As many know, I hold Newsnight to a high standard.
Few serious, in-depth news shows remain, and even fewer give you a slim chance of the issues being challenged and discussed.
More often than not these days even they seem to have excavated below the base of the barrel in terms of trivia and are often almost rivalling BBC Breakfast News in the blonde and bouffant sofa set stakes when it comes to cringeworthy topics, one presumes in an attempt to broaden their appeal.
However I did not consider Ethical Man to be in that category. When it started it seemed a decent attempt to inform and debate, to which I often contributed.
But it lost its way a bit, especially when the reporter (and his family) seemed to become more important than what he was saying. And the needs of TV took precedence over the theoretical example being set. Flying to Jamaica to install a low energy bulb being just one rather dubious example.
And at the end I was more than disappointed. Instead of a rational round-up, the overwhelming feeling was one of 'thank heavens that is over'. It was portrayed as a rather unpleasant (Jamaica?) exercise in doing without that was disposed of like this week's refuse. Been there, done that, got the hemp T-shirt... and the promotion.
Were sharing environmental issues always so convenient to package, and then move on from.
Hence I was intrigued to see it reappear again, somewhat out of the blue.
And the topic was not one that had really excised me as barely relevant, namely the human remains element of composting (which obviously still does as a daily household task).
Is it legal to compost your loved ones?
It seems that some anorak has nagged him/them on a point of order, and so he/they (possibly as a requirement of charter) have replied.
It could have been a worthwhile addendum I guess, but came back more as a snipe. But for me, one small thing bubbled up again and made me see red.
'...after the demise of Ethical Man I wanted to move on. I didn’t want to let his shadow affect the rest of my working life...'
Is this just personal, or BBC-endorsed corporate practice after any piece or editorial regarding potentially environmentally sound practices by individuals?
It just rather comes across as a tad 'well, we only got all nanny-eco on you viewers for the programme at the time. That was then. Now there are new ratings to climb.'
So... all back in the 4x4s and off on the international bus... holiday jollies swigging imported water again?
That's the problem one runs into when some messengers undercut the value of the messages they claim to be promoting. Like a Spice doing 'Planet Earth Cool' one week 'for her kids' and hopping a Lear the next.
With luck any future promoters of what 'we' should (or was it always just 'could', a stance I'd favour but seldom how most finger-wagging ecoslots I see tend to come across: 'Ban all plastic bags - except composting ones of course, which only work in vessel and hence are no good in the back garden with Uncle's corpse - and buy a fashion hemp job from my mate's bijou shopette now!!!!') do for 'our' own good may inspect the story chalice they are handed from every angle before they grab the career-enhancing, if limited duration, profile it represents. And fully consider the consequences if not done for all the right reasons.
'Nice, middle class, middle income Yuppie journo dabbled in some cute eco stuff and found it wasn't much fun and cramped a lot of style, not to mention career and social avenues, and so quietly dropped it for the next in line to pick up equally temporarily as he headed to less carbon-friendly pastures'.
Like Mr. Cameron's wind turbine, it may be better to not do it at all than make it seem like a bit of a passing fad.
That is, if Aunty does really think there is a bit of a potentially man-worsened climate change issue it mightn't hurt motivating the public around.
Or is this 'do as we say, not necessarily need to do'?
On reflection I wonder if I was being totally fair. He was just doing his job, and mostly what he was told to do. But that's the point. There is a bigger issue here, and that is the media, and especially our national broadcaster's role in how we portray environmental issues.
On the one hand we have near daily nags and finger-wags and guilt-trips about how we as individuals are not doing all we can to save the planet, and yet so often when it is treated less superficially with a special or an in-depth report the science is so skimpy, the agenda so blatant and/or the reporter so flip that the whole thing just comes across as playing at it to score a cheap topical rating or to fill a target or box-tick.
And so very rarely are real-life, practical ways the normal consumer can do something and still have fun, maybe save some real money get portrayed. Possibly because they are often mundane, and hence not very televisual. Hence we don't get an investigation into why we have packaging that is 'compostable' but actually not unless it is at a special facility (which few will know) or what might happen if we all decided on back-garden loos, a health issue on par with planting Uncle I hazard.
It seems depressingly symbolic. Doing right by the environment seems to be 'so last year'. At least in the way those in the public eye are now coming across. Which is serving the cause poorly.
One reason I have not set myself up as a great example is that I may yet falter. And while what I am doing now is as good as I can be, the demands of career or social pressures may yet also drag me to do things that are not the best examples to set. But at least I have not been saying folk should be doing these things from a very high, but very temporary pedestal. With good reason. Many just don't seem reasonable, or practical, for the vast majority in modern life, and especially without first putting place much better mechanisms to help us.
So the next time we get some well-funded, camera-crew surrounded (it's amazing how the whole town turned out to help) extreme 'eco-hero', I hope those that create the concept bear in mind the consequences when the hero is revealed to be all-too human. Especially when it comes across as not mattering much anyway.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
NEWS/GO3 PR - EU LOOKS SET TO FAIL KEY POST-BALI TEST
Next up we have News from the Green Party, which gets it in the GO3 category, but might need to be viewed in a possibly partisan light.
For now, my edit contents itself with a few highlights of the release as provided. I don't necessarily agree with all the ideas flying about, but certainly do recall cocking an eyebrow at the difference between setting targets and actual doing stuff.
So, remind me... how long ago was Bali?
EU LOOKS SET TO FAIL KEY POST-BALI TEST, WARNS GREEN EURO-MP AS COMMISSION FINALLY PREPARES TO UNVEIL POLICY PACKAGE
Green MEP for the South East, Caroline Lucas, has called on the EU to
strengthen its resolve on climate change today, as the European Commission
prepares to present its long-awaited proposals on climate and energy
legislation.
Commenting on the proposals to be announced tomorrow, Dr Lucas said: “The EU
must ensure that it maintains ambition on its climate targets, so that this
new package – which already falls short of what is needed – does not prove
to be full of empty promises.
“In the proposals on emissions trading, Member States have committed to a
30% greenhouse gas reduction by 2020 – the reduction scientists agree is the
minimum necessary – assuming an international agreement is reached. The most
crucial aspect of the Emissions Trading Scheme for meeting the reductions
target is the emissions cap, which must be based on this 30% reduction
target.
“Sadly, the leaked Commission proposals show that the use of CDM/JI and
other external credits will be permitted towards even the 20% unilateral
target. This is in stark contradiction to the Bali decisions where the EU
recognised that keeping climate change to below 2 degrees requires
reductions at the very least in the range of 25-40% for industrialised
countries by 2020. Thus the EC runs thus the risk of rendering the ETS a
toothless instrument.
“At the Bali climate talks, the international community made a commitment to
achieve a comprehensive post-2012 climate agreement by 2009. If such an
agreement is insufficient to prevent unfair environmental dumping to EU
energy-intensive sectors, a climate levy should be introduced with the
revenue invested in a climate adaptation fund - or a requirement to buy EU
emissions allowances corresponding to imports from those sectors (from
countries without reduction commitments for the corresponding sectors)."
Furthermore, Dr Lucas criticised the short-sightedness of Member States on
the fledgling renewables industry and called for stronger legislation which
puts development of renewables at the core of energy policy.
"Member States have been balking at potential renewables targets for some
time now, but expanding renewables is not some punitive means of achieving
climate goals – it is a key means of reducing our dependence on imported
fossil fuels and creating jobs in Europe.
She continued: "Crucially, the target is based on final consumption, so if
you reduce consumption, the target will be easier to meet. Therefore energy
saving and energy efficiency are central to meeting the target."
On the specific EU target for agro-fuels, Dr Lucas concluded:
"The warning signs have been there from the beginning but there is now a
growing consensus among experts, even within the Commission, that agro-fuels
are not a panacea for our climate and energy problems. Worse than that, this
generation of 'biofuels' risks wreaking serious social and environmental
damage without delivering any real emissions reductions.
“The oft-discussed sustainability criteria are very difficult to enforce
and, based on current drafts, would not guarantee any net emissions
reductions in the short-term.
“The exemption from environmental sustainability criteria until 2013 for
biofuels produced by installations that were in operation in January 2008 is
completely unacceptable, as is the proposal that Member States cannot
determine their own broader sustainability criteria. The 10% target for
biofuels (by 2020) is already an anachronism. Member States must scrap it,
and replace their current biofuels policy with a more sustainable
alternative."
For now, my edit contents itself with a few highlights of the release as provided. I don't necessarily agree with all the ideas flying about, but certainly do recall cocking an eyebrow at the difference between setting targets and actual doing stuff.
So, remind me... how long ago was Bali?
EU LOOKS SET TO FAIL KEY POST-BALI TEST, WARNS GREEN EURO-MP AS COMMISSION FINALLY PREPARES TO UNVEIL POLICY PACKAGE
Green MEP for the South East, Caroline Lucas, has called on the EU to
strengthen its resolve on climate change today, as the European Commission
prepares to present its long-awaited proposals on climate and energy
legislation.
Commenting on the proposals to be announced tomorrow, Dr Lucas said: “The EU
must ensure that it maintains ambition on its climate targets, so that this
new package – which already falls short of what is needed – does not prove
to be full of empty promises.
“In the proposals on emissions trading, Member States have committed to a
30% greenhouse gas reduction by 2020 – the reduction scientists agree is the
minimum necessary – assuming an international agreement is reached. The most
crucial aspect of the Emissions Trading Scheme for meeting the reductions
target is the emissions cap, which must be based on this 30% reduction
target.
“Sadly, the leaked Commission proposals show that the use of CDM/JI and
other external credits will be permitted towards even the 20% unilateral
target. This is in stark contradiction to the Bali decisions where the EU
recognised that keeping climate change to below 2 degrees requires
reductions at the very least in the range of 25-40% for industrialised
countries by 2020. Thus the EC runs thus the risk of rendering the ETS a
toothless instrument.
“At the Bali climate talks, the international community made a commitment to
achieve a comprehensive post-2012 climate agreement by 2009. If such an
agreement is insufficient to prevent unfair environmental dumping to EU
energy-intensive sectors, a climate levy should be introduced with the
revenue invested in a climate adaptation fund - or a requirement to buy EU
emissions allowances corresponding to imports from those sectors (from
countries without reduction commitments for the corresponding sectors)."
Furthermore, Dr Lucas criticised the short-sightedness of Member States on
the fledgling renewables industry and called for stronger legislation which
puts development of renewables at the core of energy policy.
"Member States have been balking at potential renewables targets for some
time now, but expanding renewables is not some punitive means of achieving
climate goals – it is a key means of reducing our dependence on imported
fossil fuels and creating jobs in Europe.
She continued: "Crucially, the target is based on final consumption, so if
you reduce consumption, the target will be easier to meet. Therefore energy
saving and energy efficiency are central to meeting the target."
On the specific EU target for agro-fuels, Dr Lucas concluded:
"The warning signs have been there from the beginning but there is now a
growing consensus among experts, even within the Commission, that agro-fuels
are not a panacea for our climate and energy problems. Worse than that, this
generation of 'biofuels' risks wreaking serious social and environmental
damage without delivering any real emissions reductions.
“The oft-discussed sustainability criteria are very difficult to enforce
and, based on current drafts, would not guarantee any net emissions
reductions in the short-term.
“The exemption from environmental sustainability criteria until 2013 for
biofuels produced by installations that were in operation in January 2008 is
completely unacceptable, as is the proposal that Member States cannot
determine their own broader sustainability criteria. The 10% target for
biofuels (by 2020) is already an anachronism. Member States must scrap it,
and replace their current biofuels policy with a more sustainable
alternative."
CATEGORY - UK COUNCILS
The start of something... long, I'd hazard.
To tie in with the Junkk main site, I'll list as they come in by postcode designation
N1 - Islington
Main Site
Enviro-related
eyesmagazine - a littel bit of Junkk.com on the latest cover!
To tie in with the Junkk main site, I'll list as they come in by postcode designation
N1 - Islington
Main Site
Enviro-related
eyesmagazine - a littel bit of Junkk.com on the latest cover!
What goes around?
Here's a nice surprise.I was at a pre-Xmas event in London, and met a nice lady from Islington Council.
She was rather taken with my 'Green Santa' outfit and asked if she good borrow it for an event they were holding, and I glady agreed.
Well I just got it back and inside was a rather fun image in the form of the Council's eco-publication 'eyesmagazine', and look at the front!
This has now inspired me to create a new set of categories to help further my Blog/site cross pollination. Watch this space. In fact just read the next blog.
NEWS/Commercial PR - 64 per cent of Brits are wasting valuable energy by leaving home appliances on standby
Still getting into the groove of posting such things as 'News' without too much provenace checking or editorialising, but I'm getting there.
I actually owe these guys a product review* anyway, so here you go, hot off the press... releases. All due cautions/caveats for info posted as supplied.
Brits are wasting valuable energy by leaving home appliances on standby
People are still contributing to the four million tonnes of extra carbon dioxide emissions per year caused by standby power according to survey conducted by Bye Bye Standby.
64 per cent of the 1000 people surveyed said they have more than ten appliances plugged in at home at any one time. It has been measured that around 10 per cent of the average household bill is wasted through gadgets left on when not in use.
The survey also asked consumers to select which of the following appliances they think have a standby power (ie. washing machines, televisions, tumble dryers and dishwashers). The correct answer is in-fact that ALL of the appliances use a standby power when they are not in use.
Not surprisingly, the survey revealed that the majority of respondents (90 per cent) knew that televisions have a standby power. However, a large number of people questioned didn’t pick out some of the worst standby offenders. 77 per cent had no clue that tumble dryers can guzzle as much as 38 per cent of their power whilst waiting at the end of a cycle. Equally as confusing, 67 per cent didn’t regard dishwashers as having a standby mode – a worrying finding as most are turned on at the end of the day and left on all night. Washing machines can use around 20 per cent of their normal electricity requirement on standby, and in contrast 66 per cent of people in the survey didn’t even know that a washing machine has a standby power!
Not all products have an obvious standby power, which is where the confusion lies. If it has an external power supply it will use electricity even when off.
Here's a plug (sorry), as they deserve it:
Bye Bye Standby is an energy saving kit for the home which allows you to control appliances with the aid of a remote control. An innovative new web based system has also just been launched to allow users to control home appliances from a remote location via the Internet.
What appliances are the worst standby offenders?
Dishwashers left on at the end of their cycle consume 70 per cent of the power used when they are running.
The average television is left on standby for up to 17.5 hours a day. Last year Britain's 62 million television sets consumed about eight per cent of their energy consumption in standby mode.
Washing machines use just under 20 per cent of their normal electricity requirement on standby.
Tumble-dryers can use 38 per cent of power while waiting at the end of a cycle.
If lights were turned off when not in use it would prevent 375,000 tons of CO2 emissions and save £55million in bills.
There is little difference between the power requirement of digital receivers when they are being used and on standby.
Other appliances with high standby power are cordless telephones, radios and stereos.
*Meanwhile, you can always try Which?
I actually owe these guys a product review* anyway, so here you go, hot off the press... releases. All due cautions/caveats for info posted as supplied.
Brits are wasting valuable energy by leaving home appliances on standby
People are still contributing to the four million tonnes of extra carbon dioxide emissions per year caused by standby power according to survey conducted by Bye Bye Standby.
64 per cent of the 1000 people surveyed said they have more than ten appliances plugged in at home at any one time. It has been measured that around 10 per cent of the average household bill is wasted through gadgets left on when not in use.
The survey also asked consumers to select which of the following appliances they think have a standby power (ie. washing machines, televisions, tumble dryers and dishwashers). The correct answer is in-fact that ALL of the appliances use a standby power when they are not in use.
Not surprisingly, the survey revealed that the majority of respondents (90 per cent) knew that televisions have a standby power. However, a large number of people questioned didn’t pick out some of the worst standby offenders. 77 per cent had no clue that tumble dryers can guzzle as much as 38 per cent of their power whilst waiting at the end of a cycle. Equally as confusing, 67 per cent didn’t regard dishwashers as having a standby mode – a worrying finding as most are turned on at the end of the day and left on all night. Washing machines can use around 20 per cent of their normal electricity requirement on standby, and in contrast 66 per cent of people in the survey didn’t even know that a washing machine has a standby power!
Not all products have an obvious standby power, which is where the confusion lies. If it has an external power supply it will use electricity even when off.
Here's a plug (sorry), as they deserve it:
Bye Bye Standby is an energy saving kit for the home which allows you to control appliances with the aid of a remote control. An innovative new web based system has also just been launched to allow users to control home appliances from a remote location via the Internet.
What appliances are the worst standby offenders?
Dishwashers left on at the end of their cycle consume 70 per cent of the power used when they are running.
The average television is left on standby for up to 17.5 hours a day. Last year Britain's 62 million television sets consumed about eight per cent of their energy consumption in standby mode.
Washing machines use just under 20 per cent of their normal electricity requirement on standby.
Tumble-dryers can use 38 per cent of power while waiting at the end of a cycle.
If lights were turned off when not in use it would prevent 375,000 tons of CO2 emissions and save £55million in bills.
There is little difference between the power requirement of digital receivers when they are being used and on standby.
Other appliances with high standby power are cordless telephones, radios and stereos.
*Meanwhile, you can always try Which?
Ethics is as ethics don't
Is ethical marketing an impossibility?
I don't pretend to have fully thought through, and hence comprehended the full consequences of the literal semantics involved in joining the words 'ethical' and 'marketing' (pause to gulp down a breath), but allowing for a pragmatic acceptance of the realities of existing in a consumer-driven society I don't see why not.
Having gone through the whole ethical is/isn't/and/or/complement thing with Newsnight's Ethical (or did they mean sustainable) Man a while ago, the definition is a bit broad. Are we talking putting sweat shops completely out of business because they employ kids and it's better the West feels warm 'n fuzzy now than they get fed tomorrow, or advertising a hybrid Chelsea tractor?
Ain't easy. If it's planet saving I'd say flogging any new stuff at the expense of reducing, reusing or repairing it's hardly the best green option, but in reality some are better than nothing if they move us in a better direction.
I don't pretend to have fully thought through, and hence comprehended the full consequences of the literal semantics involved in joining the words 'ethical' and 'marketing' (pause to gulp down a breath), but allowing for a pragmatic acceptance of the realities of existing in a consumer-driven society I don't see why not.
Having gone through the whole ethical is/isn't/and/or/complement thing with Newsnight's Ethical (or did they mean sustainable) Man a while ago, the definition is a bit broad. Are we talking putting sweat shops completely out of business because they employ kids and it's better the West feels warm 'n fuzzy now than they get fed tomorrow, or advertising a hybrid Chelsea tractor?
Ain't easy. If it's planet saving I'd say flogging any new stuff at the expense of reducing, reusing or repairing it's hardly the best green option, but in reality some are better than nothing if they move us in a better direction.
Ok, it's been a tough day so far
It’s green Gordon versus Felix, the filthy rich forester
What we need is a few more breath's of pragmatic air like this around to make a real difference.
And it seems to be the individual entrepreneurs we need to turn to.
Like politicians and hence governments and LAs and NGOs, even corporations are more concerned with what looks good than does any.
Hence we have more going down in the name of green that is either sidelining major issues or possibly plain not making the planet better for my kids.
For an example of how complex it can be, see here:
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/11/junkk-category-plastic-bags.html
Maybe we need the likes of Mr. Dennis or maybe a Dyson to go the route of Google and fund genuine 'doing' ideas that are trying to make a difference, rather than the current crop of bottomless green pit quangocracies that are designed mainly to fund their bloated, self-serving infrastructures and comms budgets first before doling anything out to things that mainly tick the right boxes.
What we need is a few more breath's of pragmatic air like this around to make a real difference.
And it seems to be the individual entrepreneurs we need to turn to.
Like politicians and hence governments and LAs and NGOs, even corporations are more concerned with what looks good than does any.
Hence we have more going down in the name of green that is either sidelining major issues or possibly plain not making the planet better for my kids.
For an example of how complex it can be, see here:
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/11/junkk-category-plastic-bags.html
Maybe we need the likes of Mr. Dennis or maybe a Dyson to go the route of Google and fund genuine 'doing' ideas that are trying to make a difference, rather than the current crop of bottomless green pit quangocracies that are designed mainly to fund their bloated, self-serving infrastructures and comms budgets first before doling anything out to things that mainly tick the right boxes.
Enter the Dragon('s Den)
In the next few weeks/months I face the prospect of dealing with potential BAs, VCs and/or direct customers at major companies. Dilbert understands.
A tale of two Macs
And what a tale it is. The good, the bad... and the ugly.
We have a rare case of genuine good design and service. Some rather less wonderful bits. And perhaps the most annoying... and telling example of corporate greed I can imagine.
The Good
See that picture? That what a very powerful computer came in. I was/am impressed. Not just what didn't need to go into the making of the thing, but also how little required to be packaged.
Also there has been the basic plug and play nature of the handover.
And finally the support. Free (for 90 days, local tel rates) and so far all problems solved
The Bad
The fact that it now won't work some old stuff that was/is still perfectly good.
The Ugly
The attitude of a software company, FileMaker, to this situation. I was going live with it and fester. Luckily, I had a vent source presented:
Guardian - Buy a new Mac running Leopard, or wait?
On a related issue, 'The quick tale of the £30 software that became several hundred', which does not reflect in my view well on the marketing policies of some companies and indeed can often have serious consequences to the environment. A few weeks ago I was mailed by FileMaker about Bento, which looked a nifty little bit of £30 Address Book software to add to my Mac Mini. Trouble was, it only would work with Leopard, and mine was a first model running Tiger. Ok... time for a software upgrade. Now it was an extra £100. Trouble was, Leopard was going to stretch the hardware capabilities of my aging Mini, so for various other reasons (more memory, USB 2.0, etc) I decided to get a new one. Trouble is... having gone through all that, guess what? My new Mac Mini running Leopard will not now run my current version of FileMaker. It would be funny if it were not tragic. Now I have come to accept, if not like, that if one wants to run the latest bloatware version of some software, you often need to upgrade to, and pay for the latest bloatOS taboot, to run it. With all hardware consequences. But this new wrinkle just miffs me. I have perfectly good software running perfectly well and my brand new machine is not backward compatible. And FileMaker's response? 'Tough! It's not supported. No upgrade. Start again. Buy v9... that's £250 please.' I'm sure Apple are probably not innocent in all this, but for what it is worth, and hugging a Redwood Tree as I write, the new machine is a honey, and while I did need the phone support several times to help the migration (bit of fun with the assumption that in going from a Mini to a Mini two monitors would magically exist on my desk), this was truly slick, along with the auto back-up Time Machine, which is awesome. Also, on a small eco note. I am looking at a packaging box about the size of two telephone directories with a bit of foam inside as big as last night's meal tray. I know Mac are not the highest on the green IT list, but to get a wee box tucked away on my desktop doing all I could wish with so little manufacturing and delivery consequences impressed a lot. Anyway, as I don't feel like giving FileMaker my continued custom, as they are stuffing me back to square one can anyone suggest an alternative database software I can put in my new Mac that will grow with me into the far future?
Times - Get a green glow in your home office - Spreading the joy
Writing about two sets of wrong
A top-sliced licence fee will trigger the BBC's destruction
'...the BBC, which is more loved and trusted than any government can hope to be.'
Everything is relative, I suppose. So an interesting defence position.
But I really wish those who enjoy our attention by virtue of where they are rather than who, and often seek/claim to speak for us (by claiming they 'know' what 'we' are thinking but usually are content to simply hector at instead) would stop this habit of making sweeping statements of fact that lack any valid substantiation.
For a start I rather doubt the whole country feels the same way about anything.
And now moving onto percentages, I reject the notion that a pol on a fact-finding tour surrounded by minders has any hope in hell of finding out what most average, working, licence-fee paying without option under threat of prison folk feel about Aunty than those they have on speed dial to pop into the studios from their North London boudoirs.
Parts of the BBC are great. Some of the BBC staff are great. A whole bunch else is/are not. And needs to change... or be changed.
'...the BBC, which is more loved and trusted than any government can hope to be.'
Everything is relative, I suppose. So an interesting defence position.
But I really wish those who enjoy our attention by virtue of where they are rather than who, and often seek/claim to speak for us (by claiming they 'know' what 'we' are thinking but usually are content to simply hector at instead) would stop this habit of making sweeping statements of fact that lack any valid substantiation.
For a start I rather doubt the whole country feels the same way about anything.
And now moving onto percentages, I reject the notion that a pol on a fact-finding tour surrounded by minders has any hope in hell of finding out what most average, working, licence-fee paying without option under threat of prison folk feel about Aunty than those they have on speed dial to pop into the studios from their North London boudoirs.
Parts of the BBC are great. Some of the BBC staff are great. A whole bunch else is/are not. And needs to change... or be changed.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Add a jummy you Yummy Mummies!
A bit of a big up as I read this: Patio heaters axed
In light of the eco(nomic) vs. eco(logical) dilemma faced, well done Ian Cheshire, B&Q’s chief executive and Wyevale Garden Centres.
They really are a tad hard to justify.
ADDENDUM - Patio Heaters, not DIY/Gardening Centre bosses:)
Indy - A waste of energy - Couldn't have said it better, or earlier, myself
In light of the eco(nomic) vs. eco(logical) dilemma faced, well done Ian Cheshire, B&Q’s chief executive and Wyevale Garden Centres.
They really are a tad hard to justify.
ADDENDUM - Patio Heaters, not DIY/Gardening Centre bosses:)
Indy - A waste of energy - Couldn't have said it better, or earlier, myself
NEWS/GO3 PR - Do you have a local hero?
Way hey! This journalism lark is a doddle when you just cut 'n paste press releases.
I can't keep saying the same thing about caveats and cautions every post, so in time we'll juts have to take 'em as read. ok?
Even if, as here, this time we are talking what, in theory, should be a more trusted, trustworthy and/or objective source.... HMG.
In fact I have created a new category for news from guys with such provenance, titled GO3, which is actually one of my acronyms from way back and stands for GOGOGO, from GOV, Local GOv and nGO. The last by the way, does include some with more obvious and less objective agendas, so should be viewed accordingly.
Anyhooo... here we go:
Prime Minister Gordon Brown is calling on communities across the country to identify the local heroes who they believe should be honoured by the nation.
Gordon Brown said:
"All of us know someone in our street or someone in our community who spends all their spare time helping others. They are always raising money for charity, running errands for elderly neighbours, coaching kids, or doing something to bring the town together.Carers, helpers, or just good neighbours, nothing is ever too much trouble or too much effort: they are the people who inspire us all, make our lives happier or easier, and make our neighbourhoods safer and stronger. And how many times do we say to each other: 'That person deserves a medal'. Well I think it is time they got what they deserved. And that is why I want us to see more of our local heroes presented with an MBE or an OBE by Her Majesty The Queen."
DETAILS
In this year's New Year's Honours List, more than 4 in 5 of all the OBEs and MBEs awarded went to people who have carried out valuable charitable or voluntary work, either as a career or in their own spare time.
The honours presented by HM The Queen are highly-valued. There are only around 2,000 awarded each year and only the most worthy candidates succeed.
Anyone is allowed to make a nomination - you do not need to be an official of any organisation. To find out how, go to http://www.honours.gov.uk, call 020 7276 2777, send an e-mail to ceremonial@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk or write to the Ceremonial Secretariat, 35 Great Smith Street, London SW1P 3BQ.
Nominations are considered by the independent Honours Committees, and their recommendations on who should be honoured are announced twice a year in the New Year's Honours and HM The Queen's Birthday Honours.
The nomination process is very rigorous and can take some time. And unfortunately, because receiving an honour is rare, not everyone can succeed in achieving this special recognition, but that should not stop them being considered, and your local hero has the same chance as everyone else.
Now my distaste for the term 'hero' in such a context is well known, and documented here, so moving swiftly on... still seems worth passing on.
I can't keep saying the same thing about caveats and cautions every post, so in time we'll juts have to take 'em as read. ok?
Even if, as here, this time we are talking what, in theory, should be a more trusted, trustworthy and/or objective source.... HMG.
In fact I have created a new category for news from guys with such provenance, titled GO3, which is actually one of my acronyms from way back and stands for GOGOGO, from GOV, Local GOv and nGO. The last by the way, does include some with more obvious and less objective agendas, so should be viewed accordingly.
Anyhooo... here we go:
Prime Minister Gordon Brown is calling on communities across the country to identify the local heroes who they believe should be honoured by the nation.
Gordon Brown said:
"All of us know someone in our street or someone in our community who spends all their spare time helping others. They are always raising money for charity, running errands for elderly neighbours, coaching kids, or doing something to bring the town together.Carers, helpers, or just good neighbours, nothing is ever too much trouble or too much effort: they are the people who inspire us all, make our lives happier or easier, and make our neighbourhoods safer and stronger. And how many times do we say to each other: 'That person deserves a medal'. Well I think it is time they got what they deserved. And that is why I want us to see more of our local heroes presented with an MBE or an OBE by Her Majesty The Queen."
DETAILS
In this year's New Year's Honours List, more than 4 in 5 of all the OBEs and MBEs awarded went to people who have carried out valuable charitable or voluntary work, either as a career or in their own spare time.
The honours presented by HM The Queen are highly-valued. There are only around 2,000 awarded each year and only the most worthy candidates succeed.
Anyone is allowed to make a nomination - you do not need to be an official of any organisation. To find out how, go to http://www.honours.gov.uk, call 020 7276 2777, send an e-mail to ceremonial@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk or write to the Ceremonial Secretariat, 35 Great Smith Street, London SW1P 3BQ.
Nominations are considered by the independent Honours Committees, and their recommendations on who should be honoured are announced twice a year in the New Year's Honours and HM The Queen's Birthday Honours.
The nomination process is very rigorous and can take some time. And unfortunately, because receiving an honour is rare, not everyone can succeed in achieving this special recognition, but that should not stop them being considered, and your local hero has the same chance as everyone else.
Now my distaste for the term 'hero' in such a context is well known, and documented here, so moving swiftly on... still seems worth passing on.
NEWS/Commercial PR - BAG A RECYCLED AD BANNER AT BANNERBAGS.CO.UK
Ok, part of the new 'sreamling'. And having slagged off major news media long enough for sticking up any old bit of PR they get sent as news, here I am doing the same.
Thing is, some are often worth a mention as a decent attempt at 're' or 'eco' something, and sticking 'em in a folder 'til I get round to it just isn't happening (literally). So I'll have to forgo the in-depth provenance check and hope it's all kosher. Not like soem better funded news outlets do much more. Eh, Auntie?
So here you go, with due caveats and cautions of enviROI advised, a cut and paste (maybe with a small edit or comment here and there) job:
Bannerbags.co.uk, the only UK manufacture of fashion bags crafted from recycled advertising banners, is launching a new range based on banners from Liverpool, European Capital of Culture events.
Including totes, handbags, sports bags, courier bags, weekend and laptop bags – all bearing the Liverpool European Capital of Culture Official Logo, the high quality accessories are made from wholly recycled street banners, and each item is an individual product that no-one else owns.
Paul Gilbraith, managing director, comments: “Thousands of advertising banners are produced for festivals, concerts and advertising campaigns using PVC and polypropylene, which do not biodegrade. Instead of disposing of unwanted banners in landfill sites, we turn seemingly valueless items into eco-friendly fashion. The result is a reasonably priced bag that most discerning fashion conscious people would like to carry.”
Gilbraith continues: “We’ve already approached five major supermarkets with our product samples and are keen to work with companies that manufacture or commission banners to reduce their carbon footprint and improve their green profile and profits”.
Seems a 'why not?' to me. Good luck to 'em. And knowing what's it's like approaching supermarkets myself... they'll need it!
But if the idea is good and all concerned make money... plus save the planet a bit better... why not?
Thing is, some are often worth a mention as a decent attempt at 're' or 'eco' something, and sticking 'em in a folder 'til I get round to it just isn't happening (literally). So I'll have to forgo the in-depth provenance check and hope it's all kosher. Not like soem better funded news outlets do much more. Eh, Auntie?
So here you go, with due caveats and cautions of enviROI advised, a cut and paste (maybe with a small edit or comment here and there) job:
Bannerbags.co.uk, the only UK manufacture of fashion bags crafted from recycled advertising banners, is launching a new range based on banners from Liverpool, European Capital of Culture events.
Including totes, handbags, sports bags, courier bags, weekend and laptop bags – all bearing the Liverpool European Capital of Culture Official Logo, the high quality accessories are made from wholly recycled street banners, and each item is an individual product that no-one else owns.
Paul Gilbraith, managing director, comments: “Thousands of advertising banners are produced for festivals, concerts and advertising campaigns using PVC and polypropylene, which do not biodegrade. Instead of disposing of unwanted banners in landfill sites, we turn seemingly valueless items into eco-friendly fashion. The result is a reasonably priced bag that most discerning fashion conscious people would like to carry.”
Gilbraith continues: “We’ve already approached five major supermarkets with our product samples and are keen to work with companies that manufacture or commission banners to reduce their carbon footprint and improve their green profile and profits”.
Seems a 'why not?' to me. Good luck to 'em. And knowing what's it's like approaching supermarkets myself... they'll need it!
But if the idea is good and all concerned make money... plus save the planet a bit better... why not?
One day, the machine will stop
That's a quote taken from John Gray's piece in Sunday's Guardian CIF.
I found the article quite interesting, mainly for the plethora of viewpoints that the usual gamut of posters on CIF bring, but also for Gray's analogy of our planet being an obese patient hooked up to a life support system.
"To some extent, technology may be able to replace the biosphere that has been destroyed, but, like an obese patient hooked up to an artificial life-support system, we will be living on borrowed time. One day, the machine will stop."
He also manages to hint at the policy that dare not speak its name.
"Far more than fantastical schemes for renewable energy, we need to ensure that contraception and abortion are freely available everywhere. A world of fewer people would be far better placed to deal with climate change than the heavily overpopulated one we are heading for now."
Oh, by the way, you'll need a good 20 minutes spare if you want to read all the comments posted.
And, just for balance, as I found the article interesting reading, one poster terms Gray "a flip-flopper who has perfected an incredibly irritating style of writing which is best characterised as 'smugism' : statement of large philosophical beliefs expressed with loads of magisterial certainty, without any argument."
Ouch!
I found the article quite interesting, mainly for the plethora of viewpoints that the usual gamut of posters on CIF bring, but also for Gray's analogy of our planet being an obese patient hooked up to a life support system.
"To some extent, technology may be able to replace the biosphere that has been destroyed, but, like an obese patient hooked up to an artificial life-support system, we will be living on borrowed time. One day, the machine will stop."
He also manages to hint at the policy that dare not speak its name.
"Far more than fantastical schemes for renewable energy, we need to ensure that contraception and abortion are freely available everywhere. A world of fewer people would be far better placed to deal with climate change than the heavily overpopulated one we are heading for now."
Oh, by the way, you'll need a good 20 minutes spare if you want to read all the comments posted.
And, just for balance, as I found the article interesting reading, one poster terms Gray "a flip-flopper who has perfected an incredibly irritating style of writing which is best characterised as 'smugism' : statement of large philosophical beliefs expressed with loads of magisterial certainty, without any argument."
Ouch!
First, find your venue... pref: tropical
A long time ago I think I read about Paradise or Bust / Tribewanted.com, and may even have applied. Or asked to find out more.
Never heard back.
So, without reading up on it in detail and with little intention of watching (life is too short) I learn of the latest eco-initiative that seems to involve going somewhere (I presume by air) sunny, cutting down the foliage and setting fire to stuff . I guess saving the planet in Manchester lacks visual appeal (though there was that one in a rubbish tip recently, which was another massive hit. Not).
As it is essentially a reality TV show I guess it will get a certain media following, but I simply am getting fed up with unrepresentative efforts that are almost totally for ratings rather enlightenment or worthwhile information reasons.
Having lived on the equator for a while, minor matters like heating can be ignored. And if you are not working then travel and cooling are easily addressed. So it's down to eating, sleeping and finding a way to get rid of your waste with causing an epidemic. But then I'm presuming the population density isn't too serious either.
I'm sure it will pass a few weeks. But as any sensible mirror of how we live now and sustainably in the future....?
Easy to critique I guess, so maybe I should watch. But it is telling that when I hear of such things where once I was on board I now face the prospect with dread. I guess getting such coverage will help them no end and we'll soon see the terminals at Heathrow packed with other keen planet-savers.
Apparently, according to the BBC News, today is officially (though they also claim not to know who in officialdom made it thus, so one wonders how this slot arose) the 'lowest' day. We even had a chap they wheeled on who was promoting his several week programme to charge you to avoid it all.
Maybe the best solution to most ills would be to stop watching the idiot box.
ADDENDUM;
Times : It’s all tribal and strife in paradise - Having read this, I have softened to their intentions, but remain unsure as to the outcome or its value. It still seems to me more an idealistic activist and cynical reality TV producer's wet dreams coming togther, that will suck up and spit out the players, with little positive result to the planet, as claimed.
Never heard back.
So, without reading up on it in detail and with little intention of watching (life is too short) I learn of the latest eco-initiative that seems to involve going somewhere (I presume by air) sunny, cutting down the foliage and setting fire to stuff . I guess saving the planet in Manchester lacks visual appeal (though there was that one in a rubbish tip recently, which was another massive hit. Not).
As it is essentially a reality TV show I guess it will get a certain media following, but I simply am getting fed up with unrepresentative efforts that are almost totally for ratings rather enlightenment or worthwhile information reasons.
Having lived on the equator for a while, minor matters like heating can be ignored. And if you are not working then travel and cooling are easily addressed. So it's down to eating, sleeping and finding a way to get rid of your waste with causing an epidemic. But then I'm presuming the population density isn't too serious either.
I'm sure it will pass a few weeks. But as any sensible mirror of how we live now and sustainably in the future....?
Easy to critique I guess, so maybe I should watch. But it is telling that when I hear of such things where once I was on board I now face the prospect with dread. I guess getting such coverage will help them no end and we'll soon see the terminals at Heathrow packed with other keen planet-savers.
Apparently, according to the BBC News, today is officially (though they also claim not to know who in officialdom made it thus, so one wonders how this slot arose) the 'lowest' day. We even had a chap they wheeled on who was promoting his several week programme to charge you to avoid it all.
Maybe the best solution to most ills would be to stop watching the idiot box.
ADDENDUM;
Times : It’s all tribal and strife in paradise - Having read this, I have softened to their intentions, but remain unsure as to the outcome or its value. It still seems to me more an idealistic activist and cynical reality TV producer's wet dreams coming togther, that will suck up and spit out the players, with little positive result to the planet, as claimed.
On yer bike
Watching Minister Ruth Kelly (one who I really have trouble taking seriously on anything) as we speak advocating cycling (ok) and justifying a vast amount of money to make us do so (not so ok). Ruth Kelly launches £140million cycling fund
Rather interestingly, the reporter banged on constantly that she does not cycle to work, which really was not too fair, but inevitable. Her answer was not the best, namely that she needs to take the car to do work (so that's ok) and she has an eco-friendly one!
Like recycling, I see so much wrong with the practice of such initiatives, if not the principle.
Quite rightly, the issue of safety was raised as the most serious issue. I am sorry, but a bit of training is not going to make me feel my kids are any safer against the numpties on the roads these days. So on that basis it is a non-starter for this parent until they are a lot older and the lanes are protected (how I have no idea).
Also there is the issue of weather. In this country it rains a lot. Unless there are amazing levels of new facilities being created (in addition to safe storage... so how much is all this going to really cost, or is it just going on another awareness comms effort - like most recycling - that has no chance of being engaged because the advanced practicalities have been ignored and are not in place) such as changing rooms and showers, what is proposed or when they set off and get soaked?
Sorry, all mouth and no trousers. Again. But cute seeing a couple of munchkins wheeled on to trot out the memorised slogans, which for me made it even less credible.
Rather interestingly, the reporter banged on constantly that she does not cycle to work, which really was not too fair, but inevitable. Her answer was not the best, namely that she needs to take the car to do work (so that's ok) and she has an eco-friendly one!
Like recycling, I see so much wrong with the practice of such initiatives, if not the principle.
Quite rightly, the issue of safety was raised as the most serious issue. I am sorry, but a bit of training is not going to make me feel my kids are any safer against the numpties on the roads these days. So on that basis it is a non-starter for this parent until they are a lot older and the lanes are protected (how I have no idea).
Also there is the issue of weather. In this country it rains a lot. Unless there are amazing levels of new facilities being created (in addition to safe storage... so how much is all this going to really cost, or is it just going on another awareness comms effort - like most recycling - that has no chance of being engaged because the advanced practicalities have been ignored and are not in place) such as changing rooms and showers, what is proposed or when they set off and get soaked?
Sorry, all mouth and no trousers. Again. But cute seeing a couple of munchkins wheeled on to trot out the memorised slogans, which for me made it even less credible.
Non news is ? news?
This 24/7 news culture and its thirst for any bit of PR to fill its column inches and/or airwaves is getting beyond a joke.
As the father of two, whose on-smoking wife was/is teetotal but not averse to a cup of coffee or two, one has to wonder what next half-a*ed bit of maybe research will get trotted out, with varying experts saying it's anything from a disaster to no problem.
How we can have the threat of miscarriage on two cups go out in the same slot as a Doctor saying 'a moderate amount is ok' beats me. Is coffee (plus chocolate and colas) a baby killer or not? Trying to pin it down seems simply daft science and serves no one.
The net result is that the media spews out everything and ends up saying nothing. Which means we (well, I) just get unnecessarily disconcerted... and then do sod all about it.
As with most eco-pronouncements, it is a vain hope that the media could resist waiting until there is a definitive peer-reviewed conclusion, with coherent advice attached.
Fat chance. Oh, but speaking of fat...
As the father of two, whose on-smoking wife was/is teetotal but not averse to a cup of coffee or two, one has to wonder what next half-a*ed bit of maybe research will get trotted out, with varying experts saying it's anything from a disaster to no problem.
How we can have the threat of miscarriage on two cups go out in the same slot as a Doctor saying 'a moderate amount is ok' beats me. Is coffee (plus chocolate and colas) a baby killer or not? Trying to pin it down seems simply daft science and serves no one.
The net result is that the media spews out everything and ends up saying nothing. Which means we (well, I) just get unnecessarily disconcerted... and then do sod all about it.
As with most eco-pronouncements, it is a vain hope that the media could resist waiting until there is a definitive peer-reviewed conclusion, with coherent advice attached.
Fat chance. Oh, but speaking of fat...
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Today is the first Sunday of the rest of my blogging life
More pondering, sorry.
I've just completed the Sunday Times. I say 'completed' but it would be very inaccurate to say I read it all. I have certainly seen each page (except the Sports section, which is now ready to light the fire, along with several ad inserts), and indeed many have been torn out and lie ready to prompt me to hit the online page of the forthcoming week to capture links and maybe make a comment or two.
Thing is, it all took a good couple of hours. And while there were more than a few eco bits in there it has all become a chore, and frankly I question how relevant it is whether some sqillionaire has warmed his outdoor pool with ground heat or Audi has made a 27 litre diesel supercar. Not my zone really. Nor is it likely to be that of most reading here or surfing Junkk.com for a nice idea on what to do with their TV dinner packaging tray.
So I have decided to give the rest a miss. No Observer. No Indy. No Telegraph. So I guess I might miss out on how to offset my ski holiday by doing a Husky-swap with a Finnish family who are over to stock up on organic cheddar in one's farmhouse weekend retreat.
I think I still may keep up with some of the e-mailed dailies to stay abreast of a few things (frankly I can see most of the press releases I get at Junkk.com here reprinted in most, and pretty much verbatim), and when something truly relevant to moving the enviROI crops up add it to the pot.
SO I can then spend the time on perking up the bits that may help sell the site a bit more to the audience I really want to reach a bit better.
Mind you, once I can afford to get a bit of help I probably won't resist getting back in the sniping set again. It is, after all, quite fun seeing a pompous green balloon self-inflating at 1000 metres... and then trying to pop it.
I've just completed the Sunday Times. I say 'completed' but it would be very inaccurate to say I read it all. I have certainly seen each page (except the Sports section, which is now ready to light the fire, along with several ad inserts), and indeed many have been torn out and lie ready to prompt me to hit the online page of the forthcoming week to capture links and maybe make a comment or two.
Thing is, it all took a good couple of hours. And while there were more than a few eco bits in there it has all become a chore, and frankly I question how relevant it is whether some sqillionaire has warmed his outdoor pool with ground heat or Audi has made a 27 litre diesel supercar. Not my zone really. Nor is it likely to be that of most reading here or surfing Junkk.com for a nice idea on what to do with their TV dinner packaging tray.
So I have decided to give the rest a miss. No Observer. No Indy. No Telegraph. So I guess I might miss out on how to offset my ski holiday by doing a Husky-swap with a Finnish family who are over to stock up on organic cheddar in one's farmhouse weekend retreat.
I think I still may keep up with some of the e-mailed dailies to stay abreast of a few things (frankly I can see most of the press releases I get at Junkk.com here reprinted in most, and pretty much verbatim), and when something truly relevant to moving the enviROI crops up add it to the pot.
SO I can then spend the time on perking up the bits that may help sell the site a bit more to the audience I really want to reach a bit better.
Mind you, once I can afford to get a bit of help I probably won't resist getting back in the sniping set again. It is, after all, quite fun seeing a pompous green balloon self-inflating at 1000 metres... and then trying to pop it.
Babel
Just watched the Andrew Marr show. There's a new BBC service that let's you re-view (I think for a week) it here.
Now in line with my new notion of getting all philosophical, what struck me was just how much of what was trotted out, covering a wealth of rather depressing areas, could surely be put down to simple overcrowding and, possibly, by extension population.
That said, having lived in cities like Hong Kong, where population density makes London look like the moors, it is certainly true that there have to be cultural failings as well that lead to societal breakdown of the scale we are seeing.
But what really worried me was the ongoing total lack of quality when it comes to our public service leadership and those in the media they deal with, to actually say anything meaningful, let alone, true, or factually correct, such that one can get anywhere near forming an informed opinion on what is happening, what the people in charge think about it or what they plan to do. If I heard 'looking at' once I must have heard it a hundred times! I do not pay folk to look at things. They have had 10 years to gaze. And if it is broke it needs fixing. Not looking at any more.
So we had the likes of the Home Secretary and the leader of the Lib Dems wittering on about generalities and saying nothing. Or if they did it didn't compute or get caught up by the interviewer.
For instance, and it is telling that I cannot now recall whether it was the Labour lady or Lib Dem man who said it after just an hour, there was the claim that in an area of the country a young person would die 14 years earlier if poor than their richer counterparts.
Well... d'uh. Thing is, this was in relation to a conversation to the NHS. How the heck can a figure like that be trotted out on the specific area of health care whilst ignoring all other societal factors?
In combo none is a great reflection, but a poorer person is more likely surely to eat a poorer diet, perhaps smoke and drink more due to less guidance on the perils, have more exposure to dangerous drugs or be in the wrong pub at the wrong time or drive a car without ABS and an airbag.
It was a silly soundbite that spoke volumes... of mush. And it came from a national leader and stayed unchallenged in its simplicity and, I'd maintain inaccuracy, by a national broadcaster's supposedly top interviewer.
Nuts.
ADDENDUM :
Times - Jacqui Smith admits 'I won't walk down a street alone at night'
My main concern is that in an interview on a major BBC show (Andrew Marr), this was mentioned and she said it was not true that she'd said it [like this]. And I'm pretty sure the question was raised because of this article.
Maybe this might explaina bit: '...but the words are unquotable – the kind of robot-speak perfected by Labour ministers who never deviate from the script.'
But to the quote. Well here is the relevant section:
Would she feel safe walking alone at night in, say, Hackney, east London? She looks alarmed: “No. Why would I do that?”
Perhaps deprived Hackney is an unfair example – what about well-heeled Kensington and Chelsea? “No. But I would never have done, at any point in my life. I just don’t think it’s a thing that people do. I wouldn’t walk around at midnight. I’m fortunate that I don’t have to do so.”
Later an aide calls me fretting about these comments.
I can see why. The robot-speak actually had a short-circuit and a glimmer of truth came out. Allowing for editorial licence (and not very much in this case) it seems a fair version if that is how the interview went.
So how then was she allowed to fudge like she did? Either the Sunday Times was wrong or she was. And now it has all dribbled away. Not feeling very well served by my government... or media these days, sadly.
Now in line with my new notion of getting all philosophical, what struck me was just how much of what was trotted out, covering a wealth of rather depressing areas, could surely be put down to simple overcrowding and, possibly, by extension population.
That said, having lived in cities like Hong Kong, where population density makes London look like the moors, it is certainly true that there have to be cultural failings as well that lead to societal breakdown of the scale we are seeing.
But what really worried me was the ongoing total lack of quality when it comes to our public service leadership and those in the media they deal with, to actually say anything meaningful, let alone, true, or factually correct, such that one can get anywhere near forming an informed opinion on what is happening, what the people in charge think about it or what they plan to do. If I heard 'looking at' once I must have heard it a hundred times! I do not pay folk to look at things. They have had 10 years to gaze. And if it is broke it needs fixing. Not looking at any more.
So we had the likes of the Home Secretary and the leader of the Lib Dems wittering on about generalities and saying nothing. Or if they did it didn't compute or get caught up by the interviewer.
For instance, and it is telling that I cannot now recall whether it was the Labour lady or Lib Dem man who said it after just an hour, there was the claim that in an area of the country a young person would die 14 years earlier if poor than their richer counterparts.
Well... d'uh. Thing is, this was in relation to a conversation to the NHS. How the heck can a figure like that be trotted out on the specific area of health care whilst ignoring all other societal factors?
In combo none is a great reflection, but a poorer person is more likely surely to eat a poorer diet, perhaps smoke and drink more due to less guidance on the perils, have more exposure to dangerous drugs or be in the wrong pub at the wrong time or drive a car without ABS and an airbag.
It was a silly soundbite that spoke volumes... of mush. And it came from a national leader and stayed unchallenged in its simplicity and, I'd maintain inaccuracy, by a national broadcaster's supposedly top interviewer.
Nuts.
ADDENDUM :
Times - Jacqui Smith admits 'I won't walk down a street alone at night'
My main concern is that in an interview on a major BBC show (Andrew Marr), this was mentioned and she said it was not true that she'd said it [like this]. And I'm pretty sure the question was raised because of this article.
Maybe this might explaina bit: '...but the words are unquotable – the kind of robot-speak perfected by Labour ministers who never deviate from the script.'
But to the quote. Well here is the relevant section:
Would she feel safe walking alone at night in, say, Hackney, east London? She looks alarmed: “No. Why would I do that?”
Perhaps deprived Hackney is an unfair example – what about well-heeled Kensington and Chelsea? “No. But I would never have done, at any point in my life. I just don’t think it’s a thing that people do. I wouldn’t walk around at midnight. I’m fortunate that I don’t have to do so.”
Later an aide calls me fretting about these comments.
I can see why. The robot-speak actually had a short-circuit and a glimmer of truth came out. Allowing for editorial licence (and not very much in this case) it seems a fair version if that is how the interview went.
So how then was she allowed to fudge like she did? Either the Sunday Times was wrong or she was. And now it has all dribbled away. Not feeling very well served by my government... or media these days, sadly.
Less is, well, less, but with luck as good as it should be
There is a major spring clean stuttering along at Junkk Towers.
Mostly it is because, between the site evolution and the blog demands, there is simply too much going on for little old me to handle properly. And as I feel I am doing all poorly, until I can find, and fund, a way to do all well, the only real option is to cut back and do as much as I can better.
And that includes the blog.
I've claimed this before mind, and the addiction is hard to resist. And even as the backlog of simple articles and links worth having on the site extends to the hundreds, so almost all also are hard to resit commenting upon in some way. which currently is not simply possible.
So... what to do?
Well, on this blog you will, when I get a moment, be soon discovering some new, and I hope exciting interim plans for the site, many of which will also involve the blog, as I have mentioned before the interface here is now so superior to my site's management system it is easier to create here and import over. Not that I have been much... like a year. And having hit 3,000 for the opt in newsltter, I think a new one might be... overdue.
And all this does have a bearing on the blog.
I am hence planning to try and restrict myself to two main areas: the factual and the philosophical. By factual I refer to pure information, probably under category headings that you will have seen cropping up of late. Not much more than a link, attribution and maybe a line or two of top line opinion or a caveat or somesuch.
Then there is the more philosophical. This is musing on the overall scheme of things rather than much specific, though there will almost always be a story and/or link that has inspired.
Anyway, between with these two bookends from me and Dave's more than useful and welcome additions to any I might find it hard to resist to add inbetween I hope the blog will remain of use and stimulating.
If not, please let me knwo and tell me what I can do btter. Given time.
Mostly it is because, between the site evolution and the blog demands, there is simply too much going on for little old me to handle properly. And as I feel I am doing all poorly, until I can find, and fund, a way to do all well, the only real option is to cut back and do as much as I can better.
And that includes the blog.
I've claimed this before mind, and the addiction is hard to resist. And even as the backlog of simple articles and links worth having on the site extends to the hundreds, so almost all also are hard to resit commenting upon in some way. which currently is not simply possible.
So... what to do?
Well, on this blog you will, when I get a moment, be soon discovering some new, and I hope exciting interim plans for the site, many of which will also involve the blog, as I have mentioned before the interface here is now so superior to my site's management system it is easier to create here and import over. Not that I have been much... like a year. And having hit 3,000 for the opt in newsltter, I think a new one might be... overdue.
And all this does have a bearing on the blog.
I am hence planning to try and restrict myself to two main areas: the factual and the philosophical. By factual I refer to pure information, probably under category headings that you will have seen cropping up of late. Not much more than a link, attribution and maybe a line or two of top line opinion or a caveat or somesuch.
Then there is the more philosophical. This is musing on the overall scheme of things rather than much specific, though there will almost always be a story and/or link that has inspired.
Anyway, between with these two bookends from me and Dave's more than useful and welcome additions to any I might find it hard to resist to add inbetween I hope the blog will remain of use and stimulating.
If not, please let me knwo and tell me what I can do btter. Given time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)