tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-70638574429722314772024-02-20T22:10:45.874+00:00A Casual ObserverPolitics, the media and other distractionsA casual observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13347139084496574113noreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7063857442972231477.post-39630695597508133162010-04-21T14:24:00.001+01:002014-01-10T12:05:19.541+00:00Boris on ash.I could have opted for Theresa Villiers for giving the most desperate sounding volcano-related attack on the government.<br />
<br />
However, just for sheer audicity / absurdity, I'm going to give the award to our beloved Mayor, as reported <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/7612860/Iceland-volcano-few-flights-arrive-despite-airspace-reopening.html">in the Telegraph</a>.<br />
<br />
One sentence is all it takes:<br />
<br />
<i>"Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, questioned the science behind the lockdown."</i><br />
<br />
Misprint: I think that was supposed to say "Mayor of London and renowned aviation expert".A casual observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13347139084496574113noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7063857442972231477.post-20226388825004722232010-02-22T13:46:00.004+00:002010-02-22T13:53:23.330+00:00Standard: Move along now... well, in a second.Most contradictory Leader column of the day award <a href=http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23808561-the-pm-cannot-shrug-off-these-allegations.do>goes to the Evening Standard</a><br />
<br />
Their opening:<br />
<br />
<i>“The election campaign is not yet under way and already the question of the Prime Minister's character is an issue... the question remains whether Gordon Brown has the character traits necessary for a good prime minister.”</i><br />
<br />
Their concluding line:<br />
<br />
<i>“It would be preferable if the contest between them were fought out on issues of policy, not which man is the nicer person.”</i><br />
<br />
A quick translation: <br />
<br />
<i>"Let’s get over whether or not Brown is a bastard and move on. But just so you’re clear - he is a bastard."</i>A casual observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13347139084496574113noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7063857442972231477.post-46302727608475479812010-02-22T10:52:00.005+00:002010-02-22T11:43:05.735+00:00A future fair for all (or I’ll punch you in the face).Bullying. It’s not nice. No one likes being smacked in the head every time you drop a point in the YouGov polls.<br />
<br />
But has Christine Pratt, chief executive of the National Bullying Helpline, <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8527611.stm">overstepped the mark</a> with her involvement in the allegations that Gordon Brown bullies his staff, by talking to the media about calls to the helpline and saying she feels his office is in <i>"outright denial”</i>?<br />
<br />
Has she breached the golden rule of a confidential helpline that they should not reveal the source of calls? It is one thing when a helpline releases information about, for example, a rise in the number of total calls, but should they announce their specific origin?<br />
<br />
If the police put a sign up saying: <i>“If you have any information about the incident on King’s Road please call this confidential phone number...”</i> and I respond, do I expect them to then declare to the public: <i>“We have received information from a resident of King’s Road about this incident”.</i> I hope not.<br />
<br />
What if I worked in a very small organisation (say, 4 people) and following a call to the helpline my manager reads in the newspaper that 3 people from my organisation have <i>“called to complain about their manager physically bullying them”.</i> Would that put me off contacting them again?<br />
<br />
Also, is it right to treat these calls as fact? Doesn’t claiming that No 10 is in <i>“denial”</i> infer they are proven?<br />
<br />
Finally is the issue of any political motivation behind this. It is probably a stretch to assume she is in league with the Tories, but for Ms Pratt to not realise there would be political fallout when she spoke to the media shows at the very least a high degree of naivety. At the worse it can lead to accusations of a lack of impartiality.<br />
<br />
Or perhaps this is a touch harsh. Perhaps she is just demonstrating her conviction. Maybe her anger genuinely did spill over and cause her to go a little too far.<br />
<br />
Regardless, the damage is done.<br />
<br />
For No. 10 there is now a problem. In the unlikely event that Ms Pratt resigns, or just apologises, could they be (rightly or wrongly) accused of smear tactics?<br />
<br />
Their best hope is that this quickly blows over. Or that David Cameron is accused of animal cruelty, just to balance things out.<br />
<br />
I thought I would add that if you too feel you are the victim of workplace bullying then please call the National Bullying Helpline on 0845 2255787. All calls are confidential. (Sort of.)<br />
<br />
Side note: I wanted to headline this <i>“Is Pratt a Prat?”.</i> But that is probably verbal bullying, even if it is bloody hilarious.A casual observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13347139084496574113noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7063857442972231477.post-12411165028131471952010-01-22T16:05:00.008+00:002010-01-22T16:14:29.777+00:00If you're looking for reasoned debate, then why don't you f*ck off elsewhere, ok? Or I'll chase you down the street with a cricket bat.Quiet. Let the man speak:<br />
<br />
<i>"Ever since the pernicious 'yuman rites' act was passed into law, the British authorities seem to believe they have a moral and legal obligation to feed and water the world's waifs and strays, however undesirable."</i><br />
<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1244274/When-comes-asylum-lunatics-really-taken-over.html">Littlejohn, R. 18 Jan 2010</a><br />
<br />
Profound indeed.<br />
<br />
D'ya geddit - <i>"yuman rites"</i>. It's like a play on words. About human rights being sh*t and stuff!<br />
<br />
And with his unparalleled flair for subtlety he compares asylum seekers / economic migrants (whatever - they're all the same) to dogs. Hilarious!<br />
<br />
Disclaimer: I'm not implying Littlejohn is racist. I'm TELLING you he is. (Well ok, he's not racist. But let's just say if he attended a dinner party with the BNP leadership, Nick Griffin might ask him to leave for being a bit too extreme.)A casual observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13347139084496574113noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7063857442972231477.post-51601544133693216392009-07-20T13:08:00.006+01:002010-02-05T14:49:24.294+00:00To be updated. (Again.)This blog is now ridiculously out of date. Sporadic too. Many things have changed since the last post: Gilligan has left to reinforce his Labour credentials by joining the Telegraph, the mayor lost another aide and Boris is going on Eastenders..<br />
<br />
However - this will be updated soon, complete with a joke about <em>pub-licity</em> for the new mayor.<br />
<br />
Back very soon.<br />
<br />
<b>(Update 22.01.10: Is six months the new "very soon"?)</b>A casual observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13347139084496574113noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7063857442972231477.post-75964626089622609512009-05-14T21:58:00.011+01:002009-05-14T23:12:19.872+01:00Short changedIt's been a while. Some things have changed. <a href="http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/">The Evening Standard</a> for one: Their <span style="font-style:italic;">"who the hell did the design for this?"</span> website has got new fonts, an ever-changing "hot topics" menu, a fast scrolling headlines menu, and a couple of other menus for good measure.<br /><br />Unfortunately Andrew Gilligan is still lurking in there somewhere. Though on the plus side the incomprehensible layout does make it harder to find him.A casual observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13347139084496574113noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7063857442972231477.post-84379271951402843722008-12-11T15:58:00.000+00:002008-12-11T16:05:43.392+00:00The Daily Mail: Stabbing the government repeatedly.From the <a href=http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hY3tJgdGj7cRM2jz3FM5MFF0f-Zw>Press Association</a>:<br /><br /><i>"Stabbings have fallen in areas targeted by a police crackdown on knife crime, Home Office figures reveal. Figures from knife crime hotspots revealed the number of youngsters admitted to hospital with stab wounds fell more than a quarter between July and September compared to last year."<br /><br />"In the 10 Tackling Knives Action Programme areas where there was increased use of stop and search, fewer youngsters were caught with knives - down from one in 30 to one in 65."</i><br /><br />The Daily Mail, who you would think would applaud the success of stop and search, instead <a href=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1093864/Home-Office-claims-winning-war-knife-crime--evidence.html>launch a criticism</a> of the figures:<br /><br />They claim that by probing <i>"a little deeper"</i> it is clear this is <i>"more an exercise in spin than substance".</i><br /><br />Let's see what their probing has revealed:<br /><br /><i>"Firstly, the figures relate to the ten 'hotspot' counties only. This is despite worrying evidence that a culture of knife carrying has spread to all parts of England."</i><br /><br />So what is this <i>"worrying evidence"</i>? Maybe if I scroll down the article I'll find out. Keep scrolling... keep scrolling... It's got to be here somewhere, surely?<br /><br />Moving on:<br /><br /><i>"Also, we are not told what the impact of pouring huge levels of police resources into knife crime has been on other offences. Has mugging or alcohol-related violence been allowed to soar, as officers concentrated on the Home Secretary's latest priority?"</i><br /><br />Good point. Do tell us - Have they soared? Yes? No?<br /><br /><i>"This has happened with previous Government initiatives."</i><br /><br />Which initiatives? Well? Anyone?<br /><br />Great investigative journalism there: Who needs stats when you can rely on your copy of the Mail to provide some good old-fashioned rhetoric. It's the finest form of criticism.<br /><br />On the subject of stop and search. Here is some advice from the <a href=http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/police/powers/stop-and-search/>Home Office website</a>:<br /><br /><i>"You should not be stopped or searched just because of your age, race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, religion, the way you dress or because you’ve committed a crime in the past."</i><br /><br />Yes, that's right: A middle-aged white stockbroker is just as likely to be stopped as a black teenager. Fact.<br /><br />(I would provide you with some stats. But I can't be bothered.)A casual observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13347139084496574113noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7063857442972231477.post-29843521047545094762008-10-28T12:28:00.003+00:002008-10-28T18:18:17.811+00:00Boris: Partying in the face of gloomQ: How does someone who earns 15 times the average salary refer to the recession?<br />A: <i>"What recession?"</i><br /><br />Hot on the heels of <a href=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/09/23/do2301.xml>complaining</a> about people whingeing about house prices, Mayor Johnson <a href=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/10/28/do2801.xml>tries to make sure</a> people know he is as out of touch as possible:<br /><br /><b>"Eat, spend and be merry - this is not the end of the world"</b><br />Telegraph.co.uk, 28/10/08 <br /><br /><i>"This isn't some disaster movie about a virus from Mars. It's a recession, a downturn, a correction of a kind that is indispensable to any kind of human activity, and it does not require us to go around under a special kind of credit-crunch pall. It does not mean we have to cancel all parties and talk in hushed credit-crunch tones... This is the moment for a life-affirming splurge..."<br /><br />"...if we ban holidays for the British Establishment, where will it end? What about restaurants? What about taxis? What about going to a film on a Saturday night?..."<br /><br />"...There is nothing remotely impolite, in these circumstances, about spending money and being seen to spend money. Far from it."</i><br /><br />On that basis, I'm going to log off and go to the pub. For those of you with debts, who have been made recently redundant or struggling with mortgage payments, I say: f*** you all.A casual observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13347139084496574113noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7063857442972231477.post-77044373278302106652008-10-23T13:51:00.001+01:002008-10-23T14:03:46.048+01:00Swindon: Helping you put a foot on the accelerator.The Swindon speed camera result <a href=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7685550.stm>is in</a>.<br /><br />I think I've said enough about this <a href=http://politics-of-the-press.blogspot.com/2008/09/jeremy-clarkson-swindon-and-pile-of.html>before</a>.A casual observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13347139084496574113noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7063857442972231477.post-86473334888145582642008-10-22T17:56:00.003+01:002008-10-23T13:16:14.401+01:00Boris: Voting on the basis of race to fight voting on the basis of race.So Boris <a href=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/10/21/do2101.xml>has endorsed</a> Obama, to the disgust of many of his fellow right-wingers.<br /><br />Over to Boris:<br /><br /><i>“If Obama wins, then the United States will have at last come a huge and maybe decisive step closer to achieving the dream of Martin Luther King, of a land where people are judged not on the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.”</i><br /><br />I can’t argue with that. He has a point. If he wins it will indeed be a huge step… wait… what did you just say Boris?<br /><br /><i>“And then there are millions of white Americans who will undoubtedly vote Obama precisely because he is black.”</i><br /><br />So let me get this right: Boris is telling us that there are millions of white people who will vote for him BECAUSE of the colour of his skin, which will be a step closer to a land where you are NOT judged by the colour of your skin.<br /><br />Ok…<br /><br />Regardless, deciding that one of the reasons you are voting for someone is because they are black is surely not the best approach. It certainly shouldn’t be seen as qualifying someone to run a country. It’s like voting for someone on the basis that they are funny, right Boris?<br /><br />On a side note, he also says:<br /><br /><i>“If Barack Hussein Obama is successful next month, then we could even see the beginning of the end of race-based politics, with all the grievance-culture and special interest groups and political correctness that come with it.”</i><br /><br />Special interest groups? Political correctness? What could he be referring to? Let’s refer to what his PR man <a href=http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23500346-details/Why+Labour+can%27t+keep+playing+the+racism+card/article.do>said</a> back in June:<br /><br /><i>“And over the changes to the Rise festival, the heartbreaking news for the London Left is that beyond the usual suspect participants, such as National Assembly Against Racism (secretary: Lee Jasper) and the Cuba Solidarity Campaign (what were they doing at an anti-racist event, by the way?) no ordinary Londoner, black or white, gives a damn. Rise-type events had a purpose in the Eighties, when antiracism needed to be made fashionable. But that battle won, it is not nowadays clear how a bunch of overwhelmingly white people going to a pop concert advances any cause beyond the participants' own feeling of righteousness.”</i><br /><br />He’s also one step ahead of you Boris. Forget the <i>“beginning of the end”</i>. As you can see, Gilligan told us the battle has been won already. And Richard Barnbrook is proof of that.A casual observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13347139084496574113noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7063857442972231477.post-37568710729009543002008-10-21T17:58:00.003+01:002008-10-22T11:04:26.607+01:00The good, the bad and the politics of the media.The trouble (or benefit) of lengthy reports is that by being selective you can take the best or worst of the results to form the basis of any news article.<br /><br />For example, The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), has released a report entitled <i>"Growing Unequal: Income Distribution and Poverty in OECD Countries."</i><br /><br />The report finds that <i>"the gap between rich and poor has grown in more than three-quarters of OECD countries over the past two decades"</i> and <i>"economic growth of recent decades has benefited the rich more than the poor"</i><br /><br />However, if you study the <a href= http://www.oecd.org/document/53/0,3343,en_2649_33933_41460917_1_1_1_1,00.html >details</a> it reveals that Britain is one of the countries where income inequality has decreased since the mid 1990's.<br /><br />Despite this, the shortening has not outweighed the big increase in inequality that took place between the mid 1980's and the mid 1990's, and therefore over the whole period (mid 1980's to mid 2000's) income inequality has increased slightly.<br /><br />So the report produces positives and negatives.<br /><br />Now, depending on your politics you could take two approaches: One would be to acknowledge the recent decrease in the UK since 2000, which the report’s author, Mark Pearson, describes as <i>”remarkable”</i>. However this would mean, by implication, that you accept that the decrease has taken place under the current Labour government.<br /><br />The other approach would be to concentrate on the whole period covered by the report, which, although technically correct, glosses over this reduction.<br /><br />Let’s see this in action, with two news sources reporting the results:<br /><br />First, <a href=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7681361.stm>the BBC</a>, with the positive slant:<br /><br /><i>“The gap between rich and poor in the UK has decreased since 2000, an international survey has concluded.”</i><br /><br />Now <a href=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/majornews/3232729/OECD-says-gap-between-rich-and-poor-in-UK-among-widest-in-world.html>the Telegraph</a>, with the negative approach:<br /><br /><i>“The gap between rich and poor people in the UK is one of the widest in the developed world, a report has found.”</i><br /><br />This means the right-wing leaning Telegraph, although they do acknowledge the recent UK decrease further on in their article, has avoided concentrating on any possible Labour success.<br /><br />Coincidence? Perhaps. But I’m not so sure.A casual observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13347139084496574113noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7063857442972231477.post-38456569073482147372008-10-17T15:51:00.000+01:002008-10-17T16:14:41.806+01:00Tube doors: They'll be the new RoutemasterThe Germans <a href=http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23574389-details/All%20aboard%20Der%20Routemeister/article.do?expand=true#StartComments>are at it</a> as well. Routemaster designing. <br /><br />It's all part of the Routemaster competition that the Standard will go totally CR-AZY about next month when the winner is revealed. It'll be plastered on the billboards, splattered all over the paper, and Gilligan will have an orgasm. The champion will get loads of dosh, and maybe a big Blue Peter-style badge in the shape of a bus.<br /><br />A colleague at work, who recently arrived from South Africa, commented the other day: <i>"I didn't really follow the London Mayoral Elections, but I know there was a lot of talk about the Routemaster"</i><br /><br />A thought suddenly entered my head. I might stand for London Mayor on another relatively insignificant point, and try to somehow blow it out of proportion to make it a key decider in the election, using safety as a good angle again. <br /><br />This will be it:<br /><br />I would complain about the time it takes for tube carriage doors to shut.<br /> <br /><i>"It's too quick"</i>, I would say. <i>"At least 2 people have had their fingers slightly hurt in the last year when they were running onto a tube carriage. And 6 people got their coats caught."</i><br /><br />And then it would spiral out of control. <br /><br />Paxman would be drilling me on the time it takes for the doors to shut:<br /><br /><i>"How long do they take to shut? Is it 1 second or 2 seconds? Answer the question!"</i><br /><br />Andrew Neil would catch me out on my figures on a live debate:<br /><br /><i>"You said it would cost £1,900 to change the time it takes to shut the doors. Actually it'll cost £1.9 million pounds. That's 1000 times what you said."</i><br /><br />The audience would all laugh. But then vote for me anyway. I mean what's money when you've got the principle of door-shutting times, eh?<br /><br />Yeah, tube doors. I'll write that down. Number one pledge. Just above crime.A casual observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13347139084496574113noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7063857442972231477.post-6538042543240873782008-10-16T17:53:00.005+01:002008-10-28T11:41:44.746+00:00Standard exclusive: Boris cares. Fact.The Standard today leads its City Hall section with the exclusive news that Boris Johnson gives a damn.<br /><br />The article, headlined <a href=http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-mayor/article-23573833-details/Boris%20despair%20over%20knife%20deaths/article.do?expand=true#StartComments><i>"Boris Despair Over Knife Deaths</i></a>", reveals that not only is Boris a human being, but he has also formed a cunning plan.<br /><br />A ground-breaking key part of his long-awaited policy on tackling knife crime will be a pledge to provide <i>"better education"</i> to the disadvantaged, a novel approach which is comparable only to the pledges to provide better education which have been made by every major political party in the past few years.<br /><br />On a completely unrelated note, there is a link to the Standard's Beat Knife Crime Charter, although this may or may not go the same way as the Save Our Small Shops Campaign, which went strangely silent after an article on the 6th August in the paper <a href=http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-mayor/article-23527424-details/Mayor+%27breaking+promises+over+75m+skyscraper+on+market+site%27/article.do>which reported</a> that Boris had been accused of reneging on his pledge to, er, save small shops. (Coincidence of course).<br /><br />So now the Standard has informed us about the despair that overwhelms Boris on a daily basis, we can expect further revelations from them. These may include:<br /><br /><i>"Boris cries when he watches Ghost."</i><br /><br /><i>"Boris is watching over us. Like God. Only closer to home."</i><br /><br /><i>"Offical Standard poll: 99.99% of Londoners believe Boris is doing a fab job. Remaining 0.01% are idiots."</i>A casual observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13347139084496574113noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7063857442972231477.post-41281673256059600082008-10-09T13:48:00.006+01:002008-10-10T13:31:11.403+01:00Drivers: Pity them allMotorists have a tendency to annoy me. Certain types of motorists, as I've discussed before, go beyond that.<br /><br />I've never been convinced by the argument that all those who drive in London need to do so. Granted, some do. But for many it probably falls within the other categories: <br /><br />1) Those who prefer to drive, maybe because they have an inherent fear of public transport and the <a href=http://politics-of-the-press.blogspot.com/2008/07/gilligan-flesh.html><i>"high-pitched beeping noises"</i></a> they make.<br /><br />2) Those who drive just to make a point: <i>"It's my human right to drive"</i> types. The sort of people who get in the car just to go to the corner shop 100 metres down the road, struggle to find a parking spot nearby, spend ages hunting for a space, and then inevitably end up walking 200 meters to get back. But it doesn't matter to them. Because they have made a principled stand, even if they do end up looking like a pr*ck. <br /><br />The last group are the sort of f*ckwits who have Clarkson's crap books on their shelves (I think I've made it quite clear before exactly <a href=http://politics-of-the-press.blogspot.com/2008/09/jeremy-clarkson-swindon-and-pile-of.html>what I think of him</a>).<br /><br />Which brings us to recent news. First is <a href=http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-mayor/article-23566236-details/Mayor%20dashes%20hopes%20for%2020mph%20speed%20limit%20across%20the%20capital/article.do?expand=true#StartComments>the less than shocking news</a> that Boris has decided not to follow Ken's idea for a 20mph city-wide speed limit.<br /><br />Let's ask the Standard's readers what they think:<br /><br /><i>"I always wondered where the surveys were to see how many people get hit in 20mph zones rather than how many survive – I suspect the total is very high given that in a street where children might be playing, a driver would be much safer with his eyes on the road than constantly on the speedo."<br />- St, London</i><br /><br />You suspect? By this logic why have a speed limit at all? That way you needn't look at the speedo at all. Brilliant.<br /><br /><i>"refreshing to see that you will still be able to drive across london in less than a day. spend the money on teaching kids not to run in the road! 0% of people not hit by a car because they looked where the hell they were going died."<br />- Jonty, london</i><br /><br />Yeah, f**king pedestrians. Make them run.<br /><br /><i>"People of London - this is what you voted for.<br />and it's flippin fantastic news....Yippee!<br />Common sense makes return to London. KenCuckoo world voted out!"<br />- Ethan, UK, formerly East London</i><br /><br />Some great analysis there to round it off.<br /><br />On the same day the Standard <a href=http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23566233-details/Company+car+drivers+rack+up+£1m+fines+in/article.do>provided a nicely spun article</a> which apparently was supposed to persuade everyone just how badly the congestion charge is hitting some of us:<br /><br /><i>”Company car drivers have collected more than £1 million in fines for driving in the western extension zone without paying the congestion charge, new figures show.”</i><br /><br />What? They have been fined for not paying it? The cheek!<br /><br />David Brennan, managing director of LeasePlan, was given a chance to air his peculiar take on it all:<br /><br /><i>"Drivers will pay the majority of these fines themselves but employers spend a great deal of time processing the documents.<br /><br />The charge itself is a big enough burden for companies to shoulder, but there are also implications due to the administration costs that come with these rocketing levels of fines.<br /><br />With many businesses already struggling in the downturn, the last thing they need is the hassle of managing so many fines.”</i> <br /><br />The administration costs? Is that a joke? How about you pay the damn charge in the first place and you won't need to worry about administration costs.<br /><br />So, using the Standard's regular policy of having no right to reply, the article apparently teaches us that fine evaders are hard done by, deserving of our sympathy and form the basis of another reason why we should abolish the charge. <br /><br />This is just taking the p*ss.<br /><br />To be honest I'm just in a foul mood. If you want to know what I think then <a href=http://politics-of-the-press.blogspot.com/2008/09/jeremy-clarkson-swindon-and-pile-of.html>you can read</a> my earlier, (relatively) calmer post. For now though I'm going to log off. Otherwise I might decide to track down Ethan, Jonty and co. and beat them to death with their gearsticks.A casual observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13347139084496574113noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7063857442972231477.post-20313930490053726822008-10-07T13:04:00.006+01:002008-10-10T13:33:11.278+01:00Simon Jenkins feels the pain.The controversy surrounding Ian Blair's resignation generated understandably extensive discussion across the media, which led me to inevitable news surfing, seeking out the various takes on the whole event.<br /><br />My web travels led me to the Times, where Simon Jenkins <a href=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/simon_jenkins/article4882500.ece>provided some light relief</a> with one of the most ridiculous (and arguably offensive) comparisons I've read in quite a while:<br /><br /><i>"As for the shooting of innocent men by Blair’s buccaneering gunmen, it tallies with my own experience of being stopped by a loud-mouthed, rifle-toting officer in an unmarked car for allegedly “driving dangerously” round Hyde Park Corner."</i> <br /><br />Ok, I get it.<br /><br />On a similar note, when Hurricane Katrina destroyed the homes and livelihoods of tens of thousands of people, it tallied with my own experience of when a gust of wind blew my umbrella from my hands onto the pavement below, where it got all dirty. Bad times.<br /><br />You see, Simon understands. He really does. He shares De Menezes' pain. (Apart from the being shot in the head bit).A casual observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13347139084496574113noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7063857442972231477.post-37141992000143561782008-10-06T22:06:00.004+01:002008-10-08T13:55:06.888+01:00How to insert unrelated HE'S A W*NKER sentences.One of the worst, but sadly often used tactics bad journalists employ is to insert random, completely unrelated sentences into news articles, with the sole aim of attempting to influence the reader's perception of the story (or in this case the individual involved). <br /><br /><a href=http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23564258-details/EXCLUSIVE%3A+Peter+Mandelson+rushed+to+hospital/article.do>Here</a> is a prime example, from yesterday's Evening Standard:<br /><br /><i>"Peter Mandelson was set to have an operation for kidney stones today after being rushed to hospital at 3am by health minister and surgeon Lord Darzi. <br /><br />Mr Mandelson, 54, began complaining of abdominal pain over the weekend. Yesterday, as he was having dinner with a friend at his £3.5 million Regent's Park home, the pain worsened and he rang for medical help."</i> <br /><br />And here is proof that it works:<br /><br /><i>"Never mind the kidney stones - how can he afford a 3.5 million pound house??"<br />- Delphine, Oxford</i><br /><br /><i>"And how has he managed to buy a 3.5 million pound house?"<br />- P Istaker, London</i><br /><br /><i>"£3.5m home...Sleaze all over again."<br />- Asw, Hong Kong</i><br /><br /><i>"How did Mandelson come to be in possession of a £3.5 million home?<br />How is it that these 'socialists' usually seem to end up loaded?"<br />- George, Durham</i><br /><br />Etc<br /><br />What about another hypothetical example, one that the ES would not use?:<br /><br /><i>"Mayor Boris Johnson today announced his plans for a new initiative into tackling gun crime. Johnson, who owns a top of the range Ferrari, said he was pleased with the plans."</i><br /><br />Except that would be ridiculous.<br /><br />Disclaimer: As far as I know Boris doesn't own a Ferrari. And if he does, who gives a f***. It's of no relevance. At all.A casual observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13347139084496574113noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7063857442972231477.post-86301806562552087632008-09-24T13:37:00.000+01:002008-09-24T14:30:10.001+01:00Jeremy Clarkson, Swindon and a pile of stones.On the most recent episode of Top Gear, Jeremy Clarkson managed to achieve what I thought was impossible: He made me dislike him even more than I do now. We’re talking Melanie Phillips levels here.<br /><br />How? He congratulated, to rapturous applause from the audience, Swindon Borough Council’s Councillor Peter Greenhalgh, for leading the Conservative-run council’s proposals to withdraw funding for speed cameras.<br /><br />As the Independent <a href=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/council-may-stop-funding-speed-cameras-867636.html>reported</a>, Greenhalgh recently labelled speed cameras <i>“a blatant tax on the motorist”</i>, and suggested that <i>“there are much more important things we as a council should do instead of acting as a law enforcement arm of this government."</i><br /><br />Meanwhile, back at the Top Gear studio, Clarkson, Hammond and co. reached orgasmic levels of excitement, and promptly awarded Councillor Greenhalgh the <i>'Top Gear Trophy of Excellence'</i> for <i>“services to common sense in the face of blatant Government stupidity”</i>, before cutting to a picture of a throne (which, if I had my way, they would tie Clarkson onto before placing it on the fast-lane of the M25).<br /><br />And so the story began to spread, virus-like, across the internet forums: A victory for common sense! A brave stand against attacks on the innocent motorist! A battle against the tax-stealing government! A step towards ending the nanny state! And so on.<br /><br />SwindonWeb, an unofficial website which aims to cover <i>“anything and everything to do with Swindon”</i>, gave their local readership <a href=http://www.swindonweb.com/?m=2&s=625&ss=631&c=3501&t=No+to+speed+cameras%3F>a chance to comment</a>:<br /><br /><i>“Doing 70 in a 30 is wrong, but I’ll bet most people get done doing 40-45 in a 30. And on a dual carriage that's not the crime of the century!!!!!! God I hate the government."<br />L J</i><br /><br />Exactly, what’s wrong with 45 in a 30? That’s only 50% above the legal limit.<br /><br /><i>"Nice one make a change for Swindon to lead the way, now to get the boys in blue to give us a break as they think its now a good excuse for them to take over and rake in the cash. Bike cops with laser guns police camera vans, Get back to work and catch some real criminals."<br />mikeyb</i><br /><br />This is the tipping point: ‘Mikeyb’ uses the phrase which sums up all that infuriates me about a large proportion of motorists: Their beliefs that speeding, careless driving – and even drink driving – are somehow not crimes. (Or at most are just minor crimes).<br /><br /><i>“The police should concentrate on real criminals”</i>: Those that oppose any interference in their motoring lives seem to operate from this mindset.<br /><br />Except it’s not a human right to drive. It’s a luxury – it should be earned. To argue that clamping down on abuse of this luxury is an attack on your civil liberties is absurd.<br /><br />Yet for some people the ‘unnecessary’ enforcement of driving laws is more than just an annoyance. It becomes a matter of principle:<br /><br />A petition on the 10 Downing Street website to scrap speed cameras, set up by the pressure group 'Safe Speed’, attracted over 28,000 signatures.<br /><br />The Safe Speed campaign was founded by the late Paul Smith, who died last year. Immediately under the heading on <a href=http://www.safespeed.org.uk/>the homepage</a> of their website is a lone advert which seems almost a deliberate attempt to alienate any potential convert who may have otherwise been prepared to give the site a chance: <i>“A very significant number of prosecutions are defective. The trick is to find the defect. A good firm of specialist lawyers may well be able to help. Safe Speed recommends…”</i><br /><br />The central theme of the entire campaign, once you’ve boiled it down, is summed up by <a href=http://www.safespeed.org.uk/roadsafety.html>the following</a>: <i>“As soon as we increase regulation individual responsibility is reduced”</i>. <br /><br />By regulation, he primarily means speed cameras and strict speed limits. The former is an easy one – Smith sets out to <a href=http://www.safespeed.org.uk/againstcameras.html>try and prove</a> that speed cameras simply do not work and can be counter-productive, and (to his credit) steers away from the cash-raising argument in favour of what is reported as being 5,000 hours of research. <br /><br />The latter is more complex. His argument is hard to pin down. He<a href=http://www.safespeed.org.uk/speedlimits.html> begins by claiming</a> he <i>“welcomes properly set speed limits”</i>.<br /><br />But then goes on:<br /><br /><i>“Speed limits do little to modify the speed of traffic, and should never be used to attempt to modify the speed of traffic”</i>.<br /><br />Overall it is clear that although he argues for more variable limits, on the whole he means increasing the limit, the most extreme example being on rural roads:<br /><br /><i>“This is where we see the most problems with modern speed enforcement. The safe speed on British rural roads varies from 0 mph to over 150 mph, yet we have a "one size fits all" 60 mph national speed limit.”</i><br /><br />Yes, that’s not a misprint. He is seriously suggesting you can safely drive on some rural roads at over 150 mph.<br /><br />So if speed limits (and cameras, etc) detract from <i>“individual responsibility”</i>, what does he mean? And what, ultimately,<a href=http://www.safespeed.org.uk/roadsafety.html> is his solution</a>?<br /><br /><i>“This leads us towards a very, very simple road safety strategy - if we can make our average driver just a little bit more like a class one police driver then we should expect accidents to fall. In order to achieve this we need to feed it right at the foundations of individual responsibility and attitude.”</i><br /><br />I see.<br /><br />Shortly after the Swindon story broke, the Independent <a href=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-big-question-do-speed-cameras-work-or-are-there-better-ways-to-make-our-roads-safer-868654.html>ran an article</a> entitled: <b><i>”The Big Question: Do speed cameras work, or are there better ways to make our roads safer?”</b></i><br /><br />Rather fittingly they chose Swindon itself when arguing the case.<br /><br />After a page of discussion, it reaches a few conclusions for and against speed cameras. So, do they work?<br /><br /><i>“Yes... <br />- Studies have shown that a reduction in the speed limit to 20mph in built-up areas causes a 60 per cent fall in accidents<br />- Evidence from Swindon showed a 30 per cent reduction in the numbers of people killed or injured since cameras were installed <br />- At 10 of the sites in Swindon where cameras were introduced, no road accident deaths have been recorded <br /><br />No... <br />- Critics say it's not speed that kills but tiredness and careless driving. It's this that should be targeted with safer driving campaigns <br />- Speed cameras are being used as an easy way for the authorities to bump up their revenues, antagonising the public <br />- Cameras are counter-productive in creating a tendency for drivers to break the speed limit when they are not around”</i><br /><br />This pretty much sums it up: The argument in support of cameras uses statistics, the arguments against do not. Worse, the opposing points actually drift from the question itself. The fact that speed cameras may be used as a money raiser is hardly an effective criticism of their effectiveness. And the third point is just bizarre. Surely if drivers break speed limits when cameras are not around then this is even more reason to keep them, unless this is some sort of twisted protest?<br /><br />If I decided to start throwing stones inside a nightclub, it would raise two questions. The first would be: Why would you bring a pile of stones into a nightclub? To which I would respond: Ok, it is not the best analogy, but stick with me. <br /><br />The second (and obviously more relevant one) is: Am I doing anything wrong? This seems a ridiculous question. Of course I’m doing something wrong, stupid and dangerous. I’m throwing stones around a dark room that is full of people. There is a pretty good chance I am going to hit someone and do some real damage.<br /><br />But then again, maybe I’m not intending to hit anyone. Maybe I’m just enjoying throwing my stones. Maybe I think I’m an excellent shot and there is very little chance I will strike some bystander. And I’ll be damned if any nanny state starts infringing on my rights to hurl stones around. They should go and concentrate on real criminals – burglars and the like.<br /><br />Granted, this is possibly the most ridiculous, convoluted analogy you could make, but I think the general point is reasonably clear.<br /><br />I could drive at 50 mph on a road with a 30 mph limit, I could have a drink or two more than I’m supposed to before stumbling into my car, but still fool myself into believing I can handle it. (And I’m not going to have some PC government telling me otherwise!)<br /><br />As for the effects: If I were mugged in the street, I may lose some valuable possessions, and it may be a traumatic experience, an event which could take a while to get over. But if I were hit by a car doing 50 mph when they should be doing 30 mph, I will probably not need to worry about my emotional state, because I’ll most likely be dead. Which is worse?<br /><br />But somehow vast numbers of people don’t see the average careless or speeding driver as a criminal (unless they’re poor, working class teenagers from a council estate). Whole campaigns are set up to attack the laws and regulations which govern how we can drive, groups rally in support of a man <a href=http://www.speedcam.co.uk/welcome.htm>who destroys speed cameras</a>, and a councillor who plays political football with people’s lives gets a standing ovation from Jeremy Clarkson.A casual observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13347139084496574113noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7063857442972231477.post-65086731495967713112008-09-18T22:46:00.006+01:002008-09-18T23:07:24.478+01:00Right-wingers are wimps. Fact.<i>"Scientists studying voters in the US say our political views may be an integral part of our physical makeup. <br /><br />Their research, published in the journal Science, indicates that people who are sensitive to fear or threat are likely to support a right wing agenda. <br /><br />Those who perceived less danger in a series of images and sounds were more inclined to support liberal policies."</i><br /><br />Want to know more about why some of us are namby-pamby, wimpy right-wingers? Then <a href=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7623256.stm>read on</a>.A casual observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13347139084496574113noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7063857442972231477.post-27177961476854798462008-09-11T15:12:00.000+01:002008-09-11T15:14:22.339+01:00The Andrew Gilligan DictionaryFor those who find themselves puzzled or frustrated when browsing the articles of award-winning journalist Andrew Gilligan, I have provided a series of definitions for some of the key words he uses which should clear up any confusion.<br /><br /><u><b>The Gilligan Dictionary</b></u><br />(Click links for examples of usage)<br /><br /><b>Bendy-buses</b>: Death on wheels; a vehicle which produces <a href=http://politics-of-the-press.blogspot.com/2008/07/gilligan-flesh.html>“high-pitched beeping noises”</a>.<br /><br /><b>Crony</b>: A person who works or has worked with Ken Livingstone.<br /><br /><b>Experts</b>: Individuals whose opinions matter, but only in certain circumstances. <a href=http://politics-of-the-press.blogspot.com/2008/07/gilligan-flesh.html>Often wrong</a>.<br /><br /><b>Hypocrisy</b>: A valid journalistic method to correct previous statements, employed when the focus of a news article changes.<br /><br /><b>Inverted Commas</b>: A tool to underplay any attacks and mock critics (For example: <a href=http://politics-of-the-press.blogspot.com/2008/07/gilligan-knives-not-knifing.html>“Scandal”</a>).<br /><br /><b>Ken Livingstone</b>: Satan.<br /><br /><b>Lee Jasper</b>: A measure of corruption (For example: <A href=http://politics-of-the-press.blogspot.com/2008/07/gilligan-knives-not-knifing.html>“I know Lee Jasper, and Ray Lewis is no Lee Jasper”</a>).<br /><br /><b>Nit-picking</b>: Any form of criticism <a href=http://politics-of-the-press.blogspot.com/2008/06/gilligan-jsut-wants-people-to-laugh.html>directed at Boris Johnson</a>. (Also known as ‘over-reaction’ or ‘whingeing’).<br /><br /><b>Olympics</b>: A positive or negative event <a href=http://politics-of-the-press.blogspot.com/2008/08/2012-rescued-by-gold.html>depending on the time or situation</a>.<br /><br /><b>Routemaster</b>: A conviction <a href=http://politics-of-the-press.blogspot.com/2008/07/gilligan-flesh.html>made flesh</a>.<br /><br /><b>Tim Parker</b>: An individual whose importance is dependant <a href=http://politics-of-the-press.blogspot.com/2008/08/gilligan-does-parker-backtrack.html>on his employment at City Hall</a>.<br /><br /><b>Truth Check</b>: A method of analysing the policies of individuals (<a href=http://politics-of-the-press.blogspot.com/search/label/Decca%20Aitkenhead>Unnecessary in certain circumstances</a>).A casual observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13347139084496574113noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7063857442972231477.post-42677100524438073562008-09-10T18:41:00.005+01:002008-09-11T14:55:11.409+01:00Boris kicks non-existent staff out the buildingFrom Britain's most impartial paper <a href=http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-mayor/article-23553489-details/Boris+vows+to+freeze+his+share+of+council+tax+as+he+cuts+100+jobs/article.do>comes news</a> of a <i>"cost-cutting shake-up"</i> at City Hall.<br /><br />Here is my favourite little snippet:<br /><br /><i>"The Mayor said he wanted to streamline the Greater London Authority with around 100 <b>job losses</b>."</i><br /><br />But then later on:<br /><br /><i>"He aims to cut the number to less than 700, although some of the posts that will go are already vacant."</i> <br /><br />Last time I checked (unless you're being very pedantic) getting rid of empty posts doesn't strictly class as job <i>"losses"</i>, as the headline and initial paragraph states.<br /><br />It's all in the semantics. It is true that removing as yet unfilled posts is still technically cutting. But the intention of the article - and indeed the headline - is to instil in the casual skim reader the idea that 100 overpaid wasters are literally going to be thrown out by their shirt collars.<br /><br />Sniping aside, I'm genuinely interested to know how many of the cuts are vacant posts. "Some" is a touch vague.A casual observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13347139084496574113noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7063857442972231477.post-31605486556276749672008-09-09T15:29:00.004+01:002008-09-11T16:06:52.348+01:00The Lawyer fights back.Last week a report by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) <a href=http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/newsandcomment/Pages/CommissionsSexandPowerreportrevealsfewerwomeninpositionsofpowerandinfluence.aspx>found</a> what it described as a <i>"worrying trend of reversal"</i> in the number of women in top positions of power across both the public and private sector. In 12 of the 25 job categories it surveyed it found that fewer women hold top posts compared to last year. In 5 the number remained the same.<br /> <br />Professions where the number of senior women had declined included those in the judiciary, politics and the press. For instance, according to the report <i>"women make up just 19.3 percent of all MPs."</i><br /><br />To put it in perspective the article on the EHRC website expanded on the <i>"snail's pace"</i> analogy used by the Commission:<br /><br /><i>"A snail could crawl:<br /><br />- Nine times round the M25 in the 55 years it will take women to achieve equality in the senior judiciary. <br />- From Land's End to John O'Groats and halfway back again in the 73 years it will take for equal numbers of women to become directors of FTSE 100 companies. <br />- The entire length of the Great Wall of China in 212 years, only slightly longer than the 200 years it will take for women to be equally represented in Parliament.</i>"<br /><br />Oh dear.<br /><br />But hot on the heels of last week's report comes a study from 'The Lawyer'. As the article on their website <a href=http://www.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=134440&d=386&h=388&f=387>states</a>:<br /><br /><i>"More women are breaking into the top ranks of the UK’s leading law firms than ever before, research for The Lawyer UK 200 Annual Report has revealed."</i> <br /><br />However their enthusiastic revelation is somewhat dampened by the actual facts in the report which state that the number of female partners in the top 100 firms has increased by, well, 0.6% in two years. (Best hold off the champagne for now then.)<br /><br />The article describes the findings as being <i>"in contrast to a report from the Equality and Human Rights Commission"</i>.<br /><br />This last statement, however, is a touch misleading. The EHRC only researched judges (high court and above), of which women make up just 9.6%, down 0.2% from 2006, and did not mention lawyers at all.<br /><br />Regardless, for 'The Lawyer' to title the article <i>"Female partners defy glass ceiling in record numbers"</i> is a little over the top.A casual observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13347139084496574113noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7063857442972231477.post-72310580789326619722008-09-07T18:07:00.000+01:002008-09-09T13:13:58.606+01:00BBC: Have your say, you cynical, moaning bastards.Sometimes when I'm feeling a bit down I try to cheer myself up a little by logging on and laughing at the nauseatingly offensive, bigoted, often borderline racist, right-wing nuts that infest the <a href=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/default.stm>BBC Have Your Say</a> forums. It rarely works.<br /><br />Alternatively, if I'm feeling in a good mood I feel compelled to log on anyway and despair at the cynical, selfish, mind-numbing vitriol that spews from the pages of what is a seemingly never-ending winge-a-thon.<br /><br />Whichever way you look at it, it's an addiction.<br /><br />So the best thing I could do was make a game out of it.<br /><br />I call the game: <i>"<strong>How F***ing Predictable Can You Be?"</strong></i><br /><br />The rules are simple:<br /><br />First you must operate on the (safe) presumption that the most popular comments are going to be the sort of cliches you imagine would come from the mouth of someone who constantly yearns for rose-tinted times gone by, thinks 'taxes' is another word for 'stealing', is convinced an asylum seeker is about build a house at the bottom of their garden, is particularly sceptical of climate change, believes political correctness has 'gone mad', and uses the term 'Commies' to describe anyone vaguely to the left of Thatcher. To put it simply: They have 'had enough'.<br /><br />That is your average BBC Have Your Say contributor.<br /><br />Once you have that mindset it's easy. So here we go: In the morning the BBC will open a new discussion. Looking at the title make an educated guess as to what you think the typical contributor would say on the subject. When you have finished, open the debate and click on the <i>"Readers Recommend"</i> tab. Compare your answer to the most recommended comment and see how close you got.<br /><br />Here are a few examples of the system in action:<br /><br />Let's start with a crime debate from back in May, which can be found <a href=http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&forumID=4846&edition=1&ttl=20080905023245&#paginator>here</a>:<br /><br /><i><b>How can we tackle knife crime?</b></i><br /><br />An interesting debate. What steps could we take? Stop and search is a highly charged issue. So what does the most recommended Have Your Say contributor have to say about it?<br /><br /><i>"Oh, will it upset the knife carrying little darlings who clearly have done no wrong? No doubt it’s against their human rights not to carry a knife then? <br />This type of liberal thinking sums up everything that is wrong with fighting crime in the UK."<br />Cyrus P Turntable, At The Races <br />Recommended by 484 people</i> <br /><br />I see. (I almost forgot: A recurring theme in the forums is that the Human Rights Act is bad. Apparently it only applies to criminals or something.)<br /><br />Now let's try an international issue, discussed in June:<br /><br /><i><b>"Should African leaders apply more pressure on Mugabe?"</b></i><br /><br />Perhaps we need to discuss what form this pressure could take, how to encourage progress and what barriers lie in the way. Let's ask the most recommended contributor, responding <a href=http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&forumID=4975&edition=1&ttl=20080905015534&#paginator>here</a>:<br /><br /><i>"All these states demanded independence from the old colonial powers after WW2 and they all got their wish, since then all they have done is scream for help and continuously held out the begging bowl.<br />It’s about time these countries were left alone to sort out their own problems maybe then they will start to grow up."<br />Alan Baker, Chelmsford<br />Recommended by 429 people</i> <br /><br />How sympathetic. <br /><br />Just to show how ridiculously predictable this game is, move on to a potentially inoffensive topic. Such as this one <a href=http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&forumID=5274&edition=1&ttl=20080905015534&#paginator>here</a>, which cropped up in August:<br /><br /><i><b>"What is Britain's happiest place?"</b></i><br /><br />Surely the system can't apply here? It's a nice topic. Maybe the most recommended comment will be <i>"Brighton - because it's fun!"</i> or <i>"York - because it's friendly and there are some lovely sights!"</i><br /><br />Sadly not. Because when you factor in the mindset of your average Have Your Say contributor the answer is obvious:<br /><br /><i>"The happiest place in Britain? Any place that has not yet been "enriched" by enforced, unwanted "diversity", so that people still feel they belong to that place and share its history and traditions."<br />Robert Soria <br />Recommended by 220 people</i><br /><br />Marvellous, isn't it?<br /><br /><b>UPDATE</b>: This weekend provided a few more debates which neatly fit the mould.<br /><br />On Saturday <a href=http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&forumID=5314&edition=1&ttl=20080907133537&#paginator>this</a> debate was raised:<br /><br /><i><b>Do we care enough about the Paralympics?</b></i><br /><br />The most endorsed comment summed up the general consensus of the forum: <br /><br /><i>"I'm not really bothered, nor interested in this PC nonsense."<br />Bored Indifferent Chap.<br />Recommended by 152 people</i><br /><br />Well at least he's honest.<br /><br />I'll leave this sprawling post with <a href=http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&forumID=5312&edition=1&ttl=20080907135949&#paginator>another</a> fitting example from yesterday: <br /><br /><i><b>What is your favourite decade?</b></i><br /><br /><i>"The seventies. The last time I can remember England feeling like England before PC loonies made it Racist to be proud to be Heterosexual, White or Christian, Whilst encouraging every one else to celebrate their ROOTS!"<br />Louis Cannell, Northampton, United Kingdom<br />Recommended by 131 people</i><br /><br />Ah, yes. Louis nails what the majority of Have Your Say contributors feel is wrong with today: It's today.A casual observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13347139084496574113noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7063857442972231477.post-24149269650836327932008-09-04T11:50:00.009+01:002008-09-10T14:07:49.167+01:00Evening Standard: "It's Ken's fault... What do you think Boris?"The Evening Standard has launched into full defensive mode today.<br /><br />Here is the news:<br /><br /><i>"Tube and bus fares will rise by up to 10 per cent in the new year, [London Mayor] Boris Johnson announced today.<br /><br />The price of taking a bus with Oyster pay-as-you-go will increase by slightly more, from 90p to £1, in January.<br /><br />Underground passengers in the morning rush hour will pay £1.60 - a 10p increase - for a zone one journey and from £2 to £2.20 if they venture into zone two on pay-as-you-go. Trains and daily and weekly travel cards will also go up by more than the rate of inflation."</i><br /><br />In the <a href="http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-mayor/article-23550941-details/Tube%20and%20bus%20fares%20soar/article.do?expand=true">main article</a> the Standard uses half the space to allow Johnson to blame former mayor Ken Livingstone for <i>""cynical and irresponsible" pre-election cash freezes"</i> and then generously provides Livingstone with just one line to defend himself - completely cutting out his core arguments.<br /><br />The <a href="http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-mayor/article-23550946-details/Comment%3A+Ken’s+toxic+fares+legacy/article.do">Leader comment</a> then goes on a full-out assault against Livingstone:<br /><br /><i>"But we should be in no doubt about where the real blame lies: with Mr Johnson's predecessor, Ken Livingstone."</i><br /><br />Finally, just for balance, Boris Johnson himself is <a href="http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-mayor/article-23550944-details/Commentary%3A+Rise+will+fix+Ken%27s+TfL+black+hole/article.do">given a column</a> in the paper to justify the rise. By blaming Livingstone again.<br /><br />Saying that, right-to-reply has never been an Evening Standard strong point.<br /><br />Anyway, here is the Livingstone defence that the Standard deemed not worth printing:<br /><br /><i>"Boris Johnson has lost between £30 and £50 million a year by abandoning the £25 a-day charge on the worst gas guzzlers in the congestion charging zone, he has scrapped the cheap oil deal with Venezuela, costing London £16 million a year, and he may throw away a lot more by abandoning the extension of the congestion charge to Kensington and Chelsea."</i><br /><br />Boriswatch.co.uk provides a more in-depth discussion. Click <a href="http://www.boriswatch.co.uk/2008/09/04/holes-in-the-budget/">here</a> for more.<br /><br />Side note: My favourite reader comment on the main Standard article:<br /><br /><i>"If people worked a bit harder they could maybe afford a car and wouldn't need to worry about taking public transport.<br />- Henrick, Belgravia, London"</i><br /><br />Well that's one solution I suppose...A casual observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13347139084496574113noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7063857442972231477.post-80865679748768274352008-09-01T13:56:00.008+01:002008-09-09T17:16:07.562+01:00The C-Charge: An exercise on fulfilling pledgesI was looking forward to this. <br /><br />Without a doubt many people who opposed the congestion charge were under the impression prior to the election that the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, was going to give them some form a vote to scrap the western extension or simply abolish it himself. <br /><br />A brief glance through various comments and blogs across the net also clearly indicate that some believed he would get rid of the congestion charge completely.<br /><br />Of course anyone who paid real attention would remember that his ideas were a tad vague and the latter simply incorrect.<br /><br />So, finally, here is the news, <a href=http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-mayor/article-23548277-details/Boris+gives+west+Londoners+a+say+on+C-charge/article.do>as reported by the Evening Standard</a>:<br /><br /><i>"Boris Johnson today launched a consultation on the future of the western extension of the congestion charge zone."</i><br /><br />But the punch comes straight after:<br /><br /><i>"Although scrapping the scheme entirely is not a proposal..."</i><br /><br />That is going to be a wake-up call for those voters who (mistakenly) thought this would be an option.<br /><br />So what are the proposals?<br /><br /><i>"Possible changes include: <br /><br />• Making the congestion charge easier to pay by introducing accounts for motorists. <br /><br />• Introducing a charge-free period in the middle of the day in the western extension. <br /><br />• Increasing the residents' discount to 100 per cent (this would apply to the extension and original charging zone)."</i><br /><br />My money is on the first option being a near certainty: A minor adjustment to the system which can be spun to make it appear that he has somehow "fulfilled his pledge".<br /><br />Then there is the justification for the second option: <i>"The charge could be abolished during the middle of the day, making it cheaper for businesses to operate"</i>. <br /><br />This is just confusing. Surely (for those businesses / traders that do oppose the charge) it would be better if they <i>"abolished"</i> it during the early mornings when they are bringing in goods?<br /><br />I'm interested to see what the reaction to this will be. No readers comments on the Standard website as of yet.A casual observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13347139084496574113noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7063857442972231477.post-1127885065488798652008-08-28T13:13:00.003+01:002008-09-12T10:57:04.920+01:00Charlie Brooker: How to generate net trafficOnce again I failed to read / link to a classic Charlie Brooker piece when it was written. This one is only a month old.<br /><br />The article, entitled <i>"Online POKER marketing could spell the NAKED end of VIAGRA journalism as we LOHAN know it"</i>, relates to the net traffic that is apparently generated when certain key words are inserted (Sexy / Olsen Twins / barely legal, etc). <br /><br />You can check it out <a href=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/21/charliebrooker.pressandpublishing>here</a>, but I'd thought I'd include some snippets. <br /><br />Cue Charlie:<br /><br /><i>"In this day and age, what with the credit crunch and the death of print journalism and everything, the use of attention-grabbing keywords is becoming standard practice. "Search engine optimisation", it's known as, and it's the journalistic equivalent of a classified ad that starts with the word "SEX!" in large lettering, and "Now that we've got your attention . . ." printed below it in smaller type.<br /><br />For instance, according to the latest Private Eye, journalists writing articles for the Telegraph website are being actively encouraged to include oft-searched-for phrases in their copy. So an article about shoe sales among young women would open: "Young women - such as Britney Spears - are buying more shoes than ever."<br /><br />"And wait, it gets worse. These phrases don't just get lobbed in willy-nilly. No. A lot of care and attention goes into their placement. Apparently the average reader quickly scans each page in an "F-pattern": reading along the top first, then glancing halfway along the line below, before skimming their eye downward along the left-hand side. If there's nothing of interest within that golden "F" zone, he or she will quickly clear off elsewhere.<br /><br />Which means your modern journalist is expected not only to shoehorn all manner of hot phraseology into their copy, but to try and position it all in precisely the right place. That's an alarming quantity of unnecessary shit to hold in your head while trying to write a piece about the unions. Sorry, SEXUAL unions."</i><br /><br />The vast number of comments underneath Brooker's piece are well worth a scroll through as well.<br /><br />They range from the seriously pissed off:<br /><br /><i>"You are clearly trying to nail that Bill-O'Reilly-of-the-British-media label, aren't you Brooker? Try to remember though, that even Bill O'Reilly understands that occasionally he has to appear normal and make sense. I reckon you were probably thinking of big tits in your squalid bedsit when they were doing the Critical Thinking part of your journalism course."</i><br /><br />To the bloody hilarious:<br /><br /><i>"Eh! Who is this Brooker twat and where are the naked Lohan pictures Google have promised me?"</i>A casual observerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13347139084496574113noreply@blogger.com0