If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. Read us instead.
Jul 10 2010

Why should the BBC pay its own way?

BBC Broadcasting House - turned into apartments for the wealthy?

BBC Broadcasting House - turned into apartments for the wealthy?

There’s an idea being floated in the ranks of power that the BBC should be made to pay its own way. The concept is that through its own endeavours, the BBC should fund its activities and perform as a commercial organisation would have to. I disagree and I’ll tell you why.

If the BBC had its 40p a day public funding removed, it would have to fight for revenues in the shrinking market of advertising, it would have to ramp up its commercial output, it would have to cut costs and it would have to change its output to meet the demands of a commerce. Not such a bad thing you might think. You would be wrong.

According the BBC’s 2008-2009 annual report its income is derived from the following sources:

  • £3493.8 million in licence fees
  • £775.9 million from commercial business
  • £294.6 million from government grants
  • £41.1 million from other sources such as overseas sales

Recently, it was reported that Internet Advertising had overtaken television advertising, with a record of £1.75 billion spent in the first six months of 2009. So, we’re talking about a comparable period. Extrapolating from that, making the assumption that advertising spend remains constant at this record level, we can assume that the Internet will generate £3.5 billion in advertising revenues in year. This is roughly the same as the cost of the licence fee and more than the total spend on television advertising. So, for the BBC to replace its licence fee with advertising, it would have to take ALL the advertising revenue from the ITV companies and then find some more.

Continue reading

Post to Twitter

  • Share/Bookmark

Jul 5 2010

If you think economic cuts are necessary, you’re being fooled

Joseph Stiglitz

Prof Joseph Stiglitz says Osbourne has it wrong

The first human casualties of our wonderful government’s war on the deficit have come to my attention. Alison is a friend, she’s the mother of two small children, and a woman whose husband “took one for the company” last year and reduced his hours by 25%. They are the parents in a family who can just about get by, and they have been told her civil service job will not exist in the near future, not because it’s not a necessary job, but because she’s been sacrificed to the ideology of neo-liberal economics.

Think of the country as a work horse. You need it to work hard to help you pay off your debts, so would your first action be to cut its food? That’s what Cameron, Osbourne and Clegg are doing to the economy.

You may have heard of Professor Joseph Stiglitz – he’s the Nobel laureate economist who correctly predicted the global crash. He’s distinctly unimpressed with Osbourne’s budget. This, he predicts, will make Britain’s recovery from recession longer, slower and harder than it needs to be. The rise in VAT could even tip us into a double-dip recession. He took time to offer George Osbourne a bit of advice – which will probably go unheeded, because Osbourne’s objectives aren’t necessarily to improve the economy. They are an ideological attack on the state, with the intention of shrinking it by forty percent.

Continue reading

Post to Twitter

  • Share/Bookmark

Mar 19 2010

Nailing the lie of Conservative propaganda

Gordon says what he thinks of the Tories

Gordon says what he really thinks of the Tories

It’s amazing really – for years I believed that the economy was badly run by Labour in the seventies as they tried to square the circle of their allegiance to the Unions and the need to manage the country.  It turns out, it’s all a lie promoted by the Conservative press in this country.

Now, at the end of Gordon Brown’s premiership, we’re seeing a repeat of the exercise, in which his stewardship of the economy is being called into question – people are virulently attacking him with a fervour normally reserved for paedophiles and cop killers.  Again most of the attacks are founded on lies and deceit – spun so that Gordon is portrayed to look incompetent and indecisive.

It’s the same story – the same distortion of the truth, with the same aim of using a tyre iron to remove a Labour government and replace it with their friends in the Conservative Party.

Let’s take the end of the seventies. The “Winter of Discontent”, it was called. Kenneth Morgan describes it in his biography of Jim Callaghan: “Sick patients went unattended; schools were closed because of strikes by school caretakers or cooks, or just because they were unheated in freezing weather; ambulance men were failing to answer 999 calls; frozen main roads were not being gritted; dustbins and refuse bags piled up in town centres in their tens of thousands, full of rotting and insanitary waste. There were secondary pickets all over the country preventing non-strikers getting through.”

Continue reading

Post to Twitter

  • Share/Bookmark

Jan 29 2010

Why we should legalize narcotics

narcotics

I’m not a drug user – I experimented in the seventies, but lost interest in the eighties and I have a certain amount of sympathy with those who believe cannabis use leads to lethargy and psychological problems. In my view, however, there is mounting and undeniable evidence that continued prohibition of narcotics is causing society more problems than it is solving.

The cost of drug prohibition to society is enormous – from policing the supply and use to the cost of property crime associated with drug use, through the cost of NHS treatment for overdoses, AIDS, hepatitis and so on. If you remove prohibition, regulate the supply and quality, allow prices to fall to a market level low enough to remove the need for additional funding from crime, and offer support from the NHS, you will at a stroke remove:

  • The cost of policing drug use and supply
  • The cost of crime against the person and their property
  • The cost to the NHS
  • The criminalisation of people that need help not condemnation
  • The opportunity for criminals to control addicts, forcing them into prostitution and other crime

You will also create jobs in a new narcotic supply industry – not just at home, but abroad too – where farmers in poor countries can grow cash crops without fear. We will generate income for the Exchequer through taxation, save lives through quality control, allow the police to focus on “real” crime and disassociate drug use from criminality.

Continue reading

Post to Twitter

  • Share/Bookmark

Jan 6 2010

38 ways to win an argument

Arthur Schopenhauer

Arthur Schopenhauer

38 Ways To Win An Argument by Arthur Schopenhauer

1 Carry your opponent’s proposition beyond its natural limits; exaggerate it. The more general your opponent’s statement becomes, the more objections you can find against it. The more restricted and narrow your own propositions remain, the easier they are to defend.

2 Use different meanings of your opponent’s words to refute his argument. Example: Person A says, “You do not understand the mysteries of Kant’s philosophy.” Person B replies, “Oh, if it’s mysteries you’re talking about, I’ll have nothing to do with them.”

3 Ignore your opponent’s proposition, which was intended to refer to some particular thing. Rather, understand it in some quite different sense, and then refute it. Attack something different than what was asserted.

4 Hide your conclusion from your opponent until the end. Mingle your premises here and there in your talk. Get your opponent to agree to them in no definite order. By this circuitous route you conceal your goal until you have reached all the admissions necessary to reach your goal.

5 Use your opponent’s beliefs against him. If your opponent refuses to accept your premises, use his own premises to your advantage. Example, if the opponent is a member of an organization or a religious sect to which you do not belong, you may employ the declared opinions of this group against the opponent.

Continue reading

Post to Twitter

  • Share/Bookmark

Aug 5 2009

Me, Jack and Harriet Harman

Young-Harriet-Ruth-Harman

Down Shep!

It’s 1977 and me, Jack Dromey and Harriet Harman are on the picket line at Grunwicks. Harriet is the legal advisor to the strikers’ committee and Jack… well Jack is Jack. He is a bluff, charming man with a quick mind, a loud voice and strong, well argued opinions. I am this skinny, long-haired teenager with acne, a smelly Afghan coat, and for most of my time on the picket line, a large lump on my forehead – testimony to the firmness of SPG standard issue truncheons in those days. It’s no wonder Harriet noticed the loquacious Jack rather than me.

Wind forward five years and Jack marries Harriet and they now have two children, both boys, both bearing the surname “Harman”.  Given a choice of that or Dromey, they’ve probably both regretted not picking a partner called Smith or Booth or whatever…

To tell the truth, she wasn’t a raving beauty or anything, in fact she looked like a Blue Peter presenter without the sex, but that’s not what turned my head in those days. Instead, I favoured cerebral, left-leaning older women, with strong opinions and attitude. I still do, but I can do without the attitude and the older bit. Anyway, Harriet was something of a fantasy girl for the young UKHamlet in the seventies – I’m sure she’ll be delighted to hear it – but it wasn’t in a prurient way. Well, not often anyway.

No, I put Ms Harman on a mental pedestal. This is because I worked hard at not regarding women as sex objects in those days, and it would have been a betrayal of my principles to actually fancy getting jiggy with Harriet.

Continue reading

Post to Twitter

  • Share/Bookmark

Jul 10 2009

What next Google?

Just say NO to the iPhone

Just say NO to the iPhone

Your rights are under attack. Apple have filed a twenty seven page statement to the U.S. Copyright office arguing that the modification of an iPhone’s software is in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The ruling as to this issue is expected this autumn. If they are successful it will mean that when you buy an iPhone, not only can they dictate which service provider you use, but also what you can do with the phone.  It will erode the basic concept of ownership still further.

Things used to be simple – you bought something, it became your property and you could do what you wanted with it. Isn’t this simple? Isn’t it a good thing? Well, that depends on your view of property, but in essence, in a capitalist society, where ownership is a lynchpin of the economic method, you’d expect the simple elegance of this proposition to hold sway.

You buy it, you own it, you do what you want with it.

This is no longer the case. Microsoft et al saw to that with software, which they licensed it to you without ceding ownership. Then it became: You buy, we still own, you do what you want within certain limitations detailed in this twenty page document. Now Apple are seeking to take it still further – it’s about to become:

You buy, we own it, we tell you what you can do with it.

Continue reading

Post to Twitter

  • Share/Bookmark

Jun 27 2009

How to make a cheap political point out someone’s bravery

I received an email from a friend: one of those circular, viral emails – this one was about Irena Sendler. Irena (real name Sendlerowa) was an exceptionally brave woman – she, along with a couple of dozen others in the Warsaw RGO managed to smuggle out about two and half thousand Jewish children, who would have probably ended up being killed by the Nazis.
Indeed Irena was herself nearly executed. In 1943 Sendler was arrested by the Gestapo, severely tortured, and sentenced to death. Żegota – the Council to Aid Jews –  saved her by bribing German guards on the way to her execution. She was left in the woods, unconscious and with broken arms and legs. She was listed on public bulletin boards as among those executed.
For the remainder of the war, she lived in hiding, but continued her work for the Jewish children. After the war, she dug up the jars containing the children’s identities and attempted to find the children and return them to their parents. However, almost all of their parents had been killed at the Treblinka extermination camp or had gone missing otherwise.
The email I received got some of this correct, some of it incorrect:
Irena Sendler – who recently died at 98 years of age, was a 2007 Nobel Peace Prize Nominee;
During WWII, Irena was given permission to work in the Warsaw Ghetto, as a plumbing/sewer specialist.  She had an ulterior motive.
Being German, Irena knew what the Nazi plan was for Jews.
Irena smuggled out infants in the bottom of a tool box she carried in the back of her truck.  She used a burlap sack for bigger children.
She also had a dog in the back that she trained to bark when Nazi soldiers let her in and out of the ghetto.  The soldiers wanted nothing to do with her dog.  The barking covered noises of the infants and children.
Irena managed to smuggle out and save 2500 infants and children, before she was caught!  The Nazi’s broke both her legs and arms, and beat her severely.
Irena kept a record in a jar buried under a tree in her back yard of all the children she smuggled out.
After the war, she tried to locate all parents that may have survived to reunite families, but most had been gassed.
The children she could not reunite were placed with foster families or adopted.
Irena was nominated for the 2008 Nobel Peace Prize.
She was not selected.
Al Gore won for a slide show on Global Warming!!!!????.
Help send this email around the world so that this ‘noble’ lady is remembered for her bravery.
The thing to remember about the internet is not everything is true – and this is particularly the case with these viral emails. Let’s look at this one:
Irena Sendler was Polish not German, and assisted by some two dozen others, she helped smuggle out 2500 Jewish children from the Ghettos – so she was not alone in here bravery. She did so by creating false documents – she worked in the Social Work department of the Warsaw City Council and was not a plumber – so not by smuggling them out in her tool-bag.
She did have her arms and legs broken by Germans – they were prison guards who were bribed to let her escape – they broke her arms and legs and left her in the woods, then listed her as executed. She WAS nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, but it was in 2007, not 2008 and yes Al Gore DID win it that year, along with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It was NOT for showing some slides, it was because he is fighting for change in our and Government attitudes towards climate change – this is the single most important thing facing us at the moment. He is doing this despite the fact that his political career is effectively over. He is doing it because he believes it is right.
The originators of this email are using it to rubbish Al Gore – because they are right win conspirators in the global war between the establishment and the people. Al Gore is a good man. This is a cheap way to make a political point and who receives this email should ask:
Why wasn’t Irena nominated in any of the previous years prior to 2007?
Why was she nominated the year that Al Gore was also nominated?
Why was a secret nomination system perverted to create such publicity around her nomination?
Was it because Al Gore was nominated? Surely not?
Is this all a big coincidence? I don’t think so.
irena-sendler

Irena Sendler

I received an email from a friend: one of those circular, viral emails – this one was about Irena Sendler. Irena (real name Sendlerowa) was an exceptionally brave woman – she, along with a couple of dozen others in the Warsaw RGO managed to smuggle out about two and half thousand Jewish children, who would have probably ended up being killed by the Nazis.

Indeed Irena was herself nearly executed. In 1943 Sendler was arrested by the Gestapo, severely tortured, and sentenced to death. Żegota – the Council to Aid Jews –  saved her by bribing German guards on the way to her execution. She was left in the woods, unconscious and with broken arms and legs. She was listed on public bulletin boards as among those executed.

For the remainder of the war, she lived in hiding, but continued her work for the Jewish children. After the war, she dug up the jars containing the children’s identities and attempted to find the children and return them to their parents. However, almost all of their parents had been killed at the Treblinka extermination camp or had gone missing otherwise.

The email I received got some of this correct, some of it incorrect:

Irena Sendler – who recently died at 98 years of age, was a 2007 Nobel Peace Prize Nominee;

During WWII, Irena was given permission to work in the Warsaw Ghetto, as a plumbing/sewer specialist.  She had an ulterior motive.

Being German, Irena knew what the Nazi plan was for Jews.

Irena smuggled out infants in the bottom of a tool box she carried in the back of her truck.  She used a burlap sack for bigger children.

She also had a dog in the back that she trained to bark when Nazi soldiers let her in and out of the ghetto.  The soldiers wanted nothing to do with her dog.  The barking covered noises of the infants and children.

Irena managed to smuggle out and save 2500 infants and children, before she was caught!  The Nazi’s broke both her legs and arms, and beat her severely.

Irena kept a record in a jar buried under a tree in her back yard of all the children she smuggled out.

After the war, she tried to locate all parents that may have survived to reunite families, but most had been gassed.

The children she could not reunite were placed with foster families or adopted.

Irena was nominated for the 2008 Nobel Peace Prize.

She was not selected.

Al Gore won for a slide show on Global Warming!!!!????.

Help send this email around the world so that this ‘noble’ lady is remembered for her bravery.

Continue reading

Post to Twitter

  • Share/Bookmark

Jun 21 2009

Do we need “i” before “e”?

The spelling mantra that generations of schoolchildren have learned — “i before e, except after c”, is being abandoned in the UK. New British government guidance tells teachers not to pass on the rule to students, because there are too many exceptions.

The “Support For Spelling” document, which is being sent to thousands of primary schools, says the rule “is not worth teaching” because it doesn’t account for words like ‘sufficient,’ ‘veil’ and ‘their.’

Jack Bovill of the Spelling Society, which advocates simplified spelling, said Saturday he agreed with the decision, but supporters say the ditty has value because it is one of the few language rules that most people remember.

The thing is: the full mnemonic is rarely taught and in fact the ditty is much longer:  “I before E except after C or when sounded as A as in ‘neighbour’ and ‘weigh.’” This is a much more comprehensive rule and while there are still exceptions, they are usually grounded in good historical reasons like, of course, it still doesn’t cover “sufficient”. This is because it is technically different: using the original pronunciation, the i and e form separate syllables, and so are pronounced suffish-ee-ent.

The trouble with and glory of English is that it very difficult to codify. Creating spelling mnemonics is all well and good if you can remember them. I listened to a debate on the radio about this yesterday. They reminded me of how I learned to spell necessary with: “1 Collar but 2 Socks”, and diarrhoea: Dining In A Rough Restaurant: Hurry, Otherwise Expect Accidents. However the latter is completely different to the way Americans spell “diarrhea”, and more of them speak English, than errmmmm…. English people. Continue reading

Post to Twitter

  • Share/Bookmark

Jun 15 2009

How to create an unbreakable password

EncryptionJay sat in my living room sipping his cooling cup of tea. Had we passed in the street I would probably not recognised the tall, almost gangly, bespectacled figure, his loose blue cotton shirt flapping around him like the sails of an improbable yacht, mast thin legs striding in that peculiarly purposeful way that spoke of pursuit rather than destination.  This should not surprise me, for we had not seen each other in thirty years. When he left University, the proud bearer of a stellar first class honours degree in really hard maths, in contrast to my lucky second, our paths diverged – he went to Harvard, completed a PhD in even harder maths, then secured tenure and has been there ever since.  I messed around for twenty years thinking about doing a Masters. Now here he was, sitting on my chair, asking a favour.

Jay’s brother had a different perspective on academia. While no less brilliant than his older brother, in fact I’m inclined to say he is the bright one in the family, Patrick could not care less about achievements. He disappeared to the Far East, and spends his time writing weird things to even weirder publications. A few years ago, Pat emailed me with contact details, he found me via an old blog I had and chose me presumably because I could be trusted not to broadcast his whereabouts unless it was absolutely necessary. It was. Their mum is ill, perhaps terminally.

Fortunately, I keep my emails. Thank you, Gmail. Equally fortunately, I had mentioned in passing at a family get together, that I had heard from Patrick. This filtered through our convoluted grapevine back to Jay and he filed it away for come the day.

The day came, and so did he: knocking at my door. Continue reading

Post to Twitter

  • Share/Bookmark