Flash - Credit where due!

Just checked the Voda site again and they have posted a back-up plan.

Thx to them. I just hope all who missed out will get to reapply.

No such thing as no publicity.

The Big Idea seemed such a, well good , idea.

But it has been, and still does represent a roller-coaster ride.

I'm still cropping up in idents, though the latest had my picture linked to section on non-commercial ideas. Actually, the only real question I had from the panel was from Ruth Badger about revenue, and my answer was good enough for her to nod and put me through. Gotta love those editors.

Having watched the latest jaw-dropping show (As in, these are the best they could drum up??? I know there were better to choose.. beyond us), we got inspired by the spirit of 'out's better than nought' and decided to go for the £10k viewer prize. In some ways this is more attractive as it has obvious PR value but also is cash and run. I had not appreciated people got cuts of the winners when we set off originally. No way Jose.

So we duly submitted our entry yesterday. Or tried to. As you will gather by my having to leave this message on their forum page today:

"Have to add another voice to the frustrated online uploaders.

The deadline is/was midnight on the 12th (yesterday).

We tried all evening. The pitch was 1' 20". Admitedly it was over double the requested (but not mandated) size, but the subtleties of video compression are a bit beyond us.

Broadband to broadband takes only a few minutes (we swapped between PCs no problem).

Why oh why is it always a form with a 'browse' and 'submit' system. These things always clash. emails are so much more reliable and you know what has happened at the end.

We tried Mac & PC, Firefox & Safari and IE. On IE we at least got a 'failed' advice (not that we wanted one!), but the others just whirred away and we have no clue whether they worked.

With luck we'll get some joy from the contact number this morning (if the Voda customer service staff have a clue what this site is).
Otherwise it is to be hoped that there will be a solution offered to those of us who could not enter by deadline. At least an advice here.

Watch this space!"

I don't know whether to be encouraged or not that the total Forum had run up not much more than 100 entries in the whole show, but several were about the same problem. Thing is, it doesn't seem as if the organisers read their own Forum, as there have been no replies. I figure they read their texts, though.

Meanwhile a call to the help number has us now richocheting (how apt is that.. it's the production company now!) from one bored, indifferent or plain unaware Vodafone minion to another. 2 hrs and counting since 'we'll get right back to you'.

Not the best handled effort I have been with. And we have been with some shambolic ones! I'm not sure it is even legal, as a lot of folk have committed a lot of money (entering and voting), and the system seems very secretive as well as plain bad.

I guess the best thing to do is leave with this thought from a financial journalist:
Bigmouth Badger plugs in to TV flop

Can't really fault his analysis, but as it's their ball it's their game. But one has to wonder what machinations have been at work to structure the entries and/or winners, and those who billed it 'the Big Idea' have a lot of cojones.

Or maybe they have estimated the British Public's threshold for demanding broadcast entertainment precisely. Trouble is, where goes the common man, there follows business and government.

Volt(aire) Face

I was watching the news today and there was coverage of the acquittal of the British National Party head honcho on the charge of something like 'fomenting race hatred'. It was based on the same channel's undercover report where he made a private speech that was secretly recorded. Passing quickly on from the report's distinction that an all white jury cleared him (don't recall a racial breakdown before, oddly. Is it possible these non-BBC-luvvies just couldn't find a legal justification to convict, regardless of skin hue? A notion borne out by subsequent events), I guess I should make some effort to listen to the whole thing before commenting, but I really can't be bothered. It sounded like a bit of a boozy back-room rant to me. Frankly I'd say if you wanted to listen to such drivel and make the effort to go out to do so, good luck, so what the BBC was skulking around trying to get offended about I can't imagine. The BNP's views are pretty well known. But skulk they did, and an issue was made. And a court case. Lots of money, oops, down the tubes. Thing is, without listening to the whole thing, the 'offending' thing sounded no more than an opinion to me. I may not agree with it, but last I heard he was entitled to have it, and voice it. Apparently not.

Seems that having not got the required result there are now moves afoot to change the law some more, to bend it in a favoured direction. This is a slippy road. And we're already well down it. What on earth served our forfathers over the centuries so well, and continually needs mucking about with every few days now?

And as an opinionated sod, I am concerned. Purely selfish, because I can see me ending up in deep doo doo one day. I'd like to think I'm smart enough to keep this written blog the right side of the PC threshold (and I don't think I'll ever find myself standing for office), but I do open my gob in conversation and what I think can pop out. I know that they do say you should never discuss politics or religion (or, G... er.. heaven forefend, both) but as I know diddly about sport, fashion and soap operas there's not much left.

So I recently offended. I didn't mean to, but I did.

It wasn't even an opinion, but a projection based on some facts. Or, at least, as near to any as it is possible to get these days. It started (and I didn't even start it) with the environment, but sort of strayed into other territories.

Basically I moved from my understanding of the extrapolation of population growth (which already had, without my knowing lit a fuse - though if we have finite space and an expanding world population I can't see any other end point), to a notion that democracy was perhaps not the perfect ideal some would have it. Things could be quite easily moved in directions not anticipated by its most ardent proponents by the simple expedient of one societal set out-breeding another. If that set harbours differing views then, well, by democratic process they could effect change simply by outvoting those who disagree, and may have until a certain point have been in the majority. Then it boils down to how radical the changes are required to be, and if the new minority can live with them. In essence, democracy can be democratically voted out. And that is hard to reverse.

One of the party I was discussing this with suddenly announced that she was offended. I asked by what. She didn't quite seem to have the specifics, but I'm guessing she just didn't approve of this area of philosophical exploration and sought to censor, or stop it. As she was a nice person and I saw no value in taking this discussion down a dark path, I apologised for unintended offence, and we got back to more neutral territory pronto. Some book or other I think. As she may not have read Fahrenheit 451 the irony that it may end on the bonfire one day would doubtless have been lost on her.

So I remain troubled, for all the examples and reasons shared above. Actually, I believe she was offended by her own mindset. I had not said anything that was not a reasonable potential scenario, and though there are non-verbal indicators that can shape the dry content of words, I actually offered no view at all as to whether I thought this possible outcome was a good or bad thing. Hence my offendee had decided for herself that it was bad, and heaped her self-criticism for finding it so upon me. So if anyone should have been offended, it was me.

So if you're interested in my opinion, and if you're reading this and have got this far I'm assuming you are, I'd say go on a guilt trip I you feel so disposed, but don't expect me to be willingly taken along for a ride. I've said it before but will say it again: 'You don't have to go looking for offence; if you are so peverse as to want it to find you... it will'.

Addendum:

This from the Telegraph: No one has the right to band hatred

To which I aded my adapt of the above post:

Volt(aire) face! Passing quickly on from the news report's (that introduced me to this) distinction that an 'all white' jury cleared him (don't recall a racial breakdown before, oddly. Is it possible the jury just couldn't find a legal justification to convict, regardless of skin hue? A notion borne out by subsequent events), it sounded like a bit of a boozy back-room rant to me. Frankly I'd say if you wanted to listen to such drivel and make the effort to go out to do so, good luck. So what the BBC was skulking around trying to get offended about I can't imagine. The BNP's views are pretty well known. But skulk they did, and an issue was made. And a court case. Lots of money, oops, down the tubes. Thing is, without listening to the whole thing, the 'offending' bit I was served sounded no more than an opinion to me. I may not agree with it, but last I heard he was entitled to have it, and voice it. Apparently not.

Having not got the required result these 'moves afoot to change the law' some more, to 'bend it in a favoured direction', are a slippy road. And we're already well down it. What on earth served our forefathers over the centuries so well, and continually needs mucking about with every few days now?

And as an opinionated sod, I am concerned. Purely selfish, because I can see me ending up in deep doo doo one day. I'd like to think I'm smart enough to keep anything written here or in my blog on the right side of the PC threshold (and I don't think I'll ever find myself standing for office), but I do open my gob in conversation and what I think can pop out. I know that they do say you should never discuss politics or religion (or, G... er.. heaven forefend, both) but as I know diddly about sport, fashion and soap operas there's not much left.

But most offence seems to be baggage taken along by those who are already on guilt trips of their own making.

So if you're interested in my opinion (and if you're reading this and have got this far I'm assuming you are), feel free to take that journey if you feel so disposed. But don't expect me to be willingly taken along for a ride. It's been said before and is worth repeating: 'You don't have to go looking for offence; but if you are so perverse as to want it to find you... it will'.

At it again, 4x4 he's a repetitive fellow!

OK, I admit it. I can't resist. And in so doing I become part of the problem. Put if I can divert some of the energy away from divise, petty issues, to unified, major ones, then it may be worth it.

This from the Telegraph, with a few stats/facts I didn't know (if they are valid, of course): The environmental choice?

To which I replied: "A good article, though to justify the headline it perhaps should have been published back to front.

'The' environmental choice, at least as it refers to travel, is to walk or cycle. But that is often not an option in a time-poor, multi-mile-demanding business or social situation, with often woeful public transport outside (and in) of major urban centres.

I consider the whole 4x4 thing a divisive distraction, for many of the reasons offered here, and more. I'll ignore the other debated negatives such as safety and size, other than to say I'm not sure if I want my kids hit by a white van any more than an SUV. Or a G-reg 205 doing 50 in the town as the road revenue devices are all out on the dual carriageway. So I'll try and train them to stay on the pavement.

If it is about the environment, then surely the penalties should come when vehicles are moving, and emitting global warming gasses? That could of course mean taxing the fuel the produces them, and one might find that a few Mondeo-driving (or R-reg Volvo... mea culpa. Can't afford a Prius, it won't help much in the country /motorway, and anyway 15-25% of a car's e-pact is in its construction, right? So, Ms. Hunt, stay bored and save the planet) registered voters get a bit unhappy about it all favouring those who can afford it or live in Notting Hill/Westminster. Political suicide for the pols? Best leave it to the activists to do the job with gestures.

However, by way of balance, may I suggest that if we only wait 'til forecasts pan out to act on what they had suggested, it can often mean the boat may have already sailed... in this case up your street."

There but for the grace of God...

I'm still catching up. So I'm still basically nicking (well, passing on) other folks' stuff.

And this has to be worth it: An Olympian feat of political vanity

Now I do need to stress that this is titled 'A personal view', and should be viewed as such. But facts are facts, statements are statements, and those who do not study history are destined to find events repeating themselves. The signs... are not good.

It is also, on the face of it, not much to do with our remit. But as I continue to attempt to swim through a sea of fudge at official level, it is worth a further reminder what those who try to do things face from those who are supposed to pave the way.

And it is going to be a 'Green' event. Let the finger pointing begin!

Since Graeme asked...

As some will know, I find the whole '4x4's are evil' a tad broad in its brushstrokes, a little city-centric in its acolytes and just a bit less than where our main energies could lie.

So as I was mooching around an interesting website, I could not resist trying to answer a question posed:

Posted by Graeme Kemp on 02 November 2006, 8:46:22 AM I was interested in the comment that 4X4 vehicles are "essential" for some people? __Really, who?__Most of the 4X4s I've seen are simply used as status symbols, in places like Esher and similar. I've never seen one actually being used for anyone's work or employment. They are social ego-boosters, nothing more.__4x4s are big, bulky, costly, superior and no friend of the environment. Let's price them off the roads!

Me!

For the benefit of the poster (from/in/near Esher), I do believe some folk not from London or its suburbs may actually use them for their work or employment. Some from within London may even need them for social or work reasons outside.

Guys like farmers, or those who need to tow stuff (like our caravanning ex - not the best example, as she liked flying too much - Enviro Minister!), and even yummy mummys who live down pitted roads and/or need to do the school run with a bevvy of kids on car share. Or those with bad backs. Or who can't get over traffic calming measures without scraping off the exhaust. Or the police. Or Highways patrols. Then there's the military. Or Ray Mears.

Thing is, if they're not made in volume, they may not get made at all, so short of concreting over the planet (which I know the DPM is/has done in your neck of the woods, bud with luck not yet in ours) there are some places they can have a function:)

That said, if the only use they have is to bump up a pavement in SoHo then you're bang on.

But... maybe some folk can't afford two cars, or think that it's un-eco to own more than one and need to opt for the one that does all tasks. It kinda defeats the object to have a 4x4 and Aston but lob up in a Prius when the protestors are out front, eh, HRH?

So careful when you use a Humvee to crush a Fiat Panda. Or a Prius rather than a Lexus Hybrid to try and pull a stump. Or even a Prius to burn up the motorway all day lugging a battery about.

You may just run over some of those you'd like onside for support with the bigger picture.

Aiyeeeeeeah!

This is a word. Seriously.

To my shame it is about the only one I learned in 8 years in Hong Kong, but boy is it a goody onomatopoeically (and I know my spelling is not up to it, so we'll see how the spellcheck manages). Basically, it is Cantonese for 'Oh. My. Gawd'.

Which means it is pretty much not the right dialect for this piece, but kinda is all that I can think of to say about it: China to pass US greenhouse gas levels by 2010.

Now what's 'A 4x4's2muchxFar' in Mandarin? Fortunately, I believe '4' sounds like 'death', so we may be in with a chance. Mind you, even if they all stick with the Raleigh Choppers to work, the whole 50 airports, belching steel mills thing may screw the carbon levels a tad.

Democracy in action?

Sorry, this is not a lot about the environment, but as it does involve those who are - in theory - guiding us through the future problems and opportunities we all face, there is something of a link to be made.

When the Farepak affair broke, I was suitably surprised that in this well-regulated (well, one out of two ain't bad) country such a thing could come to pass, and highly sympathetic to the queues of folk sitting on breakfast TV couches wiping a teary eye that their T&ATT (turkey and all the trimmings) was now firmly invested (and out of reach) in half a dozen bricks of a company director's Fulham des res. Ain't the law wonderful?

But, at the time, I remember thinking that after what the Chancellor pulled with our pensions, it was quite a risk to give folk a wad of dosh and not get anything in return for a long, long while.

Seems I was not alone. This from the Telegraph: How to nearly choke on your cornflakes

I can't think of any occasion when I'd be thrilled by the sight of Gordon Brown in the morning, but his breakfast television appearance yesterday, when he called for compensation for Farepak savers (the bust Christmas club) was too much for Ros Altmann. "It made my blood boil," fumes the London School of Economics governor, who has campaigned for 125,000 company pension members whose policies have collapsed. How can he pose as the savers' friend when his taxes have helped destroy not just one Christmas but every Christmas for so many?" Could it be that the Farepak victims are largely Scots whose votes might be needed in May? Surely not.

However, as one whose Xmas extravaganza is going to be quite modest this year, I hope it is not too churlish to wonder why such as Sainsburys and Morrisons (whose fine establishments I have supported on occasion over the years) are going to respond to various Scots pols' exhortations to compensate the victims of a dodgy business/political/legislative triumverate, and not me and my family for all the dodgy deals that have gone sour in our lives?

Addendum. Comment on fallout in Telegraph
Addendum. This one I liked: Hoist by their own Pol-tard

Baked couch potatoes

You may not be using much as you slump in front of the console of your game, but it is. And some more than others... or not. This from the Guardian, and my reply:

This is why I love blogs. And am so frustrated by them.

I pounced on this because I thought to myself, 'ey up, this looks like a worthy addition to our (Junkk.com) section on home electronics, and folk can not only decide on bells and whistles, but eco-considerations for gaming consoles, too.

But then I read on. And what was up was down. And black was white. Who was the genuine tester of juice consumption, and who was the PR agency for a) Microsoft, b) Sony or c) Nintendo?

Now I do have one of those energy meters, but all I have is an XBox, which doubtless is not as good as a 360. And I certainly cannot afford to buy the others to do a comparison and/or review. In any case I get blown up before the chip has come out of hibernate, so it wouldn't be apples vs. apples anyway.

Sod it.

I guess I'll just trust Pish & Slashdot for now.

Or watch this space a bit longer to see what next transpires. Sheesh.

I think'll I just watch people play footy. Or... play it myself!

Your tax £ at work

Golly. Who'd have thunk? This hoot from the Daily Mail. I had to pitch in.

And how much from the public purse will be forked out to him, the geniuses that put him in, the ones who got him out (sideways promotions and gold-plated pensions all round!), the various interested parties in debating and pursuing both sides of what I'm sure will be a long a protracted case (including, one presumes, with no small sense of irony, the missus of the guy he was protecting) with much offence to be taken all round? Plus of course, those who will wallow in the reporting (and drumming up) of same.

Lunatics. Asylum (cripes, don't let's get started on another thread!) anyone?

Gordon, we need another tax initiative to fund this, quick!

So how much from your chip & bin fine will go to reuse, and how much to the Plod who nicks you's early retirement on account of the stress of smelly bin diving?

Taking Sides

I wish we were not so strapped as to be pinching pennies left and right, especially when it comes to good intel.

Because I would dearly love to have read the full text of this piece in the Indy: Dominic Lawson: The dangers of crying wolf over the climate

Moving swiftly on from the observation that he gets paid to say what I have been banging on about for years, at least it's nice to see that the paper can entertain views that are not so slavish as to render the cause less effective.

Into the valley of dead box tickers, went the optimistic innovator (again)

I don't think you can do this with RSS feeds, as I believe you get served what they think you'll like.

Because I was having a little trawl in the Telegraph, and off to one side was a contest.

Well, we know I'm a glutton for punishment, so it should come as no surprise that I decided to have a look despite it having the words 'Innovation Awards' in there, which has not proven to be the most fruitful use of my time of late, what with us apparently not being deemed very innovative or much to do with making a social or enviromental difference and all.

But I think I may just give it one last try...

ps: Couldn't resist the irony of this being headed by an ad dragging you off on a cheap skiing holiday. If the snow is melting around you, ponder that one as you fly home.

DIYD2

That's my new acronym, which stands for 'Damned if you do. Damned if you don't'.

And I introduce it having read this: 'Give Children hats to save on heating'.

Now, I'm no great fan of npower (try ecotricity!), but what the heck is all this about?

And at risk of being a pot to other's kettles, what are these critics actually saying? That no one can suggest ways to reduce heating bills? I seem to recall a lot of stuff flying about on dropping the thermostat and wearing a jummy. But a pair of socks and a beanie is going too far?

I'm sure their hearts are in the right places, and if there wan't such stuff they wouldn't have much to do, but I'd just love to know who pays these guys to come up with this nonsense. Oh, let me think... it's probably us.

Those who can, do.. if someone doesn't try to stop them

Still getting my feet under the table. For once I have decided to pick up with 'now' rather than worry about 'then' first, though I do hope to post on a few bits from my jaunt last week.

This one was too good not to share: Beware, reading this could really get your goat

It was the first one about charging the guy landfill tax for using waste to create a wetland reserve that really stuck home.

Of course there are those who will say (isn't that neat media speak for 'I'm going to ask this but don't want to be held accountable for the question') that it's easy to highlight the few such travesties that will inevitably occur.

But frankly it happens too often to be anything but a concern, and a trend to watch with horror. I don't see it reversing. How could it? The desire to cover one's backside is creating ever more backside coverers, whose first instinct is inevitably to make their mark by covering more backsides. Will we end up with a culture entirely composed of those who monitor and restrict those who try to do stuff, only to find there are none left to impose upon?

I applaud the media for highlighting this. But I do criticise for the manner. It has become a quick harrumph and a snigger. I very much doubt anything changed as a result of these idoicies being spotlighted. No names shamed. In fact I'm sure those responsible for the one I mention above are now Heads of Policy for some new quango... and doubtless at a conference on global warming in Bali as I write.

A Stern Warning

Well, I'm back! Missed me?

And if my in-box is anything to go by, I certainly have missed a heck of a lot while I was cut off in the wilds of Scotland these last several days.

It would appear that we have yet another report to get everyone excited (the Stern one, and I am not going to claim that my quick headline was by any means the first to make that pun). I think I gave up counting at 30 the number of press releases and/or comments from every quarter in my in-box. So I guess I should read it.

What would have been nice is that if anyone, anywhere, had anything new to say, especially anything positive or helpful. Hence I don't propose to cite any URLs here*. Type 'Stern' into Google and watch your browser explode.

On Sunday morning I was watching some religious programme on the Beeb, which as far as I could gather was making a theological pitch for the whole global warming debate. Fair enough; it's all getting rather apocalyptic.

Trouble is, like usual, the two guests I caught were straight out of the 'let's throw two polar opposites in the ring and see what repels most' school of media ratings hype. So we had some chubby yuppy capitalist in a suit saying the usual 'Why bother recycling', and the equally inevitable Earth-mother activist shaking her head and getting agitated.

As Corporal Fraser would say in Dad's Army, if this is all that we can manage... 'We're all doomed, I tell ye... doomed!'.

*OK, I changed my mind. I watched 'Have I Got News For You' the same night and it was mighty funny on this issue. Trouble is, they were mighty funny becuase they couldn't make head nor tail of it all and decided it was best to laugh it off.

That is of course one way. Here is a slightly more digestible form I've come across in the Guardian (potential editorial agenda noted) the next day, so we can try and, oo, I don't know... deal with it?

The Empires strike

As this is based on a story - Speed camera fines used to buy plasma TVs and T-shirts - about speed cameras, you may wonder what it is doing here.

Well, for a start, I am about to leave for a week's writer's retreat (time to brush up on the day job skills) in Inverness, and as I journey to the far North my Road Angel will have pride of place on the dash, allowing me to look at the road and not obsess about staying within a few mph of a limit.

But mostly it is the point about how these quangos spend their money, which does resonate with our experience.

One could, just, accept that revenues generated by such things do help if they are ploughed back into improving matters on the ground. But they simply are not.

Be it an EU fund or fine-related income, the vast percentage goes to creating and maintaining empires that benefit none but those within them. Offices (head and regional). Salaries (it's easy to be not for profit when you blow a bundle on a six figure board). Pensions. But then there is the creeping trend towards self-promotion. Massive amounts on propaganda to justify their existences.

And this I think is where we at Junkk.com suffer, especially when applying for support. We too are communicating. And that rains on some cosy parades.

Maybe now our rates are going through the roof (that we just insulated, thereby improving the desireability of the property and hence its value), they can divert some of the money to, oo, I don't know, catching dangerous, uninsured drivers?

Judging the judges?

It's my version of 'watching the detectives'. Who are these people? What qualifies them?

Of course, it may not just be the judges; it can also, or instead, be the judging process. What pressures exist from sponsors and organisers?

It has not been a good week for awards applications.

On top of the disappointment with the UnLtd. funding, I stumbled across the shortlist for the Green Awards. We're not on it.

This was a surprise, as I hadn't realised there was a shortlist. Does this mean that there was some preselection? If so, I was not aware of it when I entered. Also the categories seem to have changed since I applied. And while the previous awards were simply a waste of time, these ones also involved money.

There is a temptation to shrug and let things pass. There are those immortal words 'the judges decision is final', closely followed by 'no correspondence will be entertained.' But did the judges even see what was entered. Or was my nemesis in life and business, the gatekeeper, again at work?

But this brings me back to process. As with the Big idea, what was it that got me from a good chance to an also ran? Especially as, in the case of the SKY effort, I started the day with three thumbs up, and I now know that a few of those who got through only had one or two, and a rough ride. What other factors were at play?

This one is worth pursuing as far as I can take it.

I have tracked down some of the shortlisted efforts. A few are not bad. But in the categories I applied for, B2B DM, B2C DM and copy (for the Folda Holda), I'd have to say, totally subjectively, that our entries were pretty good in comparison, both creatively, and especially environmentally. For heaven's sake, this is a green award and in all these cases we had a reusable concept where the rest were volumes of guff destined for the recycling bin. And they claim it is all about 'creativity'.

And along the way, the below £100k classification, which we most certainly met, seems to have been dropped. So all of a sudden we're mixed in with large wadges of wonga being thrown at the wall in the hope of hitting some target.

But with bitter irony, as I post this I am also sending off my entry to the next set of awards. At least one, the Webbys, has a cheap category (rather worryingly called 'Weird'), which I only realised having racked up bout $3k (hurriedly deleted) ticking all the other relevant boxes to Junkk.com's function, and the other, Technology for Marketing, is free and none too time consuming.

Breath is now being held.

Why can Greens be good for you? This!

There's odd. There's silly. There's hypocritical. There's barking. And, to quote Douglas Adams in Hitch-hikers Guide, there's 'First against the wall when the revolution comes'.

I don't usually do e-petitions. I have now. Do join in. We may even save some time, save some money... and the planet (now where have I heard that before? Which is more than I can say for this petition. It will be interesting to see if it crops up in the major media. If not, thank you Green MEPs!)

Limited UnLtd.

Well, that's one Press Release I don't have to write, I guess.

Just back to a letter saying I was not going to get the money I'd applied for from the UnLtd. Millennium Awards Trust (the Guardian thing, or maybe not).

I'm obviously more than disappointed, but not too surprised.

It started so well. A fund that was designed to encourage social entrepreneurship. Better yet, with the money apparently not meant for buying kit or consultants, but supposedly to be paid directly to the individual in recognition that to start such enterprises takes time and effort which can eat in to earning a living with the day job.

I guess I should have seen what was coming. For a start having been vetted through the first round, I was required to take a whole day off to be briefed on making the application. Fair enough. But having fought my way up to Birmingham, I was less than thrilled to spend most of the day sitting watching a guy read his own PowerPoint presentation out to us. Even less so that all the topics had already been covered in the forms I'd submitted to get through the first round. But hey ho, met a few nice folk and had a free lunch. Whatever floats their box-ticking boat and consumes the money they cream off to fund the office, directors, pensions, etc, to dole this largesse out.

The most encouraging part was actually at the start of the day, when the big cheese leapt in to make his speech, which was suitably 'ra-ra', but did end with him saying that any of us who had commissioned professional awards application consultants should fire them now.. 'because we want to get a feel for the real you'. As a creative person struggling in a sea of suits and red tape, this was music to my ears.

It was also a load of b*****cks.

I was actually impressed and grateful that we got to pre-submit our application to assess whether it was pushing the requisite buttons. Except that it was like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. If I was from Mars, the guy at the other end was from Uranus. He just couldn't see where I was coming from and I certainly couldn't see how he could not see what I saw as obvious. Friends in the corporate world tried to help, and certainly must have improved matters from my original: 'It's too passionate'. 'It's so you, but without knowing you that might put the men in grey off'. Fair do's. But I thought they wanted the real me.

They didn't. I have had my 'Dear Peter' letter. Several days work down the tubes.

I write this to vent, but also to make note to investigate further on all these cash sinks on the public purse. What is supported? Why? What happens to the money?

It's not really sour grapes. I just wanted the dough. And the PR would have been good on top.

But I'm afraid what really pushed my buttons was the cc'd form letter 'that recognised all the hard work' and 'to assist with future applications outlined the reasons I was not successful':

'The project proposal does not demonstrate that it has the potential to become sustainable or that significant social impact or social change will be delivered.

As to the former, I am just starting out and need help. That is why I am applying. I could lie through my teeth but gave my best shot at what had happened and could happen. Looking at others who have succeeded, and some that will doubtless get this grant, I can only wonder at the level of awards and major media coverage they will get that we already are, along with unique visitors in the hundreds of thousands.

As to the latter, this statement makes as much sense as the one that was used in the rejection letter from a Creative Innovation award from our early days: 'You are trying to do something that has not been proven before, in a way that we could not fully grasp', ie: too creatively innovative.

And what, precisely, could be any more socially significant, impactful and changing than getting the general public on board with re:using stuff to save the planet because they want to, as opposed to recycling because they're forced or shamed to?

Sigh.

Conspicuous Consumer Consumption

BBC Newsnight got into the whole 4x4xfarce issue last night with a piece that was pretty cynical about the motivations and the maths used by councils and enviro-advocates of the parking policy. I of course had add to my previous post and weigh in:

"Interesting piece. And some interesting facts. Shame these days I have no way of knowing which are true. Is the enviro-cost of making a new car 5% or 25%? That's a heck of a span to try and factor into a running, e-cost & purchase decision. As to the parking plan, let me get this straight. The proposal is to tax the vehicle, which may be moving, but most likely more often than not won't be. Meanwhile, there will be no disincentive for buzzing about all day using a 'green' vehicle, say an electric car, much beloved of many an authoritative spokesperson, which apparently 'causes no pollution'. Only the exhaust pipe is in another place, and the 'fuel' transfer system is not awfully efficient. And if I am convinced, and can find the funds for a new car (not all of us can drum up a Prius' worth - and as a country/motorway driver lugging a battery around doesn't seem optimal anyway- that quickly), where exactly does my perfectly good old car end up? I rather suspect it will still be used elsewhere, still popping CO2 skywards somewhere on the planet (though on my reuse website someone did once suggest turning them into saunas. I wonder if that's where Ming's, Dave's and all the other Gov-guzzlers ended up?) So now we've generated an extra car and both are belching out greenhouse gasses. Brilliant. ps: This is not anti-environment. Anything but. I just want to know the truth so I can make the best decisions for myself, my family and the planet."