An odd day to read the news, Nick Clegg says people should not “write off” the Lib Dems, despite them slumping to sixth place in the Barnsley Central by-election.

“”In truth it was a no contest for any non-Labour candidate,” [...]]]> Yes, it’s time to look at the news from today…

Clegg defiant against the voters

An odd day to read the news, Nick Clegg says people should not “write off” the Lib Dems, despite them slumping to sixth place in the Barnsley Central by-election.

“”In truth it was a no contest for any non-Labour candidate,” … “It was a very safe Labour seat. Labour got a huge majority on an abysmally-low turnout and everybody else was left to pick up the pieces.”

So, if we take that literally, Nick Clegg doesn’t pay attention to what the polls say unless it suits him. I’d rather expect that, as a champion of a new way of politics, he’d take a more measured view of what the people think.

Smith upsets Letts by talking about pornography.

Jackie Smith’s programme about pornography on BBC Radio 5 Live was a hoot. Though I am still left wondering whether her comment that all those shelves of women being objectified and degrading themselves equally means that gay porn is men degrading and objectifying themselves? Barely a smattering of complaints, according to Ofcom, so it went down well, with the listeners at least, but not with Quentin Letts in the Daily Mail. You know the old adage, if you don’t like it don’t watch it? Well, that applies to listening too. Poor old (well, nearly 50) Letts mustn’t have enjoyed listening to “Porn Again”, judging by his reaction in the paper:

“Little Miss Brassy barged her way on to the publicly-funded airwaves last night to present a breathy, oh-so-daring radio programme about pornography.”

“The point of the exercise, purportedly, was to report and inform. Pull the other one. The aim here was titillation and self-promotion.”

“Did the title of the show, ‘Porn Again’, not say it all? A jokey pun, and quest for a second chance. Miss Smith yearns to turn herself into a media celebrity. The BBC wanted to pull in the viewers by having a former Home Secretary say ‘t*ts’ on air.”

Let’s get this right, Letts points out that the programme title should have said it all. I’m struggling to understand how the man who wrote “Bog Standard Britain”, a book about how critical correctness has “crushed the individualism from our nation of once indignant eccentrics” has the gall to whinge when a programme tailored exactly to those eccentrics surfaces.

That same Quentin Letts who wants to flatten town centres, and replace them with houses, because the town centre is ‘dead’.

That same Quentin Letts who is frequently welcomed onto the airwaves of the BBC (particularly Radio Four), to come up with pious shite such as this gem:

“I was just thinking about the Olympics. My feeling about the Olympic Games is that it should be about games, it should be about sport, it should be about men running the 100 yards or the 100 metres and it should be about enormous Russian women putting the shot and it shouldn’t be – at least we think they’re women – and it shouldn’t be – it shouldn’t be about the arts. And it horrifies me when this whole thought of the cultural olympiad gives me a bit of a shiver.”

I’m sure those Russian women putting the shot would love to give you a shiver.

[Any Q’s 25^th January 2008 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/anyquestions_transcripts_20080125.shtml]

More Porn!

Staying with Pornography, since it’s topical, an article from the Daily Mail.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1362646/Northwest-University-investigate-sex-toy-demonstration-Faith-Kroll.html

It would appear that Northwest University in Chicago has been getting a lot of attention over a sex-display after class, the President of the school is upset, and the right-wing media are setting themselves up to wet themselves over it, but secretly wish they were there, no doubt.

Before we get to the details, the article tells us that the University is one of the top ones, and it charges about 40,000 US Dollars per year to learn. There was a video shown in a “Human Sexuality” class, and the students felt it was not realistic. Thankfully, the guest lecturer, said he could organise a couple to demonstrate a sex toy, and the female orgasm. Attendance was optional, strong warnings on the explicit nature given, and a handful of students left, leaving around 100 behind to watch and behold.

There was a video clip going around the internet a few years ago, where power-tool style sex toys were being used by a woman, and in this case, that’s what was chosen as the tool to display sex toys and the female orgasm.

The president of the University says it was poor judgement. Unfortunately, for many women and quite a lot of men, the education on the female orgasm was worth more than the lesson itself.

Naked Women!

Speaking of Pornography, the newspaper really doesn’t know which side of the fence to sit on, as it displays “Olympic Water Babes” naked, underwater. Their snapper used a Nikon D300, apparently, though I rather expect that any men reading are more interested in the names and ages of the athletes – thankfully the Mail has given a handy key to that.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1362768/Meet-Britains-Olympic-water-babes-whove-shed-inhibitions-costumes.html

And Finally…

Tensions were growing today after the Sun reported from a soldier that the MoD paid £22.51 for a light bulb worth 65p.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaigns/our_boys/3445710/Ministry-of-Defence-pay-22-for-65p-lightbulb.html

Unfortunately the invoice printed in the paper does not display whether the invoice is for £22.51 or 22.51p. Big difference. Not sure why we only get such a small snippet to make it quite so impossible to give the story legitimacy, either.

Liam Fox was uppity though, lambasting Labour for waste. Yes, 11 months after the general election, Cameron, Duncan-Smith, Hague, Clegg and Fox still can’t quite get their head around the fact that they should have had more of an impact by now. That said, I am worried why the Government are rushing to throw the baby out with the bathwater, without investigating other efficiencies they can make – such as reducing the cost of the bloody lightbulbs!

Sorry, Ed, I missed it. I’ll probably miss Cameron’s too. No hardship, I missed the Liberal Democrat leader’s speech. Greens and UKIP too!

Party Leader speeches are just over-rated opportunities [...]]]>

“My speech was seen and heard on the BBC and in the interests of impartiality and fairness, so the prime minister’s should be.”
Ed Miliband.

Sorry, Ed, I missed it. I’ll probably miss Cameron’s too. No hardship, I missed the Liberal Democrat leader’s speech. Greens and UKIP too!

Party Leader speeches are just over-rated opportunities for the leader to spout bollocks in front of an affirmed supportive audience. To make themselves look good.

To choose who I want to lead the UK, I pay attention to what’s said by the leaders of each party when in more impartial settings than their own party party where the leader of the gang gives a parting serenade of gratitude, proving how manly and heroic he is, that the leader is better than the man who invented the next best thing since sliced bread. It’s the last dance, so to speak. Then we all clap gratefully for the cameras.

The BBC going on strike and not broadcasting this bollocks from every leader would probably do the country a whole favour about now.

I sat down to watch Question Time last night, and nearly spat my teeth out when Dimbleby announced that Cameron’s Government would only send a representative if Alistair Campbell was not on the [...]]]> Well before the General Election, I gave some examples of how politicians were trying to fundamentally meddle with the BBC’s political independence.

I sat down to watch Question Time last night, and nearly spat my teeth out when Dimbleby announced that Cameron’s Government would only send a representative if Alistair Campbell was not on the panel. Oh how petulent and immature our new Government has turned out to be.

The inference is that the Con-Dem coalition are unwilling to speak about their policy and legislature without a front-bench Labour spokesperson present. I’m not quite sure why, as surely not having a senior elected Labour person would make their job easier.

The fact that the Tories couldn’t be arsed to field a shadow minister for every programme when Labour were in power sailed over their heads. When the tables are turned, apparently the Con-Dems don’t like it.

This also shows how the Tories and Lib Dems view the BBC as a tool they can push around at will. Back in September 2009, Jeremy Hunt was pretty open in his view that the BBC should have more openly Conservative newsreaders.

What is the point of having a Royal Charter to set out the independence of the BBC from political interference if the Cameron-Clegg Government are going to undermine that very independence within two days of the Queen’s speech to Parliament?

More to the point, if the Tories and Lib Dems feel that they are so powerful and lacking in hmility that they feel they can veto a guest on a political programme, what will their next objective be?

If you value the impartiality of the BBC, be very wary over the next five years.

The leader of the Scottish Conservatives, Annabel Goldie, said she was ”disgusted” by the “disgraceful behaviour from a Labour candidate”.

Would it have made any difference if they were part of a different union?

Quite why, I’m not sure. It’s [...]]]> Michael Gove is the shadow education secretary. He’s been having a go at Labour because it gets money from Unite, the trade union. The British Airways employees who voted to strike, are part of Unite.

Would it have made any difference if they were part of a different union?

Quite why, I’m not sure. It’s not like it’s a shock surprise that trade unions donate money to Labour. It’s not like the Tories would have a chance in a frozen over hell of getting their hands on the money.

It’s a bit hypocritical too. Why is the shadow Education Secretary doing this? Is the shadow Transport Secretary a scaredy cat?

It looks to me like they want to take the heat off Lord Ashcroft. I mean, don’t the Tories have pretty serious questions to answer if their biggest donor for NINE years wasn’t a UK taxpayer, despite promising that he would become one forthwith?

Perhaps the Conservatives could get their own house in order first. Then they can be without sin, and cast the first stone.

Christine Pratt was a name none of us had heard of before Sunday. She is the woman from the National Bullying Helpline that told the BBC her charity had received calls from employees in Downing Street.

When I heard this on the news before going to bed last [...]]]>

Pratt on BBC News last night

Christine Pratt was a name none of us had heard of before Sunday. She is the woman from the National Bullying Helpline that told the BBC her charity had received calls from employees in Downing Street.

When I heard this on the news before going to bed last night I thought to myself “now, if I were being bullied, who would I trust?” The answer is most certainly not the National Bullying Helpline. Why did this woman risk the confidentiality of callers by revealing their nature to the press, without contacting the employer directly in the first instance?

The answer can only be publicity. But when you look deeper, for example on the homepage of the National Bullying Helpline, there are some rather ringing endorsements for Pratt’s charity.

Ann Widdecombe MP, and David Cameron MP, both Conservatives, have endorsed the helpline in big blue writing on the homepage. Cllr Mary O’Connor of Hillingdon Council is a patron, oh, and another Tory. Pratt has never been a member of a political party, though we don’t know what other support she’s shown any parties.

But the joke gets better. How does the National Bullying Helpline help those being bullied? The obvious answer, we already know, is to flag it up on BBC News, but that can only be for political gain. We have to assume that in all other cases Ms Pratt would employ her “TIM”…

Our Product Suite is T.I.M ; Training, Investigations and Mediation.

Which still begs the question, why the hell did you blab quite so loudly to the BBC? Is that classed as training? Investigation? Mediation? More like putting the cat amongst the pigeons. Letting the shit hit the fan. Yeah, that kind of thing.

So, if you’re being bullied, in the first instance try a Trade Union. The following morning, this was Ms Pratt’s spin, and the headline from BBC News.

“Over recent months we have had several inquiries from staff within Gordon Brown’s office.
“Some have downloaded information; some have actually called our helpline directly and I have spoken to staff in his office.”
Christine Pratt

Professor Carey Cooper, an expert on workplace stress, stands down as a patron of the National Bullying Helpline on the grounds that founder Christine Pratt had breached confidentiality.
BBC News

The head of the National Bullying Helpline says it received no complaints about Gordon Brown himself.
BBC News

And by the time the 6 o’clock News was ready to roll, we had another headline:

Another patron of the National Bullying Helpline, the TV presenter Sarah Caywood has stood down. She said she felt she had to resign after details of confidential phone calls were made public.
BBC News

Essentially, it’s the welfare state. The bit which props us up when we’re down. At least that’s the job it’s supposed to do. Over the years some [...]]]> I’ve always been slightly suspicious of the Jobcentre, the Dole, DHSS, whatever the Government of the day wants to call it. It’s real name is the Welfare State.

Essentially, it’s the welfare state. The bit which props us up when we’re down. At least that’s the job it’s supposed to do. Over the years some complex calculations have been drawn up to pigeon hole you, your circumstances, and those around you; the aim being to decide if you’re eligible for extra income.

I’ve wondered since I was about nine, when I accompanied my older brother to sign on, why a building, a structure, or a Government department designed to be so helpful can appear so austere and alienating from the outside. On the inside, things weren’t much better, the atmosphere was borderline suicidal; the staff a prime example of dereliction of duty.

This was 1980′s Britain. It was Thatcher’s Britain. It was 1987 and I was nine. It may have been grim up north, but the Job Centre was depicted as a shithole, a cesspit, and somewhere only the lowest lifeforms would inhabit. I often wondered how the staff coped working in such boring, grey and depressing conditions.

Fast forward to 1999. Two years into the “New” Labour government. Tony Blair was working his magic, and the country was coming up on a high. This was the inspirational time, just before the dot-com bubble burst (the first time around). Just days before the magical year 2000, just days before the whole world was about to change into a magical wonder-world where the standards suddenly improve because it’s the 21st Century.

Yet in the middle of all this, I was sat at home in the run up to Christmas, broke and jobless. I was given a ‘generous’ payoff. A whole month of cash in lieu. So I didn’t rush to seek help. I let Christmas and the whole year 2000 thing get out of the way, and then popped my head into my local Job Centre.

Over ten years have passed now. I remember it vividly. The smell, the people, the pure lack of imagination in the place. Thatcher’s Britain was still alive and well, in the Walthamstow Job Centre. I explained to the nice lady that I’d lost my job. She told me I’d have to fill out a form, what’s my National Insurance number, and there’d be a two week wait before I’d start seeing any money in my bank account. “You do have a bank account, don’t you?” Yes, I’m not just off the banana boat, I’m from the UK, I tell her.

That’s the first mistake. When the woman in the Job Centre is sarcastic to you, don’t be sarcastic back. It puts the whole process back decades.

The money lady found me on her computer, confirmed the vital aspects of me – my name, address, date of birth.

“Are you male, or female?” she asked, quite fluently, with no sign of embarrassment. “What?” I ask.

“Are you a boy, or a girl?” Oh yes, I remind myself, there’s no conversation, there’s no irony that an obviously rhetorical question in any other setting had been asked. There were questions, and there were answers. I answer the questions, I don’t question the questions.

I remember the date. It was the first Tuesday in 2000. Two weeks later, to the day, my first DHSS income arrived in my bank account. I had to sign on two weeks after that. And Christ, if the actual signing-on was a process from hell, signing on again was enough to leave even Irish twins JEdward depressed.

The lady I saw on day one had told me I needed to apply for three jobs per week, and bring proof with me. Several jobs were suggested to me, too. I really didn’t fancy being a dustman, a dentist receptionist, or working on the checkouts in Netto. Yes, those were my three suggested jobs from the Job Centre. During that month of January I had successfully applied for and received offer of employment. I just couldn’t wait for my last trip to the Job Centre, to thank them for their ‘help’, and to sign-on for that one last time.

Except where I had gone wrong was to assume that by getting a job, I was in the clear. “You’re not due to start until 15th February.” The man said, not even trying to put some inflection or other sign of humanity into his voice. “That’s not allowed, you need to keep applying for jobs to cover those two weeks.”

Remembering the hell I went through for my sarcasm back in January, February was to be different. I apologised, and said I would get on the case. “Don’t bother”, he said, “no-one else ever does. We’ve just got to say it so you’re not breaking the law.”

The people may have been nice enough, but their workplace was typical Central Govt, unmaintained for many years, and barely keeping with the new computer technology the rest of the world was adopting post haste. Nothing much had changed from my first insight into the Welfare State 12 years previous.

This got me wondering, and I’ve wondered ever since. Why are staff in Job Centres quite so anally retentive, humourless drones. Their job was to treat everyone as if a criminal. The Welfare State is the only institution in the UK I know of where it’s okay to be guilty until you can prove yourself innocent. The staff will flatly refute any allegations, but their denial only prompts further questions – if you don’t treat everyone as a cheat, why the attitude problems?

I am speaking from the past experiences I mention, but also from a more recent experience of helping a friend. I’ve never came across any group of people more reluctant to give a friendly and helpful attitude than those who seem to have it ingrained in their mind that everyone is guilty until proven innocent. Successive Governments have chosen this as the face of their Welfare State. Does it help anyone at all get back to work quickly?

We’re coming up to a General Election this year, during this time the Welfare State always comes under immense pressure. Parties promise to tear it apart, to stop benefit cheats, and to reform the system. Each little promise puts more strain on the system, more stress on the employees, and gives the recipient of Welfare more hassle and anxiety.

Will any party dare to veer away from the ‘benefit fraud is bad’ mantra, and promise a root and branch reform of the archaic system which leads to these manic depressive inhabitants of the benefit system? I sincerely doubt it.

Just as the main parties have decided that there is no alternative to cutting public spending to reduce the UK’s debts, the main parties haven’t even bothered to think further than benefit fraud when it comes to the Welfare State. Why should that be at the forefront of your mind when you come to vote? Because as 2009 has shown us, you just don’t know when it will be your turn to come up against these strange, grey humans hiding behind their (now) computerised system.

And if I end up in front of them anytime soon, I’d much rather that the politicians I vote for ensure that the staff in these Job havens are trained to be personable, informative and helpful. Treating people as if they’re guilty before you even know their full situation is so Thatcher. I still can’t believe that the Benefit system relies on it so heavily.

To celebrate the launch of Age UK (Age Concern and Help the Aged working together), Harriet Harman made a speech, talking about older people. Harman is the Equalities Minister.

The speech included a few lines about [...]]]>

Harriet Harman MP famously wearing a stabproof vest in Peckham, 31 March 2009. Image from South London Press.

To celebrate the launch of Age UK (Age Concern and Help the Aged working together), Harriet Harman made a speech, talking about older people. Harman is the Equalities Minister.

The speech included a few lines about the Olay advertisement which featured an airbrushed Twiggy. It appeared in the press around July 2009. People complained. Olay apologised, the ad was removed, and they got a rap across the knuckles from watchdogs a short while later. Apparently such airbrushing degrades the older woman.

Airbrushing advertising images is also something the Liberal Democrats have been banging on about incessantly. Apparently when you can motivate 700 people to write to the Advertising Standards Authority to complain about old people being airbrushed, you’ve got a good point.

For those of us who were unaware, just as page 3 girls in The Sun, or glamour models in Nuts or other lad’s mags are generally airbrushed as a matter of routine, the politicians want to nanny us to a state where we feel it’s unacceptable for old people to be airbrushed. Now where’s the equality in that. What about those younger people who are airbrushed on a daily basis?

What’s the point of equality if it only applies to old people?

“There’s nothing wrong with women ageing. It’s just a different stage of their life. Many are just getting in to their prime in their working life – having taken off time work when their children were young. Many are newly at the heart of caring responsibilities within their families as they take on a role in caring for their grandchildren.”
Harriet Harman MP

Now I just can’t figure this one out. Everyone ages. Most women at a suitable stage of the ageing process that I know will tell me that they detest having their photograph taken, unless it can be photoshopped to remove the crows feet and other more obvious signs of ageing. I’m pretty sure that Olay, and other beauty products, just wouldn’t sell if they couldn’t add some glamour to their models.

Twiggy's Olay advert.

Harman then went on to attack the BBC. Remember that series on how politicians seem to think they can control the BBC, even though it’s supposed to be independent?

“The broadcast media is able to value the older man for his experience and wisdom but does not find it possible to value the older woman in the same way.”

“This is an outdated view which is resented not just by women in the broadcast media but also by women viewers.”
Harriet Harman MP

Arlene Phillips - a dance judge, not a newsreader.

Harman also said that the BBC should make more use of Arlene Phillips, the former Strictly Come Dancing judge, and Dame Joan Bakewell. Yes, those really well known newsreaders, that one that reads the news while dancing. Yeah, I’d like her to read my news please.

The realy irony is that these quotes from Harman were published on the day that Chris Evans took over the Breakfast Programme on Radio 2 from Terry Wogan. His newsreader, as was widely publicised in the week beforehand, is Moira Stewart. Remember that old lady who used to read the news on the telly? Yes, she’s back on the radio now, every weekday morning. How’s that for triumph in the face of old-age?

But no, instead of celebrating the diverse range of ages, faiths, creeds, colours, genders, sexualities and emotional states which make every single one of us unique, our equalities minister is still harping on about things that happened last year.

Maybe Harman’s looking old, as The Doctor said of an imaginary politician in an imaginary scenario…