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.

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.

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.

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....

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!