Beat it ?

The BBC has an advert that runs during it's news programmes. In it we are shown reporters working around the world. There's loads of sexy technology and people in bullet proof jackets typing on laptops. The thrust of the piece is that the Beeb has reporters around the world so they are on the spot when a big story breaks. It's one in the eye for ITN who rely on teh interweb and pray for news that requires no more than a zone 5 underground pass.

If this is the case however, how come every time there is a big story, within a couple of days a "star" reporter and presumably crew, are piled onto a plane and sent out to do the standing in the street performing links role ?

Can we assume that although there are reporters out in all these locations, the truth is they are a bunch of donkeys who can't be allowed on screen ?

Take the current big story, no not all that Iranian stuff or war in Afghanistan, no the BIG story about Mikey Jackson being dead. Now this happened in the USA. I would have though that in a country that big and that important, one of the local reporters could have been trusted to look after things. After all, once you get past the "Michael Jackson is dead" bit, the rest is just filming vox-pops with fans blubbering. Yes there are a lot of them but to be honest to get past a day the story needs to be stretched very thin. Anyway, I see that the Beeb has decided that the local team are rubbish, and the only person who can cover this huge event properly is the woman from Newsnight. To be fair, I think ITV have thought the same but then they might not have anyone based in the states and anyway, all their newsreaders look the same to me.

If I were one of these brave BBC reporters from the trail I'd be more than a bit cheesed off by this. While they dodge bullets and get some local knowledge, as soon as the big story breaks and there is the chance for some glory, an overpaid autocutie will be parachuted in to front things.

Sarkozy is right

When he says that the burka has no place in France anyway. Hooray for a politician who has the guts to stand up to those in religious authority intent of oppressing women. Wouldn't it be great if UK MP's had the same level of bravery.

When I see a woman wearing head to ground (longer than toe, these clothes drag along the ground slightly so there is no chance of a glimpse of ankle) black coverings, I don't feel scared, I feel sorry. On a simple level, it cannot be comfortable, especially in hot weather. In fact bearing in mind where the trend originated one wonders why white cloth isn't used to reflect heat, after all the menfolk get to wear light, loose fitting clothes....

The bigger issue is that the clothes represent, to me, control. I struggle to believe that anyone would want to hide themselves away like this while their husband walks around normally. If they do then I wonder what sort of education process has gone on in the past. If the culture says this is correct and little girls grow up believing it then there is something wrong with the culture. How must the daughters feel as they walk with Mum, often in normal clothes, to know that one day they too will be swathed in black and unable to show their face ?

One argument is that it's not subjugation but a form of freedom. Entirely covered, women are freed from the lascivious gaze of men. Men who would be unable to control their urges were they to see a female face. That's both rubbish and insulting to men, which is why I think it's a made up excuse by men to force the women to wear the cloth. Lets face it, in western society there are lots of women wearing skirts, showing ankles and faces yet the men manage to restrain themselves from leaping on all of them as they walk through the town.

No, to my mind this is about subjugation and possession. Women wearing burkas are "owned" by their husband and certainly appear completely powerless. Muslims are very keen to say that women were granted equality (apart from the right to be an MP, lead religious ceremonies etc.) long before western societies did the same. Really ? So where are the man burkas ?

Of course I may be wrong - feel free to berate me in the comments section. I really would like to hear another point of view on this.

And yes I know western women feel the need to wear impractical and uncomfortable clothes too due to cultural pressure but it's in no way compulsory.

Ashamed ?

Charles Clarke is ashamed to be a Labour MP because of the current chaos within the party apparently.

Not because of the parties destruction of public services ?
or attempts to sell of the Post Office ?
or the cosying up to bankers who have destroyed our economy ?
or PFI which means we will be paying for hospitals and other public buildings previously paid for by the state, for many years to come on some dodgy lending deal ?
or the lack of investments in our transport infrastructure ?
or even illegally invading a country based on a downright and obvious lie causing the deaths of thousands of people ?

Good to see he has his priorities sorted out...

Swine Flu

The world, or at least the tabloid press and the and the ingrates contributing to the BBC HYS section, worried about swine flu, I thought I had better put things down in black and white for the assistance of the stupid. Here are the actions required:

• Shooting down of all aircraft to stop the spread of infection.


• Nuclear strikes on all airports to kill any infection that's already been brought in.


• Turn over the airwaves from normal programming to special "We're going to die" shows.


• Banning of sombrero hats.


• And Mexican waves.


• Quarantining Speedy Gonzales even though he's a cartoon.


• As Scotland has a couple of slightly ill people, rebuild Hadrians wall.


• Cessation of the use of pork in all sausages, the meat to be replaced with estate agents.


• Serving a traditional British Breakfast to be made illegal unless the aforementioned suasages are used.


• Burning all smoky bacon crisps on a huge funeral pyre.

Simple huh ?

Downloading music

Tom Reynolds blog reported on the Pirate Bay court case and one of the commenter's suggested that Utopian notion, that all music downloads should be free. To pay for this, the prices on MP3 players and other music devices would be raised to provide funds to replace that earned from record sales.

This sounded a bit mad to me so I've done some maths. As an example, the last CD I bought was Imelda May, Love Tattoo which sells for £12.99 at full retail. Now according to PostAudio, out of this Ms May receives £1.83. This is a percentage and drops to 51p at Amazon prices. Let's call that 50p for nice round numbers or 4p per track.

Now my iPod (other MP3 player are available and probably don't discharge the battery when you aren't using them too) will hold roughly 2000 tracks. Therefore if I want to pay for all my music up front, as suggested by a "download tax", the price would need to go up by £83.

That £83 would need to go to some central authority who would then dish out the cash. We can assume that they would want a percentage for their effort, say 10%, or to keep the round numbers the cost now goes up by a total of £90. That takes an 8GB iPod Touch for over £250 or higher than the 32GB version costs now. Of course that version will also go up and considerably more due to it's higher storage capacity and would now cost just over £600.

Now think of a laptop computer. You could use this as a music device - the record companies will argue that you do and so you'll need to pay the download tax on this too. That's likely to push the price up by over £1000.

If you are still happy to pay this then there are further considerations. How does a group get on the "official" downloads list ? Not by putting a track on their website, that's for sure. Downloads would only qualify if there were from an approved and centralised source. Who will be in charge of this ? If I am being paid by the download then I'll be encouraging fans to pick up tracks as often as possible too. Don't get it once, download the same track loads of time ! Better still, set up an automated downloader which will do the job hundreds of times a minute...

Of course this all assumes you believe artists should get paid for their music. I think they should in the same way a baker gets paid for bread. If you don't pay musicians then other than for the love of it, why should they bother ? Can you really survive as a small, start up group on this ? OK if you are a big well-established name then you are OK but how do you get the momentum to survive ?

Personally I buy CD's. I have a physical item and don't need to back up my music as it can always be re-ripped from the discs. In fact I wonder how many download fans bother to do this. Or do they have infallible computers ?

Tell it like it is.

12 people have been arrested for possible terrorism offences. In the information vacuum the BBC and other news outlets are desperately speculating to try and fill up the otherwise empty air. At the same time they are making the people arrested seem as important as possible and making scaring the viewer as much as they can.

First up the people arrested are described as "members of al-Qaeda". I don't think they can be can they ? It's not like the Famous Five club of yore - I don't think you get a badge with a picture of Ozzsie Bin-laden on it do you ? Al-Qaeda isn't something you join, that's the main problem the Western World has with it. No formal structure. No branch offices. That's what makes it much harder to break up. Even Smersh in the James Bond films has administrators and filing cabinets. Here we are dealing with an ideology which is pretty hard to nail down.

Another great quote is "It may have involved an improvised explosive device, security expert Peter Taylor added." or not. You are just guessing. Mind you "improvised explosive device" is a pretty broad description meaning "a bomb not made by a proper arms manufacturer" so he's not stupid as there's a good chance of being right. Even if all this is is a group of idiots talking big you can be pretty certain they will be chuffed if people think they can manage to make something that could go bang.

My favorite though is that one of the people who has been arrested is described by his landlord as "a good boy who goes to the mosque five times a day.". What ?! 5 times a day ?! Wouldn't a better description of this guy be a "jobless loser who has nothing much to do all day." Anyone who goes to any religious service five times a day when he/she isn't being paid to do so should come under suspicion and probably be arrested and made to do something useful.

The thing is with this amount of religious fervour is that the person doing the praying has taken their God given life and decided to waste it, preferring to spend all their time getting ready for an afterlife. Never mind looking after their fellow man, they are saying "Stuff you, I want to book a cloud.".

Now I'm pretty certain that any celestial being had something rather more involved in mind when creating the human race. We weren't meant to spend all day praying, especially when this would mean being supported by a community who we than despise as sinners. OK, so this has happened throughout history from monasteries being supported by starving peasants to today's job seekers allowance being handed to out 5 times a day friend. The thing is, would you want to go to heaven if that meant spending all the time telling God how great he (religious nuts all call God, He) is ? That doesn't sound very nice to me and God is supposed to be nice I thought.

No, the way to defeat terrorists is to point out what they really are - losers with no friends other than other nut cases. The whole movement is appealing to the sort of idiot who has no power or future and sees a loony tunes sect as a way of feeling like a big man rather than being a werdo who people laugh at. By hyping up potential terrorists we give them power and turn them into modern day bogey men who children should hide under the bedclothes from.

Ridicule is a weapon and we should use it more often rather than pointing it at people who aren't doing anyone any harm.

Minimum alcohol price = Good

Sadly it's too difficult for the public to understand and for that reason will fail.

The chief medical officer has said there should be a minimum price per unit for alcohol. The BBC and all other news organisations have been busy rubbishing it for the last few days. Gordon Brown has popped up saying he doesn't think it is a good idea.

He's wrong in my opinion, and since this is my blog that's all that matters.

At present supermarkets sell drink at less than cost price. They do this to encourage people into the store, not because they like you. To make profits the loss on this product is simply added to the price of others in the shop. It's a simple process called a "loss leader" and has been an established method of drumming up trade for many years.

What this means is, if you don't buy drink in the shop you are subsidising those walking out with a carrier bag of cheap lager. You might as well go up to them and hand them cash out of your pocket.

It also encourages people to drink at home unsupervised instead of in pubs where there are at least other people around. Travel out of any town after 10:30 in the evening and you'll see people going in having tanked up up home. They start the evening borderline drunk and just get worse as in the early hours.

I like pubs and don't think it is a good thing that so many of them are under threat. If you say a lot of this is the fault of the breweries then I won't disagree with you but it certainly doesn't help when people say they can have a beer for a quarter of the price at home. This leads to a nation sitting on their own watching telly and get pissed.

Of course the supermarkets won't like this. Doubtless Gordon Browns appearance rubbishing the research is due to a phone call from Mr Tesco or similar. Why bother with evidence based suggestions when you are worried about your job prospects once the nation dumps you in 18 months or so ? Why employ scientists to advise the government at all when you patently aren't interested in the results ?