Well, here's a surprise - Cost of London Olympics UP £900M.
When I owned my agency (I think this is my equivalent of 'When I were a lad..' and has been used before, so bear with me), we were held to our estimates (we tried, valiantly, to point out that a quotation was not possible on something not yet finished) to within the penny, and second. But 40% in a year?
Actually with Junkk.com, it has not been not too different. Funding well thought through applications that do not have every unpredictable 't' crossed and 'i' dotted fail, while those that are masterpieces of fiction, which fit into the system's expectations and aspirations, sail through.
What ever happened to 'promise low and delight by delivering high?' The beancounters have bankrupted the asylum.
Look at Wembley. Now the Olympics.
You pay peanuts; you get monkeys. You quott low, you get the job... you then come out with the most astounding tripe to describe a businesss plan I have ever heard.
Now as I don't play the lottery and don't live in London it really shouldn't matter much to me one way or 'tother, but should I find one penny of my money is going to supp
Indy
Guardian
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
You know what sucks?
He does: Dyson in call for ‘truth in advertising’ law
Thouigh to this - "Dyson also denied widespread claims that he is “anti-advertising and anti-ad agencies”. But he did say that too many marketing, PR and advertising campaigns are "misinformed or oversell" - I have to say that as the person tasked with the job of conveying the message, the information or oversell was not really down to me to provide or approve.
Thouigh to this - "Dyson also denied widespread claims that he is “anti-advertising and anti-ad agencies”. But he did say that too many marketing, PR and advertising campaigns are "misinformed or oversell" - I have to say that as the person tasked with the job of conveying the message, the information or oversell was not really down to me to provide or approve.
Bumpy ride
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."
"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."
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)