British Media discovers Prank calls, Hypocrisy

Just a quick note on this daft business of evil Australian DJs (it's late, excuse the poor flow)

We expat Poms have a rather unique insight into this strange case of a bog-standard prank call gone very wrong

You see, we get to know all about Australia's commercial radio stations, and the rank hypocrisy of the British press

The Mail has 'discovered' Kyle Sandilands (who is a controversial DJ who works for the same station) because of course, the two are linked  - dirty Aussies and their crass ways

Not that the left wing Fairfax press here haven't tried to get in digs at Alan Jones, but I digress

The prank was pretty tame, there were no abused children involved, nothing offensive was said, it was a standard Sydney morning radio show wind-up call, but shame on the Ozzies for shaming a nurse into so much anguish that she'd kill herself

But hang on, some Australians may have committed the crime originally but somehow I doubt the nurse would have been too upset by the very concept of being tricked, and was unlikely to be listening to 2day FM or picking up a Sydney daily

No, it was the rampant and vile British press, who are so obsessed with a pair of 30 year olds who managed to have sex that they camped outside her place of work, filled acres of newsprint and got the rather pedestrian prank-call global coverage

This is where my British instincts come in, because you just know the tabloids were having a field day - criticising the hospital, the staff, Australia...wondering if Diana is still alive...

and then of course she was found dead, and it's party time, with lashings of hypocrisy as the same press who flooded the world with such a moronic story turn it into a global epic as they point the finger at a pair of hapless DJs

I'm not sure the two DJs are the ones who have 'blood on their hands', if there is some sort of charge out of the inquest then surely the fault should lay on the ones who applied the pressure so relentlessly and drove a possibly fragile person to such extremes - and they wonder why we got Leveson (I disagree with limits on the press, but it's clear why Leveson happened)

If this had been some politician found with a rent-boy, who was then hounded for a week and found dead, would it be the politician's fault...?

It's for your own good

I will take this opportunity to point out that several of my comments on the Peter Hitchens blogs about the 'hacking scandal' are being censored

Literally all I did was point out to people Guido's interesting post obtained via the Information Commissioner's office regarding the press and recorded offences of 'blagging' - that's it, in fact I didn't even mention details, but advised people to seek out information on the blogs

Absolutely nothing libellous, offensive, rude etc nor is anything in Guido's chart, it's all freely available government information - yet it didn't make it through

When I made the comment (which is often found on the Hitchens blog from a variety of posters) that my posts were disappearing without notice, this too failed the mods - I deliberately kept it that brief because I was pretty confident it would happen, I don't know of a way to prove this, I'm not that tech-savvy and didn't bother taking a screenshot, but I am hopeful a couple of other people had the same problem

I am not outraged by this behaviour - I think it perfectly reasonable that a company choose not to publish harmful information about itself - that's the job of others - isn't it?

Not if you listen to Hitchens arguments, last week he was warning us of the big bad politicians and how they need to be held to account

All true, but as we've just seen - nobody is holding the press, who lie, cheat and flout the law, to account and I can see no condemnation of this behaviour from Hitchens - he seems to take a 'better the devil you know' approach, and seems to justify the culture of silence between the press as a necessary evil to maintain commercial success

If we criminalise the press, and take away a vast resource of information from them (the tabloids at least) then they will not have the power to scrutinise the government

But I'd like to know who is meant to scrutinise the press - controlled by a tiny elite, they have vast power themselves and arguably papers like the Mail have a detrimental effect on our society by reducing debate to that of childish name-calling and scaremongering, we need these publications and they need to be allowed to do what they want? It's all for your own good you see

Hitchens, supposedly a man of strong moral conviction (something I've always questioned seeing as he opts to work for probably the least moral paper of them all), is quite happy to allow the press the freedom to make up s h one t, so they can make money and scrutinise the politicians, but yet won't allow people on his own blog to scrutinise one of the most powerful and influential industries in our society? The press do not scrutinise themselves ('dog eat dog'), that would just bring chaos - so how exactly do the public bring newspapers to account? They can't, which is why this hacking scandal has been quietly kept away from the public for the best part of ten years

Nobody is denying that politicians are scum, but the media are also scum, and it can quite easily be shown that the law has been violated for decades to make grubby stories about royals and celebrities to line pockets 'hold the government to account', this is not a price we must pay - scrutiny of the press will not bring about a North Korean situation, in fact the British press is infamous for it's cut-throat behaviour, you don't find it in perfectly free countries like the US, Australia, Japan or Sweden, a few ethical rules, such as those that we are supposed to already have and don't enforce, would quite easily control them

The real truth behind this is that the press in Britain need to behave in this manner to be successful, not because nobody would pay them without their gossip/nonsense, but because competition is fierce - Britain has a huge amount of national dailies, all vying for a piece of a dwindling readership - they need to be shocking, and therefore their tactics verge on the desperate - if the Sun doesn't do it, the Mail, or the Express, or the Mirror will

Whereas, in Australia for example there is only one populist rag - the Telegraph (or it's local NI equivalent), then there are two 'high-brow' papers - one left, one right - all controlled by one of the two main media players

While we're on it, virtually nothing the press do scrutinises politicians anyway, 'investigative journalism' essentially means celebrity/royal sex scandals - in fact I am struggling to think of an example of illegal activities bringing us a story for the public good (eg expenses scandal, WMD) - public interest arguments easily override this anyway, the crux of Hitchens defence (which I regard as a squeal) is that they need to be able to generate revenue, but the revenue is fixed - they just compete for a share, and in doing so engage in a race to the bottom (declining moral standards eh?)

Proper rules would not stop scrutiny, I find that scenario incredibly hard to believe when our media is so powerful anyway - it would just rid us of a few silly newspapers that are, in essence, solely there to sell smut

Losing a few unpopular (intelligent) papers might be bad for decent opinion you might say, but there'll be no trashed murder victims either

I know I have posted a few times before regarding Hitchens, first I lost respect, then I came to see him as a troll, but now I'm struggling to even take a word he says seriously - this act of self-serving deflection and hiding behind supposed 'freedom of the press' and an Orwellian nightmare is pretty abhorrent

Actually why do I keep going back? Silly boy

Modesty

I just saw Lauren Booth, who rather famously has converted to Islam, defend her move as to do chiefly with respect for women and modesty

Now, I shall try to keep this brief as I'm meant to be asleep, I am left wondering why is Islam the method of choice for this statement?

Is it the only way to be modest?

Of course not, if you can't beat the 'western' sexualisation of society and obsession with looks within yourself then what does that say about you? You have to join a religion to keep yourself away from western excess? Loads of people refuse to conform, I will not watch X Factor for example - and plenty of secular women I know have no time for make-up and being stereotypical bimbos, and yes, Booth did effectively imply that it was Islam that allowed women to be modest and taken seriously, which seems somewhat odd when there are plenty of secular women with respect out there

Is she really saying you can't be a non-conformist if you don't join a group of other non-conformists? Strikes me as being incredibly weak-willed, actually - nobody is forcing you to live by 'western' rules, it's fine if religion helps you keep focus, but that could be applied to any religion, notably the one she converted from

Catholicism does teach modesty - you are supposed to cover your knees and shoulders in a church, for example, and that rule is observed in more religious societies than ours, likewise, one look at the US will show you plenty of good Christian girls from the mid-west

So it strikes me as rather odd that she chose this as the major reasoning (at least in public) for her conversion - it says nothing of the faith, the theological heart of any religion, nothing about the afterlife, God etc, just a simple practice of dress - this to me, seems a rather shallow reason to convert to anything

You would, in fact, never even mention dress in relation to Catholicism, you'd be talking about views on abortion, marriage, sin, transubstantiation, Jesus or the afterlife - these sorts of issues don't even seem to be on her radar

She was already a religious person, and it seems she has adopted a practice from another because she likes it, has she really changed her underlying religious convictions or has she just added a veil to her pre-existing beliefs? It would be more impressive had she been an atheist turning to god

So in fact, I find myself agreeing with Peter Hitchens on something - this is fashion, she's thought long and hard about herself and her modesty, but seems to lack any theological conviction, I can't see any faith based reason for why she converted aside from she gets to feel empowered by some clothing - you don't even need a religion to be modest

However, we soon diverge as he seems to think it's a trend for 'English women to take the [veil]' that's showing there's a moral gap in our society that is being filled by Islam

Uhuh...seriously? Firstly, show me this trend outside of a few media types, because I haven't noticed a surge in veils round my way just yet

And secondly - she's a lifelong Christian (like her half-sis, of course) who has worked in Palestine and works for Islam TV and an Iranian TV channel - so she was already in the religious minority, and heavily exposed to her new religion, not one of us fornicating Satan-worshippers - there was no gap for her to fill, she was a believer before, and remains one now

The Mail have played up the rise of the white, female converts - but is this much different to conversion to Christianity? We don't know how many were even Christians to start off with, making it nothing to do with secular society at large, and conversions have always happened - people were doing it in the Victorian era

And I think they've missed (deliberately, of course) one glaringly obvious fact for why women outnumber men in the conversion stats - because they always outnumber us in religion! Women are something like four times as likely to be religious in this country (forgive me, it's late, so no checking), it is men that have driven the religious decline, and if men aren't shown to be jumping on this bandwagon then how can you say Islam is filling some sort of moral gap that we yearn for?

The answer is, you can't, and that's why they ignore it in their theories - if it's only about women then it's saying something about women, who have already been shown to be far more religious and superstitious in general, not society at large

I doubt they are...

I do wonder if Tim Montgomerie and whoever runs the Mail's rather obvious 'Whingewatch' campaign against the BBC were watching Panorama: Public Sector Pay tonight

Vivian White took a fairly balanced approach, highlighting some excellent, deserving work in education and policing, with constant input from Francis Maude (Tory Cabinet Secretary) - the theme was very much 'why are public sector workers being paid more than the PM?'

In some cases you could see a return, in others, notably local government and certain Quangos, you couldn't really justify 'market rate' (which it's not really in many cases) - the NHS figures were eye-watering, even without GPs and consultants

I found it fairly balanced, there was certainly some defence of high salaries, and personally I don't object to the head of the army or civil service being paid more - these are far more experienced and knowledgeable public servants than David Cameron, or any PM, politicians don't really require, or necessitate higher salaries than they already have

But it was laced throughout with scepticism about paying four people at the waterways nearly a million quid and so forth, interesting to see if the Mail will take note, I see the usual crowd have decided to press on ahead with next week's show which involves the military, because the BBC hate them, and never produce a show critical of public sector pay...

A good old Tory smokescreen

After that gross miscarriage of justice where a man beat the living snot out of a pinned-down burglar with a cricket bat, metal bar and hockey stick used reasonable force to defend his home, the Tories have pledged to review householder rights

Mr Grayling said: "Conservatives argue that the defence that the law offers a householder should be much clearer, and that prosecutions and convictions should only happen in cases where courts judge the actions involved to be 'grossly disproportionate'."

Only can you see the problem with referring to this case to appeal to the masses who want to be able to defend their home?

Namely, this was 'grossly disproportionate' - any change in the law would have seen Mr. Hussain still guilty of a crime and sent to jail

Hussain was not convicted for defending himself or his home, he wasn't done for breaking the guy's leg y chucking a table at him - as the judge made patently obvious, he was convicted for pinning the fleeing burglar down and giving him brain damage as he and his brother beat him weapons

I am all for defending property, and the judge made it clear he had the right to defend his property - that doesn't extend to executing your own form of malicious revenge, that's why we have the police and the courts

Any Tory proposal wouldn't change this case, this is just smoke and mirrors to appeal to the Daily Mail crowd

It's her again

Last week, Allison Pearson got on my tits a bit with her claims of how great marriage is for society

On that entry I received a comment (anon) that pointed out she herself is divorced, and has children with a man she isn't married to

Wikipedia confirms this, as much as it can confirm anything (it also states she is my near-neighbour - so many annoying media types seem to take up refuge in my dear city)

So while I cannot claim certainty on the matter, I do have to question this article

My husband would kill to defend our family... so why has Munir Hussain been jailed for protecting his? [italics mine, of course]

Far be it for me to suggest she is lying, I have no proof of that, but I do have to question the headline, and would ask her to confirm her status, perhaps on her wikipedia entry - considering how she slammed unmarried mothers last week I would hate to think she is a hypocrite, or indeed, misleading the public on this issue

Badge of Honour

Allison Pearson has written a lovely load of Daily Mail bilge about how marriage is better and will save society, I've said it plenty of times that this marriage thing is just a false correlation and complete bollocks, but still they appeal to lowest common denominator thinking...sells papers I guess

So I therefore take great pride in having my comment in the worst rated section, where you will always find the best comments on the Mail site

I'm only on a mere -22, nothing compared to this eloquent delivery from Cindy, Essex on -68:

I am no fan of Harriet Harman, but I agree with her on marriage. I am 42, single and have worked and paid taxes since I was 18. I feel as if I have paid my debts to society, but still David Cameron would have me treated as a second class citizen?

The top rated meanwhile, cover such insights as:

Batty Hatty must be trying to get in favour with the masses of single, uneducated, one night stand mums who are scared that their subsidised life of idleness may be stamped on by Cameron.
I am not saying that all single parents are like this, but an astounding number are, and those are the most dangerous to society as a whole....

Thankyou, Sandra ...in Spain (+83)

and this from JN in Wiltshire on +55:

Well, of course, Sarah Brown would admire anyone who hurls the odd mobile 'phone, doesn't her "hero" hubby indulge in this activity !!!

Is the Mail rating system supposed to be some sort of in-joke?

Blow it up...?

There's a reasonably interesting article in the Mail today about whether we really should just blow Parliament up, it being the 5th November and all

I can agree with a fair bit of it but this stuck out

"And to ensure we have a political class with a record of achievement - in other words, people who have had real jobs and real lives, rather than overgrown teenagers plucked straight from Oxford to work as special advisers before being parachuted into safe seats - I would raise the age threshold from 18 to 35"

I don't think it's meant to be tongue-in-cheek, it always surprises me how the older generations view parliament as 'too young' - Peter Hitchens calls the Tory front bench 'teenage' - average age: 51, with two MPs under 40

'Incredibly unrepresentative' I hear some jowly old man roar, while I do have time for the 'experience' line I have always found it interesting that some people bemoan the representation of a whole generation of adults, particularly when there are at present *two* MPs under 30 - the world's going to hell in a hand cart!

Here's a handy table, lifted from Iain Dale

They have obviously aged since 2005, leaving only one of those three currently under 30, and Chloe Smith (27) entered through a by-election

So we shall take a conservative guess at 45 current members being under the holy age of 35, despite it being obvious after four years that it is more likely that only about 20 are currently 'under-age'

That's 7% to represent...wait for it...

About 18% of the population who are [young] adults, according to the 2001 census

Meanwhile, the youthful number of MPs has clearly shrunk since the 97 election, from a whole ten!

And those in their fifties has only swollen - 249 MPs [or 39%] represent about 12% of the country - yes we definitely need more 'wise owls'

Meanwhile those over 40, at the last election represented 84% of MPs, despite only making up about half the population - so we really need to keep those young 'lickspittles' out of politics don't we? With all their fake mortgages and student children to pay off?

Of course I don't really support proportionate representation across the ages, but I see no problem with having young MPs, when they already face massive hurdles - it's just fogeyism from the older generations, who are incredibly over-represented anyway (and who also think 40 is 'young')

The reason I bring it up is that Dominic Sandbrook thinks that the older generations don't get their own MPs and that we need more 'grey hairs' in there - so he doesn't want special representation for 'slack-jawed twentysomethings', as no-one else gets such treatment, but then advocates the very same thing for older people, who already have far more of their own kind in parliament - little confusing and hypocritical? (again, I stress, if this is satire, it's not very good)

I also bring it up because politicians are so keen on ethnic minorities and women yet ignore an even bigger disparity - age, which is very important to society (and one look at the Youth Parliament should quash any feelings that they would be any worse)

Cameron's shameless, amid other things

Am I going to say David Cameron 'reneged' or 'betrayed' eurosceptics?

Nope - as Hague says:

'now that the treaty is going to become European law and is going to enter into force, that means that a referendum can no longer prevent the creation of the President of the European Council...'

The referendum was about the treaty, it was always said in the 'cast-iron' guarantee that if the treaty had been ratified then they couldn't do anything, there is no 'U-turn' or reneging here, I believe it is in fact, worse than that

Maybe they have honestly been scuppered by the final ratification, or, as I theorise, this was the plan all along, promising a referendum in the Sun, of all places, to get the backing of the eurosceptic majority in this country two years ago - while knowing full well they would never have to go through with such a dangerous idea

Now time will tell how this pans out - he will suffer an initial backlash for seemingly 'betraying' people, but what he will be betting on is having made enough anti-EU noise to keep the support of the voters, while not actually having to do anything but make a few vague sentiments about 'repatriating powers' - clever, huh?

Cameron just wants power, anyone who actually bought that he had any intention of giving us a referendum on the treaty was being played for a fool

---

Maybe people WANT a new TV

Apparently the digital switchover in the North-West, which will affect 7.2 million people, may cause 'chaos' as TVs are needlessly thrown away

I remember talking about this back in 2007, when a YouGov survey revealed that 57% of people believed that the government had provided 'insuffiecient or no information' about the switchover, and 83% did not know when the switch would be in their region (survey at YouGov archives, Society - 2007)

Neither do I in fact...but does it really matter, because in 2007 '80% of adults [had] digital television in their home'

So while a majority don't have a clue about how and when (like me), they are already completely covered and already watch digital - surely all that matters is that they have digital

The fear is that people will throw away a perfectly good tv when they could just buy a set-top box

In the past year in Cumbria, 50,000 TVs wee recycled - 'This represents an increase of nearly 70 per cent compared to same period last year.' (so that's an extra 20,500 TVs), in the south west they had an increase of just under 40,000 TVs - so we can say 60,000 extra TVs were recycled

Of the ones in Cumbria, 30,000 could have been converted - so that's at least ten thousand TVs that would have been recycled anyway, curiously the Mail do not report how many could have been saved in the South-West

So we have 20,000 'wasted' TVs reported - is that a bad amount? Does that indicate that people are confused, after adverts every five minutes saying 'all you need is a set-top box' for what, five years?

I happened to throw away a convertible (?) TV last year, it even had a digi-box on it, the reason I got rid of it? - because it was crap and we got a new LCD, it was damaged and of no use to anyone, but this would've been counted as a TV that could have received digital and was 'needlessly thrown away' - plug it in and you would throw it away too

And when the switchover happens, would you not expect a few people to think, 'time to update the TV' - maybe they don't actually want a box on their old TV and decided to get a new one - I can't honestly believe little old ladies haven't had it drilled into their skulls that they don't need a new TV, I've never met anyone who thought they need a new one - but I know plenty who bought a new one - a little upswing in dumping TVs is surely expected

It could also be explained by the chucking of bedroom tvs - I have a little old sony, I have no intention of upgrading it - would you seriously go out and get 3 or 4 boxes for every tv in the house? No, I'd just buy a new one, it's 200 quid either way - I'm not surprised if a few of those get chucked out (mine isn't btw, it can be put to other use)

I can't find good figures for the populations of the TV regions, but you can assume there are at least 1 million households in the South-West and Cumbria combined, so that's 60,000 extra TVs thrown away - 6% of households threw away more TVs than the previous year, at a ridiculously conservative guess, and assuming they were all compatible (and how many TVs are there in the regions, let alone houses)

Is that such a catastrophe?
 
---

The Mail really do need to stop trying so hard

More BBC controversy - they attacked the Queen!! (again!!1!1!!)

Miranda Hart, on HIGNFY, described the Queen and the DoE as 'that Greek twit and his Kraut wife'

ooh, nasty racist jibe there - which in fairness it is, stinks of hypocrisy after they pulled that silly Hobnob joke doesn't it?

Only, the Mail left something out until a bit further down the story (after the outrage comments...)

At a Buckingham Palace event in honour of Indian president Pratibha Patil, Philip said to businessman Atul Patel: 'There's a lot of your family here tonight.'
Miss Hart joked: 'There is no place for racism in the modern world and the sooner that Greek twit and his Kraut wife realise it, the better.'

Now, does that not make a teeny bit more sense? It's satire - I am not foolish enough to believe the writers at the Mail actually think it's offensive in any way, but if anyone actually found that offensive they need a humour-rectomy

It's not actually racist, so it doesn't become an inconsistent piece of handling or 'double standards', as the Mail conclude, once again they wilfully mislead their readers in their attacks on the Beeb

There are of course some that feel that the Queen is out-of-bounds for humour - fortunately most people are not annoying royalists

...only Rebecca Adlington is granted such status

Boobs Ahoy!

Yes, The Mail actually are running an article entitled

'Mummy, why do those ladies have no clothes on?'

Superb, truly superb - While Viv Groksop says she doesn't want to censor anything (natch), 'it seems the prudes have got it right.'

Ah, yes, the good old 'I don't want to agree, but I must, for the public good' line, it works much better than antagonistic campaigner mode (also known as Hattie's second law), an alternative title for this would be 'I'm not racist prudish but..'

So, what's the story? Well, a five-year-old picked up a lads mag - conveniently the offending article is not actually pictured, but a similar one is lifted from Loaded - I don't see the relevance of using a different magazine with a different picture, particularly when Loaded (or 'Porn for wusses') is, in my experience at least, generally in the Men's interest, section while Nuts and Zoo are weeklies usually placed nearer the newspapers (now, I'll leave it up to whether I know this from buying them, or stocking them) - but we do actually have no proof of:

"two nubile girls in a steamy embrace, both completely nude but for a generous slick of lip gloss"

I guess we'll have to take your word for it, Viv - but isn't the picture rather misleading? As it implies that it's proof of the offending article, and if she's anything like my mother she'll be massively over-exaggerating - in mum speak 'completely nude!' normally means 'they have a small bikini on!'

And I really would like the Daddy's opinion on this, a man behind Viv was sniggering (as I would), and as I was reading this I was thinking 'if that was his Dad he would've found it hilarious', she conveniently brings him in at the end:

Three days later he returned to the same newsagent with his dad and pulled the copy of Nuts out from where he had remembered it was: 'Dad - take a look at this!' Pandora's Box is well and truly open.

Note how there is no reference to how Daddy reacted...probably pissed himself laughing

Truth is, I do actually agree with not putting these mags with children's comics, but the thing is - do they? I can't say I've ever been in a shop where Dora was next to Nuts, the weeklies are generally quite visible, but not in with the kiddie stuff, maybe the football stuff, but not comics - this really comes down to a question of what should be visible and what shouldn't - they want 'age appropriate stickers' and to remove them from 'toddler head-height'

Effectively what that means is somehow covering them up - because a sticker will do nowt unless it covers the images, it's not going to stop a toddler picking it up (not that a five year old is a toddler - toddlers, by definition, 'toddle') - and out of sight is top-shelf, like really high top shelf, because while you may be able to protect your under-4s from looking at things and noticing magazines, once they get to five and over they're a bit more observant, kids have eyes after all, the top shelf is there because 1) they can't reach, and 2) because it's a steeper angle for the little munchkins

They are far more aware, and I'm afraid I have to tell the author here that your boy is going to find all this out pretty soon - right now it's just new and entertaining, but he won't forget the image like a toddler would, and soon enough he's going to want to find these pictures, start seeing rude things on tv when he sneakily stays up late and becoming 'interested' in the female form by about the age of eight, if I'm anything to go by (and why do you think we men are amused by this? - Because we all did it!) - all she's trying to do is prevent her son seeing such images because she doesn't want him to see them, but it's an uphill battle that requires censorship of pretty much everything

She is perfectly entitled to try of course, but why should everybody else pay the price for her world view - in effect we'll be asking teenage boys to return to the days of reaching up to the top shelf, purchasing a sealed bag, and then probably carrying it home in a brown bag because it's 'taboo' again, and what will the age restriction be? Will 'Prudes United' (new tag!) allow a rating of say, 12 or 13, bearing in mind this is not even nudity and is the obvious demographic of these things? Or will it be a ridiculous 18 or 16? And will it be legally enforceable? Despite there being no nudity, and no breach of the Obscene Publications act

Those poor boys, denied their own fix of non-nudity, while the pseudo-feminists cheer and read their equally revealing fashion mags (but that's artistic) from the pram-height shelves, all because some people feel that:

These ladies' poses are not 'cheeky' or 'saucy' as the editors behind these magazines argue - their purpose is far more blatant than that.

In her opinion...given all the more (false) weight by the fact that the author knows sexy, because she worked for Esquire in the 90s - well that's settled then...

I'd like to know what the justification is, does it cause mental problems in young children? Does it create half-pint perverts? Or is it just that some people don't like these images and think they're inappropriate and want to force their opinions on a democratic society? Because as far as I can tell, all these do is use the female form to arouse males, there's no sex, not even frontal nudity, just body shape and a bit of flesh, something little boys can work out themselves without any literature

There have always been Mary Whitehouses, and they have always lost - lighten up and accept that you can't protect your little babies forever

Meanwhile, I'm think I'm going to be taking my six-year-old nephew shopping...

Bedroom Snooping?

The media are having a bit of a field day with news that the next census will be the 'most intrusive ever carried out'

The Conservatives said the attempt to find out sleeping arrangements was particularly objectionable. [Tory Nick Hurd] said "An increasingly invasive and intrusive census will erode public support, cost more and result in a less accurate survey."

This is in regards to finding out that

'The 2011 survey will demand to know how many bedrooms there are in homes and detailed information about any 'overnight visitors'

What outrage! Right, so let's have a look at the ONS site, where the Mail found this information, for it, shall we

Did you get that - overnight visitors 'present on census night'

That's not so bad is it? Just one night, in case that person isn't at home that night, and did you notice the asterisks next to certain questions? Those indicate new questions (some were even mentioned by the Mail) - number of bedrooms is new, but number of rooms is not, evidence available on the old censuses here

Other new questions shown are on civil partnerships and identity, as well as ones for entry into the UK (for non-citizens) - that's it, so I really don't get how this is anymore intrusive - counting bedrooms is apparently wrong

Funny that, because counting rooms never has been - here is 2001:

And just in case this is a despicable Labour plan, here it is in 1991

Pretty standard practice then - counting bedrooms though is too far, because previously you could only count rooms, but not bathrooms or toilets - so you couldn't simply work it out by just taking 2 or 3 off the total - i.e. kitchen and living room, maybe a study/dining room - the rest are what....reception areas?

Seems a pretty reasonable request to me - many people these days have 2 living rooms, and I don't really see how it's intrusive to ask a basic estate agent question

But the Mail (and apparently the Tories) seem to think the government are after all the details of your guests, snooping into who you sleep with every night of the year - despite this only referring to one night, as censuses are based on one single day, and you can even lie and just say you were home - the visitor question is I believe, so that you don't miss out if you're not at home, hence why they take your usual address

But don't let me witter on, here's the evidence, 2001:

1991:

The most intrusive census ever carried out!

I felt the article was particularly misleading (yes, more than usual) - but I can't find any real way to lodge an official complaint, as they seem to have covered themselves pretty well using implications and faux-outrage, with well placed, non-specific quotes - the bit I really object to is this (red = my words)

The 2011 survey will demand to know how many bedrooms there are in homes and detailed information about any 'overnight visitors'. [already standard practice]
....The Conservatives said the attempt to find out sleeping arrangements was particularly objectionable.
The demand for the number of bedrooms in each home, coupled with a requirement to give the name, sex, date of birth and address of any overnight visitors [again, already a standard question], amounted to 'bedroom snooping', they said.

The 2011 census will ask these things - but they are implying it's some sort of new thing, this is very misleading to me, but as they only imply it, is there really a case for complaint?

I guess that's what they pay their writers to do instead of actual writing...

A fair cross-secton?

Apparently the audience of QT last week was "slanted towards the young, multi-cultural and metropolitan"

Was it really? Here is the picture the Mail use as evidence

Click to enlarge, but here's a run down, starting from the back down

1: Old white guy, white guy, ethnic lady in veil, ethnic man, white woman, white man
2: Old white guy, old white guy, old white guy,old white woman, old white guy, ethnic man
3: White guy, ethnic lady, white guy, slightly dark-skinned lady, white guy, white woman
4: White guy, white guy, black guy, white guy, white guy, old white guy
5: White guy, white woman, black woman. ethnic woman, white woman, ethnic woman
6: Black guy, white guy, white guy, ethnic man, white guy, white guy
7: White woman, white guy, white woman, possibly-ethnic woman, black woman, white guy
8: White guy, ethnic man, white guy, white guy, white woman, old Chinese man

Hmmm, I wrote 'white' quite a lot there, notice I separated 'black' and 'ethnic' - mainly for the reason that I have little doubt that the black people would be British Londoners, and second it's harder to identify people who look vaguely foreign, let's do a quick tally

48 people - 33 were white, 11 were ethnic in some way (and that's the conservative estimate), 4 were black

So that's 69% white, 23% ethnic, and 8% black

From Wikipedia (source: ONS)

According to the Office for National Statistics, based on 2006 estimates, 69.4 per cent of the 7.5 million inhabitants of London were White...Some 13.1 per cent are of South Asian descent. 10.7 per cent of London's population are Black, with around 5.5 per cent being Black African, 4.3 per cent as Black Caribbean and 0.7 per cent as "Other Black". 3.5 per cent of Londoners are of mixed race; 1.5 per cent are Chinese; and 1.9 per cent belong to another ethnic group.^[3]

That appears to be a scarily representative group there - white people almost perfectly represented, m sloppy label of 'ethnic' is a bit over-represented, and black people are slightly under-represented

So can I ask what exactly the Mail have a problem with? London is full of people who are non-white and they put up a picture showing a clear majority of white people and claim it is slanted to 'multicultural' people, and god knows what 'metropolitan' people are - by definition people who live in a metropolis (otherwise known as 'London') - funny that, it being filmed in London and all...

I hope anyone who read that noticed the idiocy of the suggestion with that photo, and the underlying theme that, in my opinion, was 'it wasn't white enough', despite being shot in London - all the while the Mail go out of their way to publish articles condemning the BNP, while railing against immigrants and implying non-whites are unfairly over-represented. This is surely a new height of ludicrousness for the Mail, having a go at the audience for being too young and multicultural, while providing the evidence that totally smashes their argument

So was it a fair cross-section? Yes, you idiots!

You know something?

While the Mail (and others) harangue the BBC for inviting Griffin on and blame it for the possible rise in it's popularity, do they not realise that the main culprits are themselves?

They say the BBC gave him a platform - now what, pray tell, were Sky news doing when they broadcast his absurd complaint? And what are the Mail and the rest of the newspapers doing by saying one in four might vote for them, and constantly banging on at the BBC and allowing Griffin to 'play the martyr'

Sky gave him a better platform than the BBC did, and the Mail are primarily the ones who say he was unfairly treated in their attempts to destroy the BBC

The show didn't need to provoke controversy - the press could have let it rest, like they do pretty much every Question Time episode, but no - they had to big it up, causing the inevitable controversy, because they could sell a few papers - they didn't need to do it, there was no public interest argument here - had Griffin just come on as an MEP and spoken his rubbish, without the weeks of news-stories beforehand, far fewer people would have been interested, AND without the massive coverage the audience probably would have been less concentrated on him

The BBC started this, but it was organisations like the Mail that did the real damage

Discrimination is discrimination

David Cameron is ready to use that Labour favourite - the all-women shortlist, to get more ladies in Parliament

Allison Pearson, like most people from the middle through to the right, says she is totally against giving women a leg-up, it's patronising

Quite right, Allison, it is - so why do you support it?

She says it's because the Tories, despite having the second biggest party and nearly a third of the seats, have only 19 female MPs (and one is Ann Widdecombe...) - out of the total 125 females - only 15% of the entire female collective, and only 9% of their own seats

The Lib Dems are marginally better, with nine out of their 63, but it's barely any better - Labour of course, have 94 female MPs, so they win!

Clearly with this dire situation, something must be done, and for now all-women shortlists solve the problem, in Allison's view

In other words she's happy to go against her own judgement because the situation is so bad and we really need some women in there

So say we get 300+ women in there - great, women are represented!

Except, why should they have my respect? They would be there as a result of a 'leg-up' as she describes it, simply because some people feel that Parliament should be numerically representative of society, it's almost like 'picking' our MPs (which, I admit, is hardly worse than at present)

I could understand that logic if we were a draconian nation where our women were oppressed, but I'm fairly sure they're not anymore - they are in fact, given every advantage and are increasingly dominating the best jobs - even if they don't run the banks, Hattie

Where are the hordes of women demanding a fair go, saying that they get no representation? I've never actually met one, those most keen on it, ironically, seem to the ones who are already elected - but apparently the silent majority of women sit at home, just wishing there were more of them to speak up for them

Because, the truth is, women can get elected, in the same way that they can get onto boards and run businesses - only most don't - now there are two likely explanations for this - either society is inherently sexist and keeps women out, or less women are actually interested

Now considering that every single party has been mad keen on women MPs for over a decade it seems a rather strange piece of reasoning for it to be the former, maybe the party say one thing but then in private say 'look, I know we said we wanted you, but you really don't have the balls for this and we'll be putting forward my old Oxford chum, Percy, forward instead'

So either this is happening in the old boys' clubs, or just women are really turned off by politics - perhaps that is bad in itself, and should be addressed - but that, in my view, then assumes that women are somehow a homogenous, special-interest group that need their collective needs pushed - it basically says that somehow Harriet Harman, Jacqui Smith and Ann Widdecombe are representatives of all women (rather than their electorate) - yet, I don't think I've ever met a man who think David Cameron or Alan Johnson or Vince Cable, 'represents' them as a male, nor have I ever heard them talk about men's interests - they seem to like political debate, economics, the law, and so should all MPs even if they 'have boobs'

Do we assume that all women voters vote for women and are drowned out by the gerrymandered constituencies, of which they always represent half? It's not like there is an actual party out there that gets over six million votes and only a tenth of the seats or anything, women are far more disenfranchised

Why is it that women are a collective group, but men are individuals? The domination by middle aged white men does not mean that we men (or white men, or middle-aged men) are any better represented because we share a few physical traits, we are not Freemasons! Fact is, I have about as much chance of getting into these elite clubs as a goldfish does, despite being a white male - so why exactly does replacing a few male members with ones with ovaries balance anything? We are basically saying that 'this half of Parliament represents women', when no one would ever say the men in there represent males, I would find it quite offensive if it wasn't so ridiculous

And of course, the irony is that if indeed less women are interested in politics, then promoting them by positive discrimination is not only patronising and unfair, it is actually making Parliament less representative, as the bulk of the candidates (men) are being denied a voice

So if we wish to say that it is somehow right that 50% of the electorate are proportionally represented, then surely the fairest way to do this would be to make men and women vote in separate elections for their own genders - it seems to me the only way to fairly produce a parliament without second-class citizens, if we assume that it is a fair outcome in the first place

Or how about you stop voting for parties that are dominated by an elite that happens to be male, and support a party formed by real people?

(it'd probably still end up mostly male though)

Sorry, but that was rubbish

Perusing the Mail, as you do, I couldn't help but notice Cheryl Cole's performance at the weekend, seeing as the Mail seem to have a constant headline about the ITV show (video embedded)

Now, I am no X factor fan, and that was probably the longest period I've watched it for (about 4 minutes) so I may not be a good judge of these things, but wasn't it really, really rubbish?

I could barely get the lyrics, there was nothing memorable about the song and the only remotely interesting part was when the beat picked up at the end, more notable for many gyrating hips than the actual music

Simon Cowell, of course, praised it as an incredible performance, and said that it'll be number one next week - can't say I'll bother checking, but really? Normally I at least find the latest number one a bit catchy, but that thing was tame and tepid - was he referring to the dance routine, or the stage performance in general? Because the song itself was pretty dire in my view

And she bloody mimed! I don't get how you can praise a woman for miming on a show that judges some incredible (I assume) live singing every week - 'oh, you nobodies have to sing properly, but the judge can go out there and lip-synch, because she's a bigger talent...'

Oh, and check out what she wears, a week after telling a girl off for being too revealing (or some such) - I would post the not-hugely-arousing pics myself, but I fear lawyers...

I guess the X factor and the Mail deserve each other based on that logic, but meh...what do I know about pop culture

Get it right..or maybe left

I seem to remember that a while back the Mail was unhappy at councils abusing no-drinking rules to cover all areas, such as parks and suburbs, as an attack on people's liberty

Now however, they are all for it in Nottingham, because they dislike the 24-hour drinking rules

But wait a minute, binge drinking existed long before the licensing changes, and there's no evidence to suggest that the liberalisation increased it, nor did it reduce it, as was the intention - this was what the government admitted when it said it was 'not working' - hence why there are absolutely no facts in this article, because they would show that little has changed and barely any establishments use the new licensing laws (late-night clubs where all the trouble actually came from already existed...)

They are simply against a measure that didn't really do anything - good spot, guys, but hardly a triumph, seeing as you opposed it for encouraging more drinking, rather than it being a waste of time - I'm yet to see evidence that says supermarkets shouldn't sell booze at 4am...

But then, in a rare show of balance for the Mail, they provide criticism from the civil liberties brigade:

However, there are concerns that some councils may be too heavy-handed in the way they introduce new byelaws, possibly putting an end to picnics in the park.

Dylan Sharpe of Big Brother Watch said: 'This is yet another piece of legislation with the potential to create criminals out of law-abiding people.'

Don't know which way to turn, do they...

Me been reeding!!

I thought I would compile a list of stuff I found interesting

Clarkson is worth a read this week, with a bizarre list of rules that Brown has apparently imposed on farms, I never knew it was so complicated...

The Fink pointed me out to strangemaps.com - and I found this one which removed the bottom 5% of global GDP, rather intriguing

Roy Hattersley made me chuckle, telling Labour to rediscover its old principles and stop worrying about gaining votes and winning elections, the problems started back in '94 - right...

Bias aside, I liked David Elstein's particular take on the BBC, so much I want to write about it myself (maybe later..)

William Rees-Mogg demonstrates why having a life-peer system that naturally favours the elderly has it's problems, oh and something about banking regulations...

And that's enough for the Times - they must be very happy that they managed to direct me towards several good articles

The only thing in the Independent I particularly liked was Yasmin Alibhai-Brown's criticism of Israel's nuclear arsenal - I tend to avoid anything about Israel as it's always the same boring tripe from both sides, so I thought it worth noting

Guido reminds why he's so popular with this bitchslap to the media who are having a go at Marr over 'that' question (Guido and Marr...now that's a weird scenario)

The Mail...ummm...admittedly they did a good job with the Ofsted idiocy, they have a reasonable piece about saving the pint, but not from the EU! - Albeit very prematurely...

I also can't help but agree with this on the birthmark/human rights issue - especially considering it's basically my last post..

and finally in the Sun - Rihanna's in her Nundies

This is what happens when you rely on the state to tell you what to do

News today that the Children's Minister has ordered a review of the case of two female coppers who were told off by Ofsted for looking after each others children

Common sense would lead most of us to ask why on Earth were friends/colleagues being investigated for looking after each others' children?

Because the simple answer is

"Generally, mothers who look after each other's children are not providing childminding for which registration is required, as exemptions apply to them, for example because the care is for less than two hours or it takes place on less than 14 days in a year." (Ofsted)

Close relatives of children, such as grandparents, siblings, aunts or uncles, were exempt from the rules, he added.

So basically, anybody who is not closely related to you cannot look after your child on a regular basis (more than 14 days in a year, or more than a two-hour session...) without being registered and subject to a criminal check - unless there is no 'reward'

However

"Reward is not just a case of money changing hands. The supply of services or goods and, in some circumstances, reciprocal arrangements can also constitute reward."

Were you paying someone (even a close friend) for childminding, then fair enough, it is somewhat harsh, as it's a bit like forcing someone who privately sells their car to become a registered dealer - but when 'reward' extends to people sharing childcare to save themselves money it's got beyond a joke

So, basically you cannot have any sort of reciprocal agreement with someone who isn't related to you without undergoing criminal checks - truly we have given up our freedom to make decisions to the state when women from a mothers' group can't help each other out without asking the government first

As usual, a measure to protect us (registering childminders) has resulted in a much more wide-ranging measure that can hugely affect our personal decisions - at best it's sloppy legislation, at worst it's another move to control us with databases

The minister has ordered a review - which is not bad by Labour's standards, but I can't help thinking that they only picked up on this because 1) the Mail pointed it out (no internal checks), and 2) it was about 'hard-working' policewomen returning to work - politically dangerous

This does I admit, show a surprising amount of shrewdness from Labour - so maybe I'll believe they actually care in this case, but still, once again we're seeing that the masses of legislation passed in the Labour years probably does more harm than good

---

Speaking of the Mail, I don't normally agree with them but on this I have to

A burglar with a port-wine birthmark cannot be identified because the police cannot find the compulsory 12 people to show in a photo-identity parade, and if he was in a real line-up, they'd all have to hide half their face to avoid using the birthmark as identification

Is that not ridiculous? I can understand where the law is coming from, having 12 broadly similar people for a line-up, and no doubt the law protects a black guy who has being arrested if he's stuck in a line-up with 11 white guys - but birthmarks are not a racial thing

Presumably if the guy had one arm they'd have to cover that up too? Or find a dozen one-armed bandits...?

How about if they had a big knife-induced scar across their eye? Would that be an unfair way to identify someone? It's just silly

Distinctive personal features are identifiers, and I doubt for the amount of people with one of those birthmarks that twelve people is a fair sample, and also that the probability of getting the suspect right is a little higher than simply using the suspect's skin colour

Once again, it's sloppy law-making where a distinctive feature can be used to essentially protect a criminal from prosecution

I thought discrimination was still illegal?

We all know about the allegations of ageism at the BBC, what with Arlene-gate (yeah, I made that up...), Moira Stuart and however many other older women have complained

And broadly I agree - it's notable that there is an absence of older women (over 50), particularly compared to the old geezers still hanging around the Beeb (as I found out in a ridiculously lengthy post before)

But this has always been an allegation - the women either retired or were dropped, like any other worker - there was no 'you're too old, bye!!' - it's a perception that it's deliberate, there's no actual proof

Of course, the BBC has to be receptive to public opinion, and clearly it's justified, especially in current affairs programmes (dramas and soaps are full of old women) - but is not deliberately looking for newsreaders based on age and sex against the law?

Under the Equalities bill it wouldn't be, but right now to select based on any kind of physical discrimination is illegal - I know that the media deliberately pick people for certain 'qualities' - but is this not blatant enough to actually be a breach of discrimination law? Seems to me the BBC are leaving themselves open to prosecution, if they, for example, ignore young people or men - they could be cutting off their nose to spite their face here

Not that anyone would normally care - except that this is the BBC and I would bet the Mail will jump on it - they love a good bit of hypocrisy, I'd put money on it and I'll be looking out for it

I do of course, have to ask - does this mean the Mail now support Hattie's 'equality' bill?

I'll take the risk

Apparently Brown's idea to reduce the nuclear fleet from four subs to three is unworkable, as we need four to adequately defend Britain

I think I'll take the risk on something that has never been used, and never should be used

[John Hutton] (former defence secretary) added that Britain would 'rue the day' it became vulnerable to blackmail or aggression.

Do you find it a bit odd that John Hutton (who incidentally is the only named critic) is being cited by the Mail as some sort of expert because he was Defence Secretary, when they regard his successor, Bob Ainsworth, as the devil?

Maybe Hutton was a far better candidate with some sort of defence background? Nope he's a lawyer and career politician who held the job for 8 months....

I don't doubt this is a foolish move, but at least bring me a general!

I understand the arguments for 'the deterrent' - but seriously, what does it achieve? It protects us from aggression and blackmail - I guess Germany, Canada, Japan and Australia are all under someone's thumb?

I appreciate that if we gave it up we'd be weakening our defences, we could be bullied by the Yanks, Russians, or Chinese (not the French) if they so wished - but seriously, are we the last line of defence for Europe? It's giving away a very big weapon that makes it look like we could deal with the big boys on our own, but in reality what does it do?

Like I say, I understand the rationale for it - it's very hard to give up and place this sort of capability solely in the hands of other nations, having to trust the US essentially - it's hard, and my ideal preference would be to get all the powers to disarm, I have little fear of anything North Korea decide to send our way, but let's face it - this is all about saving face - we want to think we're independent

But the question remains - how do Germany, Japan etc. survive on relying on other nations - do they even fear the threat? Maybe because I'm now in Australia I can be a bit more reflective - because they certainly don't regard it as an issue - the issue for Britain is not about having them, it's about giving them up

I would say that while I like having an independent deterrent of our own, primarily because I dislike the idea of the yanks having all the cards, if there need to be countries like Britain and France there to maintain the balance for everyone else in the western world then they shouldn't be funding it on their own

If the other countries don't even care about the balance then I think we should become as grown-up as them and ditch the bomb - it's all about ego, because while it 'could' be useful, it's far more likely to result in the end of the world if we start having to use the bloody things - think about it - there's actually a world situation where Britain needs to defend itself with cataclysmic weapons, where it can survive as a nation in a world where probably no-one else would? I think a lot of the world just accept that if they do get used then we're all toast - it's just bravado to keep them

Of course what I really love is that Brown, by taking the middle route, has completely fudged the issue - all he would do is undermine the military capability to save a paltry £2 billion, pleasing absolutely no one

*I must also admit one of my favourite bits was this

There are also concerns about the impact on jobs. Some 15,000 posts are claimed to be connected to the Trident replacement programme. The submarines are likely to be manufactured by BAE at Barrow-in-Furness, a constituency represented by Mr Hutton, with their nuclear engines made by Rolls Royce in Derby. The submarines are maintained and decommissioned in Devonport Dockyard in Plymouth, and operate from Faslane naval base in Scotland. Aldermaston in Berkshire, where the missiles are made, employs 4,000. The weapons programme also supports jobs at the nuclear reactors that create the bomb-making material, including Sellafield.

In my recollection, the government creating non-profit, public-sector jobs (or using financial stimuli) is bad in the Mail 's eyes

Unless it's to make bombs, of course