovely phrases associated with the word 'old':-
Old git
Old codger
Old bastard
I could go on, but you get the picture.
Still, it is good to see that ageism is not institutionalised in this country - unless you ignore the fact that unemployed over-50s find it incredibly difficult to find work (link). Despite the BBC Panorama episode investigating this problem, let us not take too many lessons from the corporation since the BBC has recently suffered the indignity of having its ageist practices shamefully exposed when former Countryfile presenter Miriam O'Reilly won her employment tribunal against the corporation.
Maybe when I will migrate when I reach the big 5-0. At the very least I wont have to suffer any jibes.
Sunday 3 April 2011
More BBC cuts
An entertaining and highly amusing BBC special about Top of the Pops from the 1970s, screened earlier in the week, had me starting to think about cuts to the BBC again.
There needs to be no reminder this page constantly speaks out against the folly of excessive government cuts to the public sector based on ideological motivations. The BBC is quite different. Although it is a great British export, for example the World Service, the domestic product is a symbol of excess and waste.
BBC Three and Four are the worst examples of complete waste (yet the broadcaster wanted to take the knife to minority cultural interest radio stations such as the Asian Network and 6 Music) and I would get rid of both BBC Three and BBC Four. Some of the excellent programming that occasionally appears on BBC Four could easily be given airtime on BBC Two.
However, this week I have finally embraced repeats. After years of moaning about the things, I realised after watching the Top of the Pops repeat that they can be fun, special, nostalgic, and most importantly, cheap. The BBC must have a bulging archive (not including the material they have long lost) and it is time to put it to use.
Obviously the most interesting repeats would be those programmes unseen for a long time. Would we really want to see more repeats of Dad's Army? Do we really want to see repeats of programmes initially aired only months, weeks, or worse still, days before?
If done correctly, repeats would be interesting. How interesting would it be to watch old episodes of Tomorrow's World? It is time to stop paying excess money to provide vehicles for the same old faces and start reviving some of the quality material collecting dust in the archives.
There needs to be no reminder this page constantly speaks out against the folly of excessive government cuts to the public sector based on ideological motivations. The BBC is quite different. Although it is a great British export, for example the World Service, the domestic product is a symbol of excess and waste.
BBC Three and Four are the worst examples of complete waste (yet the broadcaster wanted to take the knife to minority cultural interest radio stations such as the Asian Network and 6 Music) and I would get rid of both BBC Three and BBC Four. Some of the excellent programming that occasionally appears on BBC Four could easily be given airtime on BBC Two.
However, this week I have finally embraced repeats. After years of moaning about the things, I realised after watching the Top of the Pops repeat that they can be fun, special, nostalgic, and most importantly, cheap. The BBC must have a bulging archive (not including the material they have long lost) and it is time to put it to use.
Obviously the most interesting repeats would be those programmes unseen for a long time. Would we really want to see more repeats of Dad's Army? Do we really want to see repeats of programmes initially aired only months, weeks, or worse still, days before?
If done correctly, repeats would be interesting. How interesting would it be to watch old episodes of Tomorrow's World? It is time to stop paying excess money to provide vehicles for the same old faces and start reviving some of the quality material collecting dust in the archives.
Sunday 27 March 2011
Cutting the BBC to the bone?
I will admit my agenda straight away. I do not have much affection for the BBC at this moment in time. I support the licence fee and believe the BBC to be, historically speaking, a great institution for this country. I also strongly enjoy the BBC output. The trouble is, as a BBC viewer, I rather feel as though it has become the political wing of the Tory-led government - far from being independent, and far from being the left-wing biased organisation it often finds itself accused of.
Whether it is Jeremy Clarkson and friends sharing their very centre-right world view with viewers, or the BBC appointing a past Tory chairman - Chris Patten - as chairman of the BBC Trust, or inviting David Cameron on to the popular teatime tribute to touchy-feeliness The One Show, there are times when I feel the BBC has its colours nailed to the mast in a way we are supposed to believe they do not.
With that in mind, I will not be sorry to see the BBC pared down a little. Not that it would fill me with pleasure, nor would I not want to see the BBC cut to the bone, but it certainly has some fat to lose.
The BBC director general, Mark Thompson has outlined some cuts which could be made. Here are a few I would like to see:-
1. There is a lot of waste in channel use. Are BBC3 and BBC4 vanity projects or are they really needed? Regarding BBC3, I can live well enough without Snog Marry Avoid? (Produced by Endemol - who else?). In fact most people of most ages could live without the cheap and tacky rubbish that fills BBC3. If they cannot, then there is always ITV2. BBC4 has more depth, but I have noticed a few repeats on the channel. It did give me a chance to watch Electric Dreams - fantastic viewing. BBC3 and BBC4 could be merged though, and renamed. Alternatively, they could be abolished altogether and their programming used to fill gaps on BBC1 and BBC2.
2. For earlier in the day, I do not believe the BBC need to spend on two children's TV channels, even if they are pitched to different age groups. I was lucky if I got to see two hours of children's TV after school.
3. Abolish all the lifestyle shows in the daytime on BBC1 (which usually involve an auction room or rebuilding a property) and replace them with the testcard. I have missed that blackboard and chalk.
4. Local radio should be peak only and give us Radio Five Live at other times on FM.
5. Stop sending George Alagiah on holiday to disaster zones when the news can be presented from the studio.
6. Bring more BBC World news to our British screens. We would love it.
I am sure I could think of many other savings the BBC could make. However, the BBC must remember the inclusive principles that guide it. That means protecting the Asian Network. It also means continued support for 6 Music, which is one of the few refuges from the R n' B and pop which saturates mainstream radio elsewhere. The BBC is at its best when it caters for everyone, regardless of interest. It must be kept that way.
Whether it is Jeremy Clarkson and friends sharing their very centre-right world view with viewers, or the BBC appointing a past Tory chairman - Chris Patten - as chairman of the BBC Trust, or inviting David Cameron on to the popular teatime tribute to touchy-feeliness The One Show, there are times when I feel the BBC has its colours nailed to the mast in a way we are supposed to believe they do not.
With that in mind, I will not be sorry to see the BBC pared down a little. Not that it would fill me with pleasure, nor would I not want to see the BBC cut to the bone, but it certainly has some fat to lose.
The BBC director general, Mark Thompson has outlined some cuts which could be made. Here are a few I would like to see:-
1. There is a lot of waste in channel use. Are BBC3 and BBC4 vanity projects or are they really needed? Regarding BBC3, I can live well enough without Snog Marry Avoid? (Produced by Endemol - who else?). In fact most people of most ages could live without the cheap and tacky rubbish that fills BBC3. If they cannot, then there is always ITV2. BBC4 has more depth, but I have noticed a few repeats on the channel. It did give me a chance to watch Electric Dreams - fantastic viewing. BBC3 and BBC4 could be merged though, and renamed. Alternatively, they could be abolished altogether and their programming used to fill gaps on BBC1 and BBC2.
2. For earlier in the day, I do not believe the BBC need to spend on two children's TV channels, even if they are pitched to different age groups. I was lucky if I got to see two hours of children's TV after school.
3. Abolish all the lifestyle shows in the daytime on BBC1 (which usually involve an auction room or rebuilding a property) and replace them with the testcard. I have missed that blackboard and chalk.
4. Local radio should be peak only and give us Radio Five Live at other times on FM.
5. Stop sending George Alagiah on holiday to disaster zones when the news can be presented from the studio.
6. Bring more BBC World news to our British screens. We would love it.
I am sure I could think of many other savings the BBC could make. However, the BBC must remember the inclusive principles that guide it. That means protecting the Asian Network. It also means continued support for 6 Music, which is one of the few refuges from the R n' B and pop which saturates mainstream radio elsewhere. The BBC is at its best when it caters for everyone, regardless of interest. It must be kept that way.
Capello out!
Sunday Supper supported the England football manager, Fabio Capello, even after the dismal World Cup, even after most of the British press had already scapegoated him for England's greater failures. In the past, I have spoken out in support of Capello when the vultures elsewhere circled. No more. England will win nothing with him in charge. Then again, England will not win anything until the retirement of most of the senior members of this present 'golden generation'.
Capello has handled the England captaincy issue with all the thoughtfulness of Basil Fawlty. Firstly, he rightly strips the undeserving John Terry of the captaincy because of his off-field behaviour. Then, the armband is tossed around like it is the central prop in a game of pass-the-parcel, before it is snatched out of the hands of the slightly more deserving Rio Ferdinand and placed back into the hands of Terry.
This episode does nothing to promote the belief that Capello is dealing with the challenges of the England job with rationality. He has gone from an authoritarian figure to someone who does not seem to know where he is anymore. In the meantime, England stumble on towards Euro 2012 qualification (though Montenegro could still have something to say about that) before the inevitable collapse when coming up against better-organised opposition of similar ability in the Euro 2012 finals.
I do not envy Capello. I cannot bring myself to cheer on the likes of John Terry, Ashley Cole and Wayne Rooney (to name three), let alone want to manage them. If I had to choose between Brentford winning League One or England winning Euro 2012, send the League One title to west London now. Despite this, I have come to accept Capello is not doing a very good job, so perhaps now is a good time to put him, and us, out of our collective misery.
Capello has handled the England captaincy issue with all the thoughtfulness of Basil Fawlty. Firstly, he rightly strips the undeserving John Terry of the captaincy because of his off-field behaviour. Then, the armband is tossed around like it is the central prop in a game of pass-the-parcel, before it is snatched out of the hands of the slightly more deserving Rio Ferdinand and placed back into the hands of Terry.
This episode does nothing to promote the belief that Capello is dealing with the challenges of the England job with rationality. He has gone from an authoritarian figure to someone who does not seem to know where he is anymore. In the meantime, England stumble on towards Euro 2012 qualification (though Montenegro could still have something to say about that) before the inevitable collapse when coming up against better-organised opposition of similar ability in the Euro 2012 finals.
I do not envy Capello. I cannot bring myself to cheer on the likes of John Terry, Ashley Cole and Wayne Rooney (to name three), let alone want to manage them. If I had to choose between Brentford winning League One or England winning Euro 2012, send the League One title to west London now. Despite this, I have come to accept Capello is not doing a very good job, so perhaps now is a good time to put him, and us, out of our collective misery.
Sunday 20 March 2011
Update 1: War on Gaddafi in Libya
The inevitable war on the Colonel Gaddafi regime in Libya is under way, with an international coalition military offensive backed by the United Nations. What was billed as an enforcement of a no-fly zone, as agreed at the UN, now involves a massive bombardment of Libyan targets. To all intents and purposes, this is war.
It is war because they have described it as such on the BBC (approx 23:20 on 20/3/11) and also the British populist press (link) are outrageously commentating on it like a war game.
Not that the Libyan regime is the first to ruthlessly suppress proletarian uprisings, but as usual we pick and choose our conflicts. There is usually a direct correlation between natural resources and western involvement. Lucky for Bob Mugabe that Zimbabwe is mainly agricultural.
My position has softened since my initial standpoint of not getting involved in Libyan affairs at all, but I still have reservations about sending our servicemen and women to another war zone.
My key reservation is that it is unclear how many Libyans really support this action. The protests against Gaddafi's regime have been clearly seen on the news. However those who have been to football matches where violence breaks out on the streets are well aware that reporters do not take their cameras to the quiet streets, only where the action is. So how representative is what is on the screen?
There is no disputing the crowds are present, for they have been witnessed in action on the television. Much depends on how many of the quiet majority support them. This is the unquantifiable. I would guess they have a sizable support, but it would be only a guess. Military interventions are never an exact science in terms of what the right thing is to do, which is why mistakes have been made in the past, notably in Iraq.
The best we can do now is back our forces and hope their work provides hope for the future of Libya. My more realistic concern is that this conflict could escalate, with bloody consequences.
It is war because they have described it as such on the BBC (approx 23:20 on 20/3/11) and also the British populist press (link) are outrageously commentating on it like a war game.
Not that the Libyan regime is the first to ruthlessly suppress proletarian uprisings, but as usual we pick and choose our conflicts. There is usually a direct correlation between natural resources and western involvement. Lucky for Bob Mugabe that Zimbabwe is mainly agricultural.
My position has softened since my initial standpoint of not getting involved in Libyan affairs at all, but I still have reservations about sending our servicemen and women to another war zone.
My key reservation is that it is unclear how many Libyans really support this action. The protests against Gaddafi's regime have been clearly seen on the news. However those who have been to football matches where violence breaks out on the streets are well aware that reporters do not take their cameras to the quiet streets, only where the action is. So how representative is what is on the screen?
There is no disputing the crowds are present, for they have been witnessed in action on the television. Much depends on how many of the quiet majority support them. This is the unquantifiable. I would guess they have a sizable support, but it would be only a guess. Military interventions are never an exact science in terms of what the right thing is to do, which is why mistakes have been made in the past, notably in Iraq.
The best we can do now is back our forces and hope their work provides hope for the future of Libya. My more realistic concern is that this conflict could escalate, with bloody consequences.
Introducing... controversial teen singer Rebecca Black
If you have been anywhere near Twitter or any other social media over the past week, you may have heard of the latest Internet phenomenon, Rebecca Black. As I type she is still trending on Twitter (as she has been for much of the week). I had no idea who she was until I saw the name enough times for me to take notice.
It did not take much research to realise that this is not another Internet phenomenon based on admiration - quite the opposite. This young 13 year old girl has seemingly become the most hated person in America, for the alleged crime of singing the most atrocious song ever, entitled Friday. It has had the best part of 20 million views on YouTube, largely by people queuing up to sneer at it. There is clearly a shortage of people in the world to hate if this is what it has come to.
Curious to discover the level of atrocity leading to this public display of ranting and raving, I decided to have a listen and yes, the song is atrocious.
Oddly enough, I did not find myself paralysed with rage, or wanting to smash my laptop to relieve myself of this aural nightmare. In fact, poor though it is, the song is not the most obnoxious assault on our eardrums in the history of popular music. It is fairly typical of the rest of the rubbish that has polluted much of the airwaves since early 2010.
Vocals with the soul autotuned out of it? Check. Generic electronic backing track? Check. Banal and meaningless lyrics? Check. If anything, it fits in perfectly with the present music scene. Thank goodness for Adele.
It is mainly the lyrics that have been roundly condemned:-
"Yesterday was Thursday Thursday,
Today it is Friday Friday,
Gotta get down to the bus stop, gotta get my bus,
I see my friends and and we we we so excited, we so excited."
It is not hard to see why, but are they any worse than these abominations?
"I spent my time just thinkin thinkin thinkin bout you,
Every single day yes, i'm really missin' missin' you,
And all those things we use to use to use to do,
Hey girl, wuz up, it use to be just me and you,
I spent my time just thinkin thinkin thinkin bout you."
or
"No, no, no, no, don’t phunk with my heart,
I wonder if I take you home, would you still be in love, baby, in love, baby
I wonder if I take you home, would you still be in love, baby, in love, baby"
or
"What you gon' do with all that junk?
All that junk inside your trunk?
I'ma get, get, get, get, you drunk,
Get you love drunk off my hump.
My hump, my hump, my hump, my hump, my hump,
My hump, my hump, my hump, my lovely little lumps."
These crimes against literature have all been part of songs by the absurdly successful bubblegum pop act (and do not try to argue otherwise), The Black Eyed Peas. The main protagonist in this group, will.i.am has gone on to produce for many artists including Cheryl Cole and Michael Jackson, and surely made a fortune doing so.
When put into context, Rebecca Black should fit in comfortably. Bad though her efforts are, we must remember she is only 13 (What is will.i.am's excuse?). Though her song is rubbish to our ears, it would probably score at least an A minus as a GCSE music coursework project. And when I look at it like that, I cannot share the contempt that others display. I can think of many people in the world more worthy of hatred than a harmless teen.
It did not take much research to realise that this is not another Internet phenomenon based on admiration - quite the opposite. This young 13 year old girl has seemingly become the most hated person in America, for the alleged crime of singing the most atrocious song ever, entitled Friday. It has had the best part of 20 million views on YouTube, largely by people queuing up to sneer at it. There is clearly a shortage of people in the world to hate if this is what it has come to.
Curious to discover the level of atrocity leading to this public display of ranting and raving, I decided to have a listen and yes, the song is atrocious.
Oddly enough, I did not find myself paralysed with rage, or wanting to smash my laptop to relieve myself of this aural nightmare. In fact, poor though it is, the song is not the most obnoxious assault on our eardrums in the history of popular music. It is fairly typical of the rest of the rubbish that has polluted much of the airwaves since early 2010.
Vocals with the soul autotuned out of it? Check. Generic electronic backing track? Check. Banal and meaningless lyrics? Check. If anything, it fits in perfectly with the present music scene. Thank goodness for Adele.
It is mainly the lyrics that have been roundly condemned:-
"Yesterday was Thursday Thursday,
Today it is Friday Friday,
Gotta get down to the bus stop, gotta get my bus,
I see my friends and and we we we so excited, we so excited."
It is not hard to see why, but are they any worse than these abominations?
"I spent my time just thinkin thinkin thinkin bout you,
Every single day yes, i'm really missin' missin' you,
And all those things we use to use to use to do,
Hey girl, wuz up, it use to be just me and you,
I spent my time just thinkin thinkin thinkin bout you."
or
"No, no, no, no, don’t phunk with my heart,
I wonder if I take you home, would you still be in love, baby, in love, baby
I wonder if I take you home, would you still be in love, baby, in love, baby"
or
"What you gon' do with all that junk?
All that junk inside your trunk?
I'ma get, get, get, get, you drunk,
Get you love drunk off my hump.
My hump, my hump, my hump, my hump, my hump,
My hump, my hump, my hump, my lovely little lumps."
These crimes against literature have all been part of songs by the absurdly successful bubblegum pop act (and do not try to argue otherwise), The Black Eyed Peas. The main protagonist in this group, will.i.am has gone on to produce for many artists including Cheryl Cole and Michael Jackson, and surely made a fortune doing so.
When put into context, Rebecca Black should fit in comfortably. Bad though her efforts are, we must remember she is only 13 (What is will.i.am's excuse?). Though her song is rubbish to our ears, it would probably score at least an A minus as a GCSE music coursework project. And when I look at it like that, I cannot share the contempt that others display. I can think of many people in the world more worthy of hatred than a harmless teen.
Sunday 13 March 2011
Some thoughts about Japan
The events in Japan this week make us realise how trivial our worries really are. For us, we may only be living the disastrous fallout from the earthquake through newspapers and the news channels, but the sight of people in cars trying to outrun a tsunami wave will haunt us forever.
We complain about Britain because we know it follows one of the most market-orientated modes of government - at the expense of welfare. When we had some 'extreme' (by our standards) weather during winter, the damage was measured in terms of cost to the economy rather than the effect it had on everyday life. Sadly, that discourse runs through the media, even the BBC.
But there is one thing we can be truly grateful for, and that the weather and the climate we complain about is, in reality, not extreme at all. Neither is the land in which we live, which is one of the safest geological locations on the planet.
Tonight, and every night since the disaster unfolded, I have been praying for the people of Japan. We hoped the earthquake would not be too destructive. Then we hoped the oncoming tsunami would be gentle with the population. Now we hope that the problems experienced at the Fukushima nuclear plant can be resolved.
So far our best hopes have been in vain. Now is the time for the world to pull together, first to help our Japanese friends, then to start looking after each other a little better, and stop worrying about the financial cost of everything.
We complain about Britain because we know it follows one of the most market-orientated modes of government - at the expense of welfare. When we had some 'extreme' (by our standards) weather during winter, the damage was measured in terms of cost to the economy rather than the effect it had on everyday life. Sadly, that discourse runs through the media, even the BBC.
But there is one thing we can be truly grateful for, and that the weather and the climate we complain about is, in reality, not extreme at all. Neither is the land in which we live, which is one of the safest geological locations on the planet.
Tonight, and every night since the disaster unfolded, I have been praying for the people of Japan. We hoped the earthquake would not be too destructive. Then we hoped the oncoming tsunami would be gentle with the population. Now we hope that the problems experienced at the Fukushima nuclear plant can be resolved.
So far our best hopes have been in vain. Now is the time for the world to pull together, first to help our Japanese friends, then to start looking after each other a little better, and stop worrying about the financial cost of everything.
Murdoch to take full control of Sky - what next?
So Rupert Murdoch got his way and was able to win approval by the government for News Corporation to take full control of BSkyB.
It left me feeling a little disorientated. In one respect, I was annoyed because I felt he had won - again. In another, had it not been for his travails, I would not have known that he did not have full control of the broadcaster. For some reason I always assumed BSkyB was his pride and joy anyway.
I certainly was not aware that his share was a mere 39 percent.
Assuming the takeover goes smoothly and Murdoch ends up in full control, the concern is regarding what will happen next. The sweetener that appears to have paved the way was Murdoch's agreement to only hold a maximum of 39 percent of Sky News and keeping it separate from the rest of the company.
There is one caveat, which is the concern as to whether any safeguards have been put into place that would prevent Murdoch from launching a Fox News for the UK, a channel which he would have a full share in. Considering I have not heard about any such safeguards, I can only assume the answer to that is 'no'.
It left me feeling a little disorientated. In one respect, I was annoyed because I felt he had won - again. In another, had it not been for his travails, I would not have known that he did not have full control of the broadcaster. For some reason I always assumed BSkyB was his pride and joy anyway.
I certainly was not aware that his share was a mere 39 percent.
Assuming the takeover goes smoothly and Murdoch ends up in full control, the concern is regarding what will happen next. The sweetener that appears to have paved the way was Murdoch's agreement to only hold a maximum of 39 percent of Sky News and keeping it separate from the rest of the company.
There is one caveat, which is the concern as to whether any safeguards have been put into place that would prevent Murdoch from launching a Fox News for the UK, a channel which he would have a full share in. Considering I have not heard about any such safeguards, I can only assume the answer to that is 'no'.
We're back!
A mixture of temperamental Internet connection and stubbornness to only add to this page on a Sunday means that no Sunday Supper went out last week.
Coming up: what I sort of had prepared.
Coming up: what I sort of had prepared.
Sunday 27 February 2011
Was the Prime Minister's trip to Egypt idiocy?
Idiots are not always easy to spot. This is unfortunate because idiots can often be dangerous.
Easier to spot fools can be viewed carrying out Jackass type stunts having uploaded their efforts on to the Internet. Or they can often be witnessed under the influence of various substances and flipping their cars over on a field on the programme Police, Camera, Action. Reckless people are not only dangerous to themselves, but also to others. At least in the above examples the stupidity is there to be seen.
Sadly it is not always straightforward. Switch on a news channel most days and you will witness the seemingly ordinary actions of a rather bland individual in a suit. Yet with the power he has, he has the potential to be the most dangerous pathogen in Britain.
I am of course talking about Sunday Supper favourite, the Prime Minister, David Cameron. It was fantastic to see him taking a well-earned break in Egypt following the recent political shifts there, mainly because while he is there Britain gets a well-earned break from his economic sledgehammer being wielded upon all of us.
Despite my hostility towards Cameron, I was actually naive enough to believe he might be out there doing some good, helping to bring down barriers between Britain and other parts of the world and assist Egypt in their transition towards a fully-functioning democracy. Our hero was doing nothing of the sort.
He was there with a group of businessmen, many of whom involved in the arms trade. While democrats around the world were watching from afar at the winds of change, the dyed-in-the-wool Tory realist was over there trying to exploit the situation for commercial gain.
The precarious economic situation here in Britain is no excuse for being so crudely opportunistic. There is no justification for even contemplating the idea of arming a country presently in a state of political flux. Who knows what shape Egyptian political change will take? Contemplating selling arms to a state currently going through transition to an unknown end is idiotic, reckless and dangerous.
Then again, maybe there is little expectation of Egypt evolving into a democracy. With the last Egyptian President removed and hope of an emerging democratic structure, you have to wonder who the businessmen were there to meet - presumably established elites.
While all this was going on, Britons were stranded in the middle of a similar revolt in Libya. The government was slow to act in organising their evacuation. This is no surprise when you consider that Cameron's mind was clearly elsewhere. This incompetence is to be expected from a government which brought us aircraft carriers with no aircraft.
Sometimes I wonder who I would rather have in the British driving seat. David Cameron, or a reckless idiot from Police, Camera, Action?
Easier to spot fools can be viewed carrying out Jackass type stunts having uploaded their efforts on to the Internet. Or they can often be witnessed under the influence of various substances and flipping their cars over on a field on the programme Police, Camera, Action. Reckless people are not only dangerous to themselves, but also to others. At least in the above examples the stupidity is there to be seen.
Sadly it is not always straightforward. Switch on a news channel most days and you will witness the seemingly ordinary actions of a rather bland individual in a suit. Yet with the power he has, he has the potential to be the most dangerous pathogen in Britain.
I am of course talking about Sunday Supper favourite, the Prime Minister, David Cameron. It was fantastic to see him taking a well-earned break in Egypt following the recent political shifts there, mainly because while he is there Britain gets a well-earned break from his economic sledgehammer being wielded upon all of us.
Despite my hostility towards Cameron, I was actually naive enough to believe he might be out there doing some good, helping to bring down barriers between Britain and other parts of the world and assist Egypt in their transition towards a fully-functioning democracy. Our hero was doing nothing of the sort.
He was there with a group of businessmen, many of whom involved in the arms trade. While democrats around the world were watching from afar at the winds of change, the dyed-in-the-wool Tory realist was over there trying to exploit the situation for commercial gain.
The precarious economic situation here in Britain is no excuse for being so crudely opportunistic. There is no justification for even contemplating the idea of arming a country presently in a state of political flux. Who knows what shape Egyptian political change will take? Contemplating selling arms to a state currently going through transition to an unknown end is idiotic, reckless and dangerous.
Then again, maybe there is little expectation of Egypt evolving into a democracy. With the last Egyptian President removed and hope of an emerging democratic structure, you have to wonder who the businessmen were there to meet - presumably established elites.
While all this was going on, Britons were stranded in the middle of a similar revolt in Libya. The government was slow to act in organising their evacuation. This is no surprise when you consider that Cameron's mind was clearly elsewhere. This incompetence is to be expected from a government which brought us aircraft carriers with no aircraft.
Sometimes I wonder who I would rather have in the British driving seat. David Cameron, or a reckless idiot from Police, Camera, Action?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)