Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Monbiot on population

Gentlemen (and ladies), fire up your flames.... Population growth is a threat. But it pales against the greed of the rich

With a headline like that, I'm guessing rationality from any 'side' will be noticeable by its absence.

So I think a good lurk is in order here.

Patently venal

Fresh back from a talk on IP for RE:tie, and I open a letter regrading my TradeMark for RE:Box.

Seems an outfit called the EIEC (European Institute for Economy and Commerce) reckon I owe 'em £479.75 for something I already paid the IPO £200 to get approved a while ago.

It's a scam. Be warned. And these can also happen with URL registrations.

IPO advice page

What gets me is that many may not know, and there seems little the authorities can or will do about such a blatant rip-off in plain sight. I reported it but was just told to ignore it. How many might not?

Donkeys leading, reported on by jackals

Of all the things to come back from my jaunt yesterday and address first, but this example of government agenda and media rantings (I meant ratings, but this typo may as well stay)-driven complicity made my blood boil as I listened in the car.

First up there was a totally factually spurious set-up on the issue of possible overprescription by Doctors, somehow coerced by drug companies. You will all gather how this went down and what I thought of it... and how it was left.

I also make reference to another topic, which pretty much gave sole voice to one guy who reckons a 9-ton satellite full of toxic waste is going to land on us sometime in March. No check, no balance. I have decided to see what actually does happen and how it gets reported. Even if the facts turn out to be true, the way it was all shared was truly idiotic.

'Thank heavens for guest expert Dr. Sarah (Jarvis?), the only calm, rational and objective contributor to this whole sorry piece.

If ever there was an example of a set-up agenda hijacked by a self-serving set of interests, and handled in total disservice to balanced information and the interests of public understanding, this was it. Bar this lady.

Inspired, it would appear, by a grand-standing Labour MP, on the potentially interesting and worthy of debate topic of potential over-prescription, we are promptly treated to this individual being pretty much allowed by the host to claim all manner of 'factual' nuggets, such as depression can be solved by a stiff walks and some fresh air.

To the best of my understanding, this utter tripe is completely at odds with the views of the medical profession, and the only real expert present, who could barely get this point across... because, I think her heard her say... 'she is not allowed to'.

Meanwhile, the host's only contribution to the quality of this 'debate' is to ignore all this and allow this semi-official and wholly-irresponsible government (WHO MIGHT HAVE BEEN TOLD A FEW REASONS WHY SO MANY MORE FOLK ARE IN THIS COUNTRY AND MIGHT BE DEPRESSED SINCE 1945) numptie to leave and then keep the whole sorry thing to drag on by trying to steer things in a whole new route of whether drug companies are 'responsible' with, I note, no spokesperson in their defence, and the good Doctor seemingly constrained from defending her profession's ability to surely make their own minds up by simple good manners and a desire not to disagree with her host.

A travesty of ratings-driven stirring at the expense of responsible public service broadcasting, partially redeemed by a loan, but woefully restricted voice.

ps: I tried to find the place on the show site to comment this but could find no option other but to contribute*. I then went to the Newswatch site but could find none there relevant to this show either. Not the best - or as I could not locate it easily - clearest set-up really. But I look forward (not) to getting the usual form, insincere 'we regret.. but...' dismissal in due course.

*pps: But there is one on the other 'sky is falling...' topic of ... the satellite falling. I have made a note to check in a month's time what actually has happened, and see whether it tallies with the scare story as portrayed, with only one side presented, in the show.'