The airlines must be desperate, if this is the best they can do: Stop this fear of flying; it's one of the greenest ways to travel. I must find out what you need to do to get to post such drivel as a piece and not a blog:
"Waaaay-hay!. When I saw this mother of a headline I knew we were in for a bumpy ride!
A few score land or sea-based wrongs do not make an airborne right. Whatever % it is or isn’t, if we concede that global warming is not helped by emissions, anything that contributes to the current rate, much less the increase in it... cannot be a good thing.
What people want to do is one thing. What they can is another. And what they should another still. And what they will be able to, one day...
So I may be able to live with the supermarket looking a lot different without fresh fruit or flowers (local points taken and showing this to be a red herring). In any case, my muesli goes great with dried apricots (please tell me they can be shipped!)
Great that ailrines are doing everything from making spoons lighter, to optimising the amount of water in toilets. Not so sure about the kilos of Sunday classifieds or duty frees, but OK. And Virgin turning the A380 into a gin palace doesn’t sound the best passener/Co2 emission ratio way of travelling either. Remind me, how much more space did they taunt BA with for their front/upper deck folks floor area? At least the Asian airlines are talking cramming 800 in. Then again, there is probably a weight/volume optimum too. Best to use a private jet, doubtless as advertised or via a press junket press-release op-ed rehash in many a quality Sunday.
And careful of the 'solar panel is the solution' thing. I’m still trying to assess who, and what, is right right: http://junkk.blogspot.com/2006/11/numb3rs.html
I’d say the only pretty safe course is that advocated by Richie Remote, ‘til they prove that offshore wind farms cost more environmentally to build and run and distribute the juice than they save."
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Numb3rs
It's a cop show on SKY (my mates). Quite fun, and has made my kids a bit more interested in the power of maths, as opposed to statistics, which is anything you want it to be.
And what I have read here - Solar panels won't save the planet - seem to be matters of mathematical fact, and hence environmental (beyond the financial option) value:
"... a rather more general question-mark has been raised over their value by one of the country's genuine experts, Abu Bakr Bahaj, a senior lecturer in civil engineering, who based his figures on the experience of a large panel installation at his university in Southampton.
Since solar panels in Britain generate, on average, only 20 per cent of their potential maximum output (at a cost of £4,500 per kilowatt of installed capacity), he reported in the journal of the Institute of Civil Engineers that the average pay-back time of solar panels is more than 45 years (although 70 years, he wrote, "is a more realistic figure"). Yet the average life of a photovoltaic cell is only 25 years."
I have written to the quoted sources to see if this can be confirmed and turned into something that the public can use to assess actual £ & e-values to help their decision processes.
I'll let you know if they come back.
And what I have read here - Solar panels won't save the planet - seem to be matters of mathematical fact, and hence environmental (beyond the financial option) value:
"... a rather more general question-mark has been raised over their value by one of the country's genuine experts, Abu Bakr Bahaj, a senior lecturer in civil engineering, who based his figures on the experience of a large panel installation at his university in Southampton.
Since solar panels in Britain generate, on average, only 20 per cent of their potential maximum output (at a cost of £4,500 per kilowatt of installed capacity), he reported in the journal of the Institute of Civil Engineers that the average pay-back time of solar panels is more than 45 years (although 70 years, he wrote, "is a more realistic figure"). Yet the average life of a photovoltaic cell is only 25 years."
I have written to the quoted sources to see if this can be confirmed and turned into something that the public can use to assess actual £ & e-values to help their decision processes.
I'll let you know if they come back.
It's funny, 'cos it's true
Bah, humbug! It's the annual Christmas card debate...*
* For our part, there will be the usual scrambel to make something reused, then figure the impact of ther posting, and decide, too late, to do a nifty original e-mailing.
So figure on a copied snowball about the 24th!
* For our part, there will be the usual scrambel to make something reused, then figure the impact of ther posting, and decide, too late, to do a nifty original e-mailing.
So figure on a copied snowball about the 24th!
Reality (Sound) Bites.
This today from our Shadow Chancellor: Where Stelzer's wrong on Tory policy
Seemed a bit low on substance to me. My reply (if it gets published, I seem to be 'moderated' a lot on the Telegraph a lot):
"Nothing that is green is ever going to be black or white, so while it is snappy and a good starting point, I hope we are going to see something more sophisticated built, and adequately explained, around ‘pay as you burn’. And on an individual, non-corporate level, I’d certainly like to sense there is a recognition that not everyone lives in inner London.
No one said it would be easy, but a way has to be found to navigate solutions which achieve the desired effect: reduced emissions and waste. The latter is just common, and economic good sense, and it amazes us at our reuse website that much more is not being done simply out of self-interest. But in the case of the former it will not be acceptable to just shift things around financially (so most initiatives involving the word ‘trading’ make me shudder) whilst achieving no net reductions. Nor will it if we simply end up penalizing those left with few choices to make, or who cannot not benefit from trying to reduce their environmental impacts.
A person who drives pollutes. You don’t need a car in (most) cities. But what about those in the country? I can’t believe that those clogging the motorways daily actually opt to do so.
Equally we seem to have plans (the government’s, in this case, so it is an example only), to rate houses according to their eco-efficiency. Great for a ODPM new build on a South Eastern flood plain; not so good for a cottage built (many years ago, and whose carbon cost is now well passed) in the country. Who votes most, benefits most?
Usage-based penalties, fees, rates, price hikes and taxes are certainly part of the package, but I am not so sure whether a lot of us will see the compensation (in taxes, etc) elsewhere, if we register them at all. To gain support, the transparency of such actions is therefore paramount. If I pay more for fuel, I want to see transport infrastructure (not road-based) improve - fancy popping back the train line though Ross on Wye? – so I don’t have to use the car.
And if we are going to incentivise beneficial initiatives, please let them actually have an environmental benefit - after initial enthusiasm and support, these pages of late make me more than unsure that a hybrid or wind turbine is either financially OR environmentally a good choice, no matter where I live."
Seemed a bit low on substance to me. My reply (if it gets published, I seem to be 'moderated' a lot on the Telegraph a lot):
"Nothing that is green is ever going to be black or white, so while it is snappy and a good starting point, I hope we are going to see something more sophisticated built, and adequately explained, around ‘pay as you burn’. And on an individual, non-corporate level, I’d certainly like to sense there is a recognition that not everyone lives in inner London.
No one said it would be easy, but a way has to be found to navigate solutions which achieve the desired effect: reduced emissions and waste. The latter is just common, and economic good sense, and it amazes us at our reuse website that much more is not being done simply out of self-interest. But in the case of the former it will not be acceptable to just shift things around financially (so most initiatives involving the word ‘trading’ make me shudder) whilst achieving no net reductions. Nor will it if we simply end up penalizing those left with few choices to make, or who cannot not benefit from trying to reduce their environmental impacts.
A person who drives pollutes. You don’t need a car in (most) cities. But what about those in the country? I can’t believe that those clogging the motorways daily actually opt to do so.
Equally we seem to have plans (the government’s, in this case, so it is an example only), to rate houses according to their eco-efficiency. Great for a ODPM new build on a South Eastern flood plain; not so good for a cottage built (many years ago, and whose carbon cost is now well passed) in the country. Who votes most, benefits most?
Usage-based penalties, fees, rates, price hikes and taxes are certainly part of the package, but I am not so sure whether a lot of us will see the compensation (in taxes, etc) elsewhere, if we register them at all. To gain support, the transparency of such actions is therefore paramount. If I pay more for fuel, I want to see transport infrastructure (not road-based) improve - fancy popping back the train line though Ross on Wye? – so I don’t have to use the car.
And if we are going to incentivise beneficial initiatives, please let them actually have an environmental benefit - after initial enthusiasm and support, these pages of late make me more than unsure that a hybrid or wind turbine is either financially OR environmentally a good choice, no matter where I live."
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Auto - What's the other one?
Scoop two unique test-drives of environmentally friendly vehicles
"Remind me. Is this the one that I read about recently that all the green-pols and celebs are queuing up to ‘endorse’ (way cooler than a Prius); the one that will need a truck to follow it to fill up?
I love Hydrogen. All that comes out the pipe is water ‘n all (though I gather that water vapour is a greenhouse ‘gas’).
And anything that investigates this potential is a great thing (and how this piece was written). But.....
I implore any and all, from gushing ‘It’s electric... there’s no pollution. The electronic juice is made by magic’ TV anchors, ‘Look at me, I care’ rock stars and ‘I’m serious about this Green thing’ pols to not let us think that it is ANYWHERE NEAR an alternative for the common, driving person, yet. And let’s not forget the enviro cost of making a new car, too.
I am still trying to figure out whether buying a wind turbine is a daft financially and will only hasten my grandkids’ suntans.
Nice bike, though."
"Remind me. Is this the one that I read about recently that all the green-pols and celebs are queuing up to ‘endorse’ (way cooler than a Prius); the one that will need a truck to follow it to fill up?
I love Hydrogen. All that comes out the pipe is water ‘n all (though I gather that water vapour is a greenhouse ‘gas’).
And anything that investigates this potential is a great thing (and how this piece was written). But.....
I implore any and all, from gushing ‘It’s electric... there’s no pollution. The electronic juice is made by magic’ TV anchors, ‘Look at me, I care’ rock stars and ‘I’m serious about this Green thing’ pols to not let us think that it is ANYWHERE NEAR an alternative for the common, driving person, yet. And let’s not forget the enviro cost of making a new car, too.
I am still trying to figure out whether buying a wind turbine is a daft financially and will only hasten my grandkids’ suntans.
Nice bike, though."
What we say. What we do.
Don't want to steal their thunder, but this from reuters (if you can find it) is interesting.
I did it. And so have a fair few others, around the world.
What stuck me was how consistent the results were. High 80's yes. Pretty much around the globe.
Now I've told you what I think, what can we do, Mr. Media?
Rubbish - How to save the planet - your starter for 1
It - It's a rubbish tax – and it won't work allowed comments!:
"Who, for instance, is going to tell whether all the rubbish in your bin is in fact yours, or has been dumped in your bin by your tax-avoiding neighbour?"
Good question. But I believe that this has already been answered - detection to fine and criminal conviction, though I'm not aware if there was any trial, burden of proof or anything. Until the appeal. It's done by 'officers', though I'm also not too terribly sure what their training, qualifications or levels of oversight are either. Bet they’re on a bonus, too, which means lobbing a nasty in the local beat bins will be a nice little earner for the cousin-in-law.
The law seems to have the same view, so thus far we have a ton more civil servants (salary, pension, redundancy or sidelining costs and stress-compo inc.), a few squillion more the legal profession (on whose tab?) and the net benefit to the global environment is.... please tell me.
And how many times does it have to be pointed out that it is the bigger picture that is vital at all times. Tokenistic target-meeting in a city (Ken, please note) isn't much good if it is shunted off to China, where they'll probably burn it and the CO2 will waft globally anyway.
Reduction is getting some major attention but is usually in heavy duty areas (ie: energy production) over the heads of most consumers. Well, me at least. I’m still trying to figure out whether buying a Prius or home wind turbine will bankrupt me and/or actually speed my grandkids’ demise.
Re:use and re:pair are much more re:warding to the individual, but most of the effort relevant to the re:areas as far as the public is concerned is causing grief. And with the best will in the world, recycling, while great, is not that tangibly rewarding in the home situation.
Make an Xmas trip to the Science Museum to see what else we can do to motivate folk by being on their side for a change, not shrill shrews, scolds or nannies:
http://www.danacentre.org.uk/events/2006/12/06/206
"Who, for instance, is going to tell whether all the rubbish in your bin is in fact yours, or has been dumped in your bin by your tax-avoiding neighbour?"
Good question. But I believe that this has already been answered - detection to fine and criminal conviction, though I'm not aware if there was any trial, burden of proof or anything. Until the appeal. It's done by 'officers', though I'm also not too terribly sure what their training, qualifications or levels of oversight are either. Bet they’re on a bonus, too, which means lobbing a nasty in the local beat bins will be a nice little earner for the cousin-in-law.
The law seems to have the same view, so thus far we have a ton more civil servants (salary, pension, redundancy or sidelining costs and stress-compo inc.), a few squillion more the legal profession (on whose tab?) and the net benefit to the global environment is.... please tell me.
And how many times does it have to be pointed out that it is the bigger picture that is vital at all times. Tokenistic target-meeting in a city (Ken, please note) isn't much good if it is shunted off to China, where they'll probably burn it and the CO2 will waft globally anyway.
Reduction is getting some major attention but is usually in heavy duty areas (ie: energy production) over the heads of most consumers. Well, me at least. I’m still trying to figure out whether buying a Prius or home wind turbine will bankrupt me and/or actually speed my grandkids’ demise.
Re:use and re:pair are much more re:warding to the individual, but most of the effort relevant to the re:areas as far as the public is concerned is causing grief. And with the best will in the world, recycling, while great, is not that tangibly rewarding in the home situation.
Make an Xmas trip to the Science Museum to see what else we can do to motivate folk by being on their side for a change, not shrill shrews, scolds or nannies:
http://www.danacentre.org.uk/events/2006/12/06/206
Air - What goes up.. probably has a down side
'Nightmare' expansion of British airports predicted
And I quote: "It is now time for those politicians who claim to have so-called green credentials to either put up or shut up.
"We accept that the UK economy and its people have much to gain from a successful aviation industry. But there is universal recognition that the aviation industry is one of the fastest growing contributors to global warming."
And I quote: "It is now time for those politicians who claim to have so-called green credentials to either put up or shut up.
"We accept that the UK economy and its people have much to gain from a successful aviation industry. But there is universal recognition that the aviation industry is one of the fastest growing contributors to global warming."
Booker Prizes - Recycling & Solar
Thre's an interesting commentator I have missed until now, which is a pity. He's called Christopher Booker (and chums), and he/they write(s) in the Sunday Telegraph. From his archive he's a bit of a scourge of 'Less than sensible' e-initiatives.
It's a rubbish tax – and it won't work
How does 'recycling' end up here?
Solar panels won't save the planet
A rich seam. I look forward to engaging with him/them.
It's a rubbish tax – and it won't work
How does 'recycling' end up here?
Solar panels won't save the planet
A rich seam. I look forward to engaging with him/them.
CARB(ON/OFF) - Carbon
I'm creating a new category soon on our internal filing and, soon, the site.
It's labeled, simply 'Carbon'. There's one other, equally simply labeled 'Climate'.
The titles are about all that's simple about them. As these two fill very soon get filled with a swathe of stuff.
Scheme to cut 'carbon footprint'.
In theory it looks good, but I sense it being hijacked by agendas. Look at home wind turbines.
And I love the quotes, look at what they are saying, and check what we have being banging on about for years (and other before us). Only they are on £250kpa, sit in the City and have a lot gain from flying to Bali to discuss all this.
It's labeled, simply 'Carbon'. There's one other, equally simply labeled 'Climate'.
The titles are about all that's simple about them. As these two fill very soon get filled with a swathe of stuff.
Scheme to cut 'carbon footprint'.
In theory it looks good, but I sense it being hijacked by agendas. Look at home wind turbines.
And I love the quotes, look at what they are saying, and check what we have being banging on about for years (and other before us). Only they are on £250kpa, sit in the City and have a lot gain from flying to Bali to discuss all this.
Well, that's one way to deal with it - Energy
UK 'facing power cuts in decade’
Not much more to say, really. So I'll mention why that 'Energy' is bolted on the back there in the title.
The reason is I'm mucking about with e-filing, both internally and externally. I'm not sure if it will help readers, but it's there to assist search functions locating similar topics.
Not much more to say, really. So I'll mention why that 'Energy' is bolted on the back there in the title.
The reason is I'm mucking about with e-filing, both internally and externally. I'm not sure if it will help readers, but it's there to assist search functions locating similar topics.
The Lengths Some Will Go To... [Airlines]
Left hand. Right hand.
The airlines have been coming in for a bit of stick lately with, some might say, good reason, at least global warming-wise.
And in response they have been 're:sponding' with initiatives, such as 'investing in bio-fuels' as claimed by Virgin.
So I was interested in this: Virgin in Mile High confusion Â… , and not for the rather puerile 'in humour' masquerading as business communication.
One area not so commented on much (other than by me), is the amount of space being devoted per passenger - majorsociooeconomicc stuff that is subject for another debate.
But I can't see lobbing a dirty great plane up in the sky with two people and a tennis court is quite the way to be heading.
The airlines have been coming in for a bit of stick lately with, some might say, good reason, at least global warming-wise.
And in response they have been 're:sponding' with initiatives, such as 'investing in bio-fuels' as claimed by Virgin.
So I was interested in this: Virgin in Mile High confusion Â… , and not for the rather puerile 'in humour' masquerading as business communication.
One area not so commented on much (other than by me), is the amount of space being devoted per passenger - majorsociooeconomicc stuff that is subject for another debate.
But I can't see lobbing a dirty great plane up in the sky with two people and a tennis court is quite the way to be heading.
Monday, November 20, 2006
Green Is The Colour. Misinformation Is The Game.
On balance, I think this Enviro Mental deserves it's own post link about the great Ken enviro scam.
Mind you, the author has pretty much has lifted it all from my previous notions, but there are a few extra kinks I neglected to share. Such as:
"As an issue, that's between him and anybody who voted for him, but don't for a moment believe the claims that there's any genuine environmental justification for the charge.
How so? Well you need look no further than the back of the nearest fume-belching black cab for your answer. These supposed paragons of environmental virtue actually produce 233 g/km of CO2 when fitted with the five-speed automatic gearbox that every taxi driver worth his salt opts for. Which is - ta da! - 7 g/km inside the 226 g/km and upwards band "G" that Ken is declaring open season on. Yet, unbelievably, taxis are exempt from paying any congestion charge at all, despite covering more miles in central London than anything else and spending approximately half their time running empty.
And that's just taxis. A recent study that suggested the vast majority of low-level air pollution in British cities is caused by buses, trucks and delivery vans."
Mind you, the author has pretty much has lifted it all from my previous notions, but there are a few extra kinks I neglected to share. Such as:
"As an issue, that's between him and anybody who voted for him, but don't for a moment believe the claims that there's any genuine environmental justification for the charge.
How so? Well you need look no further than the back of the nearest fume-belching black cab for your answer. These supposed paragons of environmental virtue actually produce 233 g/km of CO2 when fitted with the five-speed automatic gearbox that every taxi driver worth his salt opts for. Which is - ta da! - 7 g/km inside the 226 g/km and upwards band "G" that Ken is declaring open season on. Yet, unbelievably, taxis are exempt from paying any congestion charge at all, despite covering more miles in central London than anything else and spending approximately half their time running empty.
And that's just taxis. A recent study that suggested the vast majority of low-level air pollution in British cities is caused by buses, trucks and delivery vans."
At least the lunch bit is accurate:)
OK, I'm in a snit.
Every week they have something like this:
RACHEL HORNE WRITES…
It's 10.45 on Friday morning - I'm sitting in an edit suite with editor Dave putting together this week’s Lunch Lesson on running a business ethically. I've been talking to the Institute of Business Ethics - they say the key goals are tolerance, fairness, openness and responsibility – which maybe sounds more like a lifestyle choice than a business plan. But as people become more aware of their environment, both geographically and in terms of the people around them, I think it's inevitable that our attitudes as consumers will start to reflect our feelings as individuals, taking responsibility for the kind of world we want to live in.
Your emails and letters really do help set our agenda, so please keep them coming in.
WORKING LUNCH NEEDS YOU!
To get in touch on any of the following subjects, please click here…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/working_lunch/5042148.stm
We are planning to send Rob to Lancashire and Northamptonshire sometime soon. Do you know of an interesting business he could visit?
And send us your mobile phone questions for our expert in Consuming Issues on Friday’s programme.
And I used to pitch. But never even get a reply.
I make one small tart comment and the boys get emailed round. Sheesh.
Every week they have something like this:
RACHEL HORNE WRITES…
It's 10.45 on Friday morning - I'm sitting in an edit suite with editor Dave putting together this week’s Lunch Lesson on running a business ethically. I've been talking to the Institute of Business Ethics - they say the key goals are tolerance, fairness, openness and responsibility – which maybe sounds more like a lifestyle choice than a business plan. But as people become more aware of their environment, both geographically and in terms of the people around them, I think it's inevitable that our attitudes as consumers will start to reflect our feelings as individuals, taking responsibility for the kind of world we want to live in.
Your emails and letters really do help set our agenda, so please keep them coming in.
WORKING LUNCH NEEDS YOU!
To get in touch on any of the following subjects, please click here…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/working_lunch/5042148.stm
We are planning to send Rob to Lancashire and Northamptonshire sometime soon. Do you know of an interesting business he could visit?
And send us your mobile phone questions for our expert in Consuming Issues on Friday’s programme.
And I used to pitch. But never even get a reply.
I make one small tart comment and the boys get emailed round. Sheesh.
I'm saying nothing*
*Other than I hope Scott A will forgive me posting this. Please sign up for his daily series. It will make your day better.
Nice type, shame about the face.
Ok, that title needs work. I just wanted to share this ad, which had what I thought was a nifty headline pun (at least I haven't seen it before), but was let down a tad by the visual.
If I were selling the notion of saving this green and pleasant land, I'm not sure I'd use a red/yellow/orange sunblasted methane hellhole (I know it's a lot further away and is probably colder, but you get my drift) to illustrate it.
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Me vs. the BBC
Not quite Michael Moore, but if I have trouble with my reception we'll know why. Just to bring you up to date with the latest from the BBC about the 'great online horse's head in a bed' thing. They have replied, politely, if a little disengenously in my view, which I guess they have to or the OFCOM (he will appear again soon) boogeyman gets them. Latest first:
Dear Mr. Lynn,
I should begin by advising you that only the department you wrote to will know the answer to this question,
As you will note further on, they did not answer my question the first time, so it is hard to see why they might a second. Hence my writing to your department.
however, should you wish us to investigate this matter further could you please tell us why you are concerned about this question
As you will see from the attached correspondence, I asked a question, which was in part answered, though not very well.
In addition, the question 'in question' was asked, without any context as to why or what it meant. If that doesn't sound a bit odd, and not a little sinister, then I don't know what is. Especially left hanging. Still. For example I could ask a lot of things of you about your personal or business life that have nothing to do with the issue at hand, and it may be fair that if they are about something close to home it might be unnerving, no?
The BBC, despite being a public service, staffed by public servants paid for by a fee covered by the likes of me, has a bit of a reputation for gunning for folk, armed with being a monopoly, a very broad remit, a strange level of accountability and a very big pool of money to spent pretty much as it pleases.
So in an era of copyright protections, UGC debates, etc, I was a little concerned if I may have breached something unwittingly, despite the content being by me and about me. And hence I asked for clarification.
If, however, a point was being made, and I suspect I know what it was, then it would be.. polite.. not to say in the sprit of debate... to reply, don't you think? That just smacked of, 'We're the BBC and I have a lot of mates here who can make your life tricky'. Not good with charter renewal. Plus a very big networld out there. And the media. Who is that chap from the Sunday Times who didn't want to pay for his licence? I wonder what else I can Google up. Plus my MP. And a few others in Parliament. See, I might have mates, too.
This is a programme that continually asks for reader input: and from my experience, and that of others, completely ignores it. Not even a 'thanks, but we've done that/we're not in the area'. Nothing. Until now. And when I do get a reply, it seems like a veiled threat unless clarified otherwise. Which was not forthcoming. That's the trouble with email. Tone is removed and misunderstandings can happen.
and forward us the relevant correspondence.
Here you go (all on the 14th, pretty much as an exchange until my last - I waited until the next day to write to you) [I'll leave it in but it's back in another post]:
****
Dear Ms. Jones
It is/was open to those in the UK, and further field who have a business needing investment to continue its growth and it is meant to be more than just a one off competition. I'm sorry you were disappointed with the item.
I was disappointed in as much as I tuned in to see about a further opportunity to expand, which seemed to have passed. If it is still open to those in the UK then maybe I should have not have been. Where can I find out more
May I ask do you use "see us on the BBC" on all your promotional literature ?
As we don't have any, I'd say no, unless you count my email signature. May I ask why you ask? Would you like me to stop? It was a while ago.
****
Dear Sir,
It is/was open to those in the UK, and further field who have a business needing investment to continue its growth and it is meant to be more than just a one off competition. I'm sorry you were disappointed with the item.
May I ask do you use "see us on the BBC" on all your promotional literature ?
Best wishes
Lynne Jones
****
Sent: 14 November 2006 12:58
To: Working Lunch
Subject: Comment for 'Viewers' Views'
Dear Sirs,
I tuned in to watch because of this:
On Tuesday we talk to venture capitalists from the Isle of Man who are running a competition to find entrepreneurs.
Interesting questions posed.
So I'm clear, this is now a closed competition and it was/is not open to me anyway? So really it was a promo piece for the IoM than of any real value to businesses like mine?
If you are able to provide this further information, then we would be happy to look at the matter again.
Glad to make you happy.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact us.
No problem.
I look forward to hearing from you again.
Rgds, Peter Martin
British Citizen, TV Owner, Licence Payer
---------Original Message-----------
{Date:} 15/11/2006
{Feedback Type:} Complaint
{Title:} Mr
{First Name:} Peter
{Last Name:} Martin
{Email:} pm@firebird.com
{Phone:} 01989 762269
{Postcode:} HR9 7BZ
{Country:} England
{About:} General
{Network:} BBC2
{Programme Name:} Working Lunch
{Transmission Date:}14 - 11 - 06
{Comments:}
Not a complaint... yet. But as things have been left hanging more than 24hrs after a flurry of activity, I have a... concern.
I wrote to the above programme with a question, and in addition to my answer had the following comment regarding my email signature:
May I ask do you use "see us on the BBC" on all your promotional literature ?
I immediately answered, but then asked why this was posed, but to date have not heard back.
May I therefore formally ask for an explanation as I remain
unclear for the reasons behind this question and the manner in which it was asked.
ADDENDUM: You couldn't make it up! Nice of them to mention it... Plus I can see how me going through the whole process again to answer the guy directly is more efficient. Not.
Thank you for contacting BBC Information.
We are sorry but our email system will not receive your email unless you use one of our pre-formatted webforms. We realise the inconvenience but hope you will understand that this helps us handle the many emails we receive every day more efficiently and makes best use of your licence fee.
Please resend your reply or message using the format provided by one of our webforms at http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/contactus/, choosing the one which applies best to you. If we have previously given you a reference it will help to include it.
Also available online at http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/ are answers to common questions we often receive about our programmes, history, policies and structure, BBC Governors, complaints and documents such as our Annual Report or other reports and publications.
Alternatively you can telephone us on 08700 100 222 to comment, give your appreciation, make an enquiry, or register a complaint.
Dear Mr. Lynn,
I should begin by advising you that only the department you wrote to will know the answer to this question,
As you will note further on, they did not answer my question the first time, so it is hard to see why they might a second. Hence my writing to your department.
however, should you wish us to investigate this matter further could you please tell us why you are concerned about this question
As you will see from the attached correspondence, I asked a question, which was in part answered, though not very well.
In addition, the question 'in question' was asked, without any context as to why or what it meant. If that doesn't sound a bit odd, and not a little sinister, then I don't know what is. Especially left hanging. Still. For example I could ask a lot of things of you about your personal or business life that have nothing to do with the issue at hand, and it may be fair that if they are about something close to home it might be unnerving, no?
The BBC, despite being a public service, staffed by public servants paid for by a fee covered by the likes of me, has a bit of a reputation for gunning for folk, armed with being a monopoly, a very broad remit, a strange level of accountability and a very big pool of money to spent pretty much as it pleases.
So in an era of copyright protections, UGC debates, etc, I was a little concerned if I may have breached something unwittingly, despite the content being by me and about me. And hence I asked for clarification.
If, however, a point was being made, and I suspect I know what it was, then it would be.. polite.. not to say in the sprit of debate... to reply, don't you think? That just smacked of, 'We're the BBC and I have a lot of mates here who can make your life tricky'. Not good with charter renewal. Plus a very big networld out there. And the media. Who is that chap from the Sunday Times who didn't want to pay for his licence? I wonder what else I can Google up. Plus my MP. And a few others in Parliament. See, I might have mates, too.
This is a programme that continually asks for reader input: and from my experience, and that of others, completely ignores it. Not even a 'thanks, but we've done that/we're not in the area'. Nothing. Until now. And when I do get a reply, it seems like a veiled threat unless clarified otherwise. Which was not forthcoming. That's the trouble with email. Tone is removed and misunderstandings can happen.
and forward us the relevant correspondence.
Here you go (all on the 14th, pretty much as an exchange until my last - I waited until the next day to write to you) [I'll leave it in but it's back in another post]:
****
Dear Ms. Jones
It is/was open to those in the UK, and further field who have a business needing investment to continue its growth and it is meant to be more than just a one off competition. I'm sorry you were disappointed with the item.
I was disappointed in as much as I tuned in to see about a further opportunity to expand, which seemed to have passed. If it is still open to those in the UK then maybe I should have not have been. Where can I find out more
May I ask do you use "see us on the BBC" on all your promotional literature ?
As we don't have any, I'd say no, unless you count my email signature. May I ask why you ask? Would you like me to stop? It was a while ago.
****
Dear Sir,
It is/was open to those in the UK, and further field who have a business needing investment to continue its growth and it is meant to be more than just a one off competition. I'm sorry you were disappointed with the item.
May I ask do you use "see us on the BBC" on all your promotional literature ?
Best wishes
Lynne Jones
****
Sent: 14 November 2006 12:58
To: Working Lunch
Subject: Comment for 'Viewers' Views'
Dear Sirs,
I tuned in to watch because of this:
On Tuesday we talk to venture capitalists from the Isle of Man who are running a competition to find entrepreneurs.
Interesting questions posed.
So I'm clear, this is now a closed competition and it was/is not open to me anyway? So really it was a promo piece for the IoM than of any real value to businesses like mine?
If you are able to provide this further information, then we would be happy to look at the matter again.
Glad to make you happy.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact us.
No problem.
I look forward to hearing from you again.
Rgds, Peter Martin
British Citizen, TV Owner, Licence Payer
---------Original Message-----------
{Date:} 15/11/2006
{Feedback Type:} Complaint
{Title:} Mr
{First Name:} Peter
{Last Name:} Martin
{Email:} pm@firebird.com
{Phone:} 01989 762269
{Postcode:} HR9 7BZ
{Country:} England
{About:} General
{Network:} BBC2
{Programme Name:} Working Lunch
{Transmission Date:}14 - 11 - 06
{Comments:}
Not a complaint... yet. But as things have been left hanging more than 24hrs after a flurry of activity, I have a... concern.
I wrote to the above programme with a question, and in addition to my answer had the following comment regarding my email signature:
May I ask do you use "see us on the BBC" on all your promotional literature ?
I immediately answered, but then asked why this was posed, but to date have not heard back.
May I therefore formally ask for an explanation as I remain
unclear for the reasons behind this question and the manner in which it was asked.
ADDENDUM: You couldn't make it up! Nice of them to mention it... Plus I can see how me going through the whole process again to answer the guy directly is more efficient. Not.
Thank you for contacting BBC Information.
We are sorry but our email system will not receive your email unless you use one of our pre-formatted webforms. We realise the inconvenience but hope you will understand that this helps us handle the many emails we receive every day more efficiently and makes best use of your licence fee.
Please resend your reply or message using the format provided by one of our webforms at http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/contactus/, choosing the one which applies best to you. If we have previously given you a reference it will help to include it.
Also available online at http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/ are answers to common questions we often receive about our programmes, history, policies and structure, BBC Governors, complaints and documents such as our Annual Report or other reports and publications.
Alternatively you can telephone us on 08700 100 222 to comment, give your appreciation, make an enquiry, or register a complaint.
Friday, November 17, 2006
It's BIG alright!
Having decided to make the most of what little I gained from our commitment to appearing in the BIG Idea, I recently sent some Plug:Jugs to the judges, organisers and MCs. No replies as yet, oddly.
I think my next move will be the media, who are shaping up to being about as impressed as a lot of the participants are, if the Forum pages are anything to go by. Though I must say I have seen almost no mention of the show, good or bad, in most usual places, which is odd. And, I suppose, deadly for the orgnaisers. 'No such thing as..' as Simon Cowell would say, still dripping from Mrs. Ozzie's last attack.
There are also more than a few concerns on IP, which may or may not be legally an issue, but if the winner turns out to be one of these (and I don't think they (see Safe Shopper and Sticmatz) are in the market yet to actually be what's being pitched) it might be fun.
You pays yer money and yer takes yer chances with such things, but having, with many others, invested a lot in trying to make this a fair and exciting and interesting competition to find something special that qualifies for the title, I must say I feel badly let down by a very superficial, and not a little bit on the unethical... world.
I think my next move will be the media, who are shaping up to being about as impressed as a lot of the participants are, if the Forum pages are anything to go by. Though I must say I have seen almost no mention of the show, good or bad, in most usual places, which is odd. And, I suppose, deadly for the orgnaisers. 'No such thing as..' as Simon Cowell would say, still dripping from Mrs. Ozzie's last attack.
There are also more than a few concerns on IP, which may or may not be legally an issue, but if the winner turns out to be one of these (and I don't think they (see Safe Shopper and Sticmatz) are in the market yet to actually be what's being pitched) it might be fun.
You pays yer money and yer takes yer chances with such things, but having, with many others, invested a lot in trying to make this a fair and exciting and interesting competition to find something special that qualifies for the title, I must say I feel badly let down by a very superficial, and not a little bit on the unethical... world.
Online. Under Cover. Off The Road?
Gives new meaning to shop 'til we drop. New shopping centres could be a waste of space
"Thanks to a new generation of "internet" shoppers who are more than happy to try out [stuff] in the store before ordering it to be delivered to their homes."
But bad news for landlords. Altogether now... 'Ahhhhh'.
Good or bad? No more traveling for us, unless you need to visit to look, in which case that makes trips for you and the delivery. Hmnn.
"Thanks to a new generation of "internet" shoppers who are more than happy to try out [stuff] in the store before ordering it to be delivered to their homes."
But bad news for landlords. Altogether now... 'Ahhhhh'.
Good or bad? No more traveling for us, unless you need to visit to look, in which case that makes trips for you and the delivery. Hmnn.
Damn site cooler than a Prius, eh?
I like hydrogen. So why does the way this - hydrogen car: beauty or beast? - seem to be heading in the wrong direction?
PROs?
BMW has already received plenty of offers from politicians and executives, scientists and athletes, rock stars and TV personalities, all eager to help "create visibility for hydrogen".
Madonna, David Suzuki, Al Gore and Arnold Schwarzenegger are said to be among a long line of celebrities queuing up to endorse the car, and perhaps further enhance their own green images in the process.
CONS!
The problem is that currently most hydrogen is generated from fossil fuels, since the cost of generating it from, say, solar energy can be up to four times higher.
And when hydrogen is produced this way, well-to-tank and tank-to-wheel analysis shows the overall carbon dioxide emissions from hydrogen powered cars can be higher than that from petrol or diesel powered vehicles.
Thank you Nick. This could so many places, but certainly here. Thre's also one more kink I didn't know:
"It seems that image is everything. I hear that various green-tinted celebs are being sized up by BMW to run the new hydrogen powered 7 Series, the "zero emission" car. There's just one small problem: the absence of any hydrogen filling stations means that they're going to have to be refuelled on site with the H2 delivered in an ordinary, diesel-burning truck. At risk of sounding like the Daily Mail's Richard Littlejohn (and keeping up the tangential Robin Hood connection), you couldn't make it up."
PROs?
BMW has already received plenty of offers from politicians and executives, scientists and athletes, rock stars and TV personalities, all eager to help "create visibility for hydrogen".
Madonna, David Suzuki, Al Gore and Arnold Schwarzenegger are said to be among a long line of celebrities queuing up to endorse the car, and perhaps further enhance their own green images in the process.
CONS!
The problem is that currently most hydrogen is generated from fossil fuels, since the cost of generating it from, say, solar energy can be up to four times higher.
And when hydrogen is produced this way, well-to-tank and tank-to-wheel analysis shows the overall carbon dioxide emissions from hydrogen powered cars can be higher than that from petrol or diesel powered vehicles.
Thank you Nick. This could so many places, but certainly here. Thre's also one more kink I didn't know:
"It seems that image is everything. I hear that various green-tinted celebs are being sized up by BMW to run the new hydrogen powered 7 Series, the "zero emission" car. There's just one small problem: the absence of any hydrogen filling stations means that they're going to have to be refuelled on site with the H2 delivered in an ordinary, diesel-burning truck. At risk of sounding like the Daily Mail's Richard Littlejohn (and keeping up the tangential Robin Hood connection), you couldn't make it up."
If you can't stand being in the kitchen, fine the cook
Turn Up The Heat - Guardian
I was a tad worried when I saw "Now it may be starting produce action as well. The Queen's speech included plans to legislate against rising carbon emissions," and precious little by way of legislating FOR anything.
Sure, enough sticks to make that Roman symbol of authority (now what was it called again?) will be needed in a lot of areas, but there are surely some others where the great and good of our Dear Leaderships can try for a few carrots, too.
Not from the waffle I've heard from Ministers on breakfast TV lately.
People need mates as well as nannies!
I was a tad worried when I saw "Now it may be starting produce action as well. The Queen's speech included plans to legislate against rising carbon emissions," and precious little by way of legislating FOR anything.
Sure, enough sticks to make that Roman symbol of authority (now what was it called again?) will be needed in a lot of areas, but there are surely some others where the great and good of our Dear Leaderships can try for a few carrots, too.
Not from the waffle I've heard from Ministers on breakfast TV lately.
People need mates as well as nannies!
See you in hell, Dell
I don't know why I say this, surrounded as I am by Dell PCs and printers, and with them doing a lot more than some to mitigate their e-footprint, but what goes around comes around: Dell delays filing results as inquiry is stepped up
Of course the fire alert was not their fault, and really I have no real complaints about the machines, other than our massive hard drive failure that cost us so dear.
And this enquiry, which seems so damaging, is nothing to do with my big beef: their customer service. The arrogance was breathtaking.
I could have been fighting their corner. Now I'm waiting to laugh as the redundancies bite, but only at senior level. The poor sods at ground zero always seemed OK and are the ones who will really suffer.
Of course the fire alert was not their fault, and really I have no real complaints about the machines, other than our massive hard drive failure that cost us so dear.
And this enquiry, which seems so damaging, is nothing to do with my big beef: their customer service. The arrogance was breathtaking.
I could have been fighting their corner. Now I'm waiting to laugh as the redundancies bite, but only at senior level. The poor sods at ground zero always seemed OK and are the ones who will really suffer.
Trust me, I'm in blogging
You gotta love the public:
"This... is astounding.
I use blogs (perhaps too much for my RSI and sanity) both ways, and love what they can do to round out what’s out there.
But... trust them more than ’newspapers, TV advertisements or email marketing campaigns’???!!
These are tightly constrained, monitored and controlled media, subject to censure and fines.
Blogs are the wildest, woolliest West.
It’s a sorry commentary on our faith in media these days.
But maybe blogs are not having it all their own way (via me and some others), even BBC’s Newsnight:
“Where there is any form of shortlist*, agendas come into play, making both the process and the result immediately open to... 'concerns'. Even with no editing, what stays in and what is kept out shapes the story.’
*Substitute selection, moderation or any other similar word you fancy here."
Just added this to Newsnight:
You gotta love the public:
"This - "Public trust blogs over marketing" is astounding:
http://www.precisionmarketing.co.uk//Articles/252203/Public+trust+blogs+over+marketing.html
But maybe blogs are not having it all their own way; just look on these pages.
Some of mine appear. Some do not. And it's not because I use naughty words. If not, why?
At least they always end up on my, totally trustworthy, blog:)
The Guardian is on it, too: Should the BBC pay for user-generated content?
Plus another, related topic I added to.
"This... is astounding.
I use blogs (perhaps too much for my RSI and sanity) both ways, and love what they can do to round out what’s out there.
But... trust them more than ’newspapers, TV advertisements or email marketing campaigns’???!!
These are tightly constrained, monitored and controlled media, subject to censure and fines.
Blogs are the wildest, woolliest West.
It’s a sorry commentary on our faith in media these days.
But maybe blogs are not having it all their own way (via me and some others), even BBC’s Newsnight:
“Where there is any form of shortlist*, agendas come into play, making both the process and the result immediately open to... 'concerns'. Even with no editing, what stays in and what is kept out shapes the story.’
*Substitute selection, moderation or any other similar word you fancy here."
Just added this to Newsnight:
You gotta love the public:
"This - "Public trust blogs over marketing" is astounding:
http://www.precisionmarketing.co.uk//Articles/252203/Public+trust+blogs+over+marketing.html
But maybe blogs are not having it all their own way; just look on these pages.
Some of mine appear. Some do not. And it's not because I use naughty words. If not, why?
At least they always end up on my, totally trustworthy, blog:)
The Guardian is on it, too: Should the BBC pay for user-generated content?
Plus another, related topic I added to.
A Right Royal..?
No, that's it. I just pose the question.
Inspired by Get on your bikes, the green Prince of Wales tells his staff , I sense a double dose of 'Damned if you do'... plus 'Nothing green can be black and white'
Gawd knows why, the guy is a role model. What he says, and does is news. And he says and does a lot, and has a bevvy of equerries to let us know about it. And where he goes, some folk may follow.
My first thought was 'here we go again'. I guess bus and tube doesn't cut it. At least he bought the bikes. I just hope they have places to park each end. And non-energy consuming ways to dry off when it rains. I notice they are 'available'. This could be fun. A bit like who leaves last at night (and switches the lights off... yay!).
What is interesting is this - "Royal accounts show that it costs taxpayers £13 per mile to transport a royal by air, compared to £41 per mile by royal train." - which is the dilemma I raised in the Newsnight blog the other day. How do we as taxpayers feel about footing his eco-desires... and example, when it is quite a lot of dosh for very little actual result.
And lo, it came to pass: Noblesse Oblige, in the Gaurdian
Inspired by Get on your bikes, the green Prince of Wales tells his staff , I sense a double dose of 'Damned if you do'... plus 'Nothing green can be black and white'
Gawd knows why, the guy is a role model. What he says, and does is news. And he says and does a lot, and has a bevvy of equerries to let us know about it. And where he goes, some folk may follow.
My first thought was 'here we go again'. I guess bus and tube doesn't cut it. At least he bought the bikes. I just hope they have places to park each end. And non-energy consuming ways to dry off when it rains. I notice they are 'available'. This could be fun. A bit like who leaves last at night (and switches the lights off... yay!).
What is interesting is this - "Royal accounts show that it costs taxpayers £13 per mile to transport a royal by air, compared to £41 per mile by royal train." - which is the dilemma I raised in the Newsnight blog the other day. How do we as taxpayers feel about footing his eco-desires... and example, when it is quite a lot of dosh for very little actual result.
And lo, it came to pass: Noblesse Oblige, in the Gaurdian
Thursday, November 16, 2006
I'm Proud Of This
In reply to a recent editorial invitation, regarding Social Enterprise, which was actually part of a whole raft of stuff that day but (one said write in).
"In one of your accompanying pieces, the question is asked: What can the Government do to encourage social enterprise?
I'd say a heck of a lot, and it is. But then I’d go on to say.. mostly of the wrong things.
Why is where I'll offer my highly personal, and subjective, view.
I'm no longer young but I'm still enterprising, so I reckon at least 50% of what I have to share may apply. Social Enterprise is currently big, and across every demographic and sphere.
And as Martin Webb writes, "It's about using the imagination to create something that wasn't there before”, adding: "Enterprise Week isn't just about making money either".
However I'll have to take issue with "once you've got a mortgage, family and career to worry about it's difficult to think or act on purely altruistic lines. Secondly, all the lovely social content has got our politicians racing to be involved and will have no doubt made funding a whole lot easier". I haven't. And it hasn't.
As to "Gordon Brown is even hosting an event". Oh, Go.. od.
So I stand ready to be convinced that the Tories will do any better. But they can try to (convince me, that is). It's certainly interesting that George Osborne has said that there are "worrying signs" that Britain is becoming "less entrepreneurial, less competitive" yet the Chancellor claims that Britain is "beginning an enterprise renaissance".
Who to believe? That we face deep-rooted cultural barriers to entrepreneurship resonates, especially that 'we' (who is that?) are less ready to take on risks and are less entrepreneurial, less business orientated.
I'm pretty sure government is active when trying to encourage enterprise, but as stated, "Creating the right environment is much more important than simply starting new schemes and initiatives to tick boxes."
However, I do not agree the popularity of TV programmes like Dragons' Den and The Apprentice has helped to improve attitudes to entrepreneurship, at least in the intended way. If anyone thinks I'd go anywhere near the former, except for the dubious benefits of bad publicity, they can offer me half a decent sales rep’s salary for half my company. As to the latter, not that I watched it, it seems more like celebrity hype than anything else. The winner has done what? Meanwhile she who was second has a website that says... “Don’t waste our time and we won’t waste yours!” and is a female Cowell on Sky's Big Idea: Another show (which I was in, for all the right reasons: £100k of them) which is shaping up with an odd notion of what constitutes a UK world-beater.
I'd like to think my social enterprise has a social purpose. But so far the government has done very little to encourage me. It’s not for the want of trying. Third sector conferences. Quango grant application rounds. All funded, at least in the getting there, applying, etc, by me. Only to find myself surrounded by a lot of paid folk who know how such things work and can talk the talk. Not for profits. Charities. Folk who know folk who do this for a living and will do your pitch, for a fee (offset) in a way the box tickers love.
And if 90% of the money gets used up on offices, staff, regional offices, regional staff, pension, communications (best way to establish an empire) and expenses, plus fact-finding tours, before anything gets near a social enterprise doing anything, then that's how it's always been, isn’t it, Sir. Humphrey?
Details, I have. Just ask.
I just don't see how it's all making the world a much better place.
Maybe it's me. I'm creative. I have ideas. I applied this to advertising, and it worked well.
But when I see the word ‘innovation’ or ‘entrepreneur’ in any advertised funding initiative I groan. These guys don't want what they haven't seen before (pretty much my definition of innovative'). Or in a form they're not used to (my definition of creative). So is it any wonder we are not seeing cutting edge stuff being pushed through for all these gazillions? It's all SOSO (Same Old. Same Old). Or hype. The media are complicit. They don't want good, or what works. They want what will get ratings from the primetime viewers. Hours of presentation and debate chopped to a few minutes.. you’re in/out! I hate/like it!
If, as I believe, we have a bunch of grey suits (actually the last I dealt with had a T-shirt.. but it was grey, to match his mind) sitting on this vast resource, and simply being Uranus to true creative, if not businesslike (note: I don't mean business minded) innovators from Mars, for heaven's sake let's figure how to bridge that divide and get us back on track of being Great Britain again!"
"In one of your accompanying pieces, the question is asked: What can the Government do to encourage social enterprise?
I'd say a heck of a lot, and it is. But then I’d go on to say.. mostly of the wrong things.
Why is where I'll offer my highly personal, and subjective, view.
I'm no longer young but I'm still enterprising, so I reckon at least 50% of what I have to share may apply. Social Enterprise is currently big, and across every demographic and sphere.
And as Martin Webb writes, "It's about using the imagination to create something that wasn't there before”, adding: "Enterprise Week isn't just about making money either".
However I'll have to take issue with "once you've got a mortgage, family and career to worry about it's difficult to think or act on purely altruistic lines. Secondly, all the lovely social content has got our politicians racing to be involved and will have no doubt made funding a whole lot easier". I haven't. And it hasn't.
As to "Gordon Brown is even hosting an event". Oh, Go.. od.
So I stand ready to be convinced that the Tories will do any better. But they can try to (convince me, that is). It's certainly interesting that George Osborne has said that there are "worrying signs" that Britain is becoming "less entrepreneurial, less competitive" yet the Chancellor claims that Britain is "beginning an enterprise renaissance".
Who to believe? That we face deep-rooted cultural barriers to entrepreneurship resonates, especially that 'we' (who is that?) are less ready to take on risks and are less entrepreneurial, less business orientated.
I'm pretty sure government is active when trying to encourage enterprise, but as stated, "Creating the right environment is much more important than simply starting new schemes and initiatives to tick boxes."
However, I do not agree the popularity of TV programmes like Dragons' Den and The Apprentice has helped to improve attitudes to entrepreneurship, at least in the intended way. If anyone thinks I'd go anywhere near the former, except for the dubious benefits of bad publicity, they can offer me half a decent sales rep’s salary for half my company. As to the latter, not that I watched it, it seems more like celebrity hype than anything else. The winner has done what? Meanwhile she who was second has a website that says... “Don’t waste our time and we won’t waste yours!” and is a female Cowell on Sky's Big Idea: Another show (which I was in, for all the right reasons: £100k of them) which is shaping up with an odd notion of what constitutes a UK world-beater.
I'd like to think my social enterprise has a social purpose. But so far the government has done very little to encourage me. It’s not for the want of trying. Third sector conferences. Quango grant application rounds. All funded, at least in the getting there, applying, etc, by me. Only to find myself surrounded by a lot of paid folk who know how such things work and can talk the talk. Not for profits. Charities. Folk who know folk who do this for a living and will do your pitch, for a fee (offset) in a way the box tickers love.
And if 90% of the money gets used up on offices, staff, regional offices, regional staff, pension, communications (best way to establish an empire) and expenses, plus fact-finding tours, before anything gets near a social enterprise doing anything, then that's how it's always been, isn’t it, Sir. Humphrey?
Details, I have. Just ask.
I just don't see how it's all making the world a much better place.
Maybe it's me. I'm creative. I have ideas. I applied this to advertising, and it worked well.
But when I see the word ‘innovation’ or ‘entrepreneur’ in any advertised funding initiative I groan. These guys don't want what they haven't seen before (pretty much my definition of innovative'). Or in a form they're not used to (my definition of creative). So is it any wonder we are not seeing cutting edge stuff being pushed through for all these gazillions? It's all SOSO (Same Old. Same Old). Or hype. The media are complicit. They don't want good, or what works. They want what will get ratings from the primetime viewers. Hours of presentation and debate chopped to a few minutes.. you’re in/out! I hate/like it!
If, as I believe, we have a bunch of grey suits (actually the last I dealt with had a T-shirt.. but it was grey, to match his mind) sitting on this vast resource, and simply being Uranus to true creative, if not businesslike (note: I don't mean business minded) innovators from Mars, for heaven's sake let's figure how to bridge that divide and get us back on track of being Great Britain again!"
All grist to the windmill, eh?
From a Newsnight a whil ago: It's No Breeze
"That’ll teach me to go offline for a while! I was wondering if anyone had seen this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=415993&in_page_id=1770, and lo, it seems it is the DM who have only just picked up. My bad.
This... is a tad telling: “please, don't do it! I work in the renewables industry, and there is no doubt whatsoever that roof-mounted turbines are an expensive "con".
To set against this, now that B&Q is selling them hand over fist for Xmas, and as the downsides (if they are real) seem to have been sanitised a bit, at least mainstream, I do hope we will get accurate ROI (eco-nomic and –logical) figures... from you?
This is what I’m doing with my reviews, with a 6 month update on my first (funds a bit tight for the full monty of every device and every brand) - http://www.junkk.com/index.asp?parent_id=1135&slevel=0z1135 - coming soon."
You know, we really are poorly served with good info/data. It's all extremes. Yes it's the saviour... No it's a monster. Back to my oft posted arguments fro real ROI tables.
"That’ll teach me to go offline for a while! I was wondering if anyone had seen this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=415993&in_page_id=1770, and lo, it seems it is the DM who have only just picked up. My bad.
This... is a tad telling: “please, don't do it! I work in the renewables industry, and there is no doubt whatsoever that roof-mounted turbines are an expensive "con".
To set against this, now that B&Q is selling them hand over fist for Xmas, and as the downsides (if they are real) seem to have been sanitised a bit, at least mainstream, I do hope we will get accurate ROI (eco-nomic and –logical) figures... from you?
This is what I’m doing with my reviews, with a 6 month update on my first (funds a bit tight for the full monty of every device and every brand) - http://www.junkk.com/index.asp?parent_id=1135&slevel=0z1135 - coming soon."
You know, we really are poorly served with good info/data. It's all extremes. Yes it's the saviour... No it's a monster. Back to my oft posted arguments fro real ROI tables.
Well, you never know...
It all rather depends on whether they recall 70's TV shows. If not, I'm b******d (to keep in the BBC 'cred' vernacular.
"Dear J... ustin, I'd like to meet Mr. Gore too, one day. Soon(ish). I think he could help me help him help everyone mend the planet. Can you fix that for me? Thank you very much. Peter (Aged 49)"
"Dear J... ustin, I'd like to meet Mr. Gore too, one day. Soon(ish). I think he could help me help him help everyone mend the planet. Can you fix that for me? Thank you very much. Peter (Aged 49)"
Three strikes and you’re... still in?!
I added one to this:
"Well, you never know. As I’ve already written twice this is perhaps pushing it, but as this is where the debate started...
Out of 36 (at last count) posts, approx 30% (at.. etc, but a few were ‘replies’) were about moderated blogs.
As I may (or may not:) have been quoted, but certainly said, with mouth freshly washed out with soap, – publish-and-be-ignored on another of this site’s Forums - go_on_make_tv_history: “Where there is any form of shortlist*, agendas come into play, making both the process and the result immediately open to... 'concerns'. Even with no editing, what stays in and what is kept out shapes the story.
*Substitute selection, moderation or any other similar word you fancy here.
I must say that being ‘moderated’ by an outside company adds a new kink to impartial, objective public service broadcasting. Yes, it says so in the guidelines what will happen.
But.. er.. do we get told whose doing it? Rupert Murdoch? Kim Jong Il? Or, horror of horrors, a Govt. spin doctor?!!!"
"Well, you never know. As I’ve already written twice this is perhaps pushing it, but as this is where the debate started...
Out of 36 (at last count) posts, approx 30% (at.. etc, but a few were ‘replies’) were about moderated blogs.
As I may (or may not:) have been quoted, but certainly said, with mouth freshly washed out with soap, – publish-and-be-ignored on another of this site’s Forums - go_on_make_tv_history: “Where there is any form of shortlist*, agendas come into play, making both the process and the result immediately open to... 'concerns'. Even with no editing, what stays in and what is kept out shapes the story.
*Substitute selection, moderation or any other similar word you fancy here.
I must say that being ‘moderated’ by an outside company adds a new kink to impartial, objective public service broadcasting. Yes, it says so in the guidelines what will happen.
But.. er.. do we get told whose doing it? Rupert Murdoch? Kim Jong Il? Or, horror of horrors, a Govt. spin doctor?!!!"
One Man's Whinge..
Stop whinging
"It can be valuable to come to something fresh, and late, and sift through the debris with a mind unfogged by the emotions of the moment.
As is rightly pointed out from the off, there is what we want to do, what we should do, what we can do, what we have to do, what we’re made to do... and what we end up doing. These can often be at odds with each other.
There was a point being made in this piece. I have to say making it in Jamaica was a bit of a plus for the production team. Did the fam go too? No blue screen here; only blue skies. Haven’t watched it yet, so I can’t comment whether license fee money was saved by freebies in 1st, Club or cattle being offered in return for a stray logo cropping up in shot, and the local tourist board helping scratch mutual backs whilst there.
I am glad to see the offset issue has been addressed. I reckon we already need to plant a forest the size of Jupiter just to cope with Mrs. Beckett’s commute when she was in charge of our environmental future. Now where are her successors at the 'mo?
Taking the pledge is interesting. I could live with silver, if we could afford the fares. The in-laws are in Singapore, so it would be nice to see them. Can we make it a human right?
But I’m guessing this doesn’t count ‘business’, and options such as not splaying out in the same space in front or upstairs as do 4 others in cattle.
So we sometimes don’t have alternatives, but it is incumbent upon us to do our best to mitigate their impact. Did this? No.
ps: Phone charger: check. Noticed that it was warm even when not charging a mobile. Still got a couple of cordless jobs with little red lights on 24/7 though:( I don’t think they do DECT crank dial jobs.
pps: 17. Tobias, packing doesn’t have to go in the bin: http://www.junkk.com/ideas.asp?slevel=0z622&parent_id=622
As it is pertinent, let me post here what I think (that guy who does brainy stuff at college can tell us if it is or isn’t) is an ethical situation:
Thanks to my devastating insights on this issue, you invite me to appear on the show. Good for my cause; good for your... well... it kills a few primetime minutes cheaply. I think I read elsewhere on these blogs that you do pay costs, but on what basis I don’t know.
If it's London I’d say OK, at the time of night I could come in unethically by car, which will cost you for the travel, and my time, which is about 3hrs each way. Or, ‘cos I’m ethical, it’s the train, which is about the same travel time but a lot more expensive, plus the hotel ‘cos the last train’s gone, plus my additional opportunity costs of being away from home/office.
I posed this recently to a client who challenged my environmental credentials as I arrived by car, but decided after all that she’d live with my driving time of 10 minutes over paying my public transport time of 2hrs. Funny that.
Which do you choose?"
"It can be valuable to come to something fresh, and late, and sift through the debris with a mind unfogged by the emotions of the moment.
As is rightly pointed out from the off, there is what we want to do, what we should do, what we can do, what we have to do, what we’re made to do... and what we end up doing. These can often be at odds with each other.
There was a point being made in this piece. I have to say making it in Jamaica was a bit of a plus for the production team. Did the fam go too? No blue screen here; only blue skies. Haven’t watched it yet, so I can’t comment whether license fee money was saved by freebies in 1st, Club or cattle being offered in return for a stray logo cropping up in shot, and the local tourist board helping scratch mutual backs whilst there.
I am glad to see the offset issue has been addressed. I reckon we already need to plant a forest the size of Jupiter just to cope with Mrs. Beckett’s commute when she was in charge of our environmental future. Now where are her successors at the 'mo?
Taking the pledge is interesting. I could live with silver, if we could afford the fares. The in-laws are in Singapore, so it would be nice to see them. Can we make it a human right?
But I’m guessing this doesn’t count ‘business’, and options such as not splaying out in the same space in front or upstairs as do 4 others in cattle.
So we sometimes don’t have alternatives, but it is incumbent upon us to do our best to mitigate their impact. Did this? No.
ps: Phone charger: check. Noticed that it was warm even when not charging a mobile. Still got a couple of cordless jobs with little red lights on 24/7 though:( I don’t think they do DECT crank dial jobs.
pps: 17. Tobias, packing doesn’t have to go in the bin: http://www.junkk.com/ideas.asp?slevel=0z622&parent_id=622
As it is pertinent, let me post here what I think (that guy who does brainy stuff at college can tell us if it is or isn’t) is an ethical situation:
Thanks to my devastating insights on this issue, you invite me to appear on the show. Good for my cause; good for your... well... it kills a few primetime minutes cheaply. I think I read elsewhere on these blogs that you do pay costs, but on what basis I don’t know.
If it's London I’d say OK, at the time of night I could come in unethically by car, which will cost you for the travel, and my time, which is about 3hrs each way. Or, ‘cos I’m ethical, it’s the train, which is about the same travel time but a lot more expensive, plus the hotel ‘cos the last train’s gone, plus my additional opportunity costs of being away from home/office.
I posed this recently to a client who challenged my environmental credentials as I arrived by car, but decided after all that she’d live with my driving time of 10 minutes over paying my public transport time of 2hrs. Funny that.
Which do you choose?"
Publish And Be... Ignored?
A rich seam as I return to the Newsnight blog. Usually I graze only at the Ethical Man section. But this about democratic citizen journalism (UGC), caught my eye, and prompted a thought: Go on, make TV history
"I have to share some of the same concerns that first poster Themos Tsikas has. Where there is any form of shortlist, agendas come into play, making both the process and the result immediately open to... 'concerns'. Even with no editing, what stays in and what is kept out shapes the story. Look at the fun on the Ethical Man blog about posts that are, are not, are, so there... 'Missing in Moderation'... It's a hoot."
Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner. There may be a delay before publication - click here for more information.
Having seen stuff of mine chosen and not chosen, or if chosen changed to suit the editorial agenda, the notion of a free press is rather quaint. I just admire those who have a stance, admit it, and when they publish they publish it all. Or nothing.
At least they can't get rid of this... yet.
"I have to share some of the same concerns that first poster Themos Tsikas has. Where there is any form of shortlist, agendas come into play, making both the process and the result immediately open to... 'concerns'. Even with no editing, what stays in and what is kept out shapes the story. Look at the fun on the Ethical Man blog about posts that are, are not, are, so there... 'Missing in Moderation'... It's a hoot."
Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner. There may be a delay before publication - click here for more information.
Having seen stuff of mine chosen and not chosen, or if chosen changed to suit the editorial agenda, the notion of a free press is rather quaint. I just admire those who have a stance, admit it, and when they publish they publish it all. Or nothing.
At least they can't get rid of this... yet.
In with a chance?
I'm getting moderated out a lot these days, so let's see if this one to Newsnight - The ethics of radiator valves - makes it through.
'The plumbing, ethical, financial and environmental bits are pretty much covered. Despite the £300, I’d say go for it.
I needed to upgrade my system a while ago, so bolted on the rad valves to the boiler upgrade, as a lot of the costs were in the flushing of the system anyway, and the guys were there. Saves a trip cost. More of a dilemma when it’s just for the valves.
Maybe combine with the annual service? Get in quick before winter comes (if it does). And make sure they put things on the right way! 25% of ours are on backwards and hammer if they are not full on or off.
Now I’m going on to a real concern about another section raised in the piece, thanks to what looks like one of our Dear (as in ‘fine if you don’t; you pay not to get fined so do) Leaders’ many daily initiatives.
" The big one was filling the cavity in my walls... The only reason I haven't already... is I didn' t have a cavity to fill . "
How’s this work if one doesn’t live in a brand new SE semi, that’s doing it’s bit for global warming by the DPM concreting over all that’s left of what’s green to build it and keep all those new young voters happy and out of the red (or in it, votes wise)?
Just popped on, is it? No can change, no arguments? Ker-ching! I live in an existing house, that takes no more emissions to make. And I’m making it as eco as I can. Partly for the planet; partly for my wallet – I have just popped in a solar dehumidifier for my cellar - http://www.junkk.com/index.asp?slevel=0z0z893&parent_id=893 - which I’m road-testing on these bases for our next newsletter, and so far it’s looking good.
Like Justin, I don’t have a cavity to fill, but can think of a few some can stick it in if this is just another ring-fenced, public pension pot revenue generator at my expense in the name of green.'
'The plumbing, ethical, financial and environmental bits are pretty much covered. Despite the £300, I’d say go for it.
I needed to upgrade my system a while ago, so bolted on the rad valves to the boiler upgrade, as a lot of the costs were in the flushing of the system anyway, and the guys were there. Saves a trip cost. More of a dilemma when it’s just for the valves.
Maybe combine with the annual service? Get in quick before winter comes (if it does). And make sure they put things on the right way! 25% of ours are on backwards and hammer if they are not full on or off.
Now I’m going on to a real concern about another section raised in the piece, thanks to what looks like one of our Dear (as in ‘fine if you don’t; you pay not to get fined so do) Leaders’ many daily initiatives.
" The big one was filling the cavity in my walls... The only reason I haven't already... is I didn' t have a cavity to fill . "
How’s this work if one doesn’t live in a brand new SE semi, that’s doing it’s bit for global warming by the DPM concreting over all that’s left of what’s green to build it and keep all those new young voters happy and out of the red (or in it, votes wise)?
Just popped on, is it? No can change, no arguments? Ker-ching! I live in an existing house, that takes no more emissions to make. And I’m making it as eco as I can. Partly for the planet; partly for my wallet – I have just popped in a solar dehumidifier for my cellar - http://www.junkk.com/index.asp?slevel=0z0z893&parent_id=893 - which I’m road-testing on these bases for our next newsletter, and so far it’s looking good.
Like Justin, I don’t have a cavity to fill, but can think of a few some can stick it in if this is just another ring-fenced, public pension pot revenue generator at my expense in the name of green.'
Dr. Junkk Writes...
... for Newsnight: Foraging with care
"A late blooming comment, as it were. Still relevant to the last post (da, da..... da, tat tat tat-tat, dee tat, tat, tat-tat)
While I'm all for going au naturel locally, if it's out of your allotment (and frankly, even if it is) do be very, very careful on the hygiene aspects. At the very least make sure you get it home and wash it within an inch of losing all nutritional value.
Having just nursed a wife through two weeks of food poisoning (no clue how, the rest of us were fine), I don't think our finances, the health service or the environment were served too well during this period."
"A late blooming comment, as it were. Still relevant to the last post (da, da..... da, tat tat tat-tat, dee tat, tat, tat-tat)
While I'm all for going au naturel locally, if it's out of your allotment (and frankly, even if it is) do be very, very careful on the hygiene aspects. At the very least make sure you get it home and wash it within an inch of losing all nutritional value.
Having just nursed a wife through two weeks of food poisoning (no clue how, the rest of us were fine), I don't think our finances, the health service or the environment were served too well during this period."
If you are what you eat, this is a worry.
TOP TEN TRENDS FOR 2007
Mintel has identified what will be hitting supermarket shelves in 2007.
They asked if we thought these trends important. Silly boys and girls:
"Oh yes, they are important. Good to see this "..With a love of nature comes a deeper commitment to ethical products.." and this "..Refillable packaging has a strong opportunity to make its mark as consumers are increasingly looking for more ways to save natural resources". Though I'm not sure how they equate to this "..exotic fruits such as açaà and cupuaçu [wow, those babies did for my Spellchecker!) continuing their rise to fame..", food miles wise. But as my fellow Geordie-centric poster points out, I'm still wondering when the whole issue moves from Prius (as a 2nd car) Person to Mondeo Man (R-Reg. Can't afford an LPG convert)."
Mintel has identified what will be hitting supermarket shelves in 2007.
They asked if we thought these trends important. Silly boys and girls:
"Oh yes, they are important. Good to see this "..With a love of nature comes a deeper commitment to ethical products.." and this "..Refillable packaging has a strong opportunity to make its mark as consumers are increasingly looking for more ways to save natural resources". Though I'm not sure how they equate to this "..exotic fruits such as açaà and cupuaçu [wow, those babies did for my Spellchecker!) continuing their rise to fame..", food miles wise. But as my fellow Geordie-centric poster points out, I'm still wondering when the whole issue moves from Prius (as a 2nd car) Person to Mondeo Man (R-Reg. Can't afford an LPG convert)."
No Green Port Left
Sorry, I came over all nautical. It's just that I kind of associate Green with Left, and that's how... oh forget it.
The point is, I was floored just now by this: Green my ride
A non rant, average person-friendly, pragmatic... useful article in the Grauniad Love the pop-up for 2 business class seast to Dubai, guys. I can occupy twice the space to go look at them make the oil we're burning:)
Long my they do more.
Plus I feel oodles better about my Volvo. I could... probably... afford to convert to LPG. But I don't trust Gordo, and so far the makers say I can't, while the converters say I can.
The point is, I was floored just now by this: Green my ride
A non rant, average person-friendly, pragmatic... useful article in the Grauniad Love the pop-up for 2 business class seast to Dubai, guys. I can occupy twice the space to go look at them make the oil we're burning:)
Long my they do more.
Plus I feel oodles better about my Volvo. I could... probably... afford to convert to LPG. But I don't trust Gordo, and so far the makers say I can't, while the converters say I can.
So little rare. Or well done.
I hope I don't get in trouble for the whole Nazi allusion thing (what with Ken having a spot 'o bother with this recently), but I'm still banging away. I don't know why. One recent one I devoted a while to ended up with a few hundred replies. I doubt the author read them all.
Still, this does get bigger than the environment: Make them all pay £25 to drive in London
First they came for the 4x4s, and I did not speak (They are a bit much, if not really necessary; a bit like drinking six pints. Still, it's a free country).
Then they came for the 'bigger' cars, and I managed an eyebrow raise (they are what some of us, not on ex's, who pay for our own trips, use to transport a bit more than our single selves to work in. Or simply can be a lot cheaper on a cost/per mile/opportunity cost basis - you'll find that when it's a family outing).
And then they came for my pint (it takes a lot of water to make one), and as it actually impinged on me getting bladdered each night I was miffed, though by then it was too late.
But hey ho, at least I can now still enjoy a healthy glass of designer mineral water in my favourite H20 bar.. er..
As this is a national newspaper, I would estimate that not everyone lives and/or works in (as in 'in') London. I'm sure many do, though perhaps not within striking range of a tube or a bus that works.
But sadly, for all sorts of reasons, we all may need to travel there. No one does that trip unless you have to.
Now it may be daily, and if we're stinking rich and live in the 'burbs or beyond, we simply add to our Aston and Shogun a Prius... and Ken's Your Daddy: you can enter Bryony's patch free as a bird, and buzz about all day emitting away (electricity - be it hybrid or whiz-bang - gets generated and distributed, and not very efficiently in the latter case, somewhere).
Or if you're not so rich, you can try and lug a bit more into the exhibition than your journalistic utility belt of Alka Seltzer (Nice. Hope the liver holds out for the spawning thing), and pay an extra £25 for the privilege, despite the fact that you are now mostly emitting ... nothing.
So Ken has never used a Taxi then? Or been conveyed in some other form of vehicular transport (I'm sure he took the tube to Heathrow with is entourage to pop off to visit his mates on those fact finding tours, and they cycled them all around). I don't deny him the need, or right to so it. It is simply necessary to do your job. So that first few paras is either tunnel visioned or wilfully simplistic.
Other than being a modest-income earner's worst nightmare, and hence sure-fire vote loser, if it was about the environment wouldn't taxing the amount of stuff that goes in the fuel tank (regularly), in combination with what comes out the pipe (exhaust or power station - electricity comes with an e-cost) as a miles covered-fee (as opposed to a one off purchase tariff), be a) fairer and b) better for emissions control?
Divide and conquer is a great way to grab control. It's not so good for democratic change and social cohesion.
We expect it from the pols. When the media offer their support I despair.
This planet needs sensible action. Not hot air, hype and silly, divisive gestures.
And as a % of the whole greenhouse thing what are London's private car emissions, anyway? Say versus the non fuel-taxed skiing trips to Verbier? Or the non energy-saving bulbs burning in city offices? Or the poorly insulated homes? Or those that can't afford high-efficiency boilers... etc?
Fewer targets & penalties; more effective actions & incentives, please.
Still, this does get bigger than the environment: Make them all pay £25 to drive in London
First they came for the 4x4s, and I did not speak (They are a bit much, if not really necessary; a bit like drinking six pints. Still, it's a free country).
Then they came for the 'bigger' cars, and I managed an eyebrow raise (they are what some of us, not on ex's, who pay for our own trips, use to transport a bit more than our single selves to work in. Or simply can be a lot cheaper on a cost/per mile/opportunity cost basis - you'll find that when it's a family outing).
And then they came for my pint (it takes a lot of water to make one), and as it actually impinged on me getting bladdered each night I was miffed, though by then it was too late.
But hey ho, at least I can now still enjoy a healthy glass of designer mineral water in my favourite H20 bar.. er..
As this is a national newspaper, I would estimate that not everyone lives and/or works in (as in 'in') London. I'm sure many do, though perhaps not within striking range of a tube or a bus that works.
But sadly, for all sorts of reasons, we all may need to travel there. No one does that trip unless you have to.
Now it may be daily, and if we're stinking rich and live in the 'burbs or beyond, we simply add to our Aston and Shogun a Prius... and Ken's Your Daddy: you can enter Bryony's patch free as a bird, and buzz about all day emitting away (electricity - be it hybrid or whiz-bang - gets generated and distributed, and not very efficiently in the latter case, somewhere).
Or if you're not so rich, you can try and lug a bit more into the exhibition than your journalistic utility belt of Alka Seltzer (Nice. Hope the liver holds out for the spawning thing), and pay an extra £25 for the privilege, despite the fact that you are now mostly emitting ... nothing.
So Ken has never used a Taxi then? Or been conveyed in some other form of vehicular transport (I'm sure he took the tube to Heathrow with is entourage to pop off to visit his mates on those fact finding tours, and they cycled them all around). I don't deny him the need, or right to so it. It is simply necessary to do your job. So that first few paras is either tunnel visioned or wilfully simplistic.
Other than being a modest-income earner's worst nightmare, and hence sure-fire vote loser, if it was about the environment wouldn't taxing the amount of stuff that goes in the fuel tank (regularly), in combination with what comes out the pipe (exhaust or power station - electricity comes with an e-cost) as a miles covered-fee (as opposed to a one off purchase tariff), be a) fairer and b) better for emissions control?
Divide and conquer is a great way to grab control. It's not so good for democratic change and social cohesion.
We expect it from the pols. When the media offer their support I despair.
This planet needs sensible action. Not hot air, hype and silly, divisive gestures.
And as a % of the whole greenhouse thing what are London's private car emissions, anyway? Say versus the non fuel-taxed skiing trips to Verbier? Or the non energy-saving bulbs burning in city offices? Or the poorly insulated homes? Or those that can't afford high-efficiency boilers... etc?
Fewer targets & penalties; more effective actions & incentives, please.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Incoming!
I leapt into dangerous waters, regarding a sacred, cash cow.
Driving a 4x4? That'll be £25 a day, please
"I live in the country (some of us do).
I don't have a 4x4, or a big engined car (some of us do.. and a few probably need them).
I come into London a fair bit (some of us have to, lugging stuff, ironically in my case to share the joys of saving the planet).
For those of us juggling our finances, an electric or hybrid is looking a pretty good idea (except for the lugging bit), which seems the intention.
So if I am rich enough to have a 4x4/biggie (ignoring those, for instance growing our 'buy local' crops who may not be, and who don't live in London. Or have an old car), forget the train, I simply buy myself another (5-25% of total eco-cost in manufacture, depending on who you believe), to spend most of my time lugging a battery down the motorway, to buzz about for free the last few miles.
At which point it stops all day filling up space. Or can buzz about cranking out emissions (batteries do need to get charged somehow, and not that efficiently, using fossil fuels) for free.
Hmmn.
Other than being a modest-income earner's worst nightmare, and hence sure-fire vote loser, wouldn't taxing the amount of stuff that goes in the fuel tank (regularly) in combination with what comes out the pipe (exhaust or power station - electricity comes with an e-cost) as a miles covered-fee be a) fairer and b) better for emissions control?
Or was the latter perhaps not the point?
The first casualty in a spin war is trust.
What a sad debate for the capital city of a country who accounts for a fraction of total global emmissions, and talks and gestures its way into the future, while the majority who don't have such cars get distracted from real issues and actions that can make a difference."
Driving a 4x4? That'll be £25 a day, please
"I live in the country (some of us do).
I don't have a 4x4, or a big engined car (some of us do.. and a few probably need them).
I come into London a fair bit (some of us have to, lugging stuff, ironically in my case to share the joys of saving the planet).
For those of us juggling our finances, an electric or hybrid is looking a pretty good idea (except for the lugging bit), which seems the intention.
So if I am rich enough to have a 4x4/biggie (ignoring those, for instance growing our 'buy local' crops who may not be, and who don't live in London. Or have an old car), forget the train, I simply buy myself another (5-25% of total eco-cost in manufacture, depending on who you believe), to spend most of my time lugging a battery down the motorway, to buzz about for free the last few miles.
At which point it stops all day filling up space. Or can buzz about cranking out emissions (batteries do need to get charged somehow, and not that efficiently, using fossil fuels) for free.
Hmmn.
Other than being a modest-income earner's worst nightmare, and hence sure-fire vote loser, wouldn't taxing the amount of stuff that goes in the fuel tank (regularly) in combination with what comes out the pipe (exhaust or power station - electricity comes with an e-cost) as a miles covered-fee be a) fairer and b) better for emissions control?
Or was the latter perhaps not the point?
The first casualty in a spin war is trust.
What a sad debate for the capital city of a country who accounts for a fraction of total global emmissions, and talks and gestures its way into the future, while the majority who don't have such cars get distracted from real issues and actions that can make a difference."
Head Over Parapet.. Commence!
I've posted a couple in the Guardian today.
Both to David Miliband at the UN climate change conference: day two
"I'm trying to get a grip who is saying what, and with luck doing the same thing. Or, more likely, another.
Sorry to kick off with the Indy, but with a front page that has all the political party logos to the left and the UKIP logo and a picture of Mr. Blair - not his party - to the right (no comment) I have read this today: "David Miliband, the Environment Secretary, wants to extend the carbon trading scheme to include more businesses such as hotels and supermarkets. But Gordon Brown, the Chancellor, is resisting the idea."
But then in this fine tome I now read '...reports of a clash with the chancellor, Gordon Brown, were " ridiculous".
May I ask who thinks what, and who gets the casting vote on environmental matters in government?
And what, precisely, will this country's stance be, and the consequences to industry and the voting population.
Please can we have some tangibles, and with luck avoiding the word 'targets'.
I've watched a succession of his Ministerial eco-colleagues been given a daily 3 minutes on BBC Breakfast TV trot out waffle, and when posed questions on real-life, actions (such as VAT breaks on e-friendly home improvements), the best I've heard so far is 'it's tricky, and were looking at it'.
Hope the weather's nice there."
Second, to anyone, really
"In posting before, a little ad popped up telling me that I could save 30% on my energy bills by popping in a wind turbine. Sounds a plan. But is this so? I have also recently read (Mail on Sunday, sorry) that they may not be such a good idea, not just financially but environmentally.
Meanwhile, it seems a good idea to buy a hybrid. Only I don't live in London (some of us don't - and the nearest train station is 40 minutes way, and at 4x the fare, let's not go there here) and lugging a battery down the M4 apparently isn't too smart either.
With major political leaders advocating, and in some cases stuffing through either laws against or incentives for such things daily, and such contradictory advice either in support or against, its all a tad confusing for the poor consumer.
When are we going to see some sense talked by the political and green elites (activist and media) that don't presume we all live in a house in Putney, can all afford to offset our Perrier and jaunts to Klosters, and whack up a solar panel on the nanny flat each week?
I know there are a lot of folk out there struggling along with mortgages, kids, holiday plans, relative overseas etc, who are not only seeing a bit much on the fine or tax front that will affect the minority of those who can afford it not one jot. And precious little on the incentive front that can help those who want to do something but need help and non-agenda-driven guidance that works for them and the planet.
Speaking of which, while recycling is dead good and all, is it perhaps not getting a bit too much of the lion’s share of the target-driven culture that serves box-tickers and makes a lot of folk big money (quangos, ad agencies, local composting officer salaries/pensions, waste contractors)? A few tens of millions of folk spending a minute a day sorting out their waste is a heck of a wage bill saved. But it isn't too satisfying or anything other than emotionally rewarding on an individual level.
Reduction can be equally unattractive (but doesn't have to be). But let me pitch something that can help a tad and be both fun and rewarding: repair and reuse. Try http//:www.junkk.com for a start."
Shame I cocked up the URL, though! D'oh!
Both to David Miliband at the UN climate change conference: day two
"I'm trying to get a grip who is saying what, and with luck doing the same thing. Or, more likely, another.
Sorry to kick off with the Indy, but with a front page that has all the political party logos to the left and the UKIP logo and a picture of Mr. Blair - not his party - to the right (no comment) I have read this today: "David Miliband, the Environment Secretary, wants to extend the carbon trading scheme to include more businesses such as hotels and supermarkets. But Gordon Brown, the Chancellor, is resisting the idea."
But then in this fine tome I now read '...reports of a clash with the chancellor, Gordon Brown, were " ridiculous".
May I ask who thinks what, and who gets the casting vote on environmental matters in government?
And what, precisely, will this country's stance be, and the consequences to industry and the voting population.
Please can we have some tangibles, and with luck avoiding the word 'targets'.
I've watched a succession of his Ministerial eco-colleagues been given a daily 3 minutes on BBC Breakfast TV trot out waffle, and when posed questions on real-life, actions (such as VAT breaks on e-friendly home improvements), the best I've heard so far is 'it's tricky, and were looking at it'.
Hope the weather's nice there."
Second, to anyone, really
"In posting before, a little ad popped up telling me that I could save 30% on my energy bills by popping in a wind turbine. Sounds a plan. But is this so? I have also recently read (Mail on Sunday, sorry) that they may not be such a good idea, not just financially but environmentally.
Meanwhile, it seems a good idea to buy a hybrid. Only I don't live in London (some of us don't - and the nearest train station is 40 minutes way, and at 4x the fare, let's not go there here) and lugging a battery down the M4 apparently isn't too smart either.
With major political leaders advocating, and in some cases stuffing through either laws against or incentives for such things daily, and such contradictory advice either in support or against, its all a tad confusing for the poor consumer.
When are we going to see some sense talked by the political and green elites (activist and media) that don't presume we all live in a house in Putney, can all afford to offset our Perrier and jaunts to Klosters, and whack up a solar panel on the nanny flat each week?
I know there are a lot of folk out there struggling along with mortgages, kids, holiday plans, relative overseas etc, who are not only seeing a bit much on the fine or tax front that will affect the minority of those who can afford it not one jot. And precious little on the incentive front that can help those who want to do something but need help and non-agenda-driven guidance that works for them and the planet.
Speaking of which, while recycling is dead good and all, is it perhaps not getting a bit too much of the lion’s share of the target-driven culture that serves box-tickers and makes a lot of folk big money (quangos, ad agencies, local composting officer salaries/pensions, waste contractors)? A few tens of millions of folk spending a minute a day sorting out their waste is a heck of a wage bill saved. But it isn't too satisfying or anything other than emotionally rewarding on an individual level.
Reduction can be equally unattractive (but doesn't have to be). But let me pitch something that can help a tad and be both fun and rewarding: repair and reuse. Try http//:www.junkk.com for a start."
Shame I cocked up the URL, though! D'oh!
Who? More like Where's Wally?
Now my eyesight isn't so good. And I know there's been a lot of monkeying about with logos lately.But while I can see the Lib Dems and I think (worth noting to graphic designers what reads best) Tories and Greens on the left, somewhat aptly to the right is UKIP & Mr. Blair - as opposed to, one presumes, the Labour Party, our Government... guys in charge.
What an odd front page?
Q&A - Question and Avoidance
I can't seem to get Junkk.com (me, maybe) arrested, much less mentioned as a viable part of the fight against waste.
This morning was typical. In advance of the Queen's Speech, we had a puff piece with the Minister for (something eco... How many are there now?), 'Bouffant Ben' Bradshaw showing off his vlog on how easy it is to recycle... in London.
When it came to corporate responsibilities, it was clearly stated that 'turning to legislation at every turn' is not the best way to go. Out of the mouths of Blair babes...
Moving swiftly on, it was jokingly pointed out that he actually had been caught in the very transgression of co-mingling, which in another council area would have got him... um.. a fine.
'Just show's how tricky it all is,' he guffawed. And how easy to say one thing and do another. Or be asked one thing and answer... well... differently to that required.
Apparently those who have been fined, as captured so loudly in the papers of late, they were in the minority and 'had been warned several times'. Accepted nods all round from fellow Beeb bouffant. Were they? Had they? I didn't get that impression from the last one I read. I guess we'll never know.
About the only thing I did learn was that banning plastic carriers is not going to work 'cos people just turn to paper, and that's worse environmentally. Is it?
Meanwhile, other than four soldiers getting blown apart, we'll have the skateboarding minister for tortoises on...
This morning was typical. In advance of the Queen's Speech, we had a puff piece with the Minister for (something eco... How many are there now?), 'Bouffant Ben' Bradshaw showing off his vlog on how easy it is to recycle... in London.
When it came to corporate responsibilities, it was clearly stated that 'turning to legislation at every turn' is not the best way to go. Out of the mouths of Blair babes...
Moving swiftly on, it was jokingly pointed out that he actually had been caught in the very transgression of co-mingling, which in another council area would have got him... um.. a fine.
'Just show's how tricky it all is,' he guffawed. And how easy to say one thing and do another. Or be asked one thing and answer... well... differently to that required.
Apparently those who have been fined, as captured so loudly in the papers of late, they were in the minority and 'had been warned several times'. Accepted nods all round from fellow Beeb bouffant. Were they? Had they? I didn't get that impression from the last one I read. I guess we'll never know.
About the only thing I did learn was that banning plastic carriers is not going to work 'cos people just turn to paper, and that's worse environmentally. Is it?
Meanwhile, other than four soldiers getting blown apart, we'll have the skateboarding minister for tortoises on...
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Getting Noticed For All The Wrong Reasons
I have in my time commented and pitched to BBCs Working Lunch a fair bit. Like when they went on an eco-tour of the country ands I thought we'd be worth mentioning. It all fell on deaf ears. Not a dicky-bird, despite their frequent exhortations to get in touch in their mails, show and site. It was something raised in a Newswatch or Newsnight a while ago, I recall, by another frustrated, failed contributor.
Of course, nice does not cut it these days.
So it is with interest that I note the following terse reply (with mine back... the plot thickens) to my admittedly terse enquiry (prose gets binned I've found) just now about one of their pieces:
It is/was open to those in the UK, and further field who have a business needing investment to continue its growth and it is meant to be more than just a one off competition. I'm sorry you were disappointed with the item.
I was disappointed in as much as I tuned in to see about a further opportunity to expand, which seemed to have passed. If it is still open to those in the UK then maybe I should have not have been. Where can I find out more?
May I ask do you use "see us on the BBC" on all your promotional literature ?
As we don't have any, I'd say no, unless you count my email signature. May I ask why you ask? Would you like me to stop? It was a while ago.
It will be interesting to see where this leads. I'm guessing she's going to equate me looking for promo for my frre, public service website, with giving 3 minute commercials to for-major-profit CEOs, a major beef of mine with a public broadcaster.
Addendum:
Didn't hear back. Surprise. Didn't like that. Big surprise. Took issue. Well, there's a surprise.
The BBC has a complaints system. As they get a lot, they may not alwasy answer. Let's see what happens:
Not a complaint... yet. But as things have been left hanging more than 24hrs after a flurry of activity, I have a... concern.
I wrote to the above programme with a question, and in addition to my answer had the following comment regarding my email signature:
May I ask do you use "see us on the BBC" on all your promotional literature ?
Best wishes
Lynne Jones
I immediately answered, but then asked why this was posed, but to date have not heard back.
May I therefore formally ask for an explanation as I remain
unclear for the reasons behind this question and the manner in which it was asked.
Of course, nice does not cut it these days.
So it is with interest that I note the following terse reply (with mine back... the plot thickens) to my admittedly terse enquiry (prose gets binned I've found) just now about one of their pieces:
It is/was open to those in the UK, and further field who have a business needing investment to continue its growth and it is meant to be more than just a one off competition. I'm sorry you were disappointed with the item.
I was disappointed in as much as I tuned in to see about a further opportunity to expand, which seemed to have passed. If it is still open to those in the UK then maybe I should have not have been. Where can I find out more?
May I ask do you use "see us on the BBC" on all your promotional literature ?
As we don't have any, I'd say no, unless you count my email signature. May I ask why you ask? Would you like me to stop? It was a while ago.
It will be interesting to see where this leads. I'm guessing she's going to equate me looking for promo for my frre, public service website, with giving 3 minute commercials to for-major-profit CEOs, a major beef of mine with a public broadcaster.
Addendum:
Didn't hear back. Surprise. Didn't like that. Big surprise. Took issue. Well, there's a surprise.
The BBC has a complaints system. As they get a lot, they may not alwasy answer. Let's see what happens:
Not a complaint... yet. But as things have been left hanging more than 24hrs after a flurry of activity, I have a... concern.
I wrote to the above programme with a question, and in addition to my answer had the following comment regarding my email signature:
May I ask do you use "see us on the BBC" on all your promotional literature ?
Best wishes
Lynne Jones
I immediately answered, but then asked why this was posed, but to date have not heard back.
May I therefore formally ask for an explanation as I remain
unclear for the reasons behind this question and the manner in which it was asked.
OK, I'm the Grinch That Stole The Planet
A long, long time ago, I lived in Hong Kong. And I was a slob. I worked all day and played all night. So I decided to get fit. So every lunch I took a tube to a city helth club, and then up a lift, where I static-cycled and Stairmastered for an hour.
Then I thought: 'Why no cycle there and walk up. And then turn back?' A lot cheaper. And better for me.
I'm afraid this is what ran through my mind when I read this: Kids walk to Moon and back in climate campaign
I'm all for awareness, but Britta Freitag of the German-based Climate Alliance travelled how far to hand a suitcase stuffed with 618,315 paper "green footprints" to U.N. climate talks in Nairobi on Monday?
100,000 children cut out the shape of their foot from whatt pieces of paper for every mile?
Some 5,000 delegates are discussing ways to step up the fight on global warming, with Austria a leading contributor to the campaign with more than 200,000 cut-out coloured footprints.
Apparently, most scientists say that global warming is being stoked by emissions of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and vehicles.... like, paper making ones and planes to get folk to jollies?
Nil points.
Then I thought: 'Why no cycle there and walk up. And then turn back?' A lot cheaper. And better for me.
I'm afraid this is what ran through my mind when I read this: Kids walk to Moon and back in climate campaign
I'm all for awareness, but Britta Freitag of the German-based Climate Alliance travelled how far to hand a suitcase stuffed with 618,315 paper "green footprints" to U.N. climate talks in Nairobi on Monday?
100,000 children cut out the shape of their foot from whatt pieces of paper for every mile?
Some 5,000 delegates are discussing ways to step up the fight on global warming, with Austria a leading contributor to the campaign with more than 200,000 cut-out coloured footprints.
Apparently, most scientists say that global warming is being stoked by emissions of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and vehicles.... like, paper making ones and planes to get folk to jollies?
Nil points.
Working for whom?
Working Lunch just ended.
I had to write, becuase I felt my time had been wasted. They sent me a 'heads up' that made me watch to see about enetring a contest. Hnece:
"I tuned in to watch because of this:
On Tuesday we talk to venture capitalists from the Isle of Man who are running a competition to find entrepreneurs.
Interesting questions posed.
So I'm clear, this is now a closed competition and it was/is not open to me anyway? So really it was a promo piece for the IoM than of any real value to businesses like mine?"
They also had in the programme a pitch to appear on Friday if you paid enough (for charity). Now what's airime on the BBC worth to the right business with a pitch to make? Hmmn. Your licence fee at work.
I had to write, becuase I felt my time had been wasted. They sent me a 'heads up' that made me watch to see about enetring a contest. Hnece:
"I tuned in to watch because of this:
On Tuesday we talk to venture capitalists from the Isle of Man who are running a competition to find entrepreneurs.
Interesting questions posed.
So I'm clear, this is now a closed competition and it was/is not open to me anyway? So really it was a promo piece for the IoM than of any real value to businesses like mine?"
They also had in the programme a pitch to appear on Friday if you paid enough (for charity). Now what's airime on the BBC worth to the right business with a pitch to make? Hmmn. Your licence fee at work.
The sound of silence
I'm watching BBC Working Lunch. Just emailed them (it says it all):
"I'm watching your show.
This morning on BBC Breakfast, Govt. Minsister Darling was asked about incentives to help us engage more environmental measures in the home. What I heard was a ton of waffle, with at best, 'it was being looked at'.
Now I hear another Minister, Mr. Pearson, being asked pretty much the same question, this time on eco-fuels for transport. And guess what... the same non answer!!!
What is the point of asking these very pertinent questions if they are to be allowed to get air time to say nothing."
Addendum: Worth a gander, from the dti website.
"I'm watching your show.
This morning on BBC Breakfast, Govt. Minsister Darling was asked about incentives to help us engage more environmental measures in the home. What I heard was a ton of waffle, with at best, 'it was being looked at'.
Now I hear another Minister, Mr. Pearson, being asked pretty much the same question, this time on eco-fuels for transport. And guess what... the same non answer!!!
What is the point of asking these very pertinent questions if they are to be allowed to get air time to say nothing."
Addendum: Worth a gander, from the dti website.
The trouble with high horses: being behind a higher one
Sorry, I am inordinately proud of that title. And in scouting around for something to go with it, I came across the attached. I've arched an eyebrow at words vs. deeds (Pols telling how to save the planet and not doing so themsleves. Green media mouthing off on eco-stuff whilst promoting less than optimal behaviour - I'll try and get the URLs) before, and make no apology for doing so again. Let they who are without carbon offsets cast the first nasturtium!
Just(ify) the facts, man
I keep breaking my vow to avoid debates on climate change, but this one is too big to ignore, both figuratively and literally.
Lord Monckton's artcile - Wrong problem, wrong solution (plus another, Greenblinkers) makes for an interesting read. It certainly stirred up something. And a sad explantion for where we are, and headed: the PDF of responses to his last article. 77 pages of small type! Who on earth has time to read all that and still have a life?
Suffice to say that I can't be bothered with so much needless argument, but have to say that I am depressed that much of it is fulled by vitriol rather than a desire to seek answers.
Lord Monckton's artcile - Wrong problem, wrong solution (plus another, Greenblinkers) makes for an interesting read. It certainly stirred up something. And a sad explantion for where we are, and headed: the PDF of responses to his last article. 77 pages of small type! Who on earth has time to read all that and still have a life?
Suffice to say that I can't be bothered with so much needless argument, but have to say that I am depressed that much of it is fulled by vitriol rather than a desire to seek answers.
Little that you know that I know that you know less than me
A big day for windbags - This is a dazzling debunking of climate change science. It is also wildly wrong
Here's my contribution:
"Golly, I wish we could harness all this energy arguing about who knows more than whom. Then it may be some use. I'm a bit more interested in what I can (which has many parameters) do. For instance, as one of the rotation ('scuse the pun) there was a nifty wind turbine ad spinning up in the top right hand corner of this piece. Funny if it was between a bottled water and skiing holiday one, eh? It says I can go green without going into the red. Is this true? I have heard the payback period can be quite a long time. And even the environmental side seems to be being challenged, too: "Wind turbines 'may actually do more harm than good' Daily Mail" (ah, that may explain it, though the quoted bods are mainstream eco): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=415993&in_page_id=1770 I just wish when it comes to matters of fact these days I could trust, and act on, what I read. Anywhere. Not any more, sadly."
One billion Chinese can't... er... what?
And so one leads to the next. Couldn't not pitch in with my nifty headline previously, so here's what I lobbed into the Guardian blog: The smoking dragon
"This morning on Breakfast TV I watched a reporter outside a suburban semi telling me the owners 'were laughing', one presumes on account of the nice perch they had provided for the pigeons, as the thing was in negative rotation mode.
Meanwhile, at the weekend I read that even some expert (whatever they are) environmentalists had conceded that not only were these things not exactly the panacea to our energy needs, but may actually detract from the overall planetary benefit environmentally!!!
One has to wonder where all this stuff gets made, and shipped from, especially if it is now looking like a marketing fad just to get us to buy more stuff.
Who the heck do we listen to? Who do we believe?
Certainly not our Government. To a series of rather pertinent questions about VAT rebates and grants Mr. Darling seemed to manage 5 minutes' worth of waffle amounting to 'it will be looked at.' Meanwhile Mr. Cameron is going to set targets and fire the guy at the top if we don't meet them.
That'll sort it all, then."
"This morning on Breakfast TV I watched a reporter outside a suburban semi telling me the owners 'were laughing', one presumes on account of the nice perch they had provided for the pigeons, as the thing was in negative rotation mode.
Meanwhile, at the weekend I read that even some expert (whatever they are) environmentalists had conceded that not only were these things not exactly the panacea to our energy needs, but may actually detract from the overall planetary benefit environmentally!!!
One has to wonder where all this stuff gets made, and shipped from, especially if it is now looking like a marketing fad just to get us to buy more stuff.
Who the heck do we listen to? Who do we believe?
Certainly not our Government. To a series of rather pertinent questions about VAT rebates and grants Mr. Darling seemed to manage 5 minutes' worth of waffle amounting to 'it will be looked at.' Meanwhile Mr. Cameron is going to set targets and fire the guy at the top if we don't meet them.
That'll sort it all, then."
Labour Is Working... 'Til You Drop
OK. so I'm getting political. But this one was hard to resist. In reply to this - Public sector aloof from pensions chaos - in the Telegraph, I had to offer:
'I think it was a recent programme that commented on US-style attack ads, and asked what if we had them here. I always thought we did. We need them.
In light of this, may I suggest to the Tories an homage to their famous poster, this time with a line of pension-aged folk lining up at the factory gates: 'Labour Is Working... 'Til You Drop.'
I pondered an asterisk that would point out that the only ones work on government side would be younger box tickers monitoring our progress to ensure enough is skimmed off for their comfortable retirement.'
'I think it was a recent programme that commented on US-style attack ads, and asked what if we had them here. I always thought we did. We need them.
In light of this, may I suggest to the Tories an homage to their famous poster, this time with a line of pension-aged folk lining up at the factory gates: 'Labour Is Working... 'Til You Drop.'
I pondered an asterisk that would point out that the only ones work on government side would be younger box tickers monitoring our progress to ensure enough is skimmed off for their comfortable retirement.'
A Total Lack Of Effective Spin
Another day, another initiative. Another media talking head. Another Minister. Another anchor asking but not worrying about failing to get an answer.
Against the backdrop of a suburban home, a BBC reporter says the owner ' is laughing' because of, amongst other things, his wind turbine. Sadly, it seemed to be more of a bird perch than energy generation device as it was, well, still.
Then we had Al Darling, Minister for Gravitas, being interrogated by the vanilla of the day, who actually asked(well, had been given) some good questions. Sadly, she seemed less than concerned that he didn't actually saying anything useful in reply. My email to the Beeb:
'Who is laughing, exactly? ... when I read stuff like the article attached - Wind turbines 'may actually do more harm than good' - I just get confused when I am told how great* wind turbines are. And did Mr. Darling answer a single question (such as your one about wall cavity and VAT reductions), or simply say things were going to be looked at?'
My faith in Government and the Media takes a further dive. I wonder if this was their plan when they figured talk was cheaper than action?
At least there was one good bit of advice. Move your fridge a tad more away from the wall. It makes it more efficient.
*On present evidence it looks like another way to make more stuff, which is hardly eco, and of course more money for the chancers.
Against the backdrop of a suburban home, a BBC reporter says the owner ' is laughing' because of, amongst other things, his wind turbine. Sadly, it seemed to be more of a bird perch than energy generation device as it was, well, still.
Then we had Al Darling, Minister for Gravitas, being interrogated by the vanilla of the day, who actually asked(well, had been given) some good questions. Sadly, she seemed less than concerned that he didn't actually saying anything useful in reply. My email to the Beeb:
'Who is laughing, exactly? ... when I read stuff like the article attached - Wind turbines 'may actually do more harm than good' - I just get confused when I am told how great* wind turbines are. And did Mr. Darling answer a single question (such as your one about wall cavity and VAT reductions), or simply say things were going to be looked at?'
My faith in Government and the Media takes a further dive. I wonder if this was their plan when they figured talk was cheaper than action?
At least there was one good bit of advice. Move your fridge a tad more away from the wall. It makes it more efficient.
*On present evidence it looks like another way to make more stuff, which is hardly eco, and of course more money for the chancers.
Monday, November 13, 2006
Flash - Credit where due!
Just checked the Voda site again and they have posted a back-up plan.
Thx to them. I just hope all who missed out will get to reapply.
Thx to them. I just hope all who missed out will get to reapply.
No such thing as no publicity.
The Big Idea seemed such a, well good , idea.
But it has been, and still does represent a roller-coaster ride.
I'm still cropping up in idents, though the latest had my picture linked to section on non-commercial ideas. Actually, the only real question I had from the panel was from Ruth Badger about revenue, and my answer was good enough for her to nod and put me through. Gotta love those editors.
Having watched the latest jaw-dropping show (As in, these are the best they could drum up??? I know there were better to choose.. beyond us), we got inspired by the spirit of 'out's better than nought' and decided to go for the £10k viewer prize. In some ways this is more attractive as it has obvious PR value but also is cash and run. I had not appreciated people got cuts of the winners when we set off originally. No way Jose.
So we duly submitted our entry yesterday. Or tried to. As you will gather by my having to leave this message on their forum page today:
"Have to add another voice to the frustrated online uploaders.
The deadline is/was midnight on the 12th (yesterday).
We tried all evening. The pitch was 1' 20". Admitedly it was over double the requested (but not mandated) size, but the subtleties of video compression are a bit beyond us.
Broadband to broadband takes only a few minutes (we swapped between PCs no problem).
Why oh why is it always a form with a 'browse' and 'submit' system. These things always clash. emails are so much more reliable and you know what has happened at the end.
We tried Mac & PC, Firefox & Safari and IE. On IE we at least got a 'failed' advice (not that we wanted one!), but the others just whirred away and we have no clue whether they worked.
With luck we'll get some joy from the contact number this morning (if the Voda customer service staff have a clue what this site is).
Otherwise it is to be hoped that there will be a solution offered to those of us who could not enter by deadline. At least an advice here.
Watch this space!"
I don't know whether to be encouraged or not that the total Forum had run up not much more than 100 entries in the whole show, but several were about the same problem. Thing is, it doesn't seem as if the organisers read their own Forum, as there have been no replies. I figure they read their texts, though.
Meanwhile a call to the help number has us now richocheting (how apt is that.. it's the production company now!) from one bored, indifferent or plain unaware Vodafone minion to another. 2 hrs and counting since 'we'll get right back to you'.
Not the best handled effort I have been with. And we have been with some shambolic ones! I'm not sure it is even legal, as a lot of folk have committed a lot of money (entering and voting), and the system seems very secretive as well as plain bad.
I guess the best thing to do is leave with this thought from a financial journalist:
Bigmouth Badger plugs in to TV flop
Can't really fault his analysis, but as it's their ball it's their game. But one has to wonder what machinations have been at work to structure the entries and/or winners, and those who billed it 'the Big Idea' have a lot of cojones.
Or maybe they have estimated the British Public's threshold for demanding broadcast entertainment precisely. Trouble is, where goes the common man, there follows business and government.
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Volt(aire) Face
I was watching the news today and there was coverage of the acquittal of the British National Party head honcho on the charge of something like 'fomenting race hatred'. It was based on the same channel's undercover report where he made a private speech that was secretly recorded. Passing quickly on from the report's distinction that an all white jury cleared him (don't recall a racial breakdown before, oddly. Is it possible these non-BBC-luvvies just couldn't find a legal justification to convict, regardless of skin hue? A notion borne out by subsequent events), I guess I should make some effort to listen to the whole thing before commenting, but I really can't be bothered. It sounded like a bit of a boozy back-room rant to me. Frankly I'd say if you wanted to listen to such drivel and make the effort to go out to do so, good luck, so what the BBC was skulking around trying to get offended about I can't imagine. The BNP's views are pretty well known. But skulk they did, and an issue was made. And a court case. Lots of money, oops, down the tubes. Thing is, without listening to the whole thing, the 'offending' thing sounded no more than an opinion to me. I may not agree with it, but last I heard he was entitled to have it, and voice it. Apparently not.
Seems that having not got the required result there are now moves afoot to change the law some more, to bend it in a favoured direction. This is a slippy road. And we're already well down it. What on earth served our forfathers over the centuries so well, and continually needs mucking about with every few days now?
And as an opinionated sod, I am concerned. Purely selfish, because I can see me ending up in deep doo doo one day. I'd like to think I'm smart enough to keep this written blog the right side of the PC threshold (and I don't think I'll ever find myself standing for office), but I do open my gob in conversation and what I think can pop out. I know that they do say you should never discuss politics or religion (or, G... er.. heaven forefend, both) but as I know diddly about sport, fashion and soap operas there's not much left.
So I recently offended. I didn't mean to, but I did.
It wasn't even an opinion, but a projection based on some facts. Or, at least, as near to any as it is possible to get these days. It started (and I didn't even start it) with the environment, but sort of strayed into other territories.
Basically I moved from my understanding of the extrapolation of population growth (which already had, without my knowing lit a fuse - though if we have finite space and an expanding world population I can't see any other end point), to a notion that democracy was perhaps not the perfect ideal some would have it. Things could be quite easily moved in directions not anticipated by its most ardent proponents by the simple expedient of one societal set out-breeding another. If that set harbours differing views then, well, by democratic process they could effect change simply by outvoting those who disagree, and may have until a certain point have been in the majority. Then it boils down to how radical the changes are required to be, and if the new minority can live with them. In essence, democracy can be democratically voted out. And that is hard to reverse.
One of the party I was discussing this with suddenly announced that she was offended. I asked by what. She didn't quite seem to have the specifics, but I'm guessing she just didn't approve of this area of philosophical exploration and sought to censor, or stop it. As she was a nice person and I saw no value in taking this discussion down a dark path, I apologised for unintended offence, and we got back to more neutral territory pronto. Some book or other I think. As she may not have read Fahrenheit 451 the irony that it may end on the bonfire one day would doubtless have been lost on her.
So I remain troubled, for all the examples and reasons shared above. Actually, I believe she was offended by her own mindset. I had not said anything that was not a reasonable potential scenario, and though there are non-verbal indicators that can shape the dry content of words, I actually offered no view at all as to whether I thought this possible outcome was a good or bad thing. Hence my offendee had decided for herself that it was bad, and heaped her self-criticism for finding it so upon me. So if anyone should have been offended, it was me.
So if you're interested in my opinion, and if you're reading this and have got this far I'm assuming you are, I'd say go on a guilt trip I you feel so disposed, but don't expect me to be willingly taken along for a ride. I've said it before but will say it again: 'You don't have to go looking for offence; if you are so peverse as to want it to find you... it will'.
Addendum:
This from the Telegraph: No one has the right to band hatred
To which I aded my adapt of the above post:
Volt(aire) face! Passing quickly on from the news report's (that introduced me to this) distinction that an 'all white' jury cleared him (don't recall a racial breakdown before, oddly. Is it possible the jury just couldn't find a legal justification to convict, regardless of skin hue? A notion borne out by subsequent events), it sounded like a bit of a boozy back-room rant to me. Frankly I'd say if you wanted to listen to such drivel and make the effort to go out to do so, good luck. So what the BBC was skulking around trying to get offended about I can't imagine. The BNP's views are pretty well known. But skulk they did, and an issue was made. And a court case. Lots of money, oops, down the tubes. Thing is, without listening to the whole thing, the 'offending' bit I was served sounded no more than an opinion to me. I may not agree with it, but last I heard he was entitled to have it, and voice it. Apparently not.
Having not got the required result these 'moves afoot to change the law' some more, to 'bend it in a favoured direction', are a slippy road. And we're already well down it. What on earth served our forefathers over the centuries so well, and continually needs mucking about with every few days now?
And as an opinionated sod, I am concerned. Purely selfish, because I can see me ending up in deep doo doo one day. I'd like to think I'm smart enough to keep anything written here or in my blog on the right side of the PC threshold (and I don't think I'll ever find myself standing for office), but I do open my gob in conversation and what I think can pop out. I know that they do say you should never discuss politics or religion (or, G... er.. heaven forefend, both) but as I know diddly about sport, fashion and soap operas there's not much left.
But most offence seems to be baggage taken along by those who are already on guilt trips of their own making.
So if you're interested in my opinion (and if you're reading this and have got this far I'm assuming you are), feel free to take that journey if you feel so disposed. But don't expect me to be willingly taken along for a ride. It's been said before and is worth repeating: 'You don't have to go looking for offence; but if you are so perverse as to want it to find you... it will'.
Friday, November 10, 2006
At it again, 4x4 he's a repetitive fellow!
OK, I admit it. I can't resist. And in so doing I become part of the problem. Put if I can divert some of the energy away from divise, petty issues, to unified, major ones, then it may be worth it.
This from the Telegraph, with a few stats/facts I didn't know (if they are valid, of course): The environmental choice?
To which I replied: "A good article, though to justify the headline it perhaps should have been published back to front.
'The' environmental choice, at least as it refers to travel, is to walk or cycle. But that is often not an option in a time-poor, multi-mile-demanding business or social situation, with often woeful public transport outside (and in) of major urban centres.
I consider the whole 4x4 thing a divisive distraction, for many of the reasons offered here, and more. I'll ignore the other debated negatives such as safety and size, other than to say I'm not sure if I want my kids hit by a white van any more than an SUV. Or a G-reg 205 doing 50 in the town as the road revenue devices are all out on the dual carriageway. So I'll try and train them to stay on the pavement.
If it is about the environment, then surely the penalties should come when vehicles are moving, and emitting global warming gasses? That could of course mean taxing the fuel the produces them, and one might find that a few Mondeo-driving (or R-reg Volvo... mea culpa. Can't afford a Prius, it won't help much in the country /motorway, and anyway 15-25% of a car's e-pact is in its construction, right? So, Ms. Hunt, stay bored and save the planet) registered voters get a bit unhappy about it all favouring those who can afford it or live in Notting Hill/Westminster. Political suicide for the pols? Best leave it to the activists to do the job with gestures.
However, by way of balance, may I suggest that if we only wait 'til forecasts pan out to act on what they had suggested, it can often mean the boat may have already sailed... in this case up your street."
This from the Telegraph, with a few stats/facts I didn't know (if they are valid, of course): The environmental choice?
To which I replied: "A good article, though to justify the headline it perhaps should have been published back to front.
'The' environmental choice, at least as it refers to travel, is to walk or cycle. But that is often not an option in a time-poor, multi-mile-demanding business or social situation, with often woeful public transport outside (and in) of major urban centres.
I consider the whole 4x4 thing a divisive distraction, for many of the reasons offered here, and more. I'll ignore the other debated negatives such as safety and size, other than to say I'm not sure if I want my kids hit by a white van any more than an SUV. Or a G-reg 205 doing 50 in the town as the road revenue devices are all out on the dual carriageway. So I'll try and train them to stay on the pavement.
If it is about the environment, then surely the penalties should come when vehicles are moving, and emitting global warming gasses? That could of course mean taxing the fuel the produces them, and one might find that a few Mondeo-driving (or R-reg Volvo... mea culpa. Can't afford a Prius, it won't help much in the country /motorway, and anyway 15-25% of a car's e-pact is in its construction, right? So, Ms. Hunt, stay bored and save the planet) registered voters get a bit unhappy about it all favouring those who can afford it or live in Notting Hill/Westminster. Political suicide for the pols? Best leave it to the activists to do the job with gestures.
However, by way of balance, may I suggest that if we only wait 'til forecasts pan out to act on what they had suggested, it can often mean the boat may have already sailed... in this case up your street."
There but for the grace of God...
I'm still catching up. So I'm still basically nicking (well, passing on) other folks' stuff.
And this has to be worth it: An Olympian feat of political vanity
Now I do need to stress that this is titled 'A personal view', and should be viewed as such. But facts are facts, statements are statements, and those who do not study history are destined to find events repeating themselves. The signs... are not good.
It is also, on the face of it, not much to do with our remit. But as I continue to attempt to swim through a sea of fudge at official level, it is worth a further reminder what those who try to do things face from those who are supposed to pave the way.
And it is going to be a 'Green' event. Let the finger pointing begin!
And this has to be worth it: An Olympian feat of political vanity
Now I do need to stress that this is titled 'A personal view', and should be viewed as such. But facts are facts, statements are statements, and those who do not study history are destined to find events repeating themselves. The signs... are not good.
It is also, on the face of it, not much to do with our remit. But as I continue to attempt to swim through a sea of fudge at official level, it is worth a further reminder what those who try to do things face from those who are supposed to pave the way.
And it is going to be a 'Green' event. Let the finger pointing begin!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)