tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-39783943608594443492024-03-18T07:43:48.651+00:00Notes from a Common NameRobert Ian James Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12932065919510699906noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3978394360859444349.post-59292829244832927882012-03-05T16:02:00.000+00:002012-03-05T16:02:22.283+00:00NYT: Know Thy Contributor<br />
Ever wondered how people get in to writing for newspapers?<br />
<br />
With some people it's easy. They study some sort of journalism course then apply for jobs. Lots of jobs. They eventually get one of them then start tapping away at the out of date computer on their new desk.<br />
<br />
But these sorts of people just write news. What about the columnists? The opinionistas who write leaders and the middle sections of the quality press. Where do they come from? Some of them are experts in the field they cover who have written books and get asked to contribute to the press. Others just appear like a nineteenth century party leaders or England cricket captains.<br />
<br />
The spotlight that the Olympics has cast on London has inspired the New York Times to publish a handy guide for its readers entitled 'Explaining Londoners.'<br />
<br />
Although I only have access to the online version of this the main piece seems to be an amazingly long <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/magazine/china-mieville-london.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1">essay</a> by novelist <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Mi%C3%A9ville">China Mieville</a> (me neither) who is from Norwich and writes Science Fiction.<br />
<br />
You might think a SF writer a strange choice to write about the current state of London and you would be correct.<br />
<br />
So what made the NYT choose Mr Mieville for this task? At the foot of the article they merely describe him as an author or several books who lives and works in London. It doesn't even say that he's a SF writer in case this would lead to readers not taking him seriously enough.<br />
<br />
What they fail to mention is that he is a member of the <a href="http://www.swp.org.uk/">Socialist Workers Party</a> who has even stood for them at a general election. That he achieved 459 votes in a Labour constituency tells you all you need to know about how in touch with the real London they are.<br />
<br />
Unsurprisingly, Mieville's never-ending piece paints a grim picture of London. He uses the classic Chomsky method of half truths and shameful exaggeration to suit his political ends. He knows the majority of the American readers will have no idea about the truth or even controversial nature of what he is saying so he can push is distorted reality on them with ease. <br />
<br />
I won't go through all the errors he makes or lies he tells as that would require a dissertation and this is a blog not a PhD.<br />
<br />
Speaking of PhD's Mieville's is a good example of his take on reality.<br />
<br />
When speaking about the rule of law he claims that 'A world structured around international law cannot but be one of imperialist violence. The chaotic and bloody world around us is the rule of law.'<br />
<br />
If you can't see how the law protects the weak from the strong you should move to a country without it for a few months.<br />
<br />
There are plenty of people in this country who believe the same sort of nonsense as Mieville but they at least have the chance to see things in context even if they choose not to. What chance do American readers have? None. In the same way we could not truly appreciate Obama's rise or Tea Party lunatics.<br />
<br />
The New York Times should be ashamed of itself. Printing a communist diatribe full of rewritten history that its readers will not be able to interpret with any sort of balance.<br />
<br />
You wonder at their motives might be for commissioning this most biased and ignorant of writers. There surely must be more than the sour grapes from a failed Olympic bid as the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/9117574/Resentful-angry-and-brutal-New-Yorks-view-of-London.html">Telegraph</a> supposes.<br />
<br />
Though as <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/9115592/Heres-a-sober-English-guide-to-London-for-brash-Americans.html">Tim Stanley</a> points out in the same paper New York, it could be argued, is faring no better than London. He claims that against the U.S.'s national trend murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault all on the rise in the Big Apple. Murders up 14 per cent.<br />
<br />
Perhaps the NYT just wanted its readers not to feel like they were the only city with problems.<br />
<br />
If that's the case they should have sent a correspondent rather than a propagandist with an axe to grind.Robert Ian James Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12932065919510699906noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3978394360859444349.post-23449790120391362072012-03-04T23:46:00.002+00:002012-03-04T23:46:39.482+00:00Feliz Año Nuevo: parte dosA head rests on the hotel bar.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-kigNf4vckbE/T0JvHHwYfEI/AAAAAAAAADg/lvf4c2so4rg/s1600/peoplelookingforadrink.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-kigNf4vckbE/T0JvHHwYfEI/AAAAAAAAADg/lvf4c2so4rg/s320/peoplelookingforadrink.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Sevillanos looking for a drink</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Hope? Despair? Relief?<br />
<br />
The only sniff we'd had of a drink since dinner was bottles of wine sold in a bocadillo shop near Plaza Nueva. For this there was a queue round the block.<br />
<br />
It was relief. Two-fold relief. When we saw that the bar was open the BH gave voice to what we were both feeling. "Thank fuck! I don't care what it costs. A bottle of Rioja please." The barman, startled by this Celtic outburst, needed some help translating this. Relief dropped the head to the bar when it only set us back €14.50. It was a touch dry. Crianza, so what can you expect?<br />
<br />
Safe in the knowledge that we would at least be somewhere for the 12 bells we started to take in our surroundings a little better.<br />
<br />
Despite the many miles trodden by these ol' feet I've not actually spent much time in hotel bars. Although new years eve and fairly late the bar was far from full.<br />
<br />
Quiet though it was not. Thumping, dreadful, loud, Europop was disgorging from the speakers. The place was called the piano bar. There was a white grand piano in the corner. A folded piece of A4 rested on the keys asking no one to play it. One can only presume it was out of tune.<br />
<br />
We decamped to a hall type area that was next to the bar. The music was not so loud here and a television had been set up for those who wished to watch the Spanish new year show.<br />
<br />
Currently this was myself and my BH. New year's television in Spain appears to consist of a live music show which bears a resemblance to Eurovision. It is presented by an extremely friendly woman (she smiles a lot so she must be friendly) who changed her outfit after every song. At first this stuck me as a miraculous act of re-habiliment. After about the first half dozen changes I came up with the theory that she probably had a sound proof dressing room and the more time in there the better.<br />
<br />
The hotel had organised a new year party for guests who had nowhere else to go. When we learnt of this we scoffed that it was unlikely to be the sort of event such cultured types as us attended. Now we were starting to worry that we might have missed out on the best the evening could have offered us.<br />
<br />
As we were now about 20 minutes away from the year of London's Olympic glory this party should have been in full swing. We therefore thought we'd stick our head in and see what our snobbishness had caused us to miss out on.<br />
<br />
Peeking through the open door of the party revealed about 20 tables with about four to six people sat around each one. Some had party hats on. Some did not. Some had smiles on their faces. Some did not. There appeared to be no correlation between party hats and smiles.<br />
<br />
The BH utter the most complete two word description I've ever heard.<br />
<br />
"Bad wedding."<br />
<br />
We had not long retired back to our comfy sofa in front of the tele to admire the presenters latest dress when we both suddenly checked our watches. Not an unusual thing to do on new years eve, I grant you, but it was triggered by a most unexpected event.<br />
<br />
Everybody left the party. Everybody. It was clearly not a nice day for a bad wedding.<br />
<br />
What was going on? A mass walk out of revellers? Striking merrymakers? No.<br />
<br />
It seems the metaphorical bride and groom were due to leave at ten to midnight and the party was over.<br />
<br />
Their polythene partybags had not appeared to cheer them up. Not much anyway.<br />
<br />
Everyone now preceded pick up a glass of cava from the (non) piano bar and drag chairs in front of the tele. Presumably so that they could see what the nice lady on the tele was going to be wearing at midnight.<br />
<br />
At least the Europop had been removed from the bar's stereo to be replaced by more televisions. Some sort of improvement anyway.<br />
<br />
The time came and grapes were eaten (in the <a href="http://www.simplespanishfood.com/2010/12/twelve-grapes-doce-uvas-a-spanish-new-years-eve-tradition.html">Spanish</a> style). Children who really should have been in bed went a bit mental, stuff happened on the tele and whatever the star had on couldn't have been that memorable because I don't have even the faintest recollection of it. But I'm sure it was interesting.<br />
<br />
With so many people now in the bar it at least felt like a party. Though the chap in the kilt looked like he felt hogmanay was one time when <a href="http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=hogmanay+dundee&start=16&num=10&um=1&hl=en&safe=off&biw=1065&bih=599&tbm=isch&tbnid=iiQEenQBmjRhaM:&imgrefurl=http://www.millennium.gov.uk/cgi-site/awards.cgi%3Faction%3Ddetail%26id%3D811&docid=yzCvdi8VoQTrVM&itg=1&imgurl=http://www.millennium.gov.uk/projects/images/Dundee.jpg&w=375&h=290&ei=MPxTT-CVNpKS8gO5t5TvBQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=653&vpy=222&dur=3433&hovh=197&hovw=255&tx=160&ty=108&sig=100410747216555184564&sqi=2&page=2&tbnh=123&tbnw=166&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:3,s:16">Dundee </a>had something over <a href="http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=new+years+eve+seville&um=1&hl=en&safe=off&sa=N&biw=1065&bih=599&tbm=isch&tbnid=SjMXSPlG20t-dM:&imgrefurl=http://www.sevillanj.com/menus/new-years-eve-2011/&docid=Op6ygkiJAbTAIM&imgurl=http://www.sevillanj.com/menus/new-years-eve-2011/img/nye-buffet.jpg&w=400&h=300&ei=vf1TT73UGKOA0AXpzLDpCw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=275&vpy=246&dur=841&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=157&ty=117&sig=100410747216555184564&page=1&tbnh=117&tbnw=155&start=0&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:13,s:0">Seville</a>.<br />
<br />
Our televisual host seemed to have run out of dress changes so she wasn't allowed to be on tele any more.<br />
<br />
Was slightly surprised by what replaced her on the box. It was a tour through the pop music history of different European nations. So no sooner had the new year's show ended that we were greeted by Sir Cliff's toothy grin belting out '<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us3dQ0nnlHY">Congratulations</a>' followed by Sandie Shaw's '<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-5RFMiFQpc">Those were the days</a>'.<br />
<br />
Things were looking up. They'd even run out of the dry wine and started selling us one even nicer.<br />
<br />
There were some famous acts on the TV now but not always performing their biggest hits.<br />
<br />
So to a background of '<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_SAMrDnXOE&ob=av2e">Johnny and Mary</a>' by Robert Palmer and Dire Straits' massive '<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrDK0UoAkfY">Tunnel of Love</a>' we settled down to an evening of people watching. By that I mean sneakily making rude comments about our fellow guests.<br />
<br />
It was excellent.<br />
<br />
<br />Robert Ian James Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12932065919510699906noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3978394360859444349.post-33183072495460321392012-01-13T00:28:00.001+00:002012-01-13T12:12:41.579+00:00Feliz Año Nuevo<br />
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">I never thought it would come to this. New year’s eve in a hotel bar listening to jingle bells. Still, we were grateful for it after the couple of hours we’d had.</span></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
It all started so promisingly. The BH (Better Half) and I had arrived in Seville on the 30th after finding a deal on hotwire.com and had found a bustling city centre where each narrow street was filled with table of people eating beautiful looking tapas.</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
After getting over the shock of seeing people eating outside in late December we found a table of our own and stuffed our faces.</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
I was preparing myself mentally for the problems one might face on new year’s eve in London. I made a note of as many interesting bars as I could so that we would have options on the big night. After all, we might not be able to get in to our first choice. They’ll probably be rammed with fiesta-ing Sevillianos right? Wrong.</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
The BH and I hatched a foolproof plan. We would head in to town, pick one of the many restaurants offering new years eve set menus and soak up the ambiance and see what goes on when the bell strikes 12. If there wasn’t much atmos in the restaurant we’d track down a bar full of locals and see what they were up to. Seville has loads of bars and hardly any non-Spanish tourists so we were guaranteed the real deal. See? Foolproof.</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
We got all dressed up in the hotel and I have to confess my mouth was watering at the prospect of all the Iberian culinario delights awaiting us. Bussed it in to Santa Cruz with that excited feeling you get before something great happens. Christmas morning as a child, parties as a teenager and food and wine as an adult.</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
I was imagining that there would be all sorts of Spanish stuff going on. Singing and jolliness or something. I suppose I only had a nebulous idea of what it would be like. Just something I hadn’t seen before.</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
It turned out that a bit more research was needed.</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
We’d been in Seville for about 30 hours and been mightily pleased with how cheap all the glorious food was. We were flabbergasted therefore to see the restaurant known to us as ‘Cow Place’ wanted €92 for a tapas meal with one glass of wine. One glass.</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
We had christened it ‘Cow Place’ as there is a life sized statue of a cow in the restaurant staring down at those eating its non-papiermaché cousins. A touch eccentric I’ll grant you but it looked cute and we had thought we would go there if we could get a table. The normal menu, displayed outside, was reasonable enough and it had seemed popular the night before so it seemed like a good plan.</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
This night it wasn’t very busy and we can all guess the reason. After all, we’d need a lot of wine to get over paying so much and God knows what a bottle of vino tinto would have been. On December 31 anyway.</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
Eventually we found a place for €40 for 3 courses. It was Italian. So much for an authentic Spanish new year but we were lucky to get in. A couple were um-ing and ah-ing about whether or not to go in and we nipped in and got the last table for two.</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
The decor was modern. Black walls and mirrors. The floor looked like party poppers had been popped.</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
It turned out that this €40 deal thing involved us sharing a pizza. So I guess €40 for two and a half courses and a glass of Lambrusco.</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
The second phase of the foolproof plan was starting to look more likely.</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
The food was all right. Nothing special. The service was pretty awful. Very inattentive and definitely getting the vibe that they wanted us to leave as soon as possible. They even seemed reluctant to let us buy more wine than the afore mentioned glass of Lambrusco. For once this had nothing to do with our behaviour. We found out why when we had had enough and paid up with a suitably tiny tip.</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
There was a huge crowd outside. I say ‘crowd’ rather than ‘queue’ because this is Spain and therefore ‘queue’ is not appropriate. They swamped us as we came out. They were so pushy I wouldn't be surprised to learned my phone had been hacked.</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
Phase two had its problems too.</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
Prepare yourself to read something truly shocking.</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
Are you prepared?</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
Every bar in Seville was shut. That’s right. New Year’s eve. Every bar. Shut.</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
I guess I was looking forward to something I’d never experienced before. It took about an hour to work out that every single thing was shut. I think it really sunk in when we saw the Scottish bar was closed.<br />
<br />
Some of you are probably thinking 'Ah, but things open late in Seville. If you'd have hung around for a while you'd have found something great.' Well, maybe. But it was gone 11 and if they're not open by then they should see a business advisor.</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
Time was starting to run out and we needed to see in the new year somewhere. Somewhere with a bar. It was going to have to be the hotel.</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
We had no problem getting a cab as everyone was still fighting over our table in the restaurant.</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
As the cab pulled up a group of people were waiting to take it back to town. Surely this couldn’t mean even the hotel bar was closed? Or that things were about to liven up in town?</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
Find out in the next installment: Feliz Año Nuevo Dos - This Time It’s Hotel</div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></div>Robert Ian James Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12932065919510699906noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3978394360859444349.post-29862115089178279792011-07-11T14:47:00.004+01:002011-07-13T15:35:29.321+01:00A Victory for Public Decency not Celebrity AngerI read the News of the World. At least I used to. I didn't read it every week but that doesn't really matter, does it? Plenty of people will judge me just for occasionally going near the previously best selling paper in the English language.<br />
<br />
Until recently disapproval of the NoW and its followers has come in two forms. Firstly the (not necessarily religious or partisan) puritan element of society (as pointed out by <a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100096059/the-guardians-oliver-cromwell-and-his-new-model-army-are-marching-on-downing-street-and-they-want-david-camerons-scalp/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter">Toby Young</a>) or a snobbish tut-tutting at the working classes' choice of newspaper (see <a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100096049/a-very-old-snobbery-lurks-within-the-anti-news-of-the-world-camp/">Brendan O'Neill</a> for details).<br />
<br />
That all changed with revelations about Milly Dowler and the families of bereaved armed forces personnel. And fair enough. Not one person has offered a defence of such heinous behaviour and it cost a lot of innocent journalists, subs and auxiliary staff their jobs.<br />
<br />
Since the paper's demise the criticism has changed once again. Poor Millie Dowler and her family aren't getting much of a look-in.<br />
<br />
Instead of hearing from the innocent we are being lectured by those whose guilt was uncovered by NoW (among others). <br />
<br />
Hugh Grant (soliciting a prostitute), Steve Coogan (drugs and several affairs), John Prescott (affair), Chris Bryant (posed in underwear online), Max Mosley (S & M orgy) have all been celebrating the fall of the NoW with a mixture of glee and bile that they can barely contain.<br />
<br />
They are now leading the charge for tighter regulation of the press. It's as if they have won a great victory are now writing their own treaty of Versailles to impose on the vanquished.<br />
<br />
Should these new champions of morality stop to consider for a moment they will realise they have won no victory at all. Their complaints about media intrusion have been going on for years and the public did not care enough to put Rupert Murdoch off his breakfast nevermind buying B Sky B. <br />
<br />
Then the NoW treated innocent people the way it had previously treated the guilty and the public turned on them. The tabloids' critics scent blood and want them regulated without thinking for a moment that it was investigative journalism that exposed the NoW in the first place.<br />
<br />
Saint Hugh told <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/default.stm">Question Time</a> that he was not in favour of regulating the broadsheets just the tabloids. This shocking piece of snobbery conveniently forgets that the NoW uncovered and campaigned on issues that meant a lot to its readers. From naming paedophiles to stories about bank robberies. Not just shining a light on celebrity naughtiness and hypocrisy.<br />
<br />
His Hugh-liness was probably remembering his <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387193/Hugh-Grant-super-injuctions-Naughty-nature-rich-men-able-gag-press.html">claim</a> in May that celebrity injunctions were "fabulous", that successful men were naughty by nature and deserved privacy while forgetting that tabloids have their role too.<br />
<br />
If the public were to lose the right to learn about celebrities misdemeanours (or worse) all we would ever know about famous people is what their expensive PR people tell us. They could then profit from this image and no one would ever know the truth.<br />
<br />
The Guardian has done its job splendidly by revealing a scandal and letting the public make judgement. Just like the NoW used to do. <br />
<br />
Steve Coogan told <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/09/hugh-grant-steve-coogan-news">Newsnight</a> that the NoW was in the gutter before the recent scandal. The public should remember who they found there and ask if they are the best judge of decent behaviour.Robert Ian James Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12932065919510699906noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3978394360859444349.post-45634565871523882182011-06-30T14:14:00.000+01:002012-01-13T00:43:45.222+00:00MisrememberingThere has been a status going around on facebook and Twitter asking: "Remember when police officers, teachers, nurses, binmen etc crashed the stock market, wiped out banks, took billions in bonuses and paid no tax? No, me neither."<br />
<br />
That's not an exact quote by the way but Johann Hari told me it was okay to paraphrase.<br />
<br />
Obviously this ties in with the unions line that the public sector is not to blame for the current financial situation and therefore should be allowed to pretend it doesn't exist. Nevermind solidarity with workers in the private sector who have a far worse deal than the new one put before public sector workers. Or that no recession in history has only been paid for by those perceived to have caused it. The public sector didn't cause the crisis so they should be untouched.<br />
<br />
So who is responsible? Let's find them and make them pay!<br />
<br />
Ah yes, the bankers. A difficult group to defend seeing as they are a pretty odious bunch. Gambling all that money. Leveraging far too many times their equity for greater and greater profits.<br />
<br />
What on earth inspired them to be so reckless? Greed, clearly. The wish for more and more seems to be a required qualification for investment banking. That is the public perception of bankers and who would dispute it?<br />
<br />
If bankers are so inherently rapacious why weren't they behaving in this way before?<br />
<br />
The simple answer is that they weren't allowed to.<br />
<br />
When Labour came to power in 1997 Blair and Brown were faced with a dilemma. They represented a 'New' Labour Party that was not going to raise taxes and was business friendly. No more socialism for them.<br />
<br />
Their new way was to have as many people as possible employed by the state and give them wages that were better than the private sector and still have great benefits. Whatever their reasons for this (bribing the electorate, inherent love of a large state or improving standards of living depending on your point of view) it needed to be paid for.<br />
<br />
Mr Blair was the smiling face of this new business friendly Labour Party and he found a way of getting business to pay for it. Not by taxing them more of course, that would never do. How else then? By deregulating banks and allowing them to take bigger risks and make bigger profits. This way the Exchequer would receive larger sums of tax revenue without putting taxes up, bankers would make a fortune and public sector jobs would suddenly become very desirable.<br />
<br />
It worked brilliantly. All the gambles paid off or were covered up with no effective regulation to uncover the losses. People got used to the idea that it was affordable to have a public sector where people retired early and received the same wages as an equivalent private sector worker who retired later.<br />
<br />
Then, as with all gamblers, the banks eventually lost. With this there was suddenly no way of paying for such an expensive public sector.<br />
<br />
Seeing as these risks were taken to pay for public sector salaries and pensions perhaps people facebook status should read: remember when the demands of the public sector caused the banking crisis?Robert Ian James Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12932065919510699906noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3978394360859444349.post-5926899879828891612011-04-29T17:44:00.000+01:002011-04-29T17:44:16.848+01:00Unelected Yet UnpoliticalA million people lined the streets to cheer them on. That's according to the police anyway. I've often wondered how they calculate figures like that. Well, not that often.<br />
<br />
The royal wedding brought with it the typical twitter polemic. I'm not in the habit of quoting tweets and I'm not going to start now. I will quote a hashtag though. #ashamedtobebritish started trending as a response to the #proudtobebritish trend turning peoples collective stomach.<br />
<br />
It was the ideas of deference, class privilege and unelected power that was getting the former's goat and the flag waving romance and fairy tale nature of the thing that was doing whatever the opposite of getting one's goat is for the latter.<br />
<br />
Personally I find all the hysteria a little hard to bear and I am incredulous at people lining the streets for hours or days on end. Honestly, what do they do all day?<br />
<br />
Although it might not be my cup of tea at least they were getting in to the spirit of things. The #ashamedtobebritish crowd missed the point.<br />
<br />
The idea that Britain has something to be ashamed about by having an unelected head of state is way of target. There are lots of reasons why it's so wide of the mark but let's stick with the biggest reason. Royal's don't have any power. I know, weird isn't it? Some part of our consciousness will always struggle with this notion but it doesn't stop it being true.<br />
<br />
The role of the monarch is not to wield power of any kind. Should Liz II disagree with anything Parliament wishes to do she can do nothing about it. In fact, she has less power than an ordinary citizen (that's right, not subjects. Another anachronism used by the #ashamed crowd). She can not make her voice heard on any political issue.<br />
<br />
The monarch's role is to represent the nation. By this I do not mean represent every individual or group in the country. That should be Parliament's job. Would you feel better represented by a President Blair or Cameron? The royal family represent Britain's historical institutions and what has made Britain the country it is today and what will shape its future. <br />
<br />
With a monarch as non-executive head of state politicians are reminded that their glory is transient. Their careers will end but the country will endure. A non-political, unelected head of state reminds the Government that it is the country that they serve not just their political supporters and short term goals. Let the politicians fight for our affections while the country rises above it all.<br />
<br />
Once you realise this the other criticisms such as deference and privilege can be seen in a different light. Your are not bowing or curtsying merely to a posh individual. You are showing respect to the nation itself.<br />
<br />
So congratulations to the happy couple and may they ensure the continuation of the family. Just don't expect to see me lining the Mall. I wouldn't know what to do with myself.Robert Ian James Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12932065919510699906noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3978394360859444349.post-62001148273464838802011-04-28T16:10:00.002+01:002011-04-28T16:29:11.196+01:00An Alternative to RememberEver met a friend of yours a couple of days after a party and said to them: "What a great evening so and so's was. I had a lovely time." Only for them to tell you that it was a dreadful evening and recite a list of things you didn't think made any difference but clearly ruined it for them?<br />
<br />
It's hard to imagine how you can both remember the same night so differently.<br />
<br />
I imagine this must happen to Lib Dem President Tim Farron quite a lot. Not that I've ever been to a party with him or even had the pleasure of speaking to him but going by how he remembers his history I think it's a fair guess.<br />
<br />
I had always reckoned that Britain's political system had played a key role in making her the first major nation to permanently abolish slavery. I say permanently because France re-introduced slavery after deciding egalite only goes so far.<br />
<br />
Mr Farron <a href="http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3551941/Top-Liberal-Democrat-attacked-for-saying-Margaret-Thatcher-presided-over-organised-wickedness-as-PM.html">remembers</a> things a little differently.<br />
<br />
He seems to think that the British electoral system hindered the process of abolition despite being the first to introduce it and then vote through colossal amounts of money to promote the cause throughout the world. I suppose his point is that if other countries had had AV they might have beaten us to it. <br />
<br />
Perhaps when people seem to remember things differently they're just being dishonest. You know what I mean. The people who have to dislike everything to appear cool. A good way of spotting this is a general inconsistency in their opinions. Now that band has become popular they no longer like them, that sort of thing.<br />
<br />
In the case of the Yes campaign this inconsistency is starting to show. I don't just mean Farron's strange interpretation of history but that now AV is being sold as a way of keeping the Tories <a href="http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2011/04/cable-calls-for-progressive-majority-to-keep-tories-out-of-power.html">out no matter what</a>. So a system that was originally sold as representing all voters is revealed as nothing more than partisan opportunism. One that is now finding all sorts of <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/19/av-clegg-forgiving-lib-dems">excuses</a> for why they're so far behind in the polls. Though you can always rely on Polly Toynbee to add to the bitterness of a campaign.<br />
<br />
They seem to have given up on debating the issue of voter empowerment and are just hoping that turn out will be low and that enough Labour supporters will follow their party line.<br />
<br />
As <a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/robertcolvile/100085370/lies-damned-lies-and-the-yes-to-av-campaign/">Robert Colvile</a> points out in the Telegraph the Yes campaign has not been entirely honest in it's campaigning particularly how it tries to make out it has less funding that the No campaign. Colvile has a series of articles explaining why you should vote no. Along with an excellent Evening Standard piece by <a href="http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23943162-av-is-the-reason-why-ed-miliband-beat-his-brother.do">Matthew d'Ancona</a> the argument against is outlined far better than I could ever hope to. <br />
<br />
Byron once said that hope was the paint on the face of existence, the least touch of truth rubs it off. He could have been speaking about the Yes campaign.Robert Ian James Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12932065919510699906noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3978394360859444349.post-5670873089775880512011-03-28T16:35:00.000+01:002011-03-28T16:35:58.151+01:00St. Ed-o's FireI'd never seen a Brat Pack movie before. Not that I was brimming with enthusiasm when the other half expressed her desire to watch <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Elmo%27s_Fire_%28film%29">St. Elmo's Fire</a> on Friday night.<br />
<br />
While the credits were rolling I thought I'd have a quick look at what IMDB had to say about this undiscovered (in my case) gem. The <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090060/">summary</a> at the top of the page is quite superb:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>"A group of friends, just out of college, struggle with adulthood. Their main problem is that they're all self-centered and obnoxious."</blockquote><br />
Seemed a pretty fair summation, though it was hard to give the film my full attention due to the hypnotizing nature of Rob Lowe's dangly earring.<br />
<br />
This was not going to be the last example of people finding the real world hard that would hit our screens that weekend.<br />
<br />
The news had included <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12859330">coverage</a> of the '<a href="http://fresh-ideas.org.uk/peoples-policy-forum">People's Policy Forum</a>' which Labour had organised in Nottingham earlier that day.<br />
<br />
Ed Miliband and the shadow cabinet were there to listen to members of the public and to take on board their opinions and fill some of those much publicised <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/8312338/Ed-Milibands-book-of-fresh-ideas-is-full-of-blank-pages.html">blank pages</a> of Labour policy.<br />
<br />
It's hard to know whether Mr Miliband considered this meeting a success or not. Although he must find it comforting to address a large crowd of supporters there does not seem to have been many policy ideas, just a lot of burying of heads in sand.<br />
<br />
In an excellent blog the Economist's <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2011/03/ed_miliband_0">Bagehot's Notebook</a> reported that the meeting consisted of people he (is Bagehot a he?) described as wanting Labour to wave a magic wand and make the cuts go away.<br />
<br />
Bagehot claims that there was no balance in the meeting and that the overall attitude was that 'all public spending was good and that private companies exist to pay more taxes'.<br />
<br />
Suggested new policies included 'Robin Hood' tax on financial transactions and clamping down of tax avoidance (seemingly confused with tax evasion) to remove the need for any cuts.<br />
<br />
To give Mr Miliband his due he did not pretend to the audience that this was the case. He told them that there was no way to completely avoid cuts in public spending. The problem here is that he is not being entirely straight with his audience. If he does not give detailed proposals saying what would be cut he allows people to believe that under Labour their job/benefit would be safe. <br />
<br />
Even Rob Lowe's character would be shocked by this sort of denial of reality. <br />
<br />
Bagehot also points out that part of Mr Miliband's job at this gathering was to lay the groundwork for his speech to the TUC March for the Alternative the next day. <br />
<br />
As we saw, the key part of his short speech was presenting the demonstrators as the mainstream majority of the UK. Not actually outlining any alternative.<br />
<br />
Coincidently (!) the same day the Guardian published the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/mar/25/voters-cuts-coalition-poll?INTCMP=SRCH">results of a poll</a> it had commissioned on how people felt about Government spending plans.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately for Ed the results weren't on message. Fair play to the Guardian for still printing them even if they tried a bit too hard to force an angle on the story making the stats more UK Uncut friendly.<br />
<br />
So off Ed went to the March for the Alternative without having outlined any serious alternative and with his confidence surely shaken by the results of the Guardian's survey.<br />
<br />
So what do you do when you're feeling a bit down? Big yourself up of course! And boy did Ed big himself up. In a no holds barred delusion fest he likened the protesters cause to anti-apartheid, civil rights and universal suffrage. To save a bit of space please see my <a href="http://commonnamenotes.blogspot.com/2011/03/theres-lot-of-miles-between-tripoli-and.html">previous blog</a> for views on this sort of self-aggrandisement.<br />
<br />
As pointed out by <a href="http://twitter.com/#%21/s8mb">Sam Bowman</a> on Twitter the Labour Party has drifted from supporting the working class poor to focusing on public sector workers. Despite their claims this does not create a fairer society. An example of this is that many of the people on Saturday's march were upset about potential changes to their lucrative public pensions. These pension schemes are unfair. People in the private sector who can not afford adequate pension cover for themselves are subsidising those who often earn more than them.<br />
<br />
To paraphrase George Bernhard Shaw: by supporting this Labour are merely robbing Peter to pay Paul because Paul votes Labour.<br />
<br />
By attempting to galvanize this sector's support Labour are concentrating on the material loss caused by the cuts and ignoring economic arguments. This is similar to how the Tories are putting to one side the moral arguments for a smaller state in favour of economic ones.<br />
<br />
Perhaps the comparison with the Brat Pack was unfair. People are being deprived of things they had come to take for granted. However, the indignation of protesters misses the point. "What have we done to deserve this?" Alison Foster, a 53 year-old teacher is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/03/26/world/europe/AP-EU-Britain-Protest.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=london%20protest&st=cse">quoted</a> as asking the New York Times. This harks back to the People's Policy Forum where the attitude of those attending was that of entitlement. "We are all entitled" starts Bagehot's article.<br />
<br />
Nevermind the possible objections to such entitlement or the fact that no one had done anything to deserve the good times either. The fact is that there is no money to pay for them. Wishing that there was does or that this is all ideological does not make it so. It is time that the Labour Party lived up to its title as 'Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition' and gave us some details of what would be so different if they were in charge instead of hiding behind people's fear.Robert Ian James Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12932065919510699906noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3978394360859444349.post-52010327351040572872011-03-03T15:20:00.002+00:002011-03-09T15:15:21.641+00:00There's a Lot of Miles Between Tripoli and IslingtonThere has been little else but Libya on the news now for what seems like weeks. Part of the reason there has been so much coverage is that news hounds love it: big news, real news, hard news, good news. I mean bad news. You know what I mean.<br />
<br />
Remind me how it all started, could you? Was it tuition fees? Or cuts to community groups? Has Gaddafi been laying off civil servants left, right and centre?<br />
<br />
Oh no, hold on. I remember. It's the 40 years of brutal disenfranchisement, people being made to disappear, systematic use of torture to quell dissidents of a government that controls every aspect of their lives.<br />
<br />
Those other things, the cuts and fees and that, they were why Islington town hall was 'stormed' in some 'direct action' last week.<br />
<br />
As you can perhaps tell by the use of language such as '<a href="http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=23965">storm</a>' these protesters are taking themselves very seriously. They sense revolution is in the air and they are the vanguard.<br />
<br />
Yet it is not really revolution that they're after. Laurie Penny's latest New Statesman <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/laurie-penny/2011/03/tahrir-square-egypt-difference">article</a> compares the struggle of anti-cuts protesters in the UK to those opposing Colonel Gaddafi in Libya. Part of her comparison focuses on how both groups are fighting for self-determination. That the causes are separated only by scale not substance.<br />
<br />
Utter nonsense. There is no similarity in substance either. Protesters are using rights they have to demonstrate their unhappiness at their government's action. In Libya the government can not truly be called 'their' government as neither they nor any other resident had anything to do with its formation. I nearly said citizen instead of resident but that would imply they have rights which they do not.<br />
<br />
In fact, if you were a bit of a wag there's a different comparison you could make. The protest groups in Britain are 100 per cent certain that their cause is just and that everyone agrees with and loves them. This means they are justified in taking whatever action is necessary to win. Who in the Middle East does that sort of self aggrandisement compare with? <br />
<br />
In reality the protests in this country are about maintaining the status-quo. A status-quo that led to Britain having a massive budget deficit that could no longer be maintained once the world economy collapsed. Whether your vote for the Lib Dems was miscast or not (as of course it would have been under any electoral system) more people voted for them and the Tories than for Labour. Not that Labour wouldn't have been cutting away at expenditure either. They just decline to tell us where.<br />
<br />
Being able to accept electoral defeat is part of living in a democracy. Campaign in the meantime and in a few years you'll be able to vote once again.<br />
<br />
In Libya the people are braving terrible danger to try to gain the right to vote. That is the fight for self-determination. <br />
<br />
But still, who cares? That's just my point of view, which I'm as free to write here as Penny was free to write her's in the New Statesman. And protest all you like. Go to council meetings, make your voice heard. You're allowed.<br />
<br />
While doing so try to remember that this is the right that people in Libya are fighting for. Not a policy issue. If they lose the survivors won't be able to do anything about it. You will. You just have to wait till the next election. As there will always be another election in this country you could say that you can never be completely defeated.<br />
<br />
How's that for solidarity?Robert Ian James Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12932065919510699906noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3978394360859444349.post-27333949420686189332011-02-21T14:47:00.002+00:002011-03-04T15:25:54.350+00:00AV Not As Easy As 1, 2, 3This week has seen the papers finally start to talk seriously about the referendum on electoral reform that will take place on May 5.<br />
<br />
Not that one can blame them for taking their time covering this story. After all, there are far more important stories about fairness and democracy going on the other side of the Mediterranean. Perhaps these stories should put the <a href="http://www.yestofairervotes.org/">Yes campaign's</a> grievances with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post">First Past the Post</a> (FPTP) in to perspective.<br />
<br />
Andrew Rawnsley in the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/20/andrew-rawnsley-electoral-reform">Observer</a> (20/02/11) went for a preemptive strike against the <a href="http://www.no2av.org/">No campaign's </a>argument that the Alternative Vote (AV) was too complicated by claiming that that was going after the 'Thicko' vote. Rawnsley seems to believe that by too complicated the No campaign mean that people are too stupid to be able to put their top three candidates in order. He makes it sound like the No's are saying people can't count to three.<br />
<br />
I'll credit Rawnsley here with misrepresentation. I wouldn't for a second presume that people who don't agree with me are too thick to understand the argument. Let me try to explain what I think they mean.<br />
<br />
The point the No's are trying to make is this: As we have seen with the raise of tactical voting AV would encourage people to try to manipulate their extra votes by putting a party that would never win as their first choice and a mainstream party as their second or third.<br />
<br />
This will lead to an abdication of responsibility of the voter. Suppose you have some sympathy with an extremist party, say the BNP. You would be able to put them as your first choice on the basis of one issue, for example immigration. You would not have had to have read their manifesto and may even have been appalled by it if you had. You care about immigration so vote BNP first then one of the main parties second.<br />
<br />
No big deal you might say. During the first couple of elections that would be true. There will come a time, however, that a marginal seat will be won for a major party by people who voted BNP (or whoever) first and the major party second. If it hadn't started before then that will mark the beginning of the main parties 'listening' to extremist groups so as to secure the second votes of their supporters. Extreme parties might be against AV because they will never reach 50 per cent of the vote but it will turn them in to more successful lobby groups.<br />
<br />
Starting to sound a bit more complicated than counting to three, isn't it?<br />
<br />
Rawnsley, along with all AV supporters, believe that 50 is a magic percentile. That an individual candidate reaching it is worth changing a system that has given us stable and middle ground governments for time immemorial.<br />
<br />
I believe that one is also a magic number. <br />
<br />
One person, one vote was a popular slogan for universal suffrage a hundred years ago. Do we really want to do away with that principle? A principle that was so hard won.<br />
<br />
AV would create an unequal democracy with some people having more than one vote by virtue of their immoderate views.<br />
<br />
Although I won't dwell too much on this Rawnsley also implies that FPTP supporters are little Englanders. That pointing out that hardly any other nation uses AV for general elections is trying to make it sound un-British. It is in fact internationalist to look at other nations and the systems they use. Having done that you would be foolish indeed to not ask yourself why so few go for AV.<br />
<br />
Rawnsley's article also makes several assumptions about those who fall in the D/E class bracket. He says that the D/E's are more likely to be persuaded and more likely to stick with the status quo. I'm sorry but that is nonsense. A sweeping statement like this could just as easily be made that they are more likely to follow the line taken by the Labour leadership.<br />
<br />
None of this is to say that FPTP is without problems. Of course there are plenty of things wrong with it. These problems will not be solved by AV. Elections will still come down to marginal seats and the House will still not perfectly reflect numbers of votes cast for each party. Only Proportional Representation can fix those problems. Though, like every other it would bring its own difficulties to the table. At least it would also bring benefits.<br />
<br />
Unlike AV.Robert Ian James Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12932065919510699906noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3978394360859444349.post-70170200040172840192011-02-18T14:05:00.000+00:002011-02-18T14:05:43.745+00:00Dictators Aren't ElectedThe irony is almost too much to bear. In fact, it's so great that I feel I must be missing something. So if I am please feel free to put me right in the comments section.<br />
<br />
An member of an unelected group who hold power over millions of lives has suggested that Britain <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/8332174/Only-dictators-defy-European-rights-law-judge-tells-Britain.html">will resemble a dictatorship</a> if it doesn't do as they say.<br />
<br />
That's right. The unelected group accuse the Mother of all Parliaments of running the oldest democracy in Europe like a dictatorship.<br />
<br />
The issue that has spurred this lunacy is votes for prisoners, the unelected body is the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Rights">European Court of Human Rights</a> (ECHR) and the member is John-Paul Costa.<br />
<br />
Now before I go on I should make my own position clear.<br />
<br />
I personally am in favour of prisoners having the vote. Unless you see disenfranchisement as part of the punishment then I can't see why you would be in favour of denying them them the vote. Particularly those only serving short terms.<br />
<br />
One of the reasons I don't believe in removing the right to vote is because I am strongly in favour of a full and healthy democracy. Everyone lives here, everyone should be able to vote. There are a few practical difficulties with what seem to be known now as 'lags' but nothing we can't overcome. For example, if prisoners were given the vote in the constituency that they resided in prior to their spell in the big house then there would not be a problem of prisons influencing the outcome of the constituency they happen to be in.<br />
<br />
This is not really about prisoners' votes though, is it? It is about who runs this country. <br />
<br />
Earlier this month the House of Commons voted <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12409426">overwhelmingly against</a> the ECHR's decision. What made the vote so striking was not just the huge majority of 212 (234 - 22). The debate had been tabled by arguably the two most senior backbenchers of the Conservative and Labour Parties, <a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/david_davis/haltemprice_and_howden">David Davis</a> and<a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/jack_straw/blackburn"> Jack</a> Straw. That such eminent members of both main parties should be able to find common ground and that so many other MPs should turn out to vote on an issue that technically they can now do nothing about shows the strength of feeling in the House.<br />
<br />
Would it not make sense that if the ECHR makes a recommendation and Parliament rejects it that should be the end of the matter? After all, what sort of democracy do we live in when the elected representatives of the people can not decide on the laws of the land?<br />
<br />
I should add that this is not an attack on the ECHR as an institution in principle. Rather this is a defence of democracy as a principle. The British Supreme Court also has no business dictating to Parliament. Parliament makes the laws and courts enforce them.<br />
<br />
For Mr. Costa to compare Parliament to a dictatorship because MPs wish to carry out their function of representing those who elected them is grossly insulting and shows a complete ignorance of what democracy is.<br />
<br />
There has been some confusion in parts of the press between the <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1355640/Prisoners-vote-MPs-reject-European-courts-ruling.html">ECHR and the EU</a>. Understandable in a way as they both suffer from democratic deficits. The ECHR is part of the Council of Europe. Don't worry if you haven't heard of that, you didn't get a chance to vote for them after all.<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://www.coe.int/aboutcoe/index.asp?page=nosobjectifs&l=en">CoE's mission</a> is to promote human rights, democratic development and the rule of law. I apologise if reading that has made you spit coffee all over you laptop but you read correctly. Democratic development and the rule of law.<br />
<br />
An unelected body promoting democracy and the same body wishing to override the oldest Parliament (and by default law making institution) promoting the rule of law.<br />
<br />
I would appreciate another of Mr. Costa's comparisons. This time explaining to me how that makes sense.<br />
<br />
Because the irony is killing me.Robert Ian James Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12932065919510699906noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3978394360859444349.post-62672732008351576932011-01-27T21:19:00.000+00:002011-01-28T10:41:26.314+00:00Exclusive: Giles Coren is Not the DevilWow. Giles Coren really knows how to upset people doesn't he? At least he does if Twitter is to be believed.<br />
<br />
The day of his article in the <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1350829/Sky-sexism-row-Why-right-women-sexist-MEN.html"><i>Daily Mail</i></a> claiming that it is more socially acceptable for women to make sexist remarks about men than the other way round Coren received quite a lot of stick in a 140 characters or less.<br />
<br />
Most of this was good natured tutting at Coren's deliberate wind up about child birth being easy or him claiming that: "Women are far meaner, more brutal, aggressive, small-minded, jealous, petty and venal than any man."<br />
<br />
Utter nonsense of course but surely that was the point? Maybe I'm given Coren too much credit but surely he knew that would get people Tweeting him and leaving comments on the website expressing their outrage at such sexism. Isn't he just illustrating his point? Say something about women and you get called all sorts of names.<br />
<br />
Some people missed the point a lot more dramatically than others. Scottish Socialist Youth posted an article entitled '<a href="http://ssy.org.uk/2011/01/giles-coren-what-a/">Giles Coren, What a Cunt</a>.' It proceeds to denounce Coren by outlining every bit of attempted humourous hyperbole and taking it at face value.<br />
<br />
Sometimes you just want to say to people 'He's winding you up mate.'<br />
<br />
The author also goes on to say something along the lines of 'Sexism is about power. Men have all the power in the world therefore women can't be sexist.' Nevermind the fatuousness of this argument it's so far of topic as to be risible. All Coren was doing is drawing a parallel between <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/premier-league/8287127/Matthew-Norman-Andy-Grays-sexist-antics-should-have-surprised-no-one.html">Andy Gray and Richard Keys'</a> stupid 'joke' and the endless similar 'jokes' on shows like Loose Women and virtually every advert. Neither have a lot to do with real issues of sexism but do happen to be remarkably similar. The only difference being that the bollocks on Loose Women is considered legitimate content (God knows what they reject) while Gray and Keys have to be closet sexists.<br />
<br />
I feel that Coren was just trying to make people upset thinking that that will demonstrate the lunacy or the whole situation. Having said that he does get a bit carried away but if you've ever read any of his articles in the past you'd know that that's his style. I'm not condoning his style (he's wound me up a bit in the past as well) but calling him a cunt is a bit much.<br />
<br />
Though perhaps it's not really his <i>Daily Mail</i> piece that upsets those at the Scottish Socialist Youth that much. They make lots of references to how 'posh' he is. Though they do claim they don't care about that. Just before calling him a posh dick.<br />
<br />
Taking Coren's wind up about Gray/Keys being like Loose Women and comparing it to being followed home by a stranger from the bus is far more offensive. It has nothing to do with the patriarchy's control over women. As socialists you would think they would have a better understanding of what control means. <br />
<br />
On SSY's comments section the author delights in how much traffic their article has generated (along with accusing an English reader of cultural imperialism for not knowing that they don't have 6th form in Scotland). All of that traffic has come from Coren himself retweeting your article.<br />
<br />
What a cunt.Robert Ian James Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12932065919510699906noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3978394360859444349.post-89236561223844700282011-01-06T16:27:00.000+00:002011-01-06T16:27:22.496+00:00Anonymous by meJulian Assange. When you hear that name what do you think of? Do you take the Jemima Khan view that he is a champion of the free press and the one man brave enough to expose the evil that is being done in our names? or do you take the view of <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1334341/WikiLeaks-Sarah-Palin-demands-Julian-Assange-hunted-like-Al-Qaeda-terrorist.html">Sarah Palin</a> et al that he is a terrorist?<br />
<br />
One things for sure, even if you've never read any of the material <i>Wikileaks</i> has put our way, you'll know that he's currently fighting extradition from the UK to Sweden to face trial for sex offences.<br />
<br />
You could well have an opinion on these charges even if you couldn't care less about <i>Wikileaks</i>. Some take the view that these charges a just a little too convenient and that political pressure is behind them. Others that Mr Assange has previously shown scant regard for the law so perhaps he's guilty of this as well.<br />
<br />
Well, whatever. Addressing conspiracy theories is a waste of time. If you believe that Mr Assange is the victim of a 'honey trap' as his lawyer Marc Stephens <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/19/julian-assange-wikileaks-sex-offences">claims</a> then not a lot is going to change your mind. Even if he is eventually found guilty there is still going to be a large number of people who believe this is all politically motivated.<br />
<br />
The entrenched views of both sides have generally left me shrugging my shoulders and letting everyone get on with it. Yeah, yeah, I know. Not very responsible of me. Well, reading the <i>Guardian's</i> website has spurred me in to action.<br />
<br />
An <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/05/julian-assange-sex-crimes-anonymity?INTCMP=SRCH">article</a> by famed champion of feminism's third wave, Naomi Wolf, claims that accusers in rape cases should be named. That their anonymity in sex cases stems from a Victorian sense of victims being 'damaged goods' and that society doesn't see the victims like that any more. That anonymity is just the law treating women like children and that if you accuse someone of something you should do so publicly.<br />
<br />
She then claims that having the accusers identity hidden encourages rape myths such as how rape victims look/dress. The flaw in that argument is so obvious it's almost difficult to put a finger on it.<br />
<br />
If a victim of rape has nothing to fear from public opinion then why do myths like 'she was asking for it' persist? Why should someone who has already been through so much place themselves in a position to be defamed by the defence lawyers just so the rest of society can see justice served? Or even to be known by everyone as 'that girl who was raped by that guy' for the rest of her life?<br />
<br />
Ms Wolf goes on to say that the accusers in the Assange case are particularly undeserving on anonymity because it is a high profile case. Mr Assange has had his private life gone over with a fine tooth comb and we now know far more about his life than is required or desired. He's a famous person. Does Ms Wolf believe that none of this would have come out without these accusations? Given the taste of the press they almost certainly would. <br />
<br />
Mr Assange's accuses are not famous. At least I don't think they are. I've heard that some of Mr Assange's supporters have released their names, addresses and telephone numbers online so I guess if one was Ulrika Jonsson we would have heard about it. <br />
<br />
Ms Wolf claims that: "Here, geopolitical state pressure, as well as the pressure of public attitudes about Assange, weigh unusually heavily."<br />
<br />
The term 'geopolitical' is key here. Clearly Ms Wolf is in the camp that believes Mr Assange is the victim and the accusers are working for the US government. She couldn't care less that they might not want to be known as the women who were raped by Julian Assange for the rest of their lives. Or that they might not want every aspect of their private lives to be judged by a media half of which think Mr Assange is a saint. Mr Assange doesn't really have a choice in this. He's so famous now that everything about him is in the public domain. Should his accusers only have the choice of seeking justice or having their private lives become public property? Naomi Wolf seems to think so.<br />
<br />
She also claims that there can be no fair trial for the accused when he is the victim of "media glare and an attack by the US government while his accusers remain hidden". Again the US government is brought up. Seeing as she is so keen to look at peoples motivation it is good of her to make her's so clear.<br />
<br />
I have sat on the press benches during many sex offence cases and there is an argument to waive anonymity. The jury sees the accused in the dock looking like a nice young man in his suit. Wife sitting dutifully in the public gallery occasionally wiping a tear from her eye. How can they fail to sympathise with him more than the shoddy, improvised curtain hiding the alleged victim?<br />
<br />
Anonymity for victims clearly is not perfect but it does not exist because of the law treating women as children it exists because without it far fewer people would come forward.<br />
<br />
Without anonymity rape victims may well feel like they've been through enough and just try to get over it somehow. Justice is a public service. We should not discourage people from seeking it.<br />
<br />
Oh and by the way. Comparing someone accused of rape with the 19th century persecution of homosexuals is unbelievably offensive.Robert Ian James Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12932065919510699906noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3978394360859444349.post-58142515961984600082010-12-15T23:54:00.000+00:002010-12-16T00:27:24.482+00:00Reply to an Irritable ReplyWell, I guess sometimes you can strike a nerve. Especially when you have a patronising pseudo-intellectual attitude.<br /><br />I blogged the other day about how just saying that the <span style="font-style: italic;">Daily Mail</span> made stuff up wasn't serious political debate. I went on to say that breaking down their arguments would be a far better way to get people thinking about the issues. That blogs were too full of name calling and accusations that it was all lies instead of serious discussion.<br /><br />The blog I happened to have in mind was <a href="http://www.butireaditinthepaper.co.uk/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Angry Mob</span></a>. It just happened to be the one I read but there were plenty of examples, particularly on the <span style="font-style: italic;">Mail's</span> rather lazy and one sided take on Harriet Harman's views on <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1338085/Harriet-Harman-hails-migrant-heroes-send-benefits-families-abroad.html?ito=feeds-newsxml">remittances</a>.<br /><br />Despite having to put up with a bit of name calling myself I'm pleased with the <a href="http://www.butireaditinthepaper.co.uk/2010/12/15/an-irritable-response-to-a-blogger/">response</a>. <span style="font-style: italic;">Angry Mob's </span>new blog is far better and lays out the case for what is wrong with the views of the <span style="font-style: italic;">Mail</span> and the anonymous Tory..<br /><br />I personally wouldn't go as far as calling the <span style="font-style: italic;">Mail</span> anti-journalism but it's far better to hold it account by showing what is really wrong with what they are saying. <span style="font-style: italic;">Angry Mob</span> claimed that what I was saying is that "It is a shame that you didn't spend more time considering the utterly false argument made by the <span style="font-style: italic;">Daily Mail...." </span>Given what you say in your <a href="http://www.butireaditinthepaper.co.uk/about/"><span style="font-style: italic;">About</span></a> section I'd have thought that is exactly what you would want to do.Robert Ian James Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12932065919510699906noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3978394360859444349.post-17131079627526533612010-12-15T14:26:00.000+00:002010-12-15T16:59:11.070+00:00Liar Liar Pants on Fire!There seems to be quite a lot of hyperbole going around these days.<br /><br />Sorry, did I say 'quite a lot'. I meant 'more hyperbole than there has ever been ever!'<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_cltaUoq0XUQ/TQjyTzvvmxI/AAAAAAAAAB4/NITGKdNwHQU/s1600/main-hyperbole.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 168px; height: 180px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_cltaUoq0XUQ/TQjyTzvvmxI/AAAAAAAAAB4/NITGKdNwHQU/s200/main-hyperbole.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5550952962856033042" border="0" /></a><br />If a football club loses a game they are in crisis. When it snows the country is in chaos. When a journalist writes something you don't like they're a ridiculous liars but what else could you expect from the likes of them!<br /><br />It can be quite tiring hearing that everything that happens is the most extreme example of it's kind since records began but now that I'm more used to Arsenal losing and the snow has left us for the time being it's the inability to have a grown-up debate about the news that is irritating me the most these days.<br /><br />Most of these attacks come from the blogosphere. Here people seem to spend a large amount of time reading newspapers that they know they won't agree with. This way they can then write a fatuous blog stating in no uncertain terms that everything in the paper is made up and only idiots read it.<br /><br />The recent outrage and counter outrage over Harriet Harman's comments about heroic immigrants sending their dole money abroad is a good example.<br /><br />Probably unsurprisingly this story broke in the <span style="font-style: italic;">Daily Mail</span> with Tim Shipman giving us the <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1338085/Harriet-Harman-hails-migrant-heroes-send-benefits-families-abroad.html?ito=feeds-newsxml">'facts'</a> and Melanie Phillips telling us Harman is <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1338083/Immigrants-use-benefits-Harriet-Harman-immoral.html">'immoral'</a>.<br /><br />Fair enou<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_cltaUoq0XUQ/TQjxIQe3xjI/AAAAAAAAABw/SQ_KBn-5zsU/s1600/daily_mail_ted.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 140px; height: 187px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_cltaUoq0XUQ/TQjxIQe3xjI/AAAAAAAAABw/SQ_KBn-5zsU/s200/daily_mail_ted.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5550951664899835442" border="0" /></a>gh wouldn't you say? A news article with a few comments, mostly from Tories but it's not like anyone is deceived as to the political slant of the <span style="font-style: italic;">Mail</span>. Anyway, the story is about something a prominent Labour person has said so a Tory response is in line with standard journalistic practice.<br /><br />Not according to the <a href="http://www.butireaditinthepaper.co.uk/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Angry Mob</span></a> blog it isn't.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Angry Mob</span> is a website devoted to pointing out the daily lies written by the <span style="font-style: italic;">Mail.</span> In their article <a href="http://www.butireaditinthepaper.co.uk/2010/12/12/more-lies-about-immigrants/"><span style="font-style: italic;">More Lies About Immigrants</span></a> the Shipman article is portrayed as completely misrepresenting Ms Harman's statement. The key area of discussion was whether she was pleased immigrants were sending job seekers allowance back home or whether they were sending home part of their earnings which included benefits for low income earners.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Angry Mob</span> was not interested in dissecting the <span style="font-style: italic;">Mail's</span> argument that if you are on income support or housing benefit you shouldn't have enough money left over to send any home and that the real hero is the unassuming British tax payer who is now funding social security in Africa as well. They just claimed that the <span style="font-style: italic;">Mail</span> made it all up and Ms Harman said nothing of the sort.<br /><br />This is a shame because the <span style="font-style: italic;">Mail's </span>argument is pretty easy to pull apart. If people are receiving benefit for being on a low income then they are employed, paying tax, doing a job no Brit wants to do. If they can scrape by and send a few quid home then they are epitomizing the selfless behaviour the <span style="font-style: italic;">Mail </span>now believes is lacking in our society.<br /><br />Whether you agree with that or not, it is the argument that could be made. It is certainly the argument Ms Harman would make. After all, she did say that people could be on child benefit or tax credits while sending money home. She does not think it immoral, she thinks it heroic and was brave enough to say what she thought.<br /><br />Political debate is certainly not aided by pretending that everything is a distortion just because it is accompanied by some opinion.<br /><br />Perhaps if we could all just grow up and have a discussion about the issues rather than believing that everything is some sort of conspiracy people might engage again with politics.Robert Ian James Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12932065919510699906noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3978394360859444349.post-37694388697436316202010-10-21T14:07:00.000+01:002010-10-21T18:54:26.837+01:00Not that Sort or Fair....<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_cltaUoq0XUQ/TMBU9pk5wgI/AAAAAAAAABI/b9Co8UicGj8/s1600/fairgroundDM2608_468x353.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 319px; height: 241px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_cltaUoq0XUQ/TMBU9pk5wgI/AAAAAAAAABI/b9Co8UicGj8/s320/fairgroundDM2608_468x353.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5530513760520356354" border="0" /></a><br />Fair is a strange word. It can mean a lot of things. From fair-dinkum to the fair sex the dictionary is packed with meanings for this four letter word.<br /><br />You'd think that having a word with so many meanings would be very useful and I suppose it is. The problems start when the same definition means different things to different people.<br /><br />George Osborne obviously has a different view of what is fair to Alan Johnson. Although it took a while to notice as Johnson seemed more concerned with cracking jokes during his response to yesterday's spending review.<br /><br />Fairness is quite similar to irresponsible in that the two main parties seem to disagree over what it means. Yesterday in Parliament Ed Miliband branded the governments plans for cutting the deficit an <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/spending-review/8075191/Spending-Review-2010-Ed-Miliband-calls-cuts-irresponsible-gamble.html">'irresponsible gamble'</a> during the warm up act of PMQ's. Others might think it is irresponsible for the government of the day to run up a huge budget deficit.<br /><br />Responsibility could also do with having its definition clarified. Yesterday Johnson seemed somewhat reluctant to accept that the previous Labour administration was responsible for the state of the countries finances.<br /><br />Deciding to ignore the fact that it was the budget deficit that was being discussed Johnson made the claim that it was a "myth" that the last government was to blame for the global economic crisis. Not just any myth but <a href="http://www.nebusiness.co.uk/business-news/latest-business-news/2010/10/21/labour-reaction-alan-johnson-lashes-out-at-reckless-gamble-51140-27517798/">"the most incredible myth"</a> pushing Heracles in to second place.<br /><br />Seeing as the Tories were unlikely yo have regulated the banks any better than them this could be seen as fair. Here he is implying that the new bogeyman of the left, the banker from <a href="http://www.channel4.com/programmes/deal-or-no-deal">Deal or No Deal</a>, is responsible and that Labour's handling of the economy was sound.<br /><br />The problem with this argument goes back to Gordon Brown promising that there would be no return to <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/458871.stm">boom and bust</a>. If there's never going to be another "bust" you've got nothing to worry about have you? Spend all you like. Unfortunately not everything is within a governments control. Whatever your definition of irresponsibility is bankers were definitely it.<br /><br />The consequences of this are still a painful memory. That point when we all learned that numbers went higher than we previously thought and the government was giving that much away in sterling to people you wouldn't buy a used car from.<br /><br />Labour seem to blame the budget deficit on the bail out and none of this nasty cutting business would be necessary if we weren't in so much debt because of it.<br /><br />This isn't true. The deficit is how much the government has to borrow to meet its spending commitments each year.<br /><br />Brown's administration was basing its spending on forecast growth. Essentially what this means is that the economy was getting bigger so we could spend more money. Even if the economy hadn't reached that size yet it was going to so why worry? After all, boom and bust was a thing of the past, right? Right?<br /><br />Wrong. The global nature of the crash meant that no-one was safe. When the banks' irresponsibility caught up with them (and us) the economy shrunk, growth was recalculated and we could afford what we'd already spent. By spending so much money that it didn't have and relying on cheap foreign credit Britain was in a weaker position than it needed to be.<br /><br />Labour's alternative to all these cuts is to trim the budget deficit rather than balance the books. This is exactly the same blinkered attitude. It would undoubtedly be okay as long as everything remained as it is. But if it doesn't, if there is some other international crisis Britain, would be in a truly terrible position.<br /><br />The Observer's leading article last week urged Osborne to "<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/17/observer-editorial-economy-globalisation">think globally</a>" before making cuts. Their argument is that the apparently inevitable trade war between China and the US will mean that Britain won't be in a good position to export goods and therefore the private sector won't be able to create jobs. Possibly true. However, a truly international perspective here would reveal that Britain had better get rid of her budget deficit fast.<br /><br />The reason behind the tension between the US and China is that China has been manipulating her currency so that it can produce cheap goods for export. One of these goods is credit. This has boosted China's economy and weakened America's. Now America wants goods to be produced in the good ol' US of A and not to import so much.<br /><br />This will all lead to a protectionist stand off that could affect on the price of global credit and cost Britain a fortune. It won't then be a question of what to cut, everything will be cut to the extent that yesterday's cuts will seem generous.<br /><br />I'm sure that's the definition of something though not everyone will agree of what.Robert Ian James Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12932065919510699906noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3978394360859444349.post-35636426025849017492010-10-05T14:06:00.000+01:002010-10-05T15:34:19.275+01:00'Right' to Strike?This week those of us with enough time on our hands will get to see David Cameron make his first speech to the Conservative Party conference since becoming Prime Minister.<br /><br />We nearly missed out on this TV gold due to the latest threat of industrial action when three unions at the BBC voted to cause a media blackout at the time of Cameron's speech.<br /><br />Whether a conference blackout would have truly filled our screens with darkness or with repeats of <span style="font-style: italic;">Homes Under the Hammer</span> was not made clear.<br /><br />Whatever would have been on no doubt viewers will be wishing the BBC had carried out its threat after a few minutes of hearing more talk of how cuts were needed and we should just take our medicine without complaining.<br /><br />The action was called off after Auntie tabled an <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11455116">improved pension offer</a> to the various unions involved.<br /><br />Not everyone at the Beeb was keen on taking strike action with several high profile figures, including Jeremy Paxman, <a href="http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2010/09/paxman-robinson-matlais-naughtie-and-28-other-bbc-journalists-warn-the-nuj-about-striking-during-nex.html">speaking out against it</a>.<br /><br />Union bigwig Ian Pollock was <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/30/jeremy-paxman-bbc-strike-tory-conference">not amused</a>. Pollock accused the Paxman cartel of being undemocratic as the union had voted in favour of the strike. He delightfully described them as working with 'loathsome enemies in Fleet Street' (<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?searchPhrase=bbc">who could he mean?</a>)<br /><br />What Pollock fails to understand is that democracy does not end with the union. The BBC has a wholly different democratic role to fill than any other media outlet.<br /><br />No other news organisation maintains such a veneer of impartiality. This neutral stance is seen as a corner stone of the BBC and is the first thing mentioned in their online <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/impariality/">editorial guidelines. </a><br /><br />That you can rely on Auntie for neutrality means you can scrutinize the countries leaders without having to worry about whether you're being manipulated. This makes the BBC the only true upholders of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate">'fourth estate'</a> role and has often been held up as the main justification for the licence fee even when the entertainment schedule doesn't.<br /><br />This impartiality has often been called in to question with people of all political inclinations occasionally making accusations of bias. (I'm not going to put a link in for this, there are too many examples. Giving just one might seem biased....)<br /><br />These attacks leave this reputation so fragile just the appearance of prejudice could destroy it forever.<br /><br />Pollock said that the Tories weren't being targeted deliberately they just happened to be the first big event after what he called the 'long-winded niceties of calling strikes".<br /><br />Pollock is again missing the point. When walking the tightrope of neutrality appearances mean a lot. If only a few people share the view expressed in Paxman and co.'s letter that blacking out Cameron's speech seems 'unduly partisan' the BBC's reputation is weakened and gives ammunition to its 'loathsome enemies'.Robert Ian James Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12932065919510699906noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3978394360859444349.post-4650500987868311932009-12-14T16:11:00.000+00:002009-12-14T16:52:07.361+00:00Bargains Up For Grabs In Copenhagen<p align="right"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_cltaUoq0XUQ/SyZowZGmVDI/AAAAAAAAAA4/Z20qmRApMoE/s1600-h/smoke1.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5415130782541173810" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 194px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 182px" alt="" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_cltaUoq0XUQ/SyZowZGmVDI/AAAAAAAAAA4/Z20qmRApMoE/s320/smoke1.jpg" border="0" /></a></p>The UN has often been accused of being nothing more than a talking shop. What the hell does that mean.?<br /><br /><br />Well, our trusty source of all knowledge, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talking_shop">Wikipedia</a>, says: "an organisation or place where discussion is the main activity, with no decisions or actions necessarily arising from the discussion."<br /><br /><br />This week, however, we've seen a new type of talking shop. This one has plenty of action. Buying and selling.<br /><br /><br />Copenhagen might have a wonderful Christmas market but this year there are extra special gifts available for Governments of developing countries.<br /><br /><br />Ease your conscience with the perfect gift: two CO2 cuts for the price of one. What a bargain. By buying some of the CO2 emisions allocated to the developing world you can keep your brand new coal burning power station while telling those who care that you've cut your emissions.<br /><br /><br />And guess what? It will count towards their cuts too.<br /><br /><br />So visit your local talking shop today for the gift that will keep on giving. For generation after generation....<br /><br /><br />For a catalogue of all the products available see <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-leaders-of-the-rich-world-are-enacting-a-giant-fraud-1837963.html">Johann Hari's</a> excellent piece in the Independent.Robert Ian James Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12932065919510699906noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3978394360859444349.post-78616507711505253062009-11-04T13:57:00.000+00:002009-11-04T15:24:47.670+00:00Tally-Ho!<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_cltaUoq0XUQ/SvGbBK_FXuI/AAAAAAAAAAw/xQSRZlucSGE/s1600-h/rex_1024698cs.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 231px; height: 240px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_cltaUoq0XUQ/SvGbBK_FXuI/AAAAAAAAAAw/xQSRZlucSGE/s320/rex_1024698cs.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5400267872625057506" border="0" /></a><br />Who said the age of chivalry is dead, eh? Well think again. There is a knight in shining armour still. His name is Boris.<br /><br />After reading of our Mayor's heroics in <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6901972.ece">saving a passer</a> by from a gang attack, I wondered how history would tell this heroic tale.....<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Imagine the scene</span>, dear reader, it is a dark and wintry night. A fair young maid pulls her shawl tight to shield her from the elements. She sees something out of the corner of her eye. For a moment she thinks she catches a glimpse of some Reebok Classics. That can mean only one thing. Hoodies! Then a cat emerges from an alley and she breathes a sigh of relief.<br /><br />Then a strange noise drifts across the ether. Fear grips our heroine's heart as she recognises the sound. Rubbish R&B coming out of an old Nokia. Young People! The sound gets slowly nearer, she quickens her step, the noise gets louder still.<br /><br />Then all of a sudden they emerge like a pack of wolves or latch-key kids. The gang of girls surround her. They are shouting at her but she doesn't understand a word. 'They sound like Ali G and Vikki Pollard' she thinks to herself in a moment of clarity. Now they have pushed her up against a car and one of them has an iron bar. Desperately she looks around for an escape route. There is none. 'Where have all the heroes gone?' she wonders 'Who will save me now?'<br /><br />Then, through the mist, a bicycle bells rings. A mop headed knight on his trusty Raleigh rides forth to save the day.<br /><br />"Shoo, shoo! Off with you I say!" cries our hero<br /><br />"Pesky oiks!"<br /><br />After chasing the fiends away our hero returned to walk the no longer distressed damsel home.<br /><br />"My hero!" she gasped. "Though I'd still vote for Ken...."<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">There we go</span> I think he'd like that. If you're reading this Boris, I am available for official biographies.<br /><br />n.b. This is not how it really happened.Robert Ian James Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12932065919510699906noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3978394360859444349.post-24389718451090615222009-10-26T16:00:00.000+00:002009-10-27T15:57:47.488+00:00Free Speech Ain't Free After AllSo, free speech. Corner stone of liberal democracy, basic human right, blah, blah, blah.<br /><br />Being a fully signed up member of the free speech fan club (swearing allowed) I have been quite shocked by the fuss made over Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time.<br /><br />After all, are our politicians really so lacking in confidence that they don't have faith in themselves to defeat him in open debate?<br /><br />I know that morale is supposedly low in the Commons at the moment but surely that's because now they have to pay for their own au pairs, not because they have lost the ability to win an argument.<br /><br />Should you ever be inclined to listen to the goings on in the house (you poor thing) argue is all they seem to do.<br /><br />Though I have often suspected that they are just making noise and waving order papers around rather than actually using words.<br /><br />We send soldiers off to fight for 'democracy' in all sorts of remote parts of the world so you'd think that our glorious leaders would relish the chance to show people what's so great about it.<br /><br />If we're all so worried about Nasty Nick's Blackshirts shouldn't we take every opportunity we can to publicly expose his views?<br /><br />But wait! There are political points to be scored! What fun! Peter Hain certainly seems to think so....<br /><br />Or perhaps it's the BBC that politico's have got a problem with. After the expenses scandal MP's have been picking up every stick they can find and beating Auntie with it. Give it a rest. Do your job.<br /><br />Of course Nick Griffin is repugnant. Of course he's a racist. Of course no one should vote for him. Win the argument. It's not that hard.<br /><br />Speaking to people like this might be unpleasant but that is the price of free speech. Pay up.Robert Ian James Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12932065919510699906noreply@blogger.com2