On Any Questions, Oliver Letwin said about the dubious bonus culture that he thought that bankers would see what public opinion was about then and change their ways because of this!
Yeah, right!
Banker 1: I hear public opinion is against us being paid loads whatever we do.
Banker 2: Blimey, I didn't realise that public opinion was against us, we should pay ourselves less.
Saturday, 11 October 2008
Friday, 10 October 2008
Iain Dale has finally come off the US Election fence
As evidenced here, he's come out reluctantly for Obama.
Damn him, I was going to write a piece entitled "When will Iain Dale come off the fence?". Just goes to show that you should strike when the inspiration iron is hot!
I'm used to his blind partisan (and in election periods, too shrill to read) posts on UK politics but I never quite understood why he was applying his same "style" to the US elections.
Especially his repeated dogged defence of the clearly unsuitable Sarah Palin, picking up and blindly running with every Republican defence line (rabidly posted in the comments of a thousand leftish US blogs).
I never really understood why anyone from a mainstream UK party would ever support the republicans. A far as I can see both (yes only two) US parties are more right-wing than our entire mainstream politics in terms of the extent of the influence of big business on and the bareface lobbying/bribing by big companies of all levels and parties of government (which seems to always work). Maybe that's naive/partisan of me to see that as right-wing...
However on the flip side they are both big government spenders and protectionist.
Socially of course, Republicans are so far off the right of the scale it's untrue and this has been the case for as long as I can remember.
And before people like Iain Dale say it was different when his hero Reagan was there, I suggest he watch Boogieman: The Lee Atwater Story which I'm pretty sure I saw on BBC4 the other night (or at least a version of it). Scary stuff.
Anyway Iain assures us that now nearly half of his powerful new friends wouldn't lynch him given half a chance anymore, so that's okay.
Clearly, the reality-rhetoric gap eventually got too wide even for him.
Fingers crossed for election day...
Damn him, I was going to write a piece entitled "When will Iain Dale come off the fence?". Just goes to show that you should strike when the inspiration iron is hot!
I'm used to his blind partisan (and in election periods, too shrill to read) posts on UK politics but I never quite understood why he was applying his same "style" to the US elections.
Especially his repeated dogged defence of the clearly unsuitable Sarah Palin, picking up and blindly running with every Republican defence line (rabidly posted in the comments of a thousand leftish US blogs).
I never really understood why anyone from a mainstream UK party would ever support the republicans. A far as I can see both (yes only two) US parties are more right-wing than our entire mainstream politics in terms of the extent of the influence of big business on and the bareface lobbying/bribing by big companies of all levels and parties of government (which seems to always work). Maybe that's naive/partisan of me to see that as right-wing...
However on the flip side they are both big government spenders and protectionist.
Socially of course, Republicans are so far off the right of the scale it's untrue and this has been the case for as long as I can remember.
And before people like Iain Dale say it was different when his hero Reagan was there, I suggest he watch Boogieman: The Lee Atwater Story which I'm pretty sure I saw on BBC4 the other night (or at least a version of it). Scary stuff.
Anyway Iain assures us that now nearly half of his powerful new friends wouldn't lynch him given half a chance anymore, so that's okay.
Clearly, the reality-rhetoric gap eventually got too wide even for him.
Fingers crossed for election day...
Wednesday, 8 October 2008
Working for the public good in the money markets!
Some religious bod on Thought for the Day on this morning Today programme said we should pay attention to the "pastoral needs" City types who have been affected by the recent financial crisis.
If his argument was that they have families to feed too and they can be hurt like anyone then I could see that but what he said was that "whilst there were some rogue traders like rogue plumbers and rogue car-salesmen" there were many people of "integrity and faith who work for the public good" because they manage money markets and give to charity!!!
Give me a break!! What do people who go to work in the City really go there for? The "public good" or oodles of cash?
There was a time when the Church used to actually apply the teachings of Jesus* to their public pronouncements on society. It's a far cry from how the Church of Scotland rightly treated Margaret Thatcher when she came up to lecture them about morality based on her perverse reading of the Good Samaritan!
*I'm not religious, it's just the principle of the thing. :)
If his argument was that they have families to feed too and they can be hurt like anyone then I could see that but what he said was that "whilst there were some rogue traders like rogue plumbers and rogue car-salesmen" there were many people of "integrity and faith who work for the public good" because they manage money markets and give to charity!!!
Give me a break!! What do people who go to work in the City really go there for? The "public good" or oodles of cash?
There was a time when the Church used to actually apply the teachings of Jesus* to their public pronouncements on society. It's a far cry from how the Church of Scotland rightly treated Margaret Thatcher when she came up to lecture them about morality based on her perverse reading of the Good Samaritan!
*I'm not religious, it's just the principle of the thing. :)
Tuesday, 7 October 2008
Barclaycard are sneaky gits!
Having abandoned my Barclaycard long ago, I am unfortunately now back in the fold as they have taken over my Morgan Stanley/Goldfish cashback card.
So they've cancelled my old card before its expiry and sent me a new one, meaning I'll have to be vigilante for invalidated card details left around the interweb when I want to buy something. I have also had to register for their online serivce in order to easily pay the bill.
Now on all previous cards (including the last Barclaycard) the online pay options were as follows:
- Pay previous bill in ful - say £500 (let's call that B)
- Pay minimum amount - say - £20
- Pay custom amount
I would always pay the previous bill in full.
Now, I notice the options are:
Your previous bill was £500 (B).
- Pay current balance - ie. previous bill + recent spending - say £500 + £200 (B + R)
- Pay minimum amount - say - £20
- Pay custom amount
So, there is no longer an option to just pay my bill. I have to copy the amount into the custom amount box.
They are trying to trick me into over paying! If you weren't used to this you would just pay the larger amount thinking this is what you do (as it's presented as the default!).
Sneaky gits!
So they've cancelled my old card before its expiry and sent me a new one, meaning I'll have to be vigilante for invalidated card details left around the interweb when I want to buy something. I have also had to register for their online serivce in order to easily pay the bill.
Now on all previous cards (including the last Barclaycard) the online pay options were as follows:
- Pay previous bill in ful - say £500 (let's call that B)
- Pay minimum amount - say - £20
- Pay custom amount
I would always pay the previous bill in full.
Now, I notice the options are:
Your previous bill was £500 (B).
- Pay current balance - ie. previous bill + recent spending - say £500 + £200 (B + R)
- Pay minimum amount - say - £20
- Pay custom amount
So, there is no longer an option to just pay my bill. I have to copy the amount into the custom amount box.
They are trying to trick me into over paying! If you weren't used to this you would just pay the larger amount thinking this is what you do (as it's presented as the default!).
Sneaky gits!
The Black Police Association are Idiots?
I'm glad it's not just me, Meral's Musings thinks there is something amiss here too.
Please tell me I'm missing a subtlety here but the Black Police Association (BPA) is to not just boycott recruitment of BME officers but to actually use members' money to take out adverts in papers telling potential BME recruits not to apply to the force!
Isn't this completely wrong-heading, counter-productive and idiotic? Am I missing something?
I heard this first on the Today programme yesterday morning and whilst they were a useful and needed debate about racism in the force, everybody was pussyfooting around the use of these ridiculous tactics.
Maybe this was just done to raise awareness and to prompt action (such as the varous reviews that have now been promised), in which case I guess you could make an argument for the threat of a boycott (but not of actively discouraging BME recruits). However, I caught the head of the BPA on the London News:
Q: Do you welcome the enqiry set up by Boris?
A: Yes, very much so, a really positive step.
Q: Will you withdraw your boycott?
A: No.
Again, this was not pushed any further.
How can stopping BME recruits ever be helpful in tackling racism in an organisation? It's madness. Also, in the case of the police, this willl actually have a negative effect on community relations and therefore on the ability to solve/prevent crime.
And surely it will make it harder to create a representative force as the BPA have just told a swathe of BMEs not to join!
Is this just a case of bolshy egos at the top of a sortof-union or am I missing a really clever tactic that isn't at all counter-productive?
Please tell me I'm missing a subtlety here but the Black Police Association (BPA) is to not just boycott recruitment of BME officers but to actually use members' money to take out adverts in papers telling potential BME recruits not to apply to the force!
Isn't this completely wrong-heading, counter-productive and idiotic? Am I missing something?
I heard this first on the Today programme yesterday morning and whilst they were a useful and needed debate about racism in the force, everybody was pussyfooting around the use of these ridiculous tactics.
Maybe this was just done to raise awareness and to prompt action (such as the varous reviews that have now been promised), in which case I guess you could make an argument for the threat of a boycott (but not of actively discouraging BME recruits). However, I caught the head of the BPA on the London News:
Q: Do you welcome the enqiry set up by Boris?
A: Yes, very much so, a really positive step.
Q: Will you withdraw your boycott?
A: No.
Again, this was not pushed any further.
How can stopping BME recruits ever be helpful in tackling racism in an organisation? It's madness. Also, in the case of the police, this willl actually have a negative effect on community relations and therefore on the ability to solve/prevent crime.
And surely it will make it harder to create a representative force as the BPA have just told a swathe of BMEs not to join!
Is this just a case of bolshy egos at the top of a sortof-union or am I missing a really clever tactic that isn't at all counter-productive?
Saturday, 4 October 2008
Esther vs. the PC Brigade
I don't watch Tonight often as I know it will be terrible sensationalist dumbed-down rubbish that will either cause me to shout at the TV or my brain to melt, but sometimes I'm pulled in by a title...
I see that Norfolk Blogger has already blogged on this. I completely agree with what he said.
The premise was that people wouldn't approach lost kids due to fears of being labeled a paedophile which I think is a fair point (and a trend that worries me).
However, this is nothing to do with Political Correctness! It's like in Cameron's speech when we said he was sick of Human Rights and Health & Safety and then listed lots of things that were to do with Health & Safety and nothing to do with Human Rights!
Also, the irony wasn't lost on me that this climate of fear over paedophiles was created and encouraged by appalling tabloid programmes like and including Tonight (and maybe a bit of Esther) in the first place.
Anway, back to the programme. They put young kids in a shopping centre and told them to look lost and then tutted when people didn't stop. The first kid (a boy) stood still by an escalator. I have to say I don't think I would have stopped (unless I could see he'd been there for a while) as he wasn't doing a very good job of looking distressed.
The girl did a better job but unsurprisingly most people who approached them were women (who are never dodgy you see). One man didn't approach but alerted a security guard because he was a sports team coach and had been told in training never to approach a child on your own to avoid people misconstruing your intentions. The other man did stop but deliberately kept his distance and looked distinctly uncomfortable when a charging Esther and film crew bore down on him!
I have to say, I would also be nervous stopping imagining an angry tabloid-reading tattoed parent coming runnning at me from a nearby JJB Sports at any moment and causing me bodily harm. Not merely because they thought I was a paedophile but also because when I'd explained they would take it as an insult to their parenting abilities!
I never know what to make of Esther these days...
I see that Norfolk Blogger has already blogged on this. I completely agree with what he said.
The premise was that people wouldn't approach lost kids due to fears of being labeled a paedophile which I think is a fair point (and a trend that worries me).
However, this is nothing to do with Political Correctness! It's like in Cameron's speech when we said he was sick of Human Rights and Health & Safety and then listed lots of things that were to do with Health & Safety and nothing to do with Human Rights!
Also, the irony wasn't lost on me that this climate of fear over paedophiles was created and encouraged by appalling tabloid programmes like and including Tonight (and maybe a bit of Esther) in the first place.
Anway, back to the programme. They put young kids in a shopping centre and told them to look lost and then tutted when people didn't stop. The first kid (a boy) stood still by an escalator. I have to say I don't think I would have stopped (unless I could see he'd been there for a while) as he wasn't doing a very good job of looking distressed.
The girl did a better job but unsurprisingly most people who approached them were women (who are never dodgy you see). One man didn't approach but alerted a security guard because he was a sports team coach and had been told in training never to approach a child on your own to avoid people misconstruing your intentions. The other man did stop but deliberately kept his distance and looked distinctly uncomfortable when a charging Esther and film crew bore down on him!
I have to say, I would also be nervous stopping imagining an angry tabloid-reading tattoed parent coming runnning at me from a nearby JJB Sports at any moment and causing me bodily harm. Not merely because they thought I was a paedophile but also because when I'd explained they would take it as an insult to their parenting abilities!
I never know what to make of Esther these days...
Now the two party conferences are over...
Or so Jonathan Dimbleby informed us on the trailer for Any Questions on Friday's Today programme.
Humpf!
Humpf!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)