Journal Entries
A nuch micer day
Posted Nov 23, 2012
There has been an issue with rendering this post, please contact the editors.
Discuss this Journal entry [6]
Latest reply: Nov 23, 2012
NaJoPoMo Day 22: Truth and Justice
Posted Nov 22, 2012
There has been an issue with rendering this post, please contact the editors.
Discuss this Journal entry [9]
Latest reply: Nov 22, 2012
Shut up McAlpine
Posted Nov 21, 2012
A bloke called Lord McAlpine was recently not mentioned in a report on BBC Newsnight. The not mentioning was enough to get him widely mentioned on twitter, which was enough for ITV to add him to their list of names handed to the Prime Minister on live TV. So the first time I ever heard of McAlpine was when he had been clearly and completely exornorated and the BBC Director General had resigned over the whole affair. So obviously, having cleared his name (which is what matters) McAlpine's happy. Except he's not. He hasn't sued enough people yet.
First he settled out of court with the Beed for £185,000. If you think that's a lot of money, bear in mind that his Lordship took into account that it is being paid for by tv licence holders. He's going to demand more from ITV. Then, when he's done with them, he's going after everyone on twitter who made the allegation as well.
Now you might say 'good for him', and in some ways I would be right with you. If the broadcasters were sticking to their allegations and a court case was what it took to get the truth out, or if they had stuck to their guns for ages before finally admitting they were lying, his Lordship would have a case. But the fact is that it was all over almost before it had started and since nobody really knew who he was anyway, it wouldn't have done him any harm. Maybe he just self-agrandising and trying to make a load of money out of the whole thing. Although he did give the £185,000 to the NSPCC.
But I have a bigger complaint against McAlpine. The thing is that this all stemmed from a man who had made allegations of child abuse. Not against Lord McAlpine, but against another bloke with the same name. He had identified a very old photo, and, when shown a recent photo of Lord M, categorically said this wasn't the bloke. It will, I have not doubt, have taken tremendous courage (I know people keep saying that until it sounds like a massive cliche, but it really, really does, believe me) and the result of this has largely been a massive outcry, a bbc crisis and a bloke reaching for his lawyer. So what is this going to do for all those people who, in the wake of the JImmy Saville crisis, began to think maybe it was the right time for them to tell their story? It's sure as hell not going to help. These are people who have suffered sometimes months or years of neglect, cruelty and abuse and McAlpine would do well to remember that what he's been through is so minor in comparisson that he is effectively suing for bruising incurred on the london underground. Now is time time, actually now is three days after the time, for Lord McAlpine to put his ego and his back statements back in his bag, siddle quitely into the shadows and shut up. There are people who need this platform more than you McAlpine, please vacate it immediately.
Discuss this Journal entry [20]
Latest reply: Nov 21, 2012
NaJoPoMo Day 20: Lie if you must, just don't annoy me
Posted Nov 20, 2012
Yesterday I read that actor Martin Clunes is being axed from the tv adverts for insurance company churchill after he lost his driving licence for a succession of speeding offences. Clunes appears in the ads as straight man to a *hilarious* nodding dog. My first thought is that if there is one person who needs motor insurance, it's a guy who drives too fast. My second thought is why didn't they axe the bloody dog?
It is, I believe, recieved advertsing wisdom that if you can't actually persude the public to want your thing, the next best thing is to annoy them so sufficiently that your thing is stuck in their head whether they like it or not. That way when they are next, for example, buying car insurance, the name of the company who produced that really annoying ad (all of them) pops into their head because they are too lazy to look any harder.
Well I don't know about anyone else, but I personally have passed my intolerance threshhold. Now I find that if a company produces a series of annoying adverts I refuse to get involved. I would not have had an account at the Halifax if you threatened my family as long as my money was being used to fund HOWARD. If you don't know who Howard is, think smug annoying bloke badly mimimng along to pop songs adapted so they now describe building society services. More recently, price comparrison GoCompare have introduced the Go Compare man, an out of work opera singer who sings about go compare at innnocent passers by. In due course, GoCompare cottoned on to the fact that everyone hated the go compare man and they had a ex-tennis pro turned Tv Anchor called Sue Barker blow him up with some form of projectile explosive. Nice moved, I thought. Clever. Except that in the next advert he was back. Okay, so they inflict further comedic suffering on him, but they still have the nerve to brand their new campaign 'saving the nation'. No, if you were saving the nation, you would stop bothering us with these infuriating adverts. Since you haven't done that, you're saving nobody, expect some psychiatrists who are short of clients.
I must reserve my greatest annoyance, though, for Specsavers. Their adverts present us with a person who makes some form of amusing mistake (example- an eldery couple mistakenly having a nice sit down and a sandwhich on a roller roaster) because they can't see properly. Their smug and annoying tagline is 'Should have gone to specsavers'. SOD OFF! I'm will never got to bloody specsavers, unless you humbly apologise for making fun of the partially sighted (who are your customers, you idiots!) and try and explain why they needed you specifically, rather than any optician at all. I go to Boots, and have never made any amusing mistakes like accidentally parking on an aircraft carrier, because the glasses they gave me are fine.
Stop annoying me and starting telling me why I should by your products. Or I will by nothing from you. There.
Discuss this Journal entry [4]
Latest reply: Nov 20, 2012
NaJoPoMo Day 19: This town name ain't big enough for the two of us
Posted Nov 19, 2012
I'm rereading Bill Bryson's Notes from a small island again at the moment and caugh a reference to a small village in Dorset called Kingston. A friend of mine lives in Kingston in London (argue the toss if you want, but it is basically, isn't it?) and remarked to me a while ago that there was also a Kingston in Sissex, where I live. I didn't know this, but I imagine the reason she knew is from having to establish which Kingston she wanted when, for example, conducting journey plans online. I know that there is an Eastbourne in Durham because I have to explain this to websites when I am buying train tickets. It's getting messy, and it really is time we sorted it all out. So I have a suggestion.
We should have a competition. It would be brilliant. It would be televisied (on the BBC, naturally) and towns with the same name would all be pitted against each other. The nicest place of the lot would be allowed to keep it's name and the rest would have to think of new ones. Anyone who saw Restoration nearly a decade ago on the BBC will have an idea what I mean. Each week a team of experts will visit each town in question and present them to the public. The town or village will have a few minutes to pitch for their residence, and in the weeks building up to the live final all the loccations can have local events to encourage people to visit, look round and decide before they vote.
You see this isn't just a tacky exercise. It promotes tourism. It also actively encourages each commmunity to work to improve. Everything adds up, from visual appeal through ammenities and litter to crime rates and schooling. And the winning location gets not only to keep their name but also a grant to work towards some new development to promote their brilliant town.
And the same time, the failed towns all have to come up with new names. But this isn't a punishment, it's an opportunity. They have to rethink how they see themselves, what sort of town they want to be. If my Eastbourne lost it's Eastbourne status, it would be a chance for them to shrug off their reputation for being the last refuge for old people, and really establish themselves as... whatever. A beautufil, tranquil seaside resort with 2 centuries of very fine and largely intact archaitecture from every era throughout. And hundres of foreigh students wandering about jabbering away in laguages they are not suposed to be learning and bashing into locals with their rucksacks. Or they could leave that bit out. Whatever.
Who's with me?
Discuss this Journal entry [6]
Latest reply: Nov 19, 2012
benjaminpmoore
Researcher U3508889
Write an Entry
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."