I didn't know Terry Wogan had a column, too.
As an issue he raises is one I am tracking, I decided on a punt:
"I do believe the DVLA only knows the precise location of any car owned, insured and parked in the driveways of those who can be fined without much effort, having possibly simply forgotten and not been given a fair opportunity to do so.
Those requiring a bit of effort or a certain amount of cojones to tackle seem to be mysteriously less attractive to track down.
______
Meanwhile, rewarding bad behaviour is obviously on the up and up. Following Ms. Goody's invitation to tour India, I have pondered expressing a certain amount of ignorance and insensitivity about my wife's homeland in the hope of scoring a subsidised family trip to visit the in-laws.
______
A lot of blogs have thrown up a high proportion of 'serves 'em right' retorts to TV companies' shell games. If the criteria are clear then OK. But I have still to hear an adequate official explanation from the authorities (who, I thought, are in charge of licensing these companies and those telecoms operators who act as their collecting agents) as to why practices that would in any other arena be called fraud (from at best omitting certain key facts to the conduct of a show to outright misleading the public) are subject to less stringent rules and policing."
Sunday, January 28, 2007
S'funny, 'cos its true
'im again. I no longer feel the need to excuse myself as it is obvious that he has access to my working day.
Verbosity Complex
Another from Bad Science: Science and Fiction
"There is no doubt that basic sensible dietary and lifestyle advice is sound. You should exercise more, eat more fibre, and more fresh fruit and vegetables."
Bang on. But it wouldn't fill too many column inches, and would soon cease to be newsworthy in the repetition. Much better to keep finding something new, make it very complex, and preferably stir up a controversy that will only result eventually in the product being remembered enough to sustain the marketing.
Works for all concerned, especially those with whole new careers being the media interface du jour for lazy other media seeking a quick way to fill some space or time as well.
Shame it only reached the audience of the New Statesman who, I would hazard, have already suspected as much. Bet there's still a few ‘out of sell-by date’ bottles of vits to counter ague and ill-humours lurking in the back of the cabinet, though."
It can just as well apply to the environment as well. Excuse me, I have to fly to Bali for a conference on the contribution of Polar Bear toots to Global Warming.
"There is no doubt that basic sensible dietary and lifestyle advice is sound. You should exercise more, eat more fibre, and more fresh fruit and vegetables."
Bang on. But it wouldn't fill too many column inches, and would soon cease to be newsworthy in the repetition. Much better to keep finding something new, make it very complex, and preferably stir up a controversy that will only result eventually in the product being remembered enough to sustain the marketing.
Works for all concerned, especially those with whole new careers being the media interface du jour for lazy other media seeking a quick way to fill some space or time as well.
Shame it only reached the audience of the New Statesman who, I would hazard, have already suspected as much. Bet there's still a few ‘out of sell-by date’ bottles of vits to counter ague and ill-humours lurking in the back of the cabinet, though."
It can just as well apply to the environment as well. Excuse me, I have to fly to Bali for a conference on the contribution of Polar Bear toots to Global Warming.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
The Titanic Chapter and Verses
OK, I nicked that from our site section, but it was too good not to.
I happened on this The Government is no more. All that’s left to do is laugh, and could not resist this:
'I'd laugh too, but then ponder the rather worrying notion that the ship being steered so resolutely into every iceberg possible by its inept crew, also happens to be the one I am on. But they have all made sure they have comfy places in the lifeboats.
So it's really only funny to those who get paid well to write about them, and hence will get invited to share the fun of next ride the rest of us who survive get taken on.'
I really am getting a tad fed up of the 'I'm all right, Jack' tone that we get from the London-based chattering classes when sharing with the rest of us their wisdom on matters such as their drinking buddies in Westminster's travails.
Which is why, like my last post to the Telegraph, I suspect it will be 'moderated'.
I happened on this The Government is no more. All that’s left to do is laugh, and could not resist this:
'I'd laugh too, but then ponder the rather worrying notion that the ship being steered so resolutely into every iceberg possible by its inept crew, also happens to be the one I am on. But they have all made sure they have comfy places in the lifeboats.
So it's really only funny to those who get paid well to write about them, and hence will get invited to share the fun of next ride the rest of us who survive get taken on.'
I really am getting a tad fed up of the 'I'm all right, Jack' tone that we get from the London-based chattering classes when sharing with the rest of us their wisdom on matters such as their drinking buddies in Westminster's travails.
Which is why, like my last post to the Telegraph, I suspect it will be 'moderated'.
One hung low
I am just listening to last night's Newsnight, and in getting to the piece I'm interested in, happened across a bit on the Prison's crisis.
One telling point made by a newly-resigned official, unchallenged by the BBC interviewer and hence I presume accurate, was that the police get credited as much for a quick ASBO collar as a 3-month fraud investigation. These are called 'low-hanging fruit'.
I am trying to reconcile this following yesterday morning's speech and Q&A that I attended with the Herefordshire Chief Superintendent. A charming, erudite and confidence-inspiring chap, he clearly stated that his officers were measured only by dispensing justice fairly and appropriately, and not by target.
Another example of the problem we the people are having getting clear information upon which to decide on how we vote. Maybe that is their intention, to try and maintain the status quo?
One telling point made by a newly-resigned official, unchallenged by the BBC interviewer and hence I presume accurate, was that the police get credited as much for a quick ASBO collar as a 3-month fraud investigation. These are called 'low-hanging fruit'.
I am trying to reconcile this following yesterday morning's speech and Q&A that I attended with the Herefordshire Chief Superintendent. A charming, erudite and confidence-inspiring chap, he clearly stated that his officers were measured only by dispensing justice fairly and appropriately, and not by target.
Another example of the problem we the people are having getting clear information upon which to decide on how we vote. Maybe that is their intention, to try and maintain the status quo?
SUBSIDARIAT
No daft pun headline today. Just a word.
I learned of it via a Newsnight promo posting: "A new word entered the lexicon this week. The BBC was attacked by the Editor of the Daily Mail, Paul Dacre, as being part of the "subsidariat" that needs to be cut down to size. He said it's too big, its journalism starts from the premise of left wing ideology, and it's a monolith distorting Britain's media market. Mr Dacre has said no to an interview tonight. But we'll be discussing whether his criticisms of the BBC are justified. "
Needless to say it worked, and I will now be watching on the excellent back-up online download.
Whatever one may think of the Daily Mail, its editor, the BBC and its position as the most dominant force in our country's media firmament, I must say I find it an interesting word, and on balance, a worthy new one.
Because it does rather neatly sum up, and in a subtly pejorative KGB-allusional way a bunch over over-funded, monopolistic and way-too-unaccountable entities who use a lot of our money in ways that are hard to justify.
See, I can usually get it back to the environment.
ADDENDUM - Just watched, and had to comment:
I just watched last night's edition on the PC-feed, and must repeat my commendation for this facility.
However, it did allow me to witness a truly awful QED on the spot I wanted to catch, namely the Subsidiariat story.
I can see how absolute objectivity is nigh on impossible when reporting and/or discussing just about anything, but especially a criticism that is directed so close to home.
But, heavens above, the intro piece was as nasty a piece of sneering, unsubtle 'Yeah... right' (as opposed to 'Yes. Right’ - denuded of contradicting tone as a stenographer's typescript) as I have ever seen.
And hence it blew any chance of me assessing all brought up subsequently in anything but the view that this was indeed going to be addressed by a monolithic, monopolistic, massively-funded, unaccountable, trendy-liberal, never-left-privileged-uni, London-centric, in-crowd, overly-defensive medium. I have to contribute to this!!!!
Oh, and can we try and think beyond popping two extremes (or choosing one feisty and one duffer to suit the agenda in case its live and editing can't do the trick?) into the cockfight ring and feel that has adequately addressed the nuances of any reasonable debate.
Otherwise, loved the show.
ps: to those who read my blog, we’ll soon see how the moderators handle the slight dilemma this contribution may throw up. To be fair, they are a lot better here than the piece's lauded print media in this regard.
I learned of it via a Newsnight promo posting: "A new word entered the lexicon this week. The BBC was attacked by the Editor of the Daily Mail, Paul Dacre, as being part of the "subsidariat" that needs to be cut down to size. He said it's too big, its journalism starts from the premise of left wing ideology, and it's a monolith distorting Britain's media market. Mr Dacre has said no to an interview tonight. But we'll be discussing whether his criticisms of the BBC are justified. "
Needless to say it worked, and I will now be watching on the excellent back-up online download.
Whatever one may think of the Daily Mail, its editor, the BBC and its position as the most dominant force in our country's media firmament, I must say I find it an interesting word, and on balance, a worthy new one.
Because it does rather neatly sum up, and in a subtly pejorative KGB-allusional way a bunch over over-funded, monopolistic and way-too-unaccountable entities who use a lot of our money in ways that are hard to justify.
See, I can usually get it back to the environment.
ADDENDUM - Just watched, and had to comment:
I just watched last night's edition on the PC-feed, and must repeat my commendation for this facility.
However, it did allow me to witness a truly awful QED on the spot I wanted to catch, namely the Subsidiariat story.
I can see how absolute objectivity is nigh on impossible when reporting and/or discussing just about anything, but especially a criticism that is directed so close to home.
But, heavens above, the intro piece was as nasty a piece of sneering, unsubtle 'Yeah... right' (as opposed to 'Yes. Right’ - denuded of contradicting tone as a stenographer's typescript) as I have ever seen.
And hence it blew any chance of me assessing all brought up subsequently in anything but the view that this was indeed going to be addressed by a monolithic, monopolistic, massively-funded, unaccountable, trendy-liberal, never-left-privileged-uni, London-centric, in-crowd, overly-defensive medium. I have to contribute to this!!!!
Oh, and can we try and think beyond popping two extremes (or choosing one feisty and one duffer to suit the agenda in case its live and editing can't do the trick?) into the cockfight ring and feel that has adequately addressed the nuances of any reasonable debate.
Otherwise, loved the show.
ps: to those who read my blog, we’ll soon see how the moderators handle the slight dilemma this contribution may throw up. To be fair, they are a lot better here than the piece's lauded print media in this regard.
The Fast and the Loose. Play On!
It's a biggie: What's black and white and green all over? Another dodgy dossier
I await with some dread the moderator’s approved selection of rabid deniers and righteous believers knocking spots off each other as the rest of us cower below the artillery exchange. It seems like it has been ever thus.
In my pleas that we do something (I accept debate is required while evidence of practical ROIs on worthwhile proposals, across all measures, from money to planetary benefit, is established beyond doubt) whilst all the talk detracts from action, I have often also appealed for the comforting sanity of facts, for normal folk such as myself to try to arrive at some form of objective notions on what may be the best course(s).
So I was/am pleased to see that this has some, and seemingly more than worthy ones, to chew upon. I also do note that, as with any potential agenda, facts can be edited in or omitted to steer the argument to a desired conclusion. But some here seem pretty clear, incontrovertible... and damning. At least to what I care most about, because yet again I see the necessary cause (that I, personally espouse) of a reduction in waste, improvement in efficiency and an overall acceptance that ‘we’ can’t really sustain the way we are living too much longer, has been undermined by less than coherent policy and claim in the name of some other things less noble, more self-interested and short term than sorting out a future for the coming generations.
Of course the media are pretty complicit, from equal ‘tomorrow’s headline’ self interest. Striking assertions are almost all virtually unquestioned. They are good for ratings.
So it is eye-openingly honest, but rather shocking to learn that it is ‘easier for us just to repeat the claims of people such as Stern (or any other pro/con activist or big oil-funded mouthpiece – the riposte du jour to any counter these days), sexing them up as we go along.’ That’ll serve the public right then. I must thank you for the tip about ‘Investigation’ which I will track down immediately.
I don’t know if this piece is attempting a mea culpa, but I’ll take what ever I can get.
Some doubts I must confess I have arrived at myself. I have to say any projection beyond 2100 has to be "particularly unreliable" short of engaging Hitchhikers Guide’s Deep Thought, which ironically I believe turned out to be our planet. But making and feeding off such projections has turned into a very lucrative industry for some. And the best part is... if you turn out be wrong, who cares? You’re already nowhere to be found to offer a refund!
I don’t claim to understand a fraction of the economic debate, but to the point that the rich today need not make sacrifices for the poor tomorrow, they may or may not on average be 12 times better-off than we are now but, like Midas, gold is not much good if there is no green to eat. Surely a more appropriate point is that a few quite eminent people are making pretty firm, dire noises, and it seems a tad overconfident, not to say foolhardy, to simply say ‘carry on smoking’ and wait and see if there is indeed a gas leak as time progresses.
It is a shame I get to the end to find out that, yet again, there is no suggested best approach to climate change. And I must look elsewhere. I will.
But meantime, to try and improve an uncertain future, I will pay a fair bit now, so long as it is managed by those who I can trust to do it fairly, and without organisational agenda, targets or career gain, ahead of doing what’s right, practical and effective.
ADDENDUM: I have just read a coincidentally complementary set of pieces to this, as a totally Kismetic consequence of a posting by the ever-excellent Dr. Ben Goldacre of Bad Science, who has just, and justly, won an award (with the bonus of another relevant piece, for another place and time on the site) for an article on the manipulation of stats.
I await with some dread the moderator’s approved selection of rabid deniers and righteous believers knocking spots off each other as the rest of us cower below the artillery exchange. It seems like it has been ever thus.
In my pleas that we do something (I accept debate is required while evidence of practical ROIs on worthwhile proposals, across all measures, from money to planetary benefit, is established beyond doubt) whilst all the talk detracts from action, I have often also appealed for the comforting sanity of facts, for normal folk such as myself to try to arrive at some form of objective notions on what may be the best course(s).
So I was/am pleased to see that this has some, and seemingly more than worthy ones, to chew upon. I also do note that, as with any potential agenda, facts can be edited in or omitted to steer the argument to a desired conclusion. But some here seem pretty clear, incontrovertible... and damning. At least to what I care most about, because yet again I see the necessary cause (that I, personally espouse) of a reduction in waste, improvement in efficiency and an overall acceptance that ‘we’ can’t really sustain the way we are living too much longer, has been undermined by less than coherent policy and claim in the name of some other things less noble, more self-interested and short term than sorting out a future for the coming generations.
Of course the media are pretty complicit, from equal ‘tomorrow’s headline’ self interest. Striking assertions are almost all virtually unquestioned. They are good for ratings.
So it is eye-openingly honest, but rather shocking to learn that it is ‘easier for us just to repeat the claims of people such as Stern (or any other pro/con activist or big oil-funded mouthpiece – the riposte du jour to any counter these days), sexing them up as we go along.’ That’ll serve the public right then. I must thank you for the tip about ‘Investigation’ which I will track down immediately.
I don’t know if this piece is attempting a mea culpa, but I’ll take what ever I can get.
Some doubts I must confess I have arrived at myself. I have to say any projection beyond 2100 has to be "particularly unreliable" short of engaging Hitchhikers Guide’s Deep Thought, which ironically I believe turned out to be our planet. But making and feeding off such projections has turned into a very lucrative industry for some. And the best part is... if you turn out be wrong, who cares? You’re already nowhere to be found to offer a refund!
I don’t claim to understand a fraction of the economic debate, but to the point that the rich today need not make sacrifices for the poor tomorrow, they may or may not on average be 12 times better-off than we are now but, like Midas, gold is not much good if there is no green to eat. Surely a more appropriate point is that a few quite eminent people are making pretty firm, dire noises, and it seems a tad overconfident, not to say foolhardy, to simply say ‘carry on smoking’ and wait and see if there is indeed a gas leak as time progresses.
It is a shame I get to the end to find out that, yet again, there is no suggested best approach to climate change. And I must look elsewhere. I will.
But meantime, to try and improve an uncertain future, I will pay a fair bit now, so long as it is managed by those who I can trust to do it fairly, and without organisational agenda, targets or career gain, ahead of doing what’s right, practical and effective.
ADDENDUM: I have just read a coincidentally complementary set of pieces to this, as a totally Kismetic consequence of a posting by the ever-excellent Dr. Ben Goldacre of Bad Science, who has just, and justly, won an award (with the bonus of another relevant piece, for another place and time on the site) for an article on the manipulation of stats.
Friday, January 26, 2007
As high as a Humvee's Eye, Yee-haa!
Ooooooo...klahoma!
Fuelling the crisis
'I came to this late today, and am surprised that it has generated so few responses, especially with Davos ongoing, and the leader of one of the bigger consuming/polluting countries getting behind what, at first blush, seems better than nothing: 'Big Corn' doesn't have quite the same scary coastline devastating cachet, really.
Not too sure about Greenpeace, but it's nice to see a considered, informative and on the whole thought-provoking piece on the subject by a director of Friends of the Earth.
In the same way as I have my doubts about whacking a fir in the Australian desert to keep on flying, I am so far not too sure how converting the world's food producing acreages into carbon-dioxide fuel generating plants helps much when there is a finite amount of land and a growing population expanding across it.
Especially when a lot that once did support crop growth seems to have gone a bit dusty or underwater of late.'
Fuelling the crisis
'I came to this late today, and am surprised that it has generated so few responses, especially with Davos ongoing, and the leader of one of the bigger consuming/polluting countries getting behind what, at first blush, seems better than nothing: 'Big Corn' doesn't have quite the same scary coastline devastating cachet, really.
Not too sure about Greenpeace, but it's nice to see a considered, informative and on the whole thought-provoking piece on the subject by a director of Friends of the Earth.
In the same way as I have my doubts about whacking a fir in the Australian desert to keep on flying, I am so far not too sure how converting the world's food producing acreages into carbon-dioxide fuel generating plants helps much when there is a finite amount of land and a growing population expanding across it.
Especially when a lot that once did support crop growth seems to have gone a bit dusty or underwater of late.'
Pitch Perfect
See an opportunity... grab it!
With apologies for a double post - their system's fault.
Amapedia -- Amazon to take on Wikipedia
I know I rather missed the point, but having heard of neither I decided to give them a go in case I could integrate them with my site http://www.junkk.com, which lets you search for specifications and ideas to make use of... junk!
OK, so these things are not there to find fmcg products. D'Oh!
For what it's worth I'd have to say the Wikki one's homepage, search function and navigation I found waaaay easier than amanadingwhatsis (sorry, the panel doesn't let you scroll to see originals you're replying to, and I don't want to lose this text hitting the go back key)
ps: If you ever do find anything I can hook up with to help save the planet from rampant consumerism, let me know:)
With apologies for a double post - their system's fault.
Amapedia -- Amazon to take on Wikipedia
I know I rather missed the point, but having heard of neither I decided to give them a go in case I could integrate them with my site http://www.junkk.com, which lets you search for specifications and ideas to make use of... junk!
OK, so these things are not there to find fmcg products. D'Oh!
For what it's worth I'd have to say the Wikki one's homepage, search function and navigation I found waaaay easier than amanadingwhatsis (sorry, the panel doesn't let you scroll to see originals you're replying to, and I don't want to lose this text hitting the go back key)
ps: If you ever do find anything I can hook up with to help save the planet from rampant consumerism, let me know:)
Davos IV (er.. more plebs strike back)
I have been moved to repost to the article on my previous DAVOS blog
"Thank you, icurahuman2
For what it's worth, I tend to agree with your technique and use it here in the UK for my environmental website. Hence I get a pretty good objective information spread between the Times and Telegraph on the right/biz-friendly side, and the BBC, Indy & Guardian on the left/liberal/activist side. The government propaganda machine sort of falls in-between, erring, obviously, left politically, but often quite right where money is involved. I now have a further insight by qualifying to be on their mailing list.
It is too often depressing to see what’s served up by press officers churned out without comment or analysis, almost verbatim, with agenda served simply by inclusion (or not) and editing (see below).
However you can get into whole other realms on top of these, such as societal impacts, when you stray into tabloid or magazine territory, which I also need to and do.
Plus of course there is rich and varied fare internationally, though sadly our budget precludes as many paid subs (online or hard copy) as I'd like for true balance. Especially niche areas, such as business, media or my own.
I've blogged endlessly on the power of omission, and cited this, with EDIT as an oft ignored servant of AGENDA, in such as my blog, 'lor forgive me, on the Big Brother episode - http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/01/hell-in-handbasket.html, now moving into its next sorry phase, here and in India at least.
Hence my being a tad dubious on how well served we may be by an exclusive cabal of 'connected’ journalists with, (and I'm sorry to use this as an off-blog opportunity), a slight dig at the informational, financial and environmental ROI's we derive(d) as readers and planet-inhabitters and, as you point out, a weather ear to the masters they serve."
"Thank you, icurahuman2
For what it's worth, I tend to agree with your technique and use it here in the UK for my environmental website. Hence I get a pretty good objective information spread between the Times and Telegraph on the right/biz-friendly side, and the BBC, Indy & Guardian on the left/liberal/activist side. The government propaganda machine sort of falls in-between, erring, obviously, left politically, but often quite right where money is involved. I now have a further insight by qualifying to be on their mailing list.
It is too often depressing to see what’s served up by press officers churned out without comment or analysis, almost verbatim, with agenda served simply by inclusion (or not) and editing (see below).
However you can get into whole other realms on top of these, such as societal impacts, when you stray into tabloid or magazine territory, which I also need to and do.
Plus of course there is rich and varied fare internationally, though sadly our budget precludes as many paid subs (online or hard copy) as I'd like for true balance. Especially niche areas, such as business, media or my own.
I've blogged endlessly on the power of omission, and cited this, with EDIT as an oft ignored servant of AGENDA, in such as my blog, 'lor forgive me, on the Big Brother episode - http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/01/hell-in-handbasket.html, now moving into its next sorry phase, here and in India at least.
Hence my being a tad dubious on how well served we may be by an exclusive cabal of 'connected’ journalists with, (and I'm sorry to use this as an off-blog opportunity), a slight dig at the informational, financial and environmental ROI's we derive(d) as readers and planet-inhabitters and, as you point out, a weather ear to the masters they serve."
Death and taxes
I hate to be nasty to an old lady, but when the media elite get to mouth off from their pedestal on things they know nothing about, or choose to interpret to fit some cosy view of a world they are privileged to inhabit, I see red:
Dear Ms. Bakewell,
Further to your piece, It is a rare tax that can inspire generosity, and in particular:
Gifts made more than seven years before your death will go untaxed. Now is the time to give some of it away.
I must respectfully diasagree.
Why then, can you not give it away immediately, or in fact immediately prior to passing, on the same basis you espouse?
It simply seems to allow time for a game to be played between the Treasury and a lot of vastly paid folk in the City and Lincoln’s Inn Fields, that most mere mortals cannot consider affording. Guessing the date of one’s demise to ensure the best use of the funds for one’s retirement to that point, and the betterment of those who have helped make it comfortable thereafter, to assist such leeches, their gold-plated salaries and index-linked pensions can not be what you are promoting, surely? You seem to be advocating more the crushing of the majority to penalise a minority (most of whom are immune), and while that may satisfy your view of the world you inhabit, it does not mine.
I returned from abroad with my young family several years ago to help my mother tend my dying father, and now find myself fitting in her care around trying to generate a living and establish the foundations of a comfortable retirement for my wife and myself - to avoid being a monetary burden, at least, on our future family members. This has required many career and financial sacrifices on our part, some of which have benefited the state already. It has to an extent been my choice, already with the support of my mother’s inherited income, to pursue a dream of a better future for my nearest, dearest and, I’d hazard, others. But by not being the beneficiary of all my Mum may end up leaving me will not make things easy, and will run contrary to a lot of the ‘logic’ you seem to hold so dear, in terms of family cohesion or avoiding future calls upon the state.
Depending on your view, I have either done very well or very badly. I have looked after both my parents' interests pretty well, a fact recognized by my mother who is more than happy for me to take over her finances in my name and look after her as part of the family she helped establish, and of which she is very much part.
However, despite having an Enduring Power of Attorney, as her sole heir (in addition to her grandsons, for whom I am trustee to her bequests) I doubt the Court of Protection would view this move as in her best interests. And, unless I have missed something, neither would I. I love my wife very much, and she me. But I am too old to be a total romantic. Things can change, especially as careers come to a close and kids leave. It is just possible therefore that having handed over her gift my mother would find half of it (and a large % of what I have committed to devote to her care until she passes on), going... elsewhere.
So I am afraid I cannot accept your statement is as you would have it. And, frankly, that a lot else behind your piece as being either fair or just in the circumstances I, and many others, have had to commit to. The current system still benefits those able and willing to avoid the proceeds of their ancestors' slave trade or other ennobled efforts (how much tax do Messrs. Fayed, Green or indeed many highly-placed Government supporters contribute again?). And while I am sure you are an exception, I can think of a view media celebrities of stage, screen and print, with oft-quoted egalitarian views, who I suspect have a speed dial to a good adviser with a nifty way to ensure the Tuscan villa doesn't come into the reckoning. Not all of the beneficiaries of a more equitable solution are the descendants of the rich, be they old money or nouveau (as you polish your Guillotine, be careful who the mob comes for next), and it frankly smacks of idealistic meddling to claim otherwise, at least in the terms you do.
Yours sincerely, an illogical crackpot (by your definition, at least),
I am juggling a lot, including making Junkk.com work, on terms that are of my choosing, but by any measure would destroy her beliefs, logic and defences. Trouble is, those with nothing to lose (gold-plated, index-linked ones) are setting the system and being supported by dewy-eyed, fabulously wealthy media types like her who think they know what's best for 'us'.
Dear Ms. Bakewell,
Further to your piece, It is a rare tax that can inspire generosity, and in particular:
Gifts made more than seven years before your death will go untaxed. Now is the time to give some of it away.
I must respectfully diasagree.
Why then, can you not give it away immediately, or in fact immediately prior to passing, on the same basis you espouse?
It simply seems to allow time for a game to be played between the Treasury and a lot of vastly paid folk in the City and Lincoln’s Inn Fields, that most mere mortals cannot consider affording. Guessing the date of one’s demise to ensure the best use of the funds for one’s retirement to that point, and the betterment of those who have helped make it comfortable thereafter, to assist such leeches, their gold-plated salaries and index-linked pensions can not be what you are promoting, surely? You seem to be advocating more the crushing of the majority to penalise a minority (most of whom are immune), and while that may satisfy your view of the world you inhabit, it does not mine.
I returned from abroad with my young family several years ago to help my mother tend my dying father, and now find myself fitting in her care around trying to generate a living and establish the foundations of a comfortable retirement for my wife and myself - to avoid being a monetary burden, at least, on our future family members. This has required many career and financial sacrifices on our part, some of which have benefited the state already. It has to an extent been my choice, already with the support of my mother’s inherited income, to pursue a dream of a better future for my nearest, dearest and, I’d hazard, others. But by not being the beneficiary of all my Mum may end up leaving me will not make things easy, and will run contrary to a lot of the ‘logic’ you seem to hold so dear, in terms of family cohesion or avoiding future calls upon the state.
Depending on your view, I have either done very well or very badly. I have looked after both my parents' interests pretty well, a fact recognized by my mother who is more than happy for me to take over her finances in my name and look after her as part of the family she helped establish, and of which she is very much part.
However, despite having an Enduring Power of Attorney, as her sole heir (in addition to her grandsons, for whom I am trustee to her bequests) I doubt the Court of Protection would view this move as in her best interests. And, unless I have missed something, neither would I. I love my wife very much, and she me. But I am too old to be a total romantic. Things can change, especially as careers come to a close and kids leave. It is just possible therefore that having handed over her gift my mother would find half of it (and a large % of what I have committed to devote to her care until she passes on), going... elsewhere.
So I am afraid I cannot accept your statement is as you would have it. And, frankly, that a lot else behind your piece as being either fair or just in the circumstances I, and many others, have had to commit to. The current system still benefits those able and willing to avoid the proceeds of their ancestors' slave trade or other ennobled efforts (how much tax do Messrs. Fayed, Green or indeed many highly-placed Government supporters contribute again?). And while I am sure you are an exception, I can think of a view media celebrities of stage, screen and print, with oft-quoted egalitarian views, who I suspect have a speed dial to a good adviser with a nifty way to ensure the Tuscan villa doesn't come into the reckoning. Not all of the beneficiaries of a more equitable solution are the descendants of the rich, be they old money or nouveau (as you polish your Guillotine, be careful who the mob comes for next), and it frankly smacks of idealistic meddling to claim otherwise, at least in the terms you do.
Yours sincerely, an illogical crackpot (by your definition, at least),
I am juggling a lot, including making Junkk.com work, on terms that are of my choosing, but by any measure would destroy her beliefs, logic and defences. Trouble is, those with nothing to lose (gold-plated, index-linked ones) are setting the system and being supported by dewy-eyed, fabulously wealthy media types like her who think they know what's best for 'us'.
The Gloucester Old Spot now departing Terminal 3..
Keeping promises is not easy. With two 10-year-olds on monitoring duty I can attest to that.
Being kept to them is another matter. Hence I repeat, with two 10-year-olds...
So why is it that politicians are not held to the same scrutiny and, believe me, pressure, should they stray from a previously agreed path for no good reason?
I'm sure there is some tracking system, and I know 'media with memory' will trot out a corker to spice up an interview, but how about a simple, online table of what has been said or promised, and what has been ignored or reneged upon subsequently? I dunno, something like PolsPorkies.info (worth the £4.99 reg. fee alone!). Purely factual. What was said, or done. And the follow-up. No end point. Maybe a section to allow for an explanation of a revision.
Now this preamble could be deemed to be unfair to the piece that inspired it, and the person it is about. It is not meant to be. Because, of a lot I've read of late, it makes a lot of sense, seems to put right a lot that's wrong, and I'd support it. I just hope it is going to happen when the time comes. So I will wait.
Because openness, and the ability to discuss and change things are fundamental to a democratic system. Yet in the name of Gord knows what, (pun slightly intended), we are seeing an erosion of such principles at every turn.
Being kept to them is another matter. Hence I repeat, with two 10-year-olds...
So why is it that politicians are not held to the same scrutiny and, believe me, pressure, should they stray from a previously agreed path for no good reason?
I'm sure there is some tracking system, and I know 'media with memory' will trot out a corker to spice up an interview, but how about a simple, online table of what has been said or promised, and what has been ignored or reneged upon subsequently? I dunno, something like PolsPorkies.info (worth the £4.99 reg. fee alone!). Purely factual. What was said, or done. And the follow-up. No end point. Maybe a section to allow for an explanation of a revision.
Now this preamble could be deemed to be unfair to the piece that inspired it, and the person it is about. It is not meant to be. Because, of a lot I've read of late, it makes a lot of sense, seems to put right a lot that's wrong, and I'd support it. I just hope it is going to happen when the time comes. So I will wait.
Because openness, and the ability to discuss and change things are fundamental to a democratic system. Yet in the name of Gord knows what, (pun slightly intended), we are seeing an erosion of such principles at every turn.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
They're so bad I am at last being moved to action
One of the sadder things about politics today, is how we the people see the government as them and not us. These guys we voted in to represent us, and depend on our support for their jobs and salaries. They are us, and depend on us, and we must never let them forget it.
So tomorrow I am going to a local political meeting. Shame it's at 7am, but hey.
I have decided enough is enough.
They are being rewarded these days more for how clever and bright they seem, rather than how right and effective they are.
This downward spiral needs to be rectified.
Indy - Naked greed and other core British values - I am not alone
I was going to add a new post to make this next point, but as it's about living in Britain and being proud to be British I think it will do here just as well. Because some current miserable examples of those who think they can score some cosy index-linked, gold-plated careers leading us into the abyss, are currently using it as a bandwagon.
A highly lucid, black young man at a school (so some of it must be working, despite what the Media will try and stir up) answered the question 'What does it mean to be British' this morning best, if slightly inaccurately (I believe). He said 'You have been born in Britain'.
Actually I think it's a bit more complex than that, involving British Passports and all, but on balance he's bang on. That's all it is, a label that makes border controls convenient. Anything else (Fish 'n chips, tolerance (or lack, though how the words and deeds of some prepped and manipulated Chavs in a TV isolation chamber can be deemed how British society now is, escapes me), bowlers (hats, not overpaid sponsorship efforts who can't do their job right in Oz), innovation, etc) is simply no longer relevant.
I sat down with my boys to figure out what we thought it could be. Here's what we came up with:
'To be proud of where you came from and where you are, and seek to make the best of your place in the human race, recognising, accepting and revelling in a non-aggressive and not in a negatively judgemental manner our many ways of being and doing, with respect for the past, and a simple, unselfish desire to make things better for all in the future.'
I'm sure there are others better than this. But it's not bad... for a start.
So tomorrow I am going to a local political meeting. Shame it's at 7am, but hey.
I have decided enough is enough.
They are being rewarded these days more for how clever and bright they seem, rather than how right and effective they are.
This downward spiral needs to be rectified.
Indy - Naked greed and other core British values - I am not alone
I was going to add a new post to make this next point, but as it's about living in Britain and being proud to be British I think it will do here just as well. Because some current miserable examples of those who think they can score some cosy index-linked, gold-plated careers leading us into the abyss, are currently using it as a bandwagon.
A highly lucid, black young man at a school (so some of it must be working, despite what the Media will try and stir up) answered the question 'What does it mean to be British' this morning best, if slightly inaccurately (I believe). He said 'You have been born in Britain'.
Actually I think it's a bit more complex than that, involving British Passports and all, but on balance he's bang on. That's all it is, a label that makes border controls convenient. Anything else (Fish 'n chips, tolerance (or lack, though how the words and deeds of some prepped and manipulated Chavs in a TV isolation chamber can be deemed how British society now is, escapes me), bowlers (hats, not overpaid sponsorship efforts who can't do their job right in Oz), innovation, etc) is simply no longer relevant.
I sat down with my boys to figure out what we thought it could be. Here's what we came up with:
'To be proud of where you came from and where you are, and seek to make the best of your place in the human race, recognising, accepting and revelling in a non-aggressive and not in a negatively judgemental manner our many ways of being and doing, with respect for the past, and a simple, unselfish desire to make things better for all in the future.'
I'm sure there are others better than this. But it's not bad... for a start.
When in doubt, throw money at the box
This is about nothing being wasted, of course, because I am going to allude to the environment when I in fact refer to obesity, and one can only assume little of the slab gets left on the slab... well, until the other part of .. & taxes.
This morning, the big thing was our nation's 'kids of greater than desirable girth'. So far, so Billy Bunter (I hoping I'm safe in this from the PC police, as they all seem to have just graduated in the last 10 minutes from the University of Nannyton with a degree in ElfernSafety and a higher in fixingfingswotwasneverbroketilnow, and while there were lots of punters sticking their oars in when not at classes for 2 minutes a week no doubt).
So we had the Blair-babe blue rinse with the scarf and sing-song patronising voice on the couch, and at the other side a young lady of 12 and her Mum. Not at school today then, 'cos what's better than being on the telly to say that it's really hard not to eat all those buns because of the nasty ad men.
Which the blue rinse obviously got inspired by. Because she reckoned that the supermarkets and parents didn't have enough information, and they needed.. an ad campaign.
Now I am a TV addicted couch potato with the best of them, and merely by paying a bit of attention to the bits between Big Bruvva and The Qui... er... gambli... er... rip-off shows, have a pretty good notion that if you feed your face, or that of your child's, with endless burgers and fries, and then don't kick 'em out in the garden every so often, they may end up like the young Princess of Tonga this am. And I'm pretty sure the supermarkets know this too.
So no amount of money frittered, battered or otherwise coated on such an indigestible notion is going to make anyone take a blind bit more notice of such a thing, or make one whit of difference, except denuding apparently pretty low stocks of public service funds.
This morning, the big thing was our nation's 'kids of greater than desirable girth'. So far, so Billy Bunter (I hoping I'm safe in this from the PC police, as they all seem to have just graduated in the last 10 minutes from the University of Nannyton with a degree in ElfernSafety and a higher in fixingfingswotwasneverbroketilnow, and while there were lots of punters sticking their oars in when not at classes for 2 minutes a week no doubt).
So we had the Blair-babe blue rinse with the scarf and sing-song patronising voice on the couch, and at the other side a young lady of 12 and her Mum. Not at school today then, 'cos what's better than being on the telly to say that it's really hard not to eat all those buns because of the nasty ad men.
Which the blue rinse obviously got inspired by. Because she reckoned that the supermarkets and parents didn't have enough information, and they needed.. an ad campaign.
Now I am a TV addicted couch potato with the best of them, and merely by paying a bit of attention to the bits between Big Bruvva and The Qui... er... gambli... er... rip-off shows, have a pretty good notion that if you feed your face, or that of your child's, with endless burgers and fries, and then don't kick 'em out in the garden every so often, they may end up like the young Princess of Tonga this am. And I'm pretty sure the supermarkets know this too.
So no amount of money frittered, battered or otherwise coated on such an indigestible notion is going to make anyone take a blind bit more notice of such a thing, or make one whit of difference, except denuding apparently pretty low stocks of public service funds.
At least it's good for the planet..ish
The other night I was watching a documentary channel, and was about to switch off when I saw: 'Next - Megastructures: Recycled Tanks'. How could I resist?
So it was a bit of a surprise to find it was about a factory that... recycles tanks. Dirty great big, Storming Norman Mk whatever Abrams battle.. tanks.
Now I'm a big kid. I like guns and stuff, so long as they are not pointed at me and no one gets hurt, except the bad guys (sooooo open to debate, that one). So I was hooked.
And it was a great show. Even if you are a pure re:anything fanatic. Because these things were/are designed to be recycled all the time. In fact they haven't made a new one in years! As an exercise in engineering and indeed forward planning it ticked a lot of ROI boxes.
There is however the small matter of them doing 10 litres to the mile and knocking down a lot of perfectly stuff with that cannon, of course...
So it was a bit of a surprise to find it was about a factory that... recycles tanks. Dirty great big, Storming Norman Mk whatever Abrams battle.. tanks.
Now I'm a big kid. I like guns and stuff, so long as they are not pointed at me and no one gets hurt, except the bad guys (sooooo open to debate, that one). So I was hooked.
And it was a great show. Even if you are a pure re:anything fanatic. Because these things were/are designed to be recycled all the time. In fact they haven't made a new one in years! As an exercise in engineering and indeed forward planning it ticked a lot of ROI boxes.
There is however the small matter of them doing 10 litres to the mile and knocking down a lot of perfectly stuff with that cannon, of course...
A dish best served cold.
The makers of the Big idea are probably thinking this is over. Sorry, I'm just starting.
TV phone-in quizzes
'My personal experience is not with a phone-in quiz, but a phone-in show, but whichever one it is, the answer is an unequivocal 'Yes!' to 'better' (whatever that may mean) 'regulation' (ditto).
I believe with all these things, both contestants (who often commit a large amount of time and often money, for free to contribute the 'content') and those who phone in on premium rate lines (to take part or 'vote') must be able to expect a fair delivery (and explanation of what that entails, or not) of the contest/show's stated structure.
That's nothing to do with 'people taking responsibility' for THEIR actions, but a rip-off industry, which is making millions for those unscrupulous, unethical and greedy enough to take advantage of slack or toothless monitoring and policing.
Can you imagine if the advertising industry - or the lottery, for that matter - was allowed to promise one thing and then deliver another, or nothing at all, with rules changing and/or shrouded in secrecy, plus little or no official audit of fairness or numbers?
Doesn't matter if it's a quiz or a contest, if these guys are allowed access to your 0900 billing there is only ever going to be one winner, and they'll make sure it is them, their ratings or their incomes, whichever comes highest, and regardless of skill or result.
Other than that, I'm sure it's all good, honest entertainment.'
Guardian - Call quiz shows dodge bullet
'A similar discussion is going on via the Newsnight online blog as we write. They seem to think it's a matter of better regulation and people should be responsible for their own actions. By that logic a person getting into a licensed (I presume if it is on air, OFCOM grants one) London taxi is 'repsonsible' for being driven to their destination via Alaska.
I'll cut and paste my contribution here, as I doubt that they'll moderate it in for being slightly 'off brief' by referring to any show that has contestants and/or phone-in partcipants/guests/votes via a 0900 number.
I still think the points I made hold true, and looking at that last sentence wonder how the telecoms companies who are willing partners in this racket can avoid some responsibility for being the collection agents.'
ADDENDUM to original:
It seems some smug folk reckoned being gullible warrants you being fair game:
Let he (or she... must be PC) who casts the first stone...
As one who catches all other's typos but never his own, I'd say a wee bit of slack could be offered as it a) was not exactly a world-changing cock-up and b) about the first I've seen (and passed over, chuckling to myself) on these pages in a fair long time.
Meanwhile, back on the topic....
As one of those it seems deemed by some to have got what he deserved, I do look forward to their posts when they next engage with well, pretty much anything in life really, where what they have been told is not true, or even is as can be reasonably presumed by virtue of no clarifications being obvious, when in good faith they make a financial transaction. If so I look forward to running ads for beachfront property development in certain parts of Florida soon.
It is called fraud. And it doesn't matter if it's your accountant running off with your life savings or a TV production company taking 50p knowing full well you have a 'BMW gearbox on a beach's' chance of getting it back.
And I remain ensure how the collectors of the money (the telecoms companies) on behalf of the con-artists in question, are also allowed free rein to take their skim, especially when I presume both, to repeat, require a licence from those we pay to defend our interests against such sharp practices.
Unless they are in on the deal, too inept or frightened of lobbyists to do anything about it.
TV phone-in quizzes
'My personal experience is not with a phone-in quiz, but a phone-in show, but whichever one it is, the answer is an unequivocal 'Yes!' to 'better' (whatever that may mean) 'regulation' (ditto).
I believe with all these things, both contestants (who often commit a large amount of time and often money, for free to contribute the 'content') and those who phone in on premium rate lines (to take part or 'vote') must be able to expect a fair delivery (and explanation of what that entails, or not) of the contest/show's stated structure.
That's nothing to do with 'people taking responsibility' for THEIR actions, but a rip-off industry, which is making millions for those unscrupulous, unethical and greedy enough to take advantage of slack or toothless monitoring and policing.
Can you imagine if the advertising industry - or the lottery, for that matter - was allowed to promise one thing and then deliver another, or nothing at all, with rules changing and/or shrouded in secrecy, plus little or no official audit of fairness or numbers?
Doesn't matter if it's a quiz or a contest, if these guys are allowed access to your 0900 billing there is only ever going to be one winner, and they'll make sure it is them, their ratings or their incomes, whichever comes highest, and regardless of skill or result.
Other than that, I'm sure it's all good, honest entertainment.'
Guardian - Call quiz shows dodge bullet
'A similar discussion is going on via the Newsnight online blog as we write. They seem to think it's a matter of better regulation and people should be responsible for their own actions. By that logic a person getting into a licensed (I presume if it is on air, OFCOM grants one) London taxi is 'repsonsible' for being driven to their destination via Alaska.
I'll cut and paste my contribution here, as I doubt that they'll moderate it in for being slightly 'off brief' by referring to any show that has contestants and/or phone-in partcipants/guests/votes via a 0900 number.
I still think the points I made hold true, and looking at that last sentence wonder how the telecoms companies who are willing partners in this racket can avoid some responsibility for being the collection agents.'
ADDENDUM to original:
It seems some smug folk reckoned being gullible warrants you being fair game:
Let he (or she... must be PC) who casts the first stone...
As one who catches all other's typos but never his own, I'd say a wee bit of slack could be offered as it a) was not exactly a world-changing cock-up and b) about the first I've seen (and passed over, chuckling to myself) on these pages in a fair long time.
Meanwhile, back on the topic....
As one of those it seems deemed by some to have got what he deserved, I do look forward to their posts when they next engage with well, pretty much anything in life really, where what they have been told is not true, or even is as can be reasonably presumed by virtue of no clarifications being obvious, when in good faith they make a financial transaction. If so I look forward to running ads for beachfront property development in certain parts of Florida soon.
It is called fraud. And it doesn't matter if it's your accountant running off with your life savings or a TV production company taking 50p knowing full well you have a 'BMW gearbox on a beach's' chance of getting it back.
And I remain ensure how the collectors of the money (the telecoms companies) on behalf of the con-artists in question, are also allowed free rein to take their skim, especially when I presume both, to repeat, require a licence from those we pay to defend our interests against such sharp practices.
Unless they are in on the deal, too inept or frightened of lobbyists to do anything about it.
Davos III (the plebs strike back)
Not his fault, I suppose, but it's the first report I've read from 'the front' and this came across a bit smug a la 'I'm one of the in-crowd and you'll find out what I heard in secret when I decide.'
Davos 07: are we fanning the flames?
"I'll pop this on the record, so it's slightly more valuable than a free lunch with a VIP and a jolly with a media rep.
I'm wondering what, who 'mainstream media' is.. are? I'm guessing another 'elite' that means 'not the rest of you'.
I also wonder how many representatives of 'it' there were (the BBC apparently has managed 37, which has to be some kind of record - and we have a bet here they didn't take the bus) slumming it in a very cosy resort who noticed the irony of who was there, who was not, how they all got there (speaking of flying visits) and what was supposed to be quite high on the agenda.
So yes, it is getting warmer, and I have a fair notion who is fanning some of those 'flames'. I'll await my e-version in return."
Davos 07: are we fanning the flames?
"I'll pop this on the record, so it's slightly more valuable than a free lunch with a VIP and a jolly with a media rep.
I'm wondering what, who 'mainstream media' is.. are? I'm guessing another 'elite' that means 'not the rest of you'.
I also wonder how many representatives of 'it' there were (the BBC apparently has managed 37, which has to be some kind of record - and we have a bet here they didn't take the bus) slumming it in a very cosy resort who noticed the irony of who was there, who was not, how they all got there (speaking of flying visits) and what was supposed to be quite high on the agenda.
So yes, it is getting warmer, and I have a fair notion who is fanning some of those 'flames'. I'll await my e-version in return."
Declan Does Davos II - the sequel
No link I'm afraid, but who really needs one, assuming the facts to be accurate?
DAILY MAIL - BBC accused of wasting £50,000 sending 37 journalists to cover
the Davos economic summit.
Your licence fee at work. And, one presumes, they all took the bus.
DAILY MAIL - BBC accused of wasting £50,000 sending 37 journalists to cover
the Davos economic summit.
Your licence fee at work. And, one presumes, they all took the bus.
Er, what he said...
As we all know, Scott Adams is a genius, and Dibert is more than humour, it is simply the best, most targeted piece of social satire there is. Sign up now (this digs me out of copyright issues... I hope... when I just have to share).I claim to be no superior being, but in view of what I am trying to do, and the success I am having in getting through to those who are foursquare blocking my paths to sharing it with a willing population, it does strike a chord. For the last 'corporate/departmental/media' comment, simply substitute 'ignored... again' for 'fired', and 'Free ways to deliver tangible, worthwhile financial/environmentally beneficial ROIs to the consuming, taxpaying-public' for 'Linux' and that should about cover it.
Some see grasping commercialism and waste. I see a free gutter guard.
Now, I'd best start by saying it's a pity it's a flyer stuck through my door. No probelm with an ad for a freebie, and I know the logistics are impossible to get around, but hey.
Anyway, tucked down there is a 'twofer' on my kids' summer squash.
But the product is also already on Junkk.com with an idea.
Anyway, tucked down there is a 'twofer' on my kids' summer squash.
But the product is also already on Junkk.com with an idea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)