The Power of Marketing

I was struck by the cheek of the marketing industry today while in the shower. I saw their shameless attempt to double the profits of the shampoo maker displayed on the bottle instructing idiots how to use the product: at the end of the instructions on how to shampoo your hair was.......

' NOW REPEAT'

Aye - that'll be right!

See you later.

Listening to:

No thanks luv..........

Not being a royalist I had to avoid TV for most of the last week as it was completely dominated by programming around royals, royalty and diamond jubilee’s as the BBC and politicians tried to whip everyone into a patriotic frenzy and remind everyone of the ‘stiff upper lip’ kind of ethos that makes this country great. {aye right} It seemed like every minor member of the royal family was on telly, being interviewed about how great it is to have a royal family doing all that very important work for us plebs and what great value for money they all are and what a wonderful woman HMTQ is or presenting programmes about how great it is to have a royal family doing lots of very important work and being very good value for money and not forgetting what a wonderful woman HMTQ is.  News, weather, current affairs, history and even bloomin cookery programmes across BBC TV and radio aligned themselves to the jubilee and strained themselves to make connections at every level no matter how obscure or ridiculous as ‘the whole nation went into countdown for The Queens jubilee’.

Not me.

Surprisingly lots of people who should frankly IMHO know better got sucked in {or had to toe the line} to the extent that I couldn’t bear to switch on the TV to even try and watch any British orientated programming unless they were repeats – which is I suppose quite easy these days where stuff is constantly re-run ad nauseam regardless of quality. {Jings I’m jaded!} Unable to listen to my normal radio station in the car as it got to such a state of jubilee hysteria that anyone being interviewed or phoning in to request a song was asked what they were doing to celebrate the occasion I drove in silence for days in case I burst a blood vessel.

Country in crisis? Jobless at highest for decades? Hopelessly incompetent multi-millionaire politicians running the country bent on maintaining a corrupt capitalist economy and hierarchical class system where those who have get more and those who haven’t can pay up and shut up?

Stick up some bunting and have a party!  God bless Queen Liz! {for conveniently having an anniversary to deflect attention for us.}

{sings- in Dick Van Dyke-Mary Poppins-esque 'gawd bless ya Guv' kind of way } Pack up yer tru-bbles in yer oold kit baag and smile, smile, smiiiile................

No thanks luv. No offence, I'm sure you're a perfectly nice wee woman who works hard and feels that what you're doing is important 'n that. I'm sure you're glad that your {extended} family have a p{a}lace to live and food to eat and that their future and income is secure.

But you're not for me. I can't support what you stand for. Frankly I'd send you all back where you came from. {first class of course}

And my jubilee moment of the week -  a comment in a German newspaper who said that they 'wished that Germany had a royal family like the British' 

Um??????

See you later. 

Listening to:

A Fair and Balanced View.

An essential fair and balanced view

I'm becoming more than a little unhappy with the BBC. It seems more and more obvious lately that the powers that be within what is supposedly an independent, objective news organisation are aligning themselves more and more closely to the established government line, to the detriment of fair and balanced reporting.

For several months I have been annoyed by the political discussion show "Question Time" chaired by David Dimbleby. The panels are increasingly weighted on the side of government argument with one Cabinet minister, one Tory MP, one LibDem MP and as often as not a celebrity supporter of Conservative policy with a token Labour voice or independent panellist. On top of that I feel that Mr Dimbleby's chairing leaves much to be desired when it comes to objectivity and the ability to provide a fair and open discussion. Often he will question the antiestablishment voice on the panel again and again in supposed "clarification" when he rarely does this to other panel members and he's much more likely to interrupt any non-government speaker or curtail the time allotted to them to answer a question. I've also found him irritatingly dismissive of clear and sensible questions from the audience pertinent to the discussion at hand for no explicable reason. He also allows Tory and Lib-Dem {or is that Con-Dem} to veer off piste, usually prefaced by the "Of course, we inherited this terrible position from the previous govt who failed to......" or "What the previous govt failed to do was ...."  before waffling on about some twaddle which clearly the party want on the agenda but certainly isn't a direct answer to any question put to the panel. And OK, to be fair ALL politicians are prone to this nonsense - but it's the role of a good chairman to keep the panellists in line and stop this infuriating and insulting rubbish out of it. The question is usually "What are you going to do about" something or "Do you feel this is the right way to deal with" something. When asked this, all we want to know is what you are doing about it and why - not what the other party have failed to do or what they have done that's "made things so very much worse than they first appeared". To be honest if you didn't know exactly what was going on then your a bloody poor opposition - and if you couldn't find these things out then you can bet your doing just as much you want to keep hidden too.

 I'm beginning to wonder why I watch the damned program.

Even the main evening news on BBC1 the other evening contained what I consider to be biased reporting and subliminal messages elevating the position of the government both in national and international issues regardless of other relevant points of view. For example; a news item showed the three main party leaders visiting a factory together in support of a jobs initiative. The first shot showed the three leaders entering the factory floor together while a voice-over explained that David Cameron and the other two party leaders had visited the factory. The narrative continued explaining that "Mr Cameron" was leading an initiative to improve jobs and apprenticeships in British industry. The next 3 min went to great lengths to explain "Mr Cameron's" visit and each shot showed only the Prime Minister and not any of the other party leaders. David Cameron was heard to ask questions of workers on the shopfloor and was shown posed in statesmanlike poses amongst the workers as he listened attentively to them. The voice-over continually referred to him as Mr Cameron, something I don't remember happening before when the previous prime minister was referred to as "Gordon Brown" or simply "the Prime Minister". It seemed obvious to me that the whole tone of the article was designed to increase David Cameron's stature in the public eye and though he was visiting with the other party leaders in this instance, to focus on him as being the only relevant person.

Almost the next item in the news was about "Mr Cameron's" position on the euro financial crisis. As the newsreader read the article a photograph was displayed behind her – a compilation of two images – one of Angela Merkel the German Chancellor, the other of the Prime Minister, but in this instance these head and shoulder portraits had been manipulated so that her figure appeared slightly below that of Mr Cameron and his arm appeared to be wagging a finger at her. It seemed to me that this was designed to give the impression that he was on the higher moral ground and was reprovingly warning her off. Interestingly, when you looked closely at the picture it was clear that this hand was in fact not David Cameron's but hers.

It may be a sign of modern times or it may just be a sign that I'm a grumpy old so-and-so but I'm really disappointed when at almost every news program I can pick out something that is being emphasised in a particular direction with no balancing point of view. I'm no intellectual but I'm no idiot either and I resent being treated in a manner that offends my sense of justice and appears to assume that I haven't the ability to smell bullshit when it's propped directly beneath my nose.

Okay – rant over.

See you later.

Listening to:

The Politics of Modern Debate?

Hullo ma wee blog,

I've done a fair bit of ranting  or commenting about politics on the blog. That's odd because I would never have previously described myself as particularly political. Sure I have a point of view, and I hold my values dearly, but I never felt engaged enough by politics to get involved, other than exercising my right and - in my eyes - my obligation to vote. Although not a member of a political party I see voting as a must. After all, if you don't vote you've little grounds to complain about anything that happens after in my view. So over the years I've listened, formed and changed opinions, gone back to previously held views and grafted on new ones and all the while, at every opportunity, I've trudged to the polling station and voted for the party or sometimes the person that conforms closest to my values. I've not always voted for the same party, although mostly I have. Through the years no matter what way I've voted in real terms I don't feel it's made a great or in fact any difference. Maybe that's the effect of democracy, that the individual want is never truly expressed through the majority, but somehow I think not. I know if I had my way society would be different, priorities would be different and in my own narrow view therefore would be better. Millions of us I suspect feel pretty much the same way.

But, and I know this is a bit late in life, I'm coming to the conclusion that it's not politics but politicians who are the problem. I sat the other night and watched what I deem to be the BBC flagship political programme, the weekly 'Question Time' debate where a panel of 'experts' from ostensibly different political viewpoints face questions from an audience which is supposedly representative of the UK as a whole. This week I found it grotesque, almost a pantomime. Huge effort was expanded by the politicians on the panel in deliberately misunderstanding and misrepresenting what other panelists said. Great mountains were created from overheated non arguments and all the political parties blamed the other while obviously suffering from acute amnesia of their own broken promises. Again and again answers to reasonable questions from the audience were twisted to make a comment about what the other parties had or had not done, had or had not said, while 'they' were diligently trying to do the right thing and all the time suffering from being misunderstood. Any attempt by another panelist to make a point was interrupted and talked over and lengthy amounts of time were eaten up by panelists being allowed by the host to meander off into history or different areas of ideology that were never at the heart of the original question. It was infuriating and depressing.

And that's the problem. No one in politics can take a question and give a straightforward honest answer about their opinion and stick to it. Answers are couched in language designed for later ease of denial, easy to infer a change of emphasis and are held up against an opposing viewpoint in an often vague and spurious example of why they should not be trusted. Again and again the same thing. Politicians all speak of 'needing to engage with a wider audience'. They all talk the talk about declining numbers voting at elections and how people need to take little interest in politics. State worry about declining numbers at the polls during elections and how this poor turnout doesn't truly give a clear or effective mandate for government. The answer is surely clear. The electorate are disenfranchised, uninterested in the continual performancing of politicians. We don't want you to dance around the question afraid to get it wrong. We don't want you to take the question and start off by explaining what the other party didn't do about it. This is exhausting, time wasting nonsense. Stop treating us like illiterate imbecillic children. Do you really have such a poor regards for us - your employers. Do you lack the real conviction of your own argument to carry the debate. We want to know what you are going to do. We want you to lay it on the line clearly and unambiguously. We want the truth. We want the facts. We want promises upheld and we want you to stop wasting time pissing on the other guys parade when yours should be in full flow. None of you seems to be particularly fired up about anything. No one shows any passion. Are you all made in the same political factory? You all seem to be working to the same formula regardless of party, of ideology, of doctrine, advised by the same old advisers and constricted by the same old thinking and same old-school perspective.  If the future of politics is going to be this way, with professional politico's out for themselves when we need inspirational leaders with new ideas and the passion to take people with you, then the situation with the voters will only get worse. The stability of long term single party government you all seek will be unobtainable if all you do is promise, lie and deny us the credibility we deserve and the credibility we ask for with every tick on voting papers. End this farce of politics by performance, communication by soundbite. Start treating us with some respect.

Frankly - you 're not good enough.

Like someone once said; the key to politics is integrity. If you can fake that, you've got it made.......

As far as I can see most of you need to take a long walk off a short pier.

And as far as the BBC is concerned - the panel for the programme:  two members of the government, {none from the opposition} a historian once described as one of the top 100 influential people in the world, a human rights activist and an extremist view candidate for Mayor of London. The historian was more Tory than the Tories, never once did he question the government position and constantly interrupted the other speakers. The human rights campaigner hardly got a look in. Through all this I felt the chairing of the programme was very establishment biased and sometimes quite dismissive of audience opinion {at one point he stated a question from the audience came from her own agenda and then allowed the panel to basically completely disregard the real - and relevant - issue of the question in its answer.}  Not what I would call conducive to fair and open debate.

Listening to this - which perfectly describes my feelings.

How To Answer.........Taxing Questions!

Hullo ma wee blog,

I'm not a particularly political animal. My political leanings would probably lie more on the socialist side than elsewhere I suppose but I don't in any way hold an extreme view on politics. I'm not a member of a political party; I wouldn't go out on the streets and canvas for a politician. Sure, I've been on a few protest walks over the years, written a few letters of complaint about issues that affect me directly or more often, involve the local community. I've signed the odd petition too, but that's about it. Politics itself, or more accurately politicians, while they don't occupy my mind too often, do still interest me enough to cast an eye on news and current affairs programmes on TV or articles in newspapers and online etc. When they do attract my attention it's usually about something that's intrigued or annoyed me, that's rankled me enough to grab the lap-top and put a rant on the blog. What's most important to me is integrity. I can put up with someone who tries their hardest but occasionally gets it wrong. I would appreciate someone who could hold their hands up and say "Sorry! that shouldn't have happened and won't happen again. Here's what went wrong and what we'll do to fix it"

The old joke about politician is:

'How do you know when a politician is lying?'

'His lips are moving......'


But that is just a joke - right?


I think politicians are an odd breed. They say they want to improve society, make our country a better place or whatever inane reasons they come up with, but at the core of it all often seems to be a personal desire, a need,  to be at the center, and to be seen to be at the heart of the decision making progress. Some, if not most, no doubt are genuine in their aspirations but power is an important aspect, as is status and respect from others and so on. Of course kudos is in there, the wish to be influential, recognition, ambition and many other human traits. But I freely admit this is a simplistic view.  People are complicated after all and politics too is a complicated situation.

Politicians always seem to know what should be done, even if they never seem to be able to actually do it. They always seem to know why not doing something they promised isn't a failure or why recognising that a pre-election promise couldn't be done or shouldn't be done after election doesn't mean they are incompetent or incapable of running a country. They are great at avoiding responsibility or worse at admitting culpability. Review and investigations often find no evidence of wrongdoing even if they come up with huge amounts of 'improvements' that are needed to a situation.

Earlier this year it was expenses: a situation where huge numbers of MP's had significantly and sometimes unreasonably over claimed - not because they were complacent or deliberately trying to manipulate the system to their own personal advantage you understand, but the system was too complicated, too ineffective and too poorly controlled to pick up errors etc.
  
I thought it was strange as this was an expenses system designed by MP's,  approved by MP's,  implemented by MP's and policed by MP's.  But, hey - what do I know? I mean if they can't organise a simple and effective process to control their expenses, why would I be concerned about their ability to govern an economy............

I was looking forward on Monday night to a Panorama story about Tory 'Lord Ashcroft's Millions'. Billionaire Lord Ashcroft is one of the Tory party's biggest benefactors, one reason why he was made a Lord several years ago. There was quite a rumpus at the time because while he was donating to the Tory party he was a non domicile - registered as living abroad and therefore not a UK taxpayer - which was against the rules at the time I seem to remember. Then leader of the party William Hague - now foreign secretary - stood in the Commons and stated that he had discussed the situation with Lord Ashcroft who had agreed to register as domiciled in the UK which would result in the exchequer benefiting by 'tens of millions of {tax} pounds a year' from this change which was of course the right thing to do.

Ordinary folk make political donations out of income already taxed in the UK. But Bearwood - his UK based company which ostensibly made the donations - did not have sufficient income to cover political donations. Most of the cash donated to the Conservative party has therefore come from Lord Ashcroft's operations in Belize. He enjoys lucrative tax breaks by basing his business empire in this Commonwealth member in Central America.

In March this year, ahead of a freedom of information statement by the Cabinet Office, Lord Ashcroft acknowledged that he is still non-domiciled in the UK for tax purposes despite what Wm Hague advised Parliament { with Lord Ashcroft's blessing I assume or, if Hague was stating incorrect information, why would Lord Ashcroft not have corrected his mistake}. That means that he paid income tax on his personal income and gains arising in the UK, or foreign income and gains remitted to the UK only, not gains held abroad. Unlike most other citizens, the law permits him to arrange his personal affairs in such a way that his worldwide income, subject to double taxation relief, is not taxed in the UK. Despite this, the Conservative party secured a life peerage for him, which therefore gave him a role as a legislator in the Houses of Parliament. In that capacity, he can speak and vote in the House of Lords on all legislative matters, including taxation, yet as an unelected appointee he cannot be removed, no matter how dissatisfied people may be with him.

Lord Ashcroft's recent statement sets out the March 2000 undertakings he gave to William Hague MP, the then leader of the Conservative party, that he would "take up permanent residence in the UK again" by the end of that year. Now, some ten years later, he says that this meant as "a long-term resident" and not as a tax payer. This appears to be at odds with what Hague believed had been agreed or he would not have made such a statement to the House of Commons. One of them - at least - is lying about this. Recently pressed on whether he had confirmed with Lord Ashcroft that the agreed changes had been made Mr Hague repeatedly failed to answer the question, which smacks of yet another disingenuous lack of integrity. Although he fails to answer a direct question it's clear that he believes the arrangement was for Ashcroft to assume full tax liability. Like Paxman I'm amazed that the simple 'Have you?' question has apparently never been asked or perhaps answered. Perhaps it's not the kind of thing you should need to ask a gentleman who has given his word?



Lord Ashcroft has allegedly continued to avoid millions of pounds of tax despite promising to become a full UK taxpayer, something the BBC has been investigating. The Conservative peer was also alleged to have transferred ownership of his main UK company, the Impellam Group, to a trust for the benefit of his children.  Lord Ashcroft, who has also resigned as deputy chairman of the Conservative Party, transferred his £17m stake in Impellam on 5 April.  The next day, on 6 April, a new law forced people sitting in the House of Lords to pay tax on their worldwide income and assets.

Tax lawyer Richard Frimston told Panorama that Lord Ashcroft would have faced a hefty inheritance tax bill under the new legislation if he had made the change one day later.  "If that had been done on the following day, assets worth say £17m going into trust would have been subject to tax at 20%, which would have created an immediate inheritance tax charge of something in the region of £3.4m. "So that was avoided by doing it on 5 April as opposed to waiting until 6 April."  A month before the new law took effect, Lord Ashcroft had said in a statement that he agreed with the new tax rules for the House of Lords. And in a televised interview on election night, he confirmed that he was becoming a full UK taxpayer.  The billionaire businessman may not have broken any rules by using the family trust, but his actions appear to conflict directly with the coalition government's stance on tax avoidance.

On Monday night the BBC current affairs programme 'Panorama' was due to broadcast the result of an investigation onto the situation. Lord Ashcroft had been asked to respond to some questions by Friday afternoon prior to broacast and had not. Then suddenly on Monday afternoon his lawyers reponded with information which has now resulted in the programme being withdrawn and placed under review.

Sources close to the peer claimed the programme was pulled because journalists had misinterpreted a company document released by Impellam on 6 April 2010.  Lawyers for Ashcroft have been engaged in a year-long battle with the BBC over the investigation into the Tory peer.  The Impellam document said the company "had been notified that, following a transfer of an indirect interest in the company, Lord Ashcroft no longer has a beneficial interest in 25,745,349 ordinary shares of 1p each in the company. These shares represented the whole of his beneficial interest in the company".  The BBC's investigators interpreted this to mean that Ashcroft had controlled the shares and subsequently moved them into a trust to benefit his children, according to a Conservative source. Ashcroft's lawyers, however, argued that the use of the phrase "indirect interest" showed that he did not own the shares.

A BBC spokesman last night confirmed that the programme had been delayed. "We put a number of questions to Lord Ashcroft two weeks ago, including one relating to a share interest transfer. We asked for a response by Friday 24 September. A response was received this afternoon. We have been given information that sheds new light on that issue and we will therefore review the programme."

 With what appears to be a calculated strategy by Lord Ashcroft, the BBC have been left with egg on it's face and a source close Tory party stated " the peer had been "saddened" and alleged there had been by a "demise of journalistic standards" at the BBC.  "There has been enormous waste of public money chasing this story – from flights to the Caribbean, to expensive legal fees," he said. "How the BBC could get itself into such a mess over such an easily checkable fact is laughable."

Aye, right...........That'll be why he waited until Monday afternoon to respond

To me it seems there is a lot more to be revealed about this story and yet another potentially cynical use of power and influence to hide a deception on what many people saw to be a clear and open statement of intent - to conform to the highest standard of behaviour in public office by someone who should have a vested interest in behaving in a completely scrupulous manner.

I won't hold my breath though........

See you later

Listening to Puchini 'La Boheme'

Cheese - and Whine.

Hullo ma wee blog,

It's a bit daft really. I've got loads to do but done none of it today. I've spent the day mainly in the garden. Sure, I've justified it to myself by saying that I should make the most of the weather while its here and I have done some weeding and minor odds and sods around the garden but in reality most of the day has just been me goofing off, enjoying the sun and the fact that the grass - never a lawn - is looking good simply because its the shortest it's been for weeks, which hides a multitude of sins. In my delusional mode I call it 'organic' or 'natural' or even 'wildlife', but I'm fooling myself as its really none of those, even if it is teeming with well fed birds thanks to an intensive feeding program. I enjoy a garden but I'm not a gardener. So it's been me at the patio table, book and sunglasses to hand, the odd glass of dry white wine to help wash down some crusty bread, nicely juicy pears and a piece of lovely soft and slightly salty goats cheese barely drizzled with honey. My idea of a wee taste of the Languedoc in Scotland.

Bliss.

I've also caught up on a few blogs while the back of the house has been in shade this morning as I don't do squinting very well. I've read a bit as the sun has come round the house, forcing me to lay aside the laptop while I catch up on stuff I've been meaning to read but strangely for someone unemployed, who should have plenty of spare time on my hands, have not found time for.

While I've been doing that thoughts have been niggling away at me like unruly children, particularly about reading and books. A few bloggers I read have touched on the subject of bookish things over the internet lately, talking about the impact of the web on reading habits, the effect of on-line bookshops selling at knock down prices and the impact on 'real' bookshops and libraries. I've added the odd comment here or there, interested or curious, questioning or approving, all the time letting layers of content slowly build up a curmudgeonly niggling concern that, as with many other things, the world is changing and something that is important to me might be changing faster than I'm comfortable with and not in a direction I would choose.

It's particularly true of the technology around books, or more accurately reading, for what I see ahead is the potential disfigurement of reading as we know it. I wonder in twenty or thirty years if we will have books in any meaningful sense or will they be the domain of academia, dwindling numbers of bookshops, curiosity shops, reference libraries  and museums or the musty collections of crusty old men like me?  Will the availability of cheap books online actually reduce choice and the number of titles as these places promote the blockbuster and ignore the merely sublime. Will readers have lost contact with the reality of a book in the hand if books are simply story downloads to an i-pad reader or some other piece of technology which retail chains and publishing houses use as the opportunity to stop printing to reduce costs and maximise profits? How will we find those unexpected books if we cannot browse, can't pick them up and read the cover as we weigh the value of story and the weight of the authors effort if the book exists only online? With the increasing trend amongst kids towards talking books on i-pods for convenience, how will we create those characters to live in our minds and in our hearts if all we have is an actors interpretation being read to us? Will 'readers' question if the interpretation could be different or if the story is crippled by heavy handed abridging? Will books of the future simply be screenplays? Will we simply accept that Dracula or David Balfour or Jane Eyre have American voices attempting foreign accents?

Not that I can do anything about it of course. I can only be the curmudgeonly archetypal grumpy old man and note the change and comment.

When I was a child I loved libraries. Dad was a great reader and supporter of our local library and I too was bitten by the reading bug. As a teenager I was hit by asthma which meant I was often laid up. When that happened I read constantly, a stream of library books was supplied by Dad, not always to order but he would often pick up a wee gem for me. Like him, I became an avid and prodigious, if not altogether selective consumer of the written word. But I also became enthralled by books themselves; the hard-backed leather bound edition, the hard-backed paper sleeved novel, the cheapest paperback. I loved them all. I learned to love the feel of a book, the weight of it's mystery as it journeyed home with me in a bag strapped to my bike, or just hung from the handlebars, knees nudging the book as I pedalled; the smell of the pages as you cracked it open for the first time, old and musty perhaps if it had lain on the shelf for a long time or if it was elderly in itself; other scents, held by the pages, of the last reader, an old man who's fingers held the smell of pipe or cigarette tobacco or oil from machinery in their pores, a young woman who's delicate scent would perfume the pages for a short time. These things all spoke to me and evoked a feeling for the history of a book, almost as a living thing. I learned to love the heady smell that always seemed to be in a library. I loved the almost reverent hush of the place. The need to be quiet for once not an impossible task.

Over the years as I got older and more selective in subject matter, I began to covet books {shades of 'My Precious' ringing in my head now} that were special to me. I loved history books, books on art, religions, architecture. I loved the books of Stevenson and Scott, Ryder Haggard, Michener and so many others. I wanted to have space at home for more than an overstuffed bookcase. I wanted to have a library of my own. I succeeded when we bought this house.

 I've long enjoyed trawls of antiquarian bookshops and revelled in the atmosphere of ancient books, something which has become increasingly rarer as these places have gradually disappeared to be replaced with coffee shops, tanning studios and tattoo parlours. I've watched engrossed as an old bookseller, offered an old book, put it to his face and listened carefully as he softly rrrrrp'd the pages past his nose, caressed the pages lovingly and spoke in hushed tones about the quality of the paper, the way it had been made, the fact that although the paper was French the printing was English, the pages hand cut and rough edged. He waxed lyrical about the binding and the cover, it's absolute authenticity,the skill of the maker and about the healthy smell of its history and the lack of knocks and scrapes, folds and tears that showed it had been cared for through generations. Like being guided through a cathedral by a stone mason, he was a master of a craft that sadly seemed to be out of it's time.

I'm not exclusively interested in old books though. I've cheered myself with walks round the humongous racks of large chain bookstores and enjoyed the personal touch of informed, enthusiastic and well read staff in independent bookstores. I've gone looking for particular books and come out with treasures unexpectedly unearthed in my search through the shelves. I've collected the works of Rankine, Brookmyre and Banks and enjoyed Hiasson, Coelho and Cornwall.

I've often enjoyed a book at bedtime. Does it feel the same being read on an I-Pad? I've often dropped a book from the bedside table or from the corner of a chair. I've dropped one getting up from my seat on a plane or a train. The books have survived them all. I wonder an I-Pad would.?

Oh, and I've never had a book run out of battery power although a few have run out of steam.....

I now have a room I use as a library in my house. I spend a lot of time there enjoying the atmosphere and relaxing with a well read book or attracted by the brightness of a cover to something that suits my mood. Could I have the same fun scrolling through the list of titles on my reader?

I really hope I never find out.

see you later. I'm browsing the Edinburgh Book festival brochure wondering if I can afford to attend any more events this year.

Listening to;

Is it SOOOO hard to do?

Hullo ma wee blog,


Jings - this last week has flown by and I have hardly posted anything, which is a bit unusual for me. It's been nothing spectacular - a bit of gardening, a bit more of job hunting, a bit of writing and my usual bit of frustration with Job Centre Plus, although this time not over insurance form completion. As you may know I have an ongoing jousting match going on with this Government dept handling unemployment as they don't in my opinion have any role in helping you find suitable employment but instead are focused on getting you off the unemployment figures via any job - suitability unimportant - and in checking that you don't try to avoid finding a job as it's obviously your fault your unemployed in the first place/ you're a lazy toe-rag. {Sorry but I'm bitter and twisted on the subject}

At my last meeting with them the week before going to Holland I had let them know I was going to be out of the country on holiday and they had advised that as I wouldn't actually be actively looking for work they would have to close my claim down temporarily, but that I could restart it by calling up a helpline for a 'rapid reclaim' when I got back. On telling my advisor when I would be returning he said that I should call the given number first thing the next morning and ask for the claim to be reinstated and they would in turn arrange for me to come back to my local office to have this done.

"Er, but I'm here now and I've told you when I'm away and when I'm back so why can't we just arrange a meeting time - um - now?"

But I was told that the process described above had to be followed even though I said that the day after my return was a Saturday and surely no-one would be in the office then. I was assured that the office was indeed manned and that all I had to do was call.

So I did.

And after going through the usual frustrating and impersonal automated 'select from the following numbered options several times before we even think of putting you in touch with a human being'  kind of switchboard that never fails to make me feel at one with the whole human race, I found myself somewhat unsurprisingly and resignedly listening to a recorded message telling me that,

"This office is now closed. Normal office hours are between 9am and 5pm Monday to Friday. Please call during normal working hours."

But hey, I was still on my last couple of days of holiday so I wasn't going to let that spoil my day, so I just let it go and decided to call again on the Monday.

9.30 Monday morning I was back on the phone and back through all the numbered options until I again got to the right dept. This time I was now met by a new recorded message telling me,

"This office is closed for the Monday holiday and will re-open for business on Tuesday. Please call again during normal working hours"

I was, it is fair to say - a bit peeved. Why couldn't they have mentioned that in Fridays automated message. Is it so difficult to get communication right?  {and why did the local guy get it wrong in the first place}

I called again on Tuesday and finally got through to a very nice man called Bill who apologised and empathised and said he would pass my comments on. I thanked him and let him know that I wanted to restart my claim for unemployment benefit - in reality this is just national insurance credits as I don't get any unemployment payments. {Long story so lets not go there.} He told me he could do that and it would require a few questions that would take about 10 minutes to go through. I said that was OK and he proceeded to ask me a pile of questions and after several minutes he said,

"Now what the Job Center will do to help you back to work will be............."

I stepped in to remind him that I had been claiming for several months and had only been on a weeks holiday so he didn't need to go through the spiel but was told that he had to follow the process. He then went through four or five minutes of explaining what they would do, what they would expect me to do, how I should record it, how they would track it and all the other stuff that I knew - and he knew I knew -  before he finally came to a halt and we could end the call with me having an appointment at my favourite JC+ office the following day to have the claim officially restarted.

Phew.........at least that was it over, right?

Aye, right!

Next day at the duly appointed time I was waiting for my appointment when I was handed a clipboard and what looked like a thin booklet.

"Could you fill this in before we start the appointment please"

I was then left to complete a 17 - yes, that's right - a SEVENTEEN page form, all relating to an unemployment benefit that I knew I wouldn't be getting. {Actually the form was 24 pages long but 7 didn't apply to me.}

Once the form had been completed I was taken to an interview room and I sat down opposite someone I hadn't seen in the office before. He glanced briefly up at me as I took my seat and put the clipboard and pen down in front of him and returned to the computer screen he was looking at.

"Have you completed the form fully?" said without raising his head.

I didn't answer until the silence caused him to look at me, at which point he found me staring at him.

I smiled.

"Hello, my name is Alistair Robertson. Nice to meet you."

 I continued to stare at him until he blinked and responded with a 'hello' and his name in reply . He tapped the form with the middle finger of his right hand and repeated his initial question.

I said I believed so but maybe he should check it over. He picked it up and started to flick through some pages and then said he would need to get someone to look over it as it wasn't a form he was familiar with, and left the room, returning a moment later. He pulled up my records on the screen and said that he would go through my previous agreement - a kind of contract stating what you are expected to do in your job search each week as a minimum - which is negligible in reality - with me. I said that as he could see on the screen I had been in for an interview and had updated the contract with my advisor only 3 days before I had gone on a weeks holiday and that this was in reality only the first working day back after returning and so all the information there would be accurate and up to date. Despite this he insisted that we go through it all so that he could check each line and ask me to confirm that was what was agreed. At the end of each paragraph he made an amended  'as above' comment. The process took nearly 40 painstaking and painful minutes. He then printed off two copies even though I said I already had one and had me sign four or five different forms in duplicate - including one which confirmed I had been given a plastic wallet - even though I said I already one and didn't need another - containing contact numbers.

Once I had gone through all that I was free to go. I stayed long enough to ask a question about going on a short training course for a qualification I am considering and could I do that and keep claiming to ensure my insurance payments would be protected. I would still complete my mandatory job search/application quota etc,etc,etc. I was informed that he couldn't answer that but would check into it for me and let me know.

With that I was ushered out as he returned to the computer screen. As I walked across the office to the exit one of the admin ladies confirmed that my marathon form had been correctly filled in.

"You do know that you don't qualify for that benefit though, don't you?"

I smiled. "Yes. Thank you." and stepped out into the bright sunlight.

I exhaled and took a deep breath of clean fresh sea air.


"Ah, Alistair ma boy. Welcome back to reality!"

On Friday I had a voicemail message left to say that if I attended the two week short course I was proposing to help my job prospects my claim would have to stop until it was completed as it would be full time training. That would also void my insurance claims.

How bloody helpful.

See you later.

Listening to Semisonic 'Singing in my sleep'

How to choke on your breakfast.........

Hullo ma wee blog,

How to choke on your breakfast..........

1}Take your wife to her morning train through a beautiful East Lothian early morning glow.

2}While in town buy bacon, rolls and a newspaper before returning home.

3}Make breakfast of coffee and a bacon roll before sitting down at table to enjoy breakfast.

4}Open newspaper.

5}Read that our new coalition government - who promised tax cuts which would benefit the average family by £700 a year - are forecast to increase tax to a level where the average family would pay £1200 more a year. {consider that your unclear if this includes the promised   -£700 in the calculation}

6}Outraged, turn page away from photograph of smiling git of a Prime Minister { who had to enter the Scottish Parliament by the back door yesterday because of protesters}

7}Read that the price of petrol has reached an all time average high of £1,21 per litre {£6 PER GALLON} despite the wholesale cost of fuel GOING DOWN.

8} Take huge gulp of coffee to prevent gag reflex.

9} Go for a lie down

10}Consider that you might need to do this for quite a long time.........


see you later.

I See April's Gone Then................

Hullo ma wee blog,

Mayday already. It's true then what they say about getting older - that time begins to rush past. I can't believe that April is past, or March come to that. It seems hardly any time since Christmas in fact. More than a third of the year has tootled by without as much as a 'by your leave' and what have I got to show for it? Nothing. Hee-Haw. Nada. Nicht. Niet. Rien.  Bugger all!

Still unemployed. Still fighting my corner with Job Center Plus on a regular basis to make sure that my insurance payments are getting authorised and that they don't stop my benefit of - well let me think - my benefit of what exactly? It's not as though they are paying me any money - that stopped months ago after I had the gall not to find a low paid job I felt I really just had to do. It stopped because I was careful enough when I was working to pay for  - sharp intake of breath - insurance!

Actually, to be fair to them it wasn't just because I had paid for insurance that would cover most of my bills. That did count as paid income and dis-entitle me of course, but so did the lovely G because she was in full time employment, so did my redundancy payment, since I have some of it left and honestly declared it. Above all however, it was the fact that I perhaps wasn't seriously looking for work. Perhaps I'm lazy-good-for-nothing shyster. After all I really should  have been able to find suitable work by now - even in the middle of a recession. Now, as a result, I have to prove I'm looking for work by providing evidence of two applications per fortnight. Last month I proved I had applied for a job as a High Court Judge, An Anaesthetist, The Chief Finance Executive of a Bank {I really think I could do that one by the way! } and an Exotic Dancer {Don't even GO there, Scudder!!!}.

Well after all, times are tough. They did tell me that I should widen my horizons and that they were entitled to expect me to apply for any and all jobs that were available, so I'm trying - I really am.  I didn't brag about it though. I just quietly slipped it into my paperwork and sat back to see what the result might be. I thought at least I might get a phone call to ask if I was on medication or something. I'm sure that my case worker is going to end up like what's-his-name in the 'Pink Panther' movies. You know the one - Inspecteur Clouseau's boss. I can see the signs already. Honestly, he twitches when I'm with him. Not much - not yet - but it's definitely there. He really doesn't know what to do with me.  I reckon in a 'ceuple of moths' {couldn't resist - sorree..} I could have him looking for an open window  {for himself} or a sniper's rifle. I'm not much bothered about the rifle to be honest. Either way and the lovely G would be covered, either from compensation or insurance. What can I say. I know - I know - I am Mr covered for almost any eventuality.......... Anyway by that time, with all that twitching? I reckon I would put a couple of quid on me, don't you think? I don't think he would stand a cat's chance in hell of taking me out.

Mind you.....

Never thought I would get made redundant either.

See you later.

Listening to Evanescence 'Hello'

And Now.......For something Completely Different.

Hullo ma wee blog,

Seems like all I'm posting about these days is 153 Sqn. When I started it seemed like a good idea. I never thought for a second it would take up all this time - posting, reading, thinking and posting again. Those guys were busy!

It's a good thing I'm unemployed at the moment........{not}

Yesterday was interesting, in a strange and odd kind of way.

I had been invited - no, tell the truth - I had been sent a letter saying I was 'required' to attend, not a meeting, but 'an interview' with a business manager at the local Job Center Plus offices. They had sent me a letter the week before, but it had arrived the day after my 'required interview', and were frankly disbelieving when I phoned them about two minutes after the letter had dropped into my letterbox. The letter may have said what I was required to do and when but it singularly failed to make any mention of 'why' so I queried this on calling. I said that I didn't think it was a particularly productive means of approach to require people to attend without any indication about why. After all, I had explained, I might want to prepare, or to bring some documents etc with me to help along any discussion of whatever I was being 'required' to discuss. I was given a perfunctory 'Its routine' by way of an explanation in return. Having other things to do, I smiled down the phone and said "Oh, right then." in return and hung up.

I love the smell of bureaucracy in the morning......

Yesterday afternoon then, I was perched on my seat across the table from a business manager as he explained that it was the process when someone had been claiming job seekers allowance benefit for 6 months to hold an interview to investigate why this was the case and to explain the change in the situation that occurred after that time.

He smiled {fool} and said,

"And you ARE still unemployed, aren't you?"

as he sat back in his seat and folded his arms. {smug git}

I smiled back at him and said,

"AM I? Jings, I never noticed....."

This kind of smart reaction was obviously nothing new to him so he started to explain that after 6 months claiming this benefit that it was now a requirement for me to review the kind of jobs I was looking for and to scale down my obviously ridiculous expectations about salary and the like. {He didn't actually say it exactly like that but I'm paraphrasing here and anyway, the tone is accurate.} He went on to say that I now needed to scale back my improbable demands for a decent wage and to be open to applying for any and all vacancies that were available, and that if I failed to do this, they would be very likely to stop my claim as I obviously wasn't really seriously looking for work, or being in any way realistic about my prospects, was I?

He sat back again, which was just as well as he was wearing a hideous tie and I was at that point fantasising about grabbing it, hauling him across the desk and pulling on it until his eyes bulged very scarily while I experimented on how many shades of purple I could make his face go.

But also of course, I didn't.

I looked at his badge and as he had been calling me 'Alistair' throughout the interview, I said,

'Actually, CRAIG, I think I have been altogether realistic in my expectations and in my job search. I have been looking at jobs with a salary scale up to 20% less than I was previously on until recently and have now been looking at jobs with 30% less salary. Thats as low as I can afford to go'

I handed over from my folder of documents I had brought with me, 6 examples of jobs I had applied for in the last week and another half dozen rejection letters dated across the last fortnight. I explained how I conducted my job search daily, showed him my much more than required evidence of searches to go along with my examples of applications and explained how I had widened my search away from the restricted list I had originally considered when feeling like I needed a change of career direction, to the list of current applications which more reflected my last employment. I also explained 'in case he hadn't noticed from my records' that I was no longer receiving jobseekers allowance as I had used up all of my 26 weeks at £64 per week to which I was entitled after paying tax and insurance throughout my 32 year to date working life.

Alongside this - after all my lovely G had excluded me from any further benefit by dint of having the gall to be in full time employment herself - I had had the foresight over the years to pay for private insurance to cover my lost salary to the scale of £1700 per month in order to pay my large mortgage and other bills, something that would be in place for up to 2 years.

'So tell me. Why do you think it would be fair and reasonable of you to terminate any claim I'm making when by doing that you would cut me off from the very evidence that my insurers need to continue paying my payment protection claims? Do you think that is a reasonable move when I am meeting every one of your criteria except taking a job for the minimum wage?'

I went to the next desk and pulled off a copy of the local newspaper and put it on the table in front of him and asked him to find me any job advertised in it which would pay anything like the monthly salary my careful wife and I had insured ourselves against losing. I explained very clearly that I would not be intimidated into applying for any crap job which would ultimately cost me my home when I had been practical enough, sensible enough and had foresight enough to protect myself for a long enough time to preserve those things until I could find suitable work without beoming a burden on the state. I asked why he thought this was the right way to do things when I was no longer receiving any job seekers allowance support but in fact had already been cast adrift.

He mouthed platitudes about 'government policy' and 'not his decision', that any termination would be decided by a panel in another dept who would 'take all I had just said into consideration no doubt'.

I held up my hand and said that in case he had missed it that the country was in the middle of recession and that as he could see in the papers, there are few real jobs being advertised. I finished by saying that I wondered how the local and national press would view a member of the public coming to them with a story of how despite trying everything they could to find a job the government had forced them to take a unfeasably low paid job and lose his house {at a time when house prices are at their lowest for years} when that decision didn't need to be faced for another 18 months as there was absolutely no on cost to the government. Perhaps they would see it like I do - that what you are really trying to do is manage the unemployment figures down at any cost and bears no relation to constructively supporting me back to work.

'Would that have anything to do with an election coming up perhaps?'

He looked stunned.

'Of course, the other benefit I have from my insurance is £50,000 of legal cover, and if you try any kind of move to terminate my genuine claim which in turn affects my payment protection, I wouldn't hesitate to use every penny to fight it'

I thanked him for his time and explained that I would have to go as I had an afternoon of job hunting ahead of me and left without a backward glance.

Grrrrr........

see you later.

Listening to Kate Bush 'Man with a child in his eyes'

The Delicate Sound Of Thunder..........

Or....A short afternoon rant on the telephone..........

Hullo ma wee blog,


While I was busily typing away at the last attempt at a post the telephone rang. It was the lovely G giving me my usual how are you getting on call and checking through some of the day to day stuff that we all deal with; shopping to do, finances, what's going on in each others day - and had I had a hair cut yet. We are off out tonight for a birthday meal with a couple of friends, M and J - M my lorry driving pal with the broken leg and they of the new years blackout post. J and the lovely G travel together by train every day to work in different parts of our fair capital, have found much in common, from a distinctly odd sense of humour to a shared love of a glass or two of wine on the train home on a friday after work to de-stress them after a hard week. {that's their joint excuse anyway}

Before the call ended the lovely G asked me to give one of our credit card companies a call as she had gone online during her lunch break to check that our monthly payments had landed at the right time {wonderfully conscientious is the lovely G!} and that the payment which is generated from my income protection insurance had also been paid. We dont strictly need to pay anything ourselves as the insurance money is more than enough to cover it but we have decided to keep making our {also bigger than needed every month} payments while we have the cash as it will clear the outstanding balance a lot faster yet keeps us able to switch it on or off if we find we need to rather than pay a lump sum up front. She noticed that while our payment was marked 'payment received' the payment from the insurance company was marked 'payment received, thank you'. A small thing, but she found that it irked her that we should not be accorded the same courtesy as an insurance company.

{What can I say, I have obviously trained her well. Either that or she is spending too much time with me! She's younger than I am so its not the 'grumpy old' thing.....}

She decided that she would drop them an email to mention it but when she tried she found that emailing was blocked and a message flagged up that emailing was 'not possible as this account is in collections' please contact us on this number. Irked became irritation as she knows, working in the finance sector, that 'collections' is a euphemism for 'arrears', and that is one place where {and OK, largely down to her} we are not. She also knows, since I am the only name on the account, that they will not speak to her about it.

And so, narked, but still very calm, she explained her concerns to me over the phone and asked me to give them a wee call.

Which I did.....

I rang the number she had given me for the collections dept, and went through the three layers of automated options given to me by a very slow and quiet recording until I reached the level where I was asked to confirm my details, so they could pass me to the most appropriate - i.e. first available - member of the team. And so with some minor irritation - you should know from previous posts by now how I love not speaking to another human being - and no little apprehension of what was about to take place I prepared to answer the security questions on their voice recognition system.

Aye, you read it heart sinkingly correctly, their 'voice recognition' system.

{regular readers should stop reading now, skip the next few paragraphs and fill in the blanks for yourselves. You know what's coming next!}

I'm Scots. I can be broad Scots when I choose and I can be very - I have been told intimidatingly and chillingly - clear when I choose to be. What I don't want to be is completely tee'd off by the time I actually get a hold of the next human to speak to, so I speak calmly and clearly as I give my name, date of birth and post code, my mothers maiden name and a password, even the second time, and the third time. But by then patience is getting as thin as a paupers troosers. After another couple of attempts I am finally connected to the appropriate {and unfortunate} member of their team who advises that to enable him to speak to me and to access the details of my account he has to ask me to confirm certain security details

Quietly and calmly I offer my interpretation of what those questions are going to be and when he indicates that I have won the jackpot, I ask him why I should give him all the same information that I have already given his automated, inconvenient, unfit for purpose, frustrating and ineffectual voice recognition system, and why his company feels this is an effective and appropriate level of customer service. To be fair he launches into the data protection speech very well but falls short in answering why the questions should need to be answered twice - like the security system at the airport post of a couple of months ago - to allow me to get on with discussing what should be a quick and easy to resolve question. He also singularly fails to get the point that his companies automated ability to cheese off their customers even before he gets to speak to them doesn't make my life - or his job - any easier.

But hey, today I'm mellow compared to sometimes and he has an engaging way with him, so I give him some leeway and let him eventually get to the point where he asks me why I am calling in the first place. By now I have been on the phone for nearly 10 minutes. I ask him to pull up the account and ask why if, as he can see, that I am making an overpayment every month and that there is an additional monthly overpayment coming from my insurers that my account is flagged as in collections. To this he mistakenly answers that its company policy when there is a payment being made from 3rd part insurance companies to put a block on the account.

'What do you mean there's a 'block' on the account?'

He tells me that when an insurance payment is made this is usually an indication that the client has no income and to prevent abuse of the card they put a block on the account.

I ask him why this is an appropriate thing to do when the account has never been in arrears, been abused , and is currently receiving more than twice the requested monthly amount.

He can't answer that one so I ask to speak to a manager.

After a moment or two I am put through to someone who is clearly not going to put up with any up-themselves-and-looking-for-an-argument customer's nonsense.

When I hear the frosty response to introducing myself and my query I ask her to hold for a moment. I click my pen twice on the telephone and say to her

"Just to let you know that for absolute clarity I am making a recording of this call for my records."

Then I say thanks for waiting and explain how useful it's been in the past to have an accurate record of any conversation.

" My old editor used to tell me that and I've never forgotten the advice. It's an invaluable help in writing any article"

Two minutes later I put the phone down.

The block on my account has been removed and its no longer being dealt with by collections as we found very quickly that we agreed how inappropriate the company standard response was on an account which has been handled so consistently and so very clearly within the terms and conditions of the account.


What a nice lady!

see you later.......


listening to The Police 'Walking On The Moon'

Sorry to bang on about this again......

But I,m going to. {and I'm not THAT sorry really}

Hullo ma wee blog,

This is a video clip from Channel 4 news where one of our Scots MP's is interviewed on air about the fact that police are investigating possible fraudulent expense claims.

{ Having some recent personal experience of 'fraudulent' expense claims, it kind of grabs my interest}

Jim Devin is a former psychiatric nurse and election agent for MP Robin Cook until his sudden death in 2005, after which he took over the seat

THE CHARGES:

July 2008 - April 2009: Allegedly dishonestly claimed £3,240 for cleaning services using false invoices
March 2009 - Allegedly dishonestly claimed £5,505 for stationery using false invoices

He has been barred by Labour from standing again in connection with other expense claims not connected to these charges, which cannot be reported for legal reasons.

What really grabs me here is the missed point from both parties that 'if' there is the ability to move money from one budget to another, there is certainly an open and above board fiscal process to do this which does not generate a 'receipt' which can then be used to claim back money through expenses. If this is the case, why is that process not being followed? If money which has been claimed on expenses was then physically paid in to another budget there should be a clear audit trail to support this.

State this simple thing, and your ability to support your garbled claim that you did not personally profit from the episode with evidence Mr Devine, and you will immediately come out from the stone you appear to be hiding under and into the light of transparency.

BUT.....

I am struck by the honourable members complete lack of ability to argue his case cogently and how he does not take the opportunity presented to explain reasonably what did happen to the money claimed. To defend himself with 'another MP who I am not going to name told me it was ok' is completely ridiculous, and frankly comes over as naive and childishly suspicious.

He is one of four MPs who are being investigated.

LABOUR MP DAVID CHAYTOR MP for Bury North since 1997

THE CHARGES:

May 2006: Allegedly dishonestly claimed £1,950 for computer services using false invoices
Sept 2005 - Sept 2006: Allegedly dishonestly claimed £12,925 for rent on London property when he was the owner
Sept 2007 - Jan 2008: Allegedly dishonestly claimed £5,425 for renting house in Bury from his mother

Allegedly used daughter as bogus landlady and claimed almost £13,000 expenses in rent on London flat he already owned
Swapped his second home four times in less than three years. Allegedly claimed £5,400 while renting house in August 2007, which belonged to his mother. Not obvious as she'd remarried.


LABOUR MP ELLIOT MORLEY Former agriculture minister, MP for Scunthorpe for 23 years.

THE CHARGES:
April 2004-Feb 2006: Allegedly dishonestly claimed mortgage expenses of £14,428 on Lincolnshire home. March 2006 - Nov 2007: Allegedly dishonestly claimed mortgage expenses of £16,000 on the same house when loan no longer existed. Claimed mortgage interest on constituency home for 21 months after loan repaid. Apologised and said he had repaid the money as soon as he realised his 'mistake'. Said he felt 'terrible' and admitted he should have kept a 'tighter rein'.

Barred by Labour from standing again.

TORY LORD HANNINGFIELD Former pig farmer, leader of Essex County Council and Tory business spokesman in the Lords.
THE CHARGES:
March 2006 - May 2009: Allegedly dishonestly submitted claims for expenses to which he knew he was not entitled. £117,000 claimed for overnight expenses since 2001.
Six charges in total, which focus on numerous claims for overnight expenses for staying in London when he was allegedly driven home in his local authority paid chauffeur driven limo to Chelmsford 46 miles away.

The MP's are also preparing a defence case based on the 1689 'Bill of rights' which defines parliamentary privileges.

This legal dodge by the accused MPs of trying to use this Act of Parliament is disgraceful.
This law has been used down the centuries to safeguard our liberties and to ensure that parliament could operate free from interference from the crown.
{When James II inherited the crown from his brother Charles II, he attempted to overrule parliament by suspending laws and overturning decisions to try and impose catholic supremacy on a protestant nation. After James' exile to France, William of Orange had to agree to sign the Bill of Rights which upheld the primacy of Parliament over the King.}

It basically ended rule by 'the divine right' of kingship in Britain.

Now the MPs facing criminal charges for fiddling their expenses feel they should be able to claim Parliamentary privilege. They are saying that prosecuting them for fraud or theft would be to interfere in the workings of Parliament. They are claiming to have done nothing wrong.

Of course they are innocent until proven guilty. But if they have done nothing wrong why should they be afraid of being judged on the same legal basis as the rest of us?

And, as the eighteenth century lawyer Sir Thomas Fuller declared: "Be you never so high, the law is above you."

Hopefully, that is........


see you later.

listening to Mott the Hoople 'Roll away the Stone'

Stick to Embroidery......

Hullo ma wee blog,

I'd like to disrespectfully dedicate this to the lady who nearly took the front of the car off yesterday when she pulled in on me far too bloomin' early because she had pulled into the fast lane to overtake without indicating, checking her mirror or realising the car behind was going so much faster than she was and then panicked.

Please learn how big your nice, shiny 4x4 actually is BEFORE coming out on the road!

or,

For Pity's Sake - Don't Drive.....

Nuff said.

see you later....

listening to Talk Talk 'It's my life'

Put Up, Shut Up, and SIT DOWN..............

Hullo ma wee blog,

I'm at that awkward, curmudgeonly age where I'm now a fully paid up member of the grumpy old man brigade - and there's nothing wrong with an enjoyable wee blog rant now and again. {More like now, and again, and again and again....} Its fun, its healthy and it's a dashed sight safer than ranting at the lovely G.

So, of course, I'm about to launch into anither one.


OH, I LOVE the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.........don't you?


I am by turns fascinated, frustrated, infuriated, entertained and revolted by the antics, revelations and weaselly twisting and turning of our democratically elected Members Of Parliament, probably never more so than currently, with the goings on, and the furore, over Sir Thomas Leggs investigation into our {dis}honourable members expenses claims.

Before the report was published, newspapers were full of MP's saying that the amount to be repaid would vary from "negligible" to "less than substantial"

Sir Thomas Legg recommended that 390 MPs, more than half the current and past MPs reviewed, should repay £1.3m. Some MPs say the way Sir Thomas carried out the audit was "sloppy" and £180,000 was cut off the total after appeals. Sir Thomas said the expenses system was "deeply flawed", the rules "vague" and it had been up to MPs to "self certify" the propriety of their claims.

{Aye - well if HE was "sloppy", he was only "sloppy" 10% of the time compared with more than 50% for you......gentlemen, so what's your excuse.}

During the collecting and reviewing of the information into expenses our Westminster crew were frantically stepping up to any available journalist or camera crew to effectively say "About time", "Jolly good show", "A review is well overdue" and "The system is far too complicated" and the favourite political soundbite "what the public need is absolute clarity on this matter"

Now its done and some awkward home truths have come home to roost.

MPs had to sign a declaration with each claim saying "that I incurred these costs wholly, exclusively and necessarily to enable me to stay overnight away from my only or main home for the purpose of performing my duties as a Member of Parliament".

In his report Sir Thomas pointed out there had been a "culture of deference" to MPs by expenses officials and "no audit of any kind" of second homes expenses during the period he covered.

"Neither internal nor external auditors could 'go behind the member's signature'," he said. I find that point very interesting.

Lets keep at the forefront of our minds that this is an expenses policy created by MP's, ratified by MP's, conducted by MP's and controlled by MP's. It would seem to me, a wee layman, that they also had the ability at any time, AS MP's, to audit the complexity or effectiveness of the policy, and sorry for stating the blooming obvious, had the power to change the policy if it was felt to be awkward, complicated or ineffective.

REPAYMENT REQUESTS

The information released about how much is to be paid back is.

3 MPs - £40,000+
56 MPs - £5,000-£40,000
182 MPs - £1,000-£5,000
149 MPs -£100 - £1,000

Don't you think by the way that its curious how narrow the £100-£1000 and £1000-£5000 bands are compared to the whopping great £5000-£40,000 band. Of course the general public being pretty naive aren't going to notice that - NOT......

I also think that the top 3 worst offenders may be being held out there as sacrificial lambs - or am I just a great big cynic

WHAT MPs MUST REPAY
£4,000 for hotel stays
£711,000 for mortgage/rent
£12,000 for food
£10,000 for utilities
£35,000 for Council Tax/Rates
£23,000 for phone & telecoms
£105,000 for cleaning
£81,000 on service/maintenance
£73,000 repairs/insurance/security:
£252,000 - 182 other payments:
Total: £1,305,000

CLAIMS - THE BIZARRE.

£97: Derek Conway (Ind, Old Bexley & Sidcup) two 'limed oak toilet seats'. Also spent £76 on two loo roll holders at Peter Jones in London - come on Deek, you can pick up loo roll holders at any London market for less than a fiver, and we should be paying only 'market' rates surely? And 50 quid a pop for loo seats? Come on man, its not as if you're going to spend that much time on them. Most of the cr** come out the other end. Oh WHAT? - you're a politician for goodness sake! Get over it....

55p: Andrew Selous (Con, South West Beds) claimed for a mug of Horlicks in the House of Commons tea room one evening in March this year. - what, you wouldn't have had a drink if you hadn't been in the house of commons at the time? And, hate to tell you, that price is clearly already subsidised by the tax payer! Or are you just sore at being there in the evening when its interfering with your social life. Why not try to claim unsocial hours allowance on your expenses.........

99p: Danny Alexander (Lib Dem, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey) bought Mr Muscle from a 99p shop - Danny, get a grip, or don't you have the muscle?

£43.56: James Arbuthnot (Con, Hampshire NE) successfully claimed for three 'Genius 4 piece garlic peeling & cutting set' bought on QVC shopping channel. - what, 3 of them? Thats' a problem right there. No-one's going to want to spend time with you if you eat that much garlic......

£760: Alan Milburn (Lab, Darlington) went on a shopping spree in John Lewis in March 2009 including Nigella Lawson measuring spoons and a Jamie Oliver frying pan. - I can see what you're aiming for here. If you go for quality they'll last a lot longer. Probably longer than your term of office, mate.........

£175: Julie Kirkbride (Con, Bromsgrove) claimed for a Samuel Heath Curzon extending shaving mirror from John Lewis. - Julie, get to a market too. Don't you watch East Eanders for a reality check?...... {you woz dun luv!}

£2,300: Crispin Blunt (Con, Reigate) claimed for 'brickwork' including work on his 'water wheel structure' and terracotta fireplace - Actually, with the name Crispin, you have an excuse mate. I would have passed this........ Congratulations on having a 'water wheel structure' by the way. Did the proper water wheel just not fit?

£24: Lindsay Roy (Lab, Glenrothes) bought a Babyliss Salon Dry hairdryer despite having thinning hair. His claim was rejected by the fees office. - He in return rejected the claim by the fees office that he had 'thinning hair.' The expense claim is currently being investigated by an independant tribunal and Gok Wan is due to visit Lindsay soon for a makeover.

The Daily Telegraph also disclosed how Tory grandees have received tens of thousands of pounds to maintain manor houses and stately homes. One claimed successfully towards the cost of a full-time housekeeper with 70% of a salary package of £14,000 a year, along with a claim including £2,000 for clearing the moat surrounding his manor house. Another was allowed to claim for a “helipad” to be maintained. - sorry, what I would write here would be unacceptable for ma wee blog........

In his report Sir Thomas pointed out there had been a "culture of deference" to MPs by expenses officials and "no audit of any kind" of second homes expenses during the period he covered.

"Neither internal nor external auditors could 'go behind the member's signature'," he said.

Ummmmm....... that's a bit suspicious too.

Today, taking the offensive, Tory leader David Cameron said Gordon Brown is in 'complete retreat.'

Perhaps he should look at the report which clearly show that his - minority - party actually have more money to repay from MPs who have overclaimed by more than £5,000. {£343,831 compared to labours £222,639} But perhaps Labour MP's don't have so many moats to clean!

But I'm getting away from the point.

You bunch of wasters - and thats particularly BOTH major parties - have been ears deep in the trough while at the same time condemning bankers for excess in the prevalent bonus culture of the finance industry. Isn't your manipulation of expenses just a bonus in all but name?

Why dont you just PUT UP, SHUT UP AND SIT DOWN.

see you later.

listening to Sia 'You will be loved'.
{Strangely enough, its not a song about MPs}

Update on 'To be or not to be seen.........'

hullo ma wee blog,

Just seen this news article on line. Thought it worth quoting in full.

'France refuses a citizenship over full Islamic veil'

The French government has refused to grant citizenship to a foreign national on the grounds that he forced his wife to wear the full Islamic veil.

The man, whose current nationality was not given, needed citizenship to settle in the country with his French wife.

But Immigration Minister Eric Besson said this was being refused because he was depriving his wife of the liberty to come and go with her face uncovered.

Last week, a parliamentary committee proposed a partial ban on full veils.

It also recommended that anyone showing visible signs of "radical religious practice" be refused residence permits and citizenship.

'Integration'

In a statement, Mr Besson said he had signed a decree on Tuesday rejecting a man's citizenship application after it emerged that he had ordered his wife to cover herself with a head-to-toe veil.

"It became apparent during the regulation investigation and the prior interview that this person was compelling his wife to wear the all-covering veil, depriving her of the freedom to come and go with her face uncovered, and rejected the principles of secularism and equality between men and women," he said.

Later, the minister stressed that French law required anyone seeking naturalisation to demonstrate their desire for integration.

Mr Besson's decree has now been sent to Prime Minister Francois Fillon for approval.

The interior ministry says only 1,900 women wear full veils in France, home to Europe's biggest Muslim minority.

In 2008, a French court denied citizenship to a Moroccan woman on the grounds that her "radical" practice of Islam was incompatible with French values.

A 'Grrr' on things short and tweet

Hullo ma wee blog,

As usual, I don't get it. {nothing unusual about that, the lovely G would say!} It could actually be said that 'thankfully' I don't get it, since what I don't get is 'Twitter'. I'm not a member so again thankfully I don't receive these irritating 140 character or less messages from anyone. It doesn't mean that I am immune though as often Twitter is linked to blogs and therefore I have experienced some of the deep and meaningful messages that 'Tweeters' are wont to share and with nephews and neices there is always twitter, tweeting and facebooking going on. I'm impressed by the sheer lack of any kind of meaningful content in most instances.

Most of it seems to be absolute babble: what they are sitting down to eat, how good the coffee is, that they've just bought a pair of shoes/aftershave/hairdo, Gillians just been tweeted by James and other absolute banalities. I have been put off by the amount of absolute tripe that's involved. Why is it so important to immediately read and respond to the bilge that comes through while at work, the dinner table or even the cinema for Gods sake?...... {Strangely the guy next to me in the gents at the last concert I went to was tweeting skillfully one handed while busily engaged in other things} What is the point of 140 characters or less? Is there anything meaningful that can be communicated within those parameters?

Well, yes, of course there is and I imagine that hopefully many people do just that. I don't have any evidence of it though. 99% of what I have seen is just drivel. The kind of stuff that, if it was being sent to me at the rate that many of the exponents seem to punt it out, would have me hunting them down taking their whatever off them and jumping up and down on it in front of them while I screamed " If you don't have anything important or interesting to say then leave me alone!" at them.

Since I wont ever sign up to Tweet myself its never going to happen.

I love communication. I love language. Often, regardless of how banal, mundane or out of my sphere of experience the content, I am swept up by the pace, style, tone of language used - the way a thought is constructed, an argument is posited, a claim is staked - and I am enjoyably immersed in someones thoughts, feelings and cares as they share their perspective, their intelligence or their involvement. I am in awe of people who communicate well, craftsmen who delight in language and can use it playfully or creatively to suit the mood, the message and the audience perfectly. But language {and understanding} is so precious that it shouldn't be abused by shoe horning into something that just doesn't fit. It should be delivered in its own time, enjoyed for the sheer pleasure of communicating and seeing understanding or thoughtful reaction in return shouldn't it?

I do believe that communication is good. But is it any communication, or is it only 'good' communication. Ach, I don't know - I wouldn't know what is 'good' communication is except that it surely has to be satisfyingly meaningful and clear for the parties involved perhaps. Can it be done consistently in a tweet? { or am I really saying that I couldn't do it in a tweet?} All this tweeting about nothing is just an interruption, an irritation, a statement that you think what you have to say is more important than what I am doing at the moment. {even if I am reading a blog and you are winking away in the corner of my eye, determined to distract me from my item of choice} Are inane tweets a sign of sad old 'Billy no mates' just punting stuff into the ether as a way of saying "I'm here" and two minutes later, " I'm still here so no use ignoring me cos I won't go away!"?

Loving language, even if I've not mastered it fully myself, I regret when someone can't express themselves. Its got to be as frustrating for them as it is for me sometimes, but sometimes people don't even see that they can't express themselves effectively. They cant debate an issue or argue a case, make a point, or state an opinion because they don't have the skill of language and the effective experience of practice and these are things which take time to learn and time to deliver. It can't be done in 140 characters. I'm worried we are in danger of neglecting the skills to acquire understanding and love of language. What next - Shakespeare in tweet form?

Today we are being fed information in ever shrinking chunks. Everything reduced to a sound bite, an easily digestible chunk, just as easily incorrect or misinterpreted and easily accepted as gospel as it covers only the bare bones of content and context. Much is simplified to the lowest common denominator {and then the presentation can be complicated by 'blabber' boards across the bottom of TV screens for instance}. It really scares me that in the future many parts of society wont be able to form an opinion on anything, to challenge anything effectively. {at least in 140 characters or more} This is another facet of what Twitter represents for me and why I see it as potentially debasing what language and communication is there to do.

I know, I'm getting older, the world is changing, life is faster and I should just accept that I can't keep up. If the kids can handle it then surely it must be ok. Well of course there is the potential for it to be either hugely damaging or hugely beneficial.

So is Twitter all bad?



Well not really. Perversely there are also real benefits to instantly connected limited scale messaging.

During the 2008 Mumbai attacks eyewitnesses sent an estimated 80 tweets every 5 seconds. Twitter users on the ground helped compile a list of the dead and injured. In addition, users sent out vital information such as emergency phone numbers and the location of hospitals needing blood donations. CNN called this "the day that social media appeared to come of age" since many different groups made significant use of Twitter to gather news and coordinate responses. Of course me being me thought that most of them would have been better putting their phones and blackberries away and actually HELPING the injured not bloomin' tweeting!

The Australian Country Fire Authority used Twitter to send out regular alerts and updates regarding the February 2009 Victorian bushfires. During this time the Prime Minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd, also used his Twitter account to send out information on the fires, how to donate money and blood, and where to seek emergency help.

Also in April 2009, some American public health departments used Twitter to provide updates on H1N1 cases.

The Distance College of Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China, use Twitter with native Chinese students as a tool to train communicative and cultural competence. Students have to post a certain number of English tweets and react to the tweets of their fellow students. Twitter was viewed as a supplement to practice in authentic environment different aspects of the target language as it was taught in the classroom.

The University of Vienna, Austria, used Twitter as an evaluation platform for student ratings. Every student had to send a tweet after each course unit with feedback to the teacher. Twitter turned out to be "a useful tool for evaluating a course formatively. Because of Twitter's simple use and the electronic handling of data, the administrative effort remains small."

At the University of Texas at Dallas, Twitter has been incorporated into the actual classroom setting of History courses with big groups of students. This innovative approach gives more students the opportunity to express their views in class discussions. Another advantage of this approach is that the limit of characters forces them to get to the central point.

According to telegraph.co.uk, Twitter is to be put on the new primary school curriculum. Children should be able to "organise and adjust" speaking and writing skills depending on the technology being used, including using "emails, messaging, wikis and twitters". During the primary years, children should also be taught to speak, write and broadcast using "blogs, podcasts, websites, email and video".


There are other areas which could benefit from Twitters need to be concise. It would be wonderful if celebrities {the Twitterati?} could only accept BAFTA's or OSCAR's by Twitter for example.

Encouragingly, when Twitter themselves won an IT industry web award Twitter staff accepted their prize with the remark "we'd like to thank you in 140 characters or less. And we just did!


Less beneficially Twitter collects personally identifiable information about its users and shares it with third parties. The service considers that information an asset, and reserves the right to sell it if the company changes hands.

Another reason why I'll not be signing up.

Twitter has now been assimilated into language with one new addition to Oxford English Dictionary this year being a 'Tweeting' - a meeting arranged by the use of Twitter.


That'll be one meeting I wont be going to.............


see you later.

Listening to REM 'Shiny Happy People'