Sunday, June 03, 2007
Number plate nonsense
Another government job creation scheme was unveiled today as there was a call for a complete overhaul of the car number plate system because so many are now being cloned. Almost 40,000 car identities were stolen in 2006, a rise of 25%.
40,000 seems a huge number, but compared to the total UK car population of 33 million it's actually miniscule, and minor compared to other serious crimes, including car theft.
So the Government faces calls to spend my tax pounds on new licence plate systems and security services. It's already wasted billions and now there are calls for more to be wasted on fixing a system which isn't really broken.
It's simple - the reason why there has been such a rise in number plate cloning is because of the spread of the get-rich-quick scheme that is speed cameras.
These have contributed almost nothing to road safety, but have provided a guaranteed supplementary income for cash strapped police forces up and down the country.
Now some motorists have had enough and are driving around with false plates. I for one am finding it difficult to blame them.
So now the police and others want them to waste even more of my tax on ludicrous new car number plates, which no doubt will come stacked with new GPRS, RFID and other Big Brother attachments so the Government can trace my every activity.
Wouldn't it be simpler to spend this money on properly funding the police in the first place, so they can scrap all cameras (apart from the ones that are proven to have improved safety), at which point the problem of number plate cloning would go away.
Once again the tail is wagging the New Labour dog - and most of our so-called journalists are too lazy to spot even the most basic flaws in such political scams.
|
40,000 seems a huge number, but compared to the total UK car population of 33 million it's actually miniscule, and minor compared to other serious crimes, including car theft.
So the Government faces calls to spend my tax pounds on new licence plate systems and security services. It's already wasted billions and now there are calls for more to be wasted on fixing a system which isn't really broken.
It's simple - the reason why there has been such a rise in number plate cloning is because of the spread of the get-rich-quick scheme that is speed cameras.
These have contributed almost nothing to road safety, but have provided a guaranteed supplementary income for cash strapped police forces up and down the country.
Now some motorists have had enough and are driving around with false plates. I for one am finding it difficult to blame them.
So now the police and others want them to waste even more of my tax on ludicrous new car number plates, which no doubt will come stacked with new GPRS, RFID and other Big Brother attachments so the Government can trace my every activity.
Wouldn't it be simpler to spend this money on properly funding the police in the first place, so they can scrap all cameras (apart from the ones that are proven to have improved safety), at which point the problem of number plate cloning would go away.
Once again the tail is wagging the New Labour dog - and most of our so-called journalists are too lazy to spot even the most basic flaws in such political scams.
|
Oh look - another wolf (honest).
They were queuing up at the podium at the Department of Homeland Security today to trumpet the latest victory in the so-called war-on-terror.
Four men were arrested in connection with a plot to blow up the fuel supply line to JFK airport, which runs under New York city. Estimates of the number of people killed range between thousands and millions.
How fortunate that the FBI, CIA, Homeland Security and associated hangers-on were all there to arrest these people and stop this fiendish complex plot from ever bring such death and destruction innocent civilians.
Really?
Reading the small print these same 'heroes' admit that this so-called plot had only ever been "discussed" between the accused, who had no access to any resources to actually plan it properly or put it into action.
It also relied on the fuel pipeline to JFK having absolutely no safety features on it whatsoever, an assumption which the plotters though would mean it would explode along its entire length, taking out huge swathes of NYC.
In reality all fuel pipelines are bristling with safety cut-outs, valves, fire-suppression equipment and complex monitoring, especially anywhere near civilian homes, so the assumption was just plain wrong.
In short, this "plot" was a work of pure fiction in the minds of the so-called terrorists.
However that didn't stop all the Bush adminstration agencies and their professors of rotational medicine from shouting it out from the rooftops that they had busted this so-called "plot".
Just to scare the bejeezus out of us again in their increasingly desperate attempts to keep the population scared and voting for them.
Pathetic.
So what happens now?
The suspects will quietly disappear to Gitmo and never be heard of again, while the agencies concerned go back to plotting new ways to keep us all scared out of our wits.
Tom Clancy fans have to be careful as well - four people sitting round a table discussing his latest novel in which a Tornado fighter jet with 20 nuclear missiles is stolen, minaturised and surgically implanted into a speech writer at the White House could easily be mistaken for four people sitting round a table discussing a grand plot to ...
Ah.
Was anyone here born yesterday perchance?
|
Four men were arrested in connection with a plot to blow up the fuel supply line to JFK airport, which runs under New York city. Estimates of the number of people killed range between thousands and millions.
How fortunate that the FBI, CIA, Homeland Security and associated hangers-on were all there to arrest these people and stop this fiendish complex plot from ever bring such death and destruction innocent civilians.
Really?
Reading the small print these same 'heroes' admit that this so-called plot had only ever been "discussed" between the accused, who had no access to any resources to actually plan it properly or put it into action.
It also relied on the fuel pipeline to JFK having absolutely no safety features on it whatsoever, an assumption which the plotters though would mean it would explode along its entire length, taking out huge swathes of NYC.
In reality all fuel pipelines are bristling with safety cut-outs, valves, fire-suppression equipment and complex monitoring, especially anywhere near civilian homes, so the assumption was just plain wrong.
In short, this "plot" was a work of pure fiction in the minds of the so-called terrorists.
However that didn't stop all the Bush adminstration agencies and their professors of rotational medicine from shouting it out from the rooftops that they had busted this so-called "plot".
Just to scare the bejeezus out of us again in their increasingly desperate attempts to keep the population scared and voting for them.
Pathetic.
So what happens now?
The suspects will quietly disappear to Gitmo and never be heard of again, while the agencies concerned go back to plotting new ways to keep us all scared out of our wits.
Tom Clancy fans have to be careful as well - four people sitting round a table discussing his latest novel in which a Tornado fighter jet with 20 nuclear missiles is stolen, minaturised and surgically implanted into a speech writer at the White House could easily be mistaken for four people sitting round a table discussing a grand plot to ...
Ah.
Was anyone here born yesterday perchance?
|
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Scientology response
Saw this on YouTube and almost wet myself - I'll bet John Sweeney wishes he could have finished his rant the same way.
Less funny was the pontification posted about this on the BBC's Editors blog by Kevin Marsh, who is "Editor of the BBC's journalism college".
He puts a particularly sycophantic spin on the whole incident, saying it is the new era of journalism, open feedback, instant access, blah, blah, blah, ad nauseum.
(Actually I thought ad nauseum was a trailer for Neighbours but I digress.)
This is from an organisation which heavily moderates its viewer feedback, especially online, while claiming to be open and accountable. Its management is out of touch, especially in New Media, and operates in splendid isolation with the guaranteed income of the licence fee.
Aside from the fact that the BBC does not need a journalism college, because there are plenty of perfectly good ones in universities and colleges all around the world, Kevin Marsh was also the editor of the Today programme when Andrew Gilligan made his allegations, later proved to be true, about the Government "sexing up" the case for the War in Iraq. This later led to the fiasco that was the Hutton inquiry.
It was therefore his editorial oversight, criticised by Hutton, which has led to the BBC we have today - angst-ridden, suit-driven and risk-averse.
So one of the best Director Generals ever and the Chairman of the BBC are forced to resign, Gilligan is heavily criticised (despite being right) and also leaves, and what happens to the editor of the programme at the centre of the row?
He is rewarded with a cushy job as the head of a department which probably fails all the Public Service Tests which the BBC has to pass to ensure its gilt-lined operations don't drive a coach and horses through the commercial broadcast business models.
While I am a great supporter of the licence fee, this is proof, if any more were needed, that there does need to be a serious review of what the BBC does with that money in the 21st Century.
What's the betting the Hutton Report is item number one on the college's curriculum?
Or maybe not.
|
Less funny was the pontification posted about this on the BBC's Editors blog by Kevin Marsh, who is "Editor of the BBC's journalism college".
He puts a particularly sycophantic spin on the whole incident, saying it is the new era of journalism, open feedback, instant access, blah, blah, blah, ad nauseum.
(Actually I thought ad nauseum was a trailer for Neighbours but I digress.)
This is from an organisation which heavily moderates its viewer feedback, especially online, while claiming to be open and accountable. Its management is out of touch, especially in New Media, and operates in splendid isolation with the guaranteed income of the licence fee.
Aside from the fact that the BBC does not need a journalism college, because there are plenty of perfectly good ones in universities and colleges all around the world, Kevin Marsh was also the editor of the Today programme when Andrew Gilligan made his allegations, later proved to be true, about the Government "sexing up" the case for the War in Iraq. This later led to the fiasco that was the Hutton inquiry.
It was therefore his editorial oversight, criticised by Hutton, which has led to the BBC we have today - angst-ridden, suit-driven and risk-averse.
So one of the best Director Generals ever and the Chairman of the BBC are forced to resign, Gilligan is heavily criticised (despite being right) and also leaves, and what happens to the editor of the programme at the centre of the row?
He is rewarded with a cushy job as the head of a department which probably fails all the Public Service Tests which the BBC has to pass to ensure its gilt-lined operations don't drive a coach and horses through the commercial broadcast business models.
While I am a great supporter of the licence fee, this is proof, if any more were needed, that there does need to be a serious review of what the BBC does with that money in the 21st Century.
What's the betting the Hutton Report is item number one on the college's curriculum?
Or maybe not.
|
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Well done Mr Sweeney
BBC reporter John Sweeney has been "arse-kicked" but not fired over an incident in which he shouted at a member of the so-called Church of Scientology. This is a church which demands you pay them £100K just to learn about their core ideology and which has failed to be recognised by the UK Charity Commission.
Sweeney spent months investigating this cult, was filmed by members and had to go through a handler, Tom Davis. During a tour of the Scientologist exhibition which excoriates psychology (blaming psychologists by the way for the Holocaust), Davis claims the reporter gave a critic of Scientology a hard time. Sweeney shouted in response that Davis did not see the whole interview, and continues shouting for around half a minute.
The clip has been posted on YouTube by the Scientologists who are now using it to undermine Sweeney and the BBC, and comments on the site are being heavily moderated. Another version has been posted here on YouTube (under the subject of 'Comedy') and there's a much greater spread of responses.
But what no-one has commented on is the response from Tom Davis.
He just kept talking.
Sweeney ranted and raved, screamed and shouted - and there was not one jot of response from Davis who kept rambling on about Sweeney's earlier interview. At one point Sweeney pauses and says: "Do you understand?" twice, in a very calm voice. Davis just continues his monotone without stopping. So Sweeney shouts again, and Davis still blathers on.
This was an outburst a frustration, an outburst which shows Sweeney was still human and had not succumbed to the brain-washing of the Scientologists. It also shows he had tried everything to get Davis to listen to reason and even shouting didn't work.
What's also interesting is that the Scientologists, who are well known for their harrassment, bullying and threats (just Google or search YouTube for XenuTV) are now playing the victim in the face of some of their own medicine - a pathetic response, although I suppose it proves that the Americans really don't do irony.
By all accounts, Sweeney showed outstanding restraint, and even though he lost it this once, IMHO he has operated in the best traditions of investigative journalism - which is exactly what the BBC should be doing.
Sweeney was justified to try everything to get Davis to listen, and this proves the basic tenets of the programme, that Scientology is a cult and its followers are, like Davis, brainwashed automatons with all the freedom of sheep.
And at £100K a throw, well-fleeced sheep at that.
|
Sweeney spent months investigating this cult, was filmed by members and had to go through a handler, Tom Davis. During a tour of the Scientologist exhibition which excoriates psychology (blaming psychologists by the way for the Holocaust), Davis claims the reporter gave a critic of Scientology a hard time. Sweeney shouted in response that Davis did not see the whole interview, and continues shouting for around half a minute.
The clip has been posted on YouTube by the Scientologists who are now using it to undermine Sweeney and the BBC, and comments on the site are being heavily moderated. Another version has been posted here on YouTube (under the subject of 'Comedy') and there's a much greater spread of responses.
But what no-one has commented on is the response from Tom Davis.
He just kept talking.
Sweeney ranted and raved, screamed and shouted - and there was not one jot of response from Davis who kept rambling on about Sweeney's earlier interview. At one point Sweeney pauses and says: "Do you understand?" twice, in a very calm voice. Davis just continues his monotone without stopping. So Sweeney shouts again, and Davis still blathers on.
This was an outburst a frustration, an outburst which shows Sweeney was still human and had not succumbed to the brain-washing of the Scientologists. It also shows he had tried everything to get Davis to listen to reason and even shouting didn't work.
What's also interesting is that the Scientologists, who are well known for their harrassment, bullying and threats (just Google or search YouTube for XenuTV) are now playing the victim in the face of some of their own medicine - a pathetic response, although I suppose it proves that the Americans really don't do irony.
By all accounts, Sweeney showed outstanding restraint, and even though he lost it this once, IMHO he has operated in the best traditions of investigative journalism - which is exactly what the BBC should be doing.
Sweeney was justified to try everything to get Davis to listen, and this proves the basic tenets of the programme, that Scientology is a cult and its followers are, like Davis, brainwashed automatons with all the freedom of sheep.
And at £100K a throw, well-fleeced sheep at that.
|
Thursday, May 10, 2007
WTF is Harold Saxon?
I thought I'd come out of blog retirement to examine a question which is currently rattling around inside many people's noddles at the moment, well, followers of Doctor Who that is:
Just who is Harold Saxon?
In the best traditions of the series-long threads that have run through the series since its return to our screens in 2005, like 'Bad Wolf' and 'Torchwood', the latest has the recurring "Mr Saxon" who is, by all accounts a senior politician in present-day (or near present day Earth), there are posters exhorting people to "Vote Saxon" and even a spoof website - which proves someone at BBC Online has far too much time on their hands.
We're promised the return of another baddie, and the Face of B'oh [sic] says the Doctor is not the only remaining Time Lord, so obviously everyone thinks Saxon is the Master.
I sincerely hope they're wrong. Paul McGann saw off the Master who'd already gone way past his sell-by date in 1995; the Master was sucked into the heart of the TARDIS and has never been heard of again.
For newer followers of the Doctor, The Master was often hidden early in stories by having anagrams appear in the Radio Times instead of the actor's name. So in The King's Demons (1983), Anthony Ainley's name was omitted and the person who the Master was disguised as was played by James Stoker (anagram of 'Master's Joke').
So Richard Whiteley's fans have been examining the name Saxon and all variants for similar clues. The nearest I think anyone's got is that 'Mister Saxon' rearranges to 'Master No Six', claiming that John Simms would be the sixth actor to play the role, and that proves it, so there! No, all it proves it that they should be working on spoof websites for the BBC, if they don't already.
But this series has shown Russell T. Davis' eye for detail - he ressurrected the Macra for a cameo appearance, even though they were one of the more forgettable monsters which Patrick Troughton faced in 1967. Sadly he didn't have enough time to expand on how they had got themselves to New Earth and condemned humanity to sitting in a permanent traffic jam just they could feed off the fumes.
I'm still trying to work out where those vehicles filled up or how, in a closed system the humans inside the cars managed to breathe for seven years, let alone eat and reproduce.
As RTD concentrated on the developing relationship between the Doctor and Maarfa, plot holes shot by, making a lovely whoosing noise as they did so - it would have been nice to have had the Macra ressurrected as a top-class monster - sadly, it wasn't to be.
So, could our latest plot device be a similar thing - third Time Lord from the left during Patrick Troughton's trial in The War Games?
Or could it be the Meddling Monk, who was bettered by William Hartnell in The Time Meddler (1965). The Doctor disabled the Monk's TARDIS leaving him stranded in 1066 after discovering the Monk wanted to change the course of history by selling atomic weapons to King Harold so the Saxons could easily beat the Vikings at Stamford Bridge and then head south all happy and refreshed to do the same to William of Normandy at Hastings.
But that would be too obvious. Wouldn't it?
So in light of that - my money's on:
Kerr Avon.
Oh suit yourself.
|
Just who is Harold Saxon?
In the best traditions of the series-long threads that have run through the series since its return to our screens in 2005, like 'Bad Wolf' and 'Torchwood', the latest has the recurring "Mr Saxon" who is, by all accounts a senior politician in present-day (or near present day Earth), there are posters exhorting people to "Vote Saxon" and even a spoof website - which proves someone at BBC Online has far too much time on their hands.
We're promised the return of another baddie, and the Face of B'oh [sic] says the Doctor is not the only remaining Time Lord, so obviously everyone thinks Saxon is the Master.
I sincerely hope they're wrong. Paul McGann saw off the Master who'd already gone way past his sell-by date in 1995; the Master was sucked into the heart of the TARDIS and has never been heard of again.
For newer followers of the Doctor, The Master was often hidden early in stories by having anagrams appear in the Radio Times instead of the actor's name. So in The King's Demons (1983), Anthony Ainley's name was omitted and the person who the Master was disguised as was played by James Stoker (anagram of 'Master's Joke').
So Richard Whiteley's fans have been examining the name Saxon and all variants for similar clues. The nearest I think anyone's got is that 'Mister Saxon' rearranges to 'Master No Six', claiming that John Simms would be the sixth actor to play the role, and that proves it, so there! No, all it proves it that they should be working on spoof websites for the BBC, if they don't already.
But this series has shown Russell T. Davis' eye for detail - he ressurrected the Macra for a cameo appearance, even though they were one of the more forgettable monsters which Patrick Troughton faced in 1967. Sadly he didn't have enough time to expand on how they had got themselves to New Earth and condemned humanity to sitting in a permanent traffic jam just they could feed off the fumes.
I'm still trying to work out where those vehicles filled up or how, in a closed system the humans inside the cars managed to breathe for seven years, let alone eat and reproduce.
As RTD concentrated on the developing relationship between the Doctor and Maarfa, plot holes shot by, making a lovely whoosing noise as they did so - it would have been nice to have had the Macra ressurrected as a top-class monster - sadly, it wasn't to be.
So, could our latest plot device be a similar thing - third Time Lord from the left during Patrick Troughton's trial in The War Games?
Or could it be the Meddling Monk, who was bettered by William Hartnell in The Time Meddler (1965). The Doctor disabled the Monk's TARDIS leaving him stranded in 1066 after discovering the Monk wanted to change the course of history by selling atomic weapons to King Harold so the Saxons could easily beat the Vikings at Stamford Bridge and then head south all happy and refreshed to do the same to William of Normandy at Hastings.
But that would be too obvious. Wouldn't it?
So in light of that - my money's on:
Kerr Avon.
Oh suit yourself.
|
Thursday, March 10, 2005
No sympathy
So staff at the BBC reacted with "anger and dismay" when 1,370 redundancies were announced today among the so-called 'Professional Services'? This is reaction is, in itself, amazing considering that they were told by Mark Thompson back in December that 45% of them would be losing their jobs as part of the overall efficiency improvements at the Corporation.
To be honest, they deserve it. All big organisations have bureaucracies, but the BBC's was the worst I've ever come across. Large, blinkered and slow-moving and one department never knew what any other was up to because each part of the bureaucracy was run like a mini-empire; a fiefdom that brooked no intrusion from the real world or other bits of the BBC.
Trying to get the finance person in one department to talk to a finance person in another department was like trying to push water uphill; and woe betide you if you wanted to advertise a job, that process could take months! On top of which these 'Professional Services' were so painfully PC that we may as well have told any white British males not to bother even applying, as the odds were so stacked against them.
OK, so I went through a long, slow and painful redundancy from the BBC a couple of years ago, and even though my boss said he wanted me redeployed because there was plenty of work (and enough budget), the idiots in 'Personnel' said it couldn't be done. So that was it - thousands of pounds of licence-fee payers money given to me to go, when it would have been cheaper to keep me on.
I know of many people who have also been made 'bureaucratically redundant' (as opposed to voluntarily or compulsarily) and who have since gone back to the BBC as contractors to be paid more for doing almost exactly the same work!
If it's to survive, the BBC has to be able to move quickly to respond to the pace of change in the market and the growing challenge of consumer technology - halving the number of useless pen-pushers can only help.
The problem is that for the most part, the damage has already been done. When I first worked for the BBC in the early 1980s it was run by creative giants, now it's run by strategists in suits who have all the creativity of a concussed bee.
The real creatives have already left or have been made redundant, now the pen-pushers who got rid of them are on their way too, which will leave just the suits - they'll now have to try and work out how much it's going to cost them to buy the creatives back so the future of the BBC can be assured.
Maybe it's time I went freelance again.
|
To be honest, they deserve it. All big organisations have bureaucracies, but the BBC's was the worst I've ever come across. Large, blinkered and slow-moving and one department never knew what any other was up to because each part of the bureaucracy was run like a mini-empire; a fiefdom that brooked no intrusion from the real world or other bits of the BBC.
Trying to get the finance person in one department to talk to a finance person in another department was like trying to push water uphill; and woe betide you if you wanted to advertise a job, that process could take months! On top of which these 'Professional Services' were so painfully PC that we may as well have told any white British males not to bother even applying, as the odds were so stacked against them.
OK, so I went through a long, slow and painful redundancy from the BBC a couple of years ago, and even though my boss said he wanted me redeployed because there was plenty of work (and enough budget), the idiots in 'Personnel' said it couldn't be done. So that was it - thousands of pounds of licence-fee payers money given to me to go, when it would have been cheaper to keep me on.
I know of many people who have also been made 'bureaucratically redundant' (as opposed to voluntarily or compulsarily) and who have since gone back to the BBC as contractors to be paid more for doing almost exactly the same work!
If it's to survive, the BBC has to be able to move quickly to respond to the pace of change in the market and the growing challenge of consumer technology - halving the number of useless pen-pushers can only help.
The problem is that for the most part, the damage has already been done. When I first worked for the BBC in the early 1980s it was run by creative giants, now it's run by strategists in suits who have all the creativity of a concussed bee.
The real creatives have already left or have been made redundant, now the pen-pushers who got rid of them are on their way too, which will leave just the suits - they'll now have to try and work out how much it's going to cost them to buy the creatives back so the future of the BBC can be assured.
Maybe it's time I went freelance again.
|
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
See that ? That's a wolf that is.
Once again the Government are trying to convince us that we live in a free country by taking away all our freedom. What kind of half-wits do they think we are?
The equation is very simple: The moment we start removing even the most basic freedoms from honest citizens in the name of security is the moment that the terrorists have won, and in the case of the UK, they will have won without lifting a finger or planting a single ounce of semtex.
British politicians, who apparently have to have their backbone removed before they qualify for office, are totally under al-Qaeda control, and will do anything to try and prove they have the situation under control, which means they will curb anyone's freedom if they think it will help them survive the fallout from a terrorist attack on this country.
This is not public security we're talking about, this is ministers looking after themselves and themselves alone - the rest of us will have to take our chances.
The problem, is that they're still talking about a highly organised, well funded network of sleeper cells and combat groups in every country. There's absolutely no evidence to back this claim up, and even if any were produced by Mr Bliar and his so-called 'intelligence services', who would believe it.
Al-Qaeda is more terrifying for politicians because it doesn't actually exist and there's nothing they can actually target a Tomahawk missile at. Yes, there are individual terrorists who want to blow other people up because they don't like their religion or the colour of their eyes and nutters who just like the bangs and explosions and hav nothing better in life to look forward to; if any of them do blow something up, it's easy for the 'intelligence community' to then claim they were part al-Qaeda, when in fact it was some lone saddo who once borrowed a copy of the Koran off a mate just to keep his coffee-table level.
No-one will argue with them because it's not in their best interest to disavow them of their belief; the politicians will use it call for more control and less freedom, the 'intelligence community' and the police will use it to call for more funding, and Osama will happily claim it as one of his because it keeps him in the news and makes him look like he means business while in fact he's probably sitting in a luxury yacht off an island somewhere in the Pacific sipping Pimms, having daily dialysis and chatting with his cousins in America on the phone while they trade on the NASDAQ for him.
No - everyone is happy that we think al-Qaeda is a threat, which is why Bliar continues to try and scare the bejeezus out of everyone with heavyweight pronouncements about terrorist threats on Woman's Hour, because he's scared he might be challenged to tell the truth on any serious news programme, rather than being asked about his latest knitting pattern for a full-body anti-germ warfare suit.
As I said - what kind of half-wits do these people think we are?
|
The equation is very simple: The moment we start removing even the most basic freedoms from honest citizens in the name of security is the moment that the terrorists have won, and in the case of the UK, they will have won without lifting a finger or planting a single ounce of semtex.
British politicians, who apparently have to have their backbone removed before they qualify for office, are totally under al-Qaeda control, and will do anything to try and prove they have the situation under control, which means they will curb anyone's freedom if they think it will help them survive the fallout from a terrorist attack on this country.
This is not public security we're talking about, this is ministers looking after themselves and themselves alone - the rest of us will have to take our chances.
The problem, is that they're still talking about a highly organised, well funded network of sleeper cells and combat groups in every country. There's absolutely no evidence to back this claim up, and even if any were produced by Mr Bliar and his so-called 'intelligence services', who would believe it.
Al-Qaeda is more terrifying for politicians because it doesn't actually exist and there's nothing they can actually target a Tomahawk missile at. Yes, there are individual terrorists who want to blow other people up because they don't like their religion or the colour of their eyes and nutters who just like the bangs and explosions and hav nothing better in life to look forward to; if any of them do blow something up, it's easy for the 'intelligence community' to then claim they were part al-Qaeda, when in fact it was some lone saddo who once borrowed a copy of the Koran off a mate just to keep his coffee-table level.
No-one will argue with them because it's not in their best interest to disavow them of their belief; the politicians will use it call for more control and less freedom, the 'intelligence community' and the police will use it to call for more funding, and Osama will happily claim it as one of his because it keeps him in the news and makes him look like he means business while in fact he's probably sitting in a luxury yacht off an island somewhere in the Pacific sipping Pimms, having daily dialysis and chatting with his cousins in America on the phone while they trade on the NASDAQ for him.
No - everyone is happy that we think al-Qaeda is a threat, which is why Bliar continues to try and scare the bejeezus out of everyone with heavyweight pronouncements about terrorist threats on Woman's Hour, because he's scared he might be challenged to tell the truth on any serious news programme, rather than being asked about his latest knitting pattern for a full-body anti-germ warfare suit.
As I said - what kind of half-wits do these people think we are?
|
Friday, January 28, 2005
Jus' doin' his job.
Why on Earth does anyone think that the man behind the Crazy Frog ringtone has anything to apologise for? The BBC seem to think he has and say so in a magazine piece today.
Unfortunately the writer (like many of his colleagues at BBC News Online) seems to think his opinions are more fascinating than the impartial, objective reportage the Corporation should be producing. This could have been an entertaining piece if the writer had just butted out.
What about the answer to the question? Well of course the man who first created it has nothing to reproach himself for, he was doing what he does best - being creative.
The people who should be shot are the marketeers and companies who are now exploiting his work and him, and the sheep who buy this crap in the first place in the faint hope that because some marketing wonk has decided it's "the fashion", it'll make them appear cool.
It doesn't, it just makes them annoying, and obvious with it.
|
Unfortunately the writer (like many of his colleagues at BBC News Online) seems to think his opinions are more fascinating than the impartial, objective reportage the Corporation should be producing. This could have been an entertaining piece if the writer had just butted out.
What about the answer to the question? Well of course the man who first created it has nothing to reproach himself for, he was doing what he does best - being creative.
The people who should be shot are the marketeers and companies who are now exploiting his work and him, and the sheep who buy this crap in the first place in the faint hope that because some marketing wonk has decided it's "the fashion", it'll make them appear cool.
It doesn't, it just makes them annoying, and obvious with it.
|
