Who? More like Where's Wally?

Now my eyesight isn't so good. And I know there's been a lot of monkeying about with logos lately.

But while I can see the Lib Dems and I think (worth noting to graphic designers what reads best) Tories and Greens on the left, somewhat aptly to the right is UKIP & Mr. Blair - as opposed to, one presumes, the Labour Party, our Government... guys in charge.

What an odd front page?

Q&A - Question and Avoidance

I can't seem to get Junkk.com (me, maybe) arrested, much less mentioned as a viable part of the fight against waste.

This morning was typical. In advance of the Queen's Speech, we had a puff piece with the Minister for (something eco... How many are there now?), 'Bouffant Ben' Bradshaw showing off his vlog on how easy it is to recycle... in London.

When it came to corporate responsibilities, it was clearly stated that 'turning to legislation at every turn' is not the best way to go. Out of the mouths of Blair babes...

Moving swiftly on, it was jokingly pointed out that he actually had been caught in the very transgression of co-mingling, which in another council area would have got him... um.. a fine.

'Just show's how tricky it all is,' he guffawed. And how easy to say one thing and do another. Or be asked one thing and answer... well... differently to that required.

Apparently those who have been fined, as captured so loudly in the papers of late, they were in the minority and 'had been warned several times'. Accepted nods all round from fellow Beeb bouffant. Were they? Had they? I didn't get that impression from the last one I read. I guess we'll never know.

About the only thing I did learn was that banning plastic carriers is not going to work 'cos people just turn to paper, and that's worse environmentally. Is it?

Meanwhile, other than four soldiers getting blown apart, we'll have the skateboarding minister for tortoises on...

Getting Noticed For All The Wrong Reasons

I have in my time commented and pitched to BBCs Working Lunch a fair bit. Like when they went on an eco-tour of the country ands I thought we'd be worth mentioning. It all fell on deaf ears. Not a dicky-bird, despite their frequent exhortations to get in touch in their mails, show and site. It was something raised in a Newswatch or Newsnight a while ago, I recall, by another frustrated, failed contributor.

Of course, nice does not cut it these days.

So it is with interest that I note the following terse reply (with mine back... the plot thickens) to my admittedly terse enquiry (prose gets binned I've found) just now about one of their pieces:

It is/was open to those in the UK, and further field who have a business needing investment to continue its growth and it is meant to be more than just a one off competition. I'm sorry you were disappointed with the item.

I was disappointed in as much as I tuned in to see about a further opportunity to expand, which seemed to have passed. If it is still open to those in the UK then maybe I should have not have been. Where can I find out more?

May I ask do you use "see us on the BBC" on all your promotional literature ?

As we don't have any, I'd say no, unless you count my email signature. May I ask why you ask? Would you like me to stop? It was a while ago.

It will be interesting to see where this leads. I'm guessing she's going to equate me looking for promo for my frre, public service website, with giving 3 minute commercials to for-major-profit CEOs, a major beef of mine with a public broadcaster.

Addendum:

Didn't hear back. Surprise. Didn't like that. Big surprise. Took issue. Well, there's a surprise.

The BBC has a complaints system. As they get a lot, they may not alwasy answer. Let's see what happens:

Not a complaint... yet. But as things have been left hanging more than 24hrs after a flurry of activity, I have a... concern.

I wrote to the above programme with a question, and in addition to my answer had the following comment regarding my email signature:

May I ask do you use "see us on the BBC" on all your promotional literature ?

Best wishes

Lynne Jones

I immediately answered, but then asked why this was posed, but to date have not heard back.

May I therefore formally ask for an explanation as I remain
unclear for the reasons behind this question and the manner in which it was asked.

OK, I'm the Grinch That Stole The Planet

A long, long time ago, I lived in Hong Kong. And I was a slob. I worked all day and played all night. So I decided to get fit. So every lunch I took a tube to a city helth club, and then up a lift, where I static-cycled and Stairmastered for an hour.

Then I thought: 'Why no cycle there and walk up. And then turn back?' A lot cheaper. And better for me.

I'm afraid this is what ran through my mind when I read this: Kids walk to Moon and back in climate campaign

I'm all for awareness, but Britta Freitag of the German-based Climate Alliance travelled how far to hand a suitcase stuffed with 618,315 paper "green footprints" to U.N. climate talks in Nairobi on Monday?

100,000 children cut out the shape of their foot from whatt pieces of paper for every mile?

Some 5,000 delegates are discussing ways to step up the fight on global warming, with Austria a leading contributor to the campaign with more than 200,000 cut-out coloured footprints.

Apparently, most scientists say that global warming is being stoked by emissions of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and vehicles.... like, paper making ones and planes to get folk to jollies?

Nil points.

Working for whom?

Working Lunch just ended.

I had to write, becuase I felt my time had been wasted. They sent me a 'heads up' that made me watch to see about enetring a contest. Hnece:

"I tuned in to watch because of this:

On Tuesday we talk to venture capitalists from the Isle of Man who are running a competition to find entrepreneurs.

Interesting questions posed.

So I'm clear, this is now a closed competition and it was/is not open to me anyway? So really it was a promo piece for the IoM than of any real value to businesses like mine?"

They also had in the programme a pitch to appear on Friday if you paid enough (for charity). Now what's airime on the BBC worth to the right business with a pitch to make? Hmmn. Your licence fee at work.

The sound of silence

I'm watching BBC Working Lunch. Just emailed them (it says it all):

"I'm watching your show.

This morning on BBC Breakfast, Govt. Minsister Darling was asked about incentives to help us engage more environmental measures in the home. What I heard was a ton of waffle, with at best, 'it was being looked at'.

Now I hear another Minister, Mr. Pearson, being asked pretty much the same question, this time on eco-fuels for transport. And guess what... the same non answer!!!

What is the point of asking these very pertinent questions if they are to be allowed to get air time to say nothing."

Addendum: Worth a gander, from the dti website.

The trouble with high horses: being behind a higher one

Sorry, I am inordinately proud of that title. And in scouting around for something to go with it, I came across the attached. I've arched an eyebrow at words vs. deeds (Pols telling how to save the planet and not doing so themsleves. Green media mouthing off on eco-stuff whilst promoting less than optimal behaviour - I'll try and get the URLs) before, and make no apology for doing so again. Let they who are without carbon offsets cast the first nasturtium!

Just(ify) the facts, man

I keep breaking my vow to avoid debates on climate change, but this one is too big to ignore, both figuratively and literally.

Lord Monckton's artcile - Wrong problem, wrong solution (plus another, Greenblinkers) makes for an interesting read. It certainly stirred up something. And a sad explantion for where we are, and headed: the PDF of responses to his last article. 77 pages of small type! Who on earth has time to read all that and still have a life?

Suffice to say that I can't be bothered with so much needless argument, but have to say that I am depressed that much of it is fulled by vitriol rather than a desire to seek answers.

Little that you know that I know that you know less than me

A big day for windbags - This is a dazzling debunking of climate change science. It is also wildly wrong


Here's my contribution:

"Golly, I wish we could harness all this energy arguing about who knows more than whom. Then it may be some use. I'm a bit more interested in what I can (which has many parameters) do. For instance, as one of the rotation ('scuse the pun) there was a nifty wind turbine ad spinning up in the top right hand corner of this piece. Funny if it was between a bottled water and skiing holiday one, eh? It says I can go green without going into the red. Is this true? I have heard the payback period can be quite a long time. And even the environmental side seems to be being challenged, too: "Wind turbines 'may actually do more harm than good' Daily Mail" (ah, that may explain it, though the quoted bods are mainstream eco): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=415993&in_page_id=1770 I just wish when it comes to matters of fact these days I could trust, and act on, what I read. Anywhere. Not any more, sadly."

One billion Chinese can't... er... what?

And so one leads to the next. Couldn't not pitch in with my nifty headline previously, so here's what I lobbed into the Guardian blog: The smoking dragon

"This morning on Breakfast TV I watched a reporter outside a suburban semi telling me the owners 'were laughing', one presumes on account of the nice perch they had provided for the pigeons, as the thing was in negative rotation mode.

Meanwhile, at the weekend I read that even some expert (whatever they are) environmentalists had conceded that not only were these things not exactly the panacea to our energy needs, but may actually detract from the overall planetary benefit environmentally!!!

One has to wonder where all this stuff gets made, and shipped from, especially if it is now looking like a marketing fad just to get us to buy more stuff.

Who the heck do we listen to? Who do we believe?

Certainly not our Government. To a series of rather pertinent questions about VAT rebates and grants Mr. Darling seemed to manage 5 minutes' worth of waffle amounting to 'it will be looked at.' Meanwhile Mr. Cameron is going to set targets and fire the guy at the top if we don't meet them.

That'll sort it all, then."

Labour Is Working... 'Til You Drop

OK. so I'm getting political. But this one was hard to resist. In reply to this - Public sector aloof from pensions chaos - in the Telegraph, I had to offer:

'I think it was a recent programme that commented on US-style attack ads, and asked what if we had them here. I always thought we did. We need them.

In light of this, may I suggest to the Tories an homage to their famous poster, this time with a line of pension-aged folk lining up at the factory gates: 'Labour Is Working... 'Til You Drop.'

I pondered an asterisk that would point out that the only ones work on government side would be younger box tickers monitoring our progress to ensure enough is skimmed off for their comfortable retirement.'

A Total Lack Of Effective Spin

Another day, another initiative. Another media talking head. Another Minister. Another anchor asking but not worrying about failing to get an answer.

Against the backdrop of a suburban home, a BBC reporter says the owner ' is laughing' because of, amongst other things, his wind turbine. Sadly, it seemed to be more of a bird perch than energy generation device as it was, well, still.

Then we had Al Darling, Minister for Gravitas, being interrogated by the vanilla of the day, who actually asked(well, had been given) some good questions. Sadly, she seemed less than concerned that he didn't actually saying anything useful in reply. My email to the Beeb:

'Who is laughing, exactly? ... when I read stuff like the article attached - Wind turbines 'may actually do more harm than good' - I just get confused when I am told how great* wind turbines are. And did Mr. Darling answer a single question (such as your one about wall cavity and VAT reductions), or simply say things were going to be looked at?'

My faith in Government and the Media takes a further dive. I wonder if this was their plan when they figured talk was cheaper than action?

At least there was one good bit of advice. Move your fridge a tad more away from the wall. It makes it more efficient.

*On present evidence it looks like another way to make more stuff, which is hardly eco, and of course more money for the chancers.

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