I don't watch TV live. I record everything so I can fast forward through the opening and closing credits, the adverts and the slow bits. The other night I noticed on my recordings that the same long advert kept appearing. It can be hard for TV channels to sell advertising in the small hours and they tend to give advertisers a lot of time to sell their stuff. The stuff here is a 10 CD compilation of 'great songs only available on TV.' You know the style. I would tell you the name in case you decide you just have to have it, but I'm so taken aback at the weird mix of pictures and sounds, I've forgotten.
The pictures on the advert show a couple wandering around a town. I'm not sure what they're doing but they are obviously having a good time. Are they tourists? Who can tell? They look to be maybe late 40s. Slim, well-dressed, white (natch). Let's say they were born about 1958. That means they were teenagers in the mid-70s. That's the era of glam rock - Bowie, Lou Reed, Roxy Music, etc. It's also the era of punk. Teenagers of this era missed the technicolor musicals of the 50s (South Pacific, Carousel, etc - I wish I'd missed all that), not to mention the arrival of Elvis in the late 50s/early 60s, the Beatles and the Stones in the 60s and a whole panoply of great pop and rock groups. This was the golden age for us Baby Boomers. (And while I'm on the subject: you 'young' people may resent us Baby Boomers and claim we have destroyed the world but we did at least leave you decent music).
The music being played in this advert is by Nat King Cole, Frank Sinatra, Perry Como, Alma Cogan, Andy Williams, etc. All singing stars of the 40s, 50s and 60s. Old people's stars. Whatever else this is, it ain't 70s music. And it sure as hell ain't young people's music.
So what audience is the ad going for? Young people in their 40s who have managed to miss out on the whole of the 60s and 70s? Can't see it somehow. Or is it for old people who still feel young? People would have to be born in the 1930s to be around for some of this stuff. Maybe that's the USP (unique selling point): you don't have to be young to like this kind of music. You just have to be delusional.
Wednesday 31 August 2016
Tuesday 30 August 2016
Labour
I'm not a member of the Labour Party any more. I've been a Green since 2014. I bear Labour no ill will but I am now wondering if the national executive have totally lost the plot. Someone I like and admire (a Labour councillor) has just posted this on Facebook:
I hope the Labour Party member named here doesn't mind me naming her (I don't know how to hide her name). It's hard to believe the reason given for rejecting her application to vote in the leadership contest. She tweeted - once - in favour of the Green Party.
In case the Labour executive has forgotten: the Greens are not Labour's enemy. In fact, the Greens have been extending the hand of friendship for a while now and their approaches have met with silence. The enemy is the current Conservative government, with its plans to adopt TTIP and fracking, reduce or cut out altogether social security support for disabled people and hand every possible element of the state to the private companies to which quite a few of their politicians are linked. Watch your NHS disappear, folks, but it won't be the Greens that will do that.
There have been divisions in the Labour Party many times before now and it has taken people of courage and ability to unite the party after each split. Is there anyone out there who can rescue Labour from this chaos?
Sunday 28 August 2016
Morning
Notice I'm not saying it's good. Just that it's morning. Yes, I'm talking to you, my friends, the pigeons. Or flying rats as I prefer to call you. Yes you, the ones that wake me up at 6am having sex, baths and loud conversations on the flat roof opposite my bedroom window. Every feckin morning. Double glazing is no barrier to you lot. You take the prize as the noisiest wildlife in the neighbourhood. Magpies, gulls, nothing frightens you. They might be more aggressive, but pigeons win the ALB (annoying little bastards) contest every time. It's hard to believe how much crap something as small as you can leave behind. Our cars are liberally covered. All the time.
I'm not normally a hostile person. As a rule, I like wildlife. But I don't care if pigeons are protected by the might of the RSPB. If I ever get my hands on you, you've had it. I just do not see the point of you lot.
If anybody has access to a hungry bird of prey, let me know. I have a treat for you.
Saturday 27 August 2016
Brexit - again
There's nothing to say about Brexit at the moment. The politicians are on holiday and the only people interested in the subject are journalists from the Mail and the Express who are still banging on about 'an immediate withdrawal.'
In a desperate attempt to put together a story, Channel 4 News on Friday night sent Fatima Manji out somewhere in south-east England that she described as 'the home of Brexit' to do some street interviews. Her subject was Ukip. One woman was a big 'fan' of his but didn't know 'his' name. Another thought there was no longer any need for Ukip now that the EU referendum is over. And one dull-eyed 20-something had no idea what Manji was talking about. She'd never heard of Ukip. Nope. No idea. For a second I thought Manji was going to laugh out loud. I did. Very professionally, she pulled herself together and moved on, while I was left wondering: Where and how do you live and manage not to notice politics at all? Maybe the woman had been ill - for a very long time. Maybe she had no access to any kind of media outlet - no telly, no radio, no newspapers. Maybe she had been living abroad in a place where no news from the UK ever reached her?
Then I wondered: How many more people are there like her? And most chillingly: Do they vote, these people? Or do they just sink below the radar and have nothing to do with the country they live in? Have they no opinions about anything? No wonder people who come here from other countries and take out UK nationality - sitting a test and paying thousands for the right to remain - are sometimes shocked by how lightly we take our responsibilities as citizens.
Thursday 25 August 2016
The National Editor
I was pleased to see Richard Walker, editor of The National, on the Sky Press Review tonight for the first time ever. He was introduced as 'editor and founder' of the paper and I'm not quite sure if that was how he wanted to be introduced or if the Sky presenter just didn't bother to explain properly to the viewers what the National was.
He did well. He was sitting alongside a journalist who is, I think, the royal correspondent of one of the London tabloids. Not exactly a heavyweight but normally pretty talkative. Confident. Sometimes, over-confident. She was slightly nervous tonight, it seemed to me, probably because she was dealing with an unknown quantity. Walker acquitted himself well: calm, authoritative, polite, trying hard not to speak across her, although it was difficult because she was wittering on a lot.
It was great to hear him say: 'Well, immigration is different in Scotland. We want people to come and work here.' He also got the chance to say: 'The NHS in Scotland is different. For one thing it has different priorities - and it's doing much better than elsewhere.' For the first time ever, I heard a Sky journalist qualify a comment by saying of a story in the press: Of course, that's only in England.
But the panel never at any time broached any of the issues that are currently of concern here in Scotland: Brexit, the GERS figures, the state of the UK economy (which, of course, at the moment dictates the state of the Scottish economy), a second independence referendum. Because these issues are not referred to at all in the mainstream media in London.
Still, it's a start. I'd like to think Sky will start to invite journalists from other parts of the UK to come in and comment on their Press Review and Richard Walker is not just some fill-in because it's August and everybody else in the London commentariat is on holiday. We'll see.
Wednesday 24 August 2016
Burkinis
You won't be surprised to know my view of the burkini fiasco in France is this:
Get your nose out of women's clothes!
What are you? Some kind of pervert?
It seems the police are trying to safeguard secularism in France. I believe very strongly in secularism in a modern society. But I'm not offended by cabin crews on BA wearing crucifixes. Or by officers in Police Scotland wearing the hijab.
I hear French lawyers are challenging the secularism law in the courts but I suspect this isn't about secularism. It's about controlling women's behaviour. The police won't try to stop Jewish men wearing kippas or Muslim men wearing the kurta or the shalwar kameez. Women are a much easier target.
And if you think this kind of nonsense goes on only in France and could never happen in the UK, just think about the female employees of multi-national companies who are told they must wear high heels and skirts and grow their hair long because, apparently, male clients like that.
I remember this kind of nonsense from my youth: teachers in the 1960s getting girls to kneel down in the school corridor so they could see that their skirts touched the ground. Not that it made a blind bit of difference: once the girls were out of sight of the teachers, the skirts got rolled up at the waistband till they were miniskirt length again. When I started teaching in the 1970s, the 'Lady Advisor' was still trying to stop female teachers wearing trousers. My pal the drama teacher didn't bother to ask her how you change a studio lighting rack in a skirt while retaining your modesty at the top of the ladder. She just ignored her.
And this half-arsed attempt to ban the burkini won't work either. If you look at the photos below, you'll see that it took women less than 60 years to go from wearing the swimsuit on the left to the one on the right. In between, there were two world wars, which changed women's lives and attitudes forever.
1880s
1920s
Myself, I'm not only keen on secularism, I'm really keen on choice. Women of whatever religion - or none - are perfectly able to make their own decisions. They don't need the police nosing about in their swimsuits.
Tuesday 23 August 2016
Corbyn
It had to come. I've got a cold that's stopping me sleeping so I've been online and discovered what the press and TV channels are saying about the latest Labour Party fiasco. You know, the train thing. Where Jeremy Corbyn couldn't get a seat so he sat on the floor and complained about over-crowded trains but he did it on a Virgin train and Branson was not happy and decided to take him on. Result: CCTV pictures everywhere. None of them clear. That means accusation and counter-accusation.
I gave up on the Labour Party a few years back. Normally I try not to comment publicly on their activities but privately I've been asking friends who are still inside the organisation how things are going, and the answer is not well. Most are voting for Corbyn in the upcoming leadership election. A few have changed their view since seeing the train nonsense but say they may return to Corbyn when they are less angry.
To me it seems that the big problem for opponents of Corbyn is that Owen Smith is totally uninspiring. That leads me to ask: What happened? One minute, Labour was full of radical, intellectual, clever people like John Smith, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Tony Benn, Alan Johnson and Robin Cook. Even if you didn't like them, they were leaders. Next minute, the only person on offer was Owen Smith.
I'm not going to trot out the usual Tory line that we need 'a strong opposition' in Westminster. I have a mental picture of Tory ministers high-fiving each other as they say that, delighted at the chaos in Labour ranks. The SNP are doing a pretty good job of presenting an opposition on behalf of Scotland, despite getting no cooperation from Labour.
Maybe someone needs to say this and I'm happy to oblige: Everyone thought at the start of all this that Corbyn was useless, a far left candidate who would never be able to appeal to members and voters, and would be unable to defend himself in a fight. He has about 80% of the Westminster party against him. And he's had every type of sh$t thrown at him in the past year. But still he commands the support of the Labour membership - and he's still here.
Time to think about that.
I gave up on the Labour Party a few years back. Normally I try not to comment publicly on their activities but privately I've been asking friends who are still inside the organisation how things are going, and the answer is not well. Most are voting for Corbyn in the upcoming leadership election. A few have changed their view since seeing the train nonsense but say they may return to Corbyn when they are less angry.
To me it seems that the big problem for opponents of Corbyn is that Owen Smith is totally uninspiring. That leads me to ask: What happened? One minute, Labour was full of radical, intellectual, clever people like John Smith, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Tony Benn, Alan Johnson and Robin Cook. Even if you didn't like them, they were leaders. Next minute, the only person on offer was Owen Smith.
I'm not going to trot out the usual Tory line that we need 'a strong opposition' in Westminster. I have a mental picture of Tory ministers high-fiving each other as they say that, delighted at the chaos in Labour ranks. The SNP are doing a pretty good job of presenting an opposition on behalf of Scotland, despite getting no cooperation from Labour.
Maybe someone needs to say this and I'm happy to oblige: Everyone thought at the start of all this that Corbyn was useless, a far left candidate who would never be able to appeal to members and voters, and would be unable to defend himself in a fight. He has about 80% of the Westminster party against him. And he's had every type of sh$t thrown at him in the past year. But still he commands the support of the Labour membership - and he's still here.
Time to think about that.
Teaching on a Scottish island
I read a column in Tuesday's Herald and thought I would add a bit to it from my own experience.
Dear Teacher,
If you’re considering going to work on a Scottish island, don’t let yourself be put off by anything in Rosemary Goring’s column (23/8/2016). I write as one who lived on Islay for almost 10 years, worked for a further 5 years on the islands of Argyll (including bits that aren’t islands but easily could be – like the Cowal Peninsula and the Mull of Kintyre), and then had the pleasure of visiting places like Lewis through my work with Gaelic in local authority schools.
Here are a few things you might want to remember, though, about island life:
- You can be out every night of the week if you want. Just remember that, no matter how few pupils you may have, there will always be preparation, correction, reports and paperwork to be done for the local authority. Maybe you can’t pop out to a club of a Saturday night but there are other opportunities. If you have any talents – such as for art, music, drama, photography – you’re going to the right place to develop them. There are plenty of night classes, sports teams, book groups, drama societies, visits from the Screen Machine, etc. Apart from that, islanders signed up for satellite TV long before most of the rest of us and you’ll find it easy to keep up with what’s happening in the world. Islanders are also right into remote learning, so your brain won’t stagnate.
- Islands are active places. You may not have considered going hill walking or beach-combing or wildlife spotting up to now, but on an island you will discover the natural world is right on your doorstep.
- You need inner resources. You have to accept that when the boat leaves, that’s it. You’re on your own – well, you and your colleagues, neighbours and friends. You need to do a bit of forward planning when it comes to shopping. Forget about companies that don't deliver to the islands. They don't value their customers. Plenty of others do. Living on a Scottish island is expensive. Expect that: carriage costs will always add to the price of the things you want. You need to accept that mobile phone coverage is a disgrace, as is broadband speed. There will be problems with the ferries. The community will be pleased to have your support as they complain to anyone they can think of about the islands always being at the end of the queue.
- You have to accept your relationship with the school population is different: the kids are part of adult life on most islands, since there’s no separate youth culture in small communities. Give them a bit of space when you can. They’ll do the same for you. You will learn so much from a school population that is usually open to new ideas and new experiences.
- Enjoy!
I don't know if they'll publish it but it's what I have learned.
Thursday 18 August 2016
The politics of envy
I've been accused of disliking Tory politicians because I envy them.
Tory politicians, it seems, come from humble beginnings, make their own way in the world without help and end up as millionaires who enter politics as an act of charity. They plan to get nothing from their roles in Westminster: they just want to pay back a little of their success. Aye, right. On the other hand...
I attended a state primary school and a state comprehensive, and went on to study at Glasgow University (established in 1451 - I repeat 1451) and then Strathclyde University. My father also attended Strathclyde to study naval architecture when it was still an FE institute (established in 1796). He attended his courses in the evenings. After work. He paid for the courses himself.
I was taught by some of the finest teachers it was possible to meet. A lot of them were men who had served in World War 2. They had been turfed out of school in the 1930s at the age of 14 or 15 because their families couldn't afford to let them stay on. The postwar expansion of education allowed them to go to university and become teachers.
They were inspirational. They took it for granted that the young people they were teaching wanted to learn. Had ambitions. Were capable of great stuff. And we responded by doing rather well.
I envy no one.
Tory politicians, it seems, come from humble beginnings, make their own way in the world without help and end up as millionaires who enter politics as an act of charity. They plan to get nothing from their roles in Westminster: they just want to pay back a little of their success. Aye, right. On the other hand...
I attended a state primary school and a state comprehensive, and went on to study at Glasgow University (established in 1451 - I repeat 1451) and then Strathclyde University. My father also attended Strathclyde to study naval architecture when it was still an FE institute (established in 1796). He attended his courses in the evenings. After work. He paid for the courses himself.
I was taught by some of the finest teachers it was possible to meet. A lot of them were men who had served in World War 2. They had been turfed out of school in the 1930s at the age of 14 or 15 because their families couldn't afford to let them stay on. The postwar expansion of education allowed them to go to university and become teachers.
They were inspirational. They took it for granted that the young people they were teaching wanted to learn. Had ambitions. Were capable of great stuff. And we responded by doing rather well.
I envy no one.
Explain me this
Today the headline on the BBC website - the 'Home' page as well as the UK section - is:
Record university offers on A-level day
I'm confused. A levels are exams that people sit in some parts of the UK. So shouldn't A level stories be on the website pages for England, Wales and Northern Ireland? I've had a wee look and yes, an A level story appears on the Wales page (predictably, a put-down that results are poorer this year) but not on the England or Northern Ireland pages.
Don't get me wrong: I'm delighted for everyone who sat those exams and got the results they wanted so they can now continue their education. That's not my point, which is that I don't understand the rules by which the BBC runs its website. There was no great fanfare when the Scottish exam results appeared - not even bad news stories. Nothing appeared on the 'Home' or UK section. The results were relegated to what James Robertson calls 'The News Where You Are'* area of the website: Scotland.
I suppose I should be grateful the BBC quite often tells us when a news story applies only to England and Wales or England, Wales and Northern Ireland. You'll never get that clarification on ITN news or Sky. And I have to say Channel 4 news, for all its good points (like relegating the Olympics to a 5 minute slot while determinedly delivering reports from all over the world), doesn't always get the picture right: that things in the NHS, education, politics and the law are often different in Scotland.
And the websites of all these news outlets mirror their cloudy thinking.
The whole point about a news service is surely to clarify what's happening for the viewing public. But it's not the first time I've been told by Scottish people that the NHS is falling apart, that immigrants are 'flooding the country,' that 'our' schools are in a terrible condition. They heard it on the news or read it on a website so it must be right. Right?
The other problem we have with the news programmes and websites of both BBC Scotland and STV is that they are highly selective. Some bits of news are totally ignored, especially news from the Scottish Parliament. There's also very little attempt to work out what's going on in local Scottish councils until a crisis pops up: BBC news announced a couple of weeks back that the report on the 'Edinburgh trams fiasco' was delayed. Now that's an interesting way of putting it. STV's news programmes focus on a very small number of stories and bring in a very small number of talking heads, but I notice in recent weeks the BBC Scotland people seem to be trying to copy their style, although their talking heads tend to be BBC journalists rather than independent 'experts.'
Anyhow, the amount of time devoted to the Olympics has taught me this: it's perfectly possible to live happily without watching the news. I'd rather put the TV off than have to sit through 15 minutes on the Olympics, with another 5 minutes tacked on the end, and then the same thing again on 'The News Where You Are.'
*If you haven't seen James Robertson's take on the news in 365 words, have a look:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edrBBphznfw
Record university offers on A-level day
I'm confused. A levels are exams that people sit in some parts of the UK. So shouldn't A level stories be on the website pages for England, Wales and Northern Ireland? I've had a wee look and yes, an A level story appears on the Wales page (predictably, a put-down that results are poorer this year) but not on the England or Northern Ireland pages.
Don't get me wrong: I'm delighted for everyone who sat those exams and got the results they wanted so they can now continue their education. That's not my point, which is that I don't understand the rules by which the BBC runs its website. There was no great fanfare when the Scottish exam results appeared - not even bad news stories. Nothing appeared on the 'Home' or UK section. The results were relegated to what James Robertson calls 'The News Where You Are'* area of the website: Scotland.
I suppose I should be grateful the BBC quite often tells us when a news story applies only to England and Wales or England, Wales and Northern Ireland. You'll never get that clarification on ITN news or Sky. And I have to say Channel 4 news, for all its good points (like relegating the Olympics to a 5 minute slot while determinedly delivering reports from all over the world), doesn't always get the picture right: that things in the NHS, education, politics and the law are often different in Scotland.
And the websites of all these news outlets mirror their cloudy thinking.
The whole point about a news service is surely to clarify what's happening for the viewing public. But it's not the first time I've been told by Scottish people that the NHS is falling apart, that immigrants are 'flooding the country,' that 'our' schools are in a terrible condition. They heard it on the news or read it on a website so it must be right. Right?
The other problem we have with the news programmes and websites of both BBC Scotland and STV is that they are highly selective. Some bits of news are totally ignored, especially news from the Scottish Parliament. There's also very little attempt to work out what's going on in local Scottish councils until a crisis pops up: BBC news announced a couple of weeks back that the report on the 'Edinburgh trams fiasco' was delayed. Now that's an interesting way of putting it. STV's news programmes focus on a very small number of stories and bring in a very small number of talking heads, but I notice in recent weeks the BBC Scotland people seem to be trying to copy their style, although their talking heads tend to be BBC journalists rather than independent 'experts.'
Anyhow, the amount of time devoted to the Olympics has taught me this: it's perfectly possible to live happily without watching the news. I'd rather put the TV off than have to sit through 15 minutes on the Olympics, with another 5 minutes tacked on the end, and then the same thing again on 'The News Where You Are.'
*If you haven't seen James Robertson's take on the news in 365 words, have a look:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edrBBphznfw
Monday 15 August 2016
A Wake-up Call?
Once in a while, I wake up during the night because it feels as if something has happened. In my usual state when wakened from sleep, it can take me a wee while to get a handle on what's going on. Sometimes it's the arrival of the ominous 'private ambulance.' That's the bus (as they say in the USA) that takes away the bodies of anyone who has died in the complex. When you live in a sheltered housing place, you get used to that. You're just glad it's not you. Sometimes it's a proper ambulance that comes to transport a sick person to a local hospital. Sometimes it's the fire brigade, who arrive with lights flashing and sirens going and all because some eejit has burnt their toast. This has happened twice in the 13 months I've been here. Not that I mind. The fire crews are so pleasing on the eye I sometimes wonder if that's how they are recruited.
Tonight - at 3.46am to be exact - we have not one but two ambulances in the car park.
Emergency ambulance staff are very good - I know from experience - quiet, efficient, reassuring. Not a job I could ever do. But as soon as I see them arriving, my imagination starts to run riot. Is R okay? That's the neighbour recently out of hospital who's been having a wee problem with his heart. Could it be J? 90 and going strong but still, you never know. Or her pal, H, who is 99 and still making it out for a wee walk every day. And there's A, who has mental health problems and has been pretty isolated for weeks now, despite the warden trying to talk to him every day.
I should be - and I am - grateful that I live in a place where neighbours sit shiva for a resident who has died, celebrate the 90th birthday of another resident - and where the warden cries when told of the death in hospital of another resident.
But living here doesn't half bring you face to face with the realities of life.
Nae pockets in a shroud. That's one reality.
Tonight - at 3.46am to be exact - we have not one but two ambulances in the car park.
Emergency ambulance staff are very good - I know from experience - quiet, efficient, reassuring. Not a job I could ever do. But as soon as I see them arriving, my imagination starts to run riot. Is R okay? That's the neighbour recently out of hospital who's been having a wee problem with his heart. Could it be J? 90 and going strong but still, you never know. Or her pal, H, who is 99 and still making it out for a wee walk every day. And there's A, who has mental health problems and has been pretty isolated for weeks now, despite the warden trying to talk to him every day.
I should be - and I am - grateful that I live in a place where neighbours sit shiva for a resident who has died, celebrate the 90th birthday of another resident - and where the warden cries when told of the death in hospital of another resident.
But living here doesn't half bring you face to face with the realities of life.
Nae pockets in a shroud. That's one reality.
Friday 12 August 2016
This sporting life
So far this 'summer' we've had:
- Wimbledon
- The Euros
- The British Open
- Formula 1
- Horse racing
- Cricket
- The new Scottish football season (It has just started although it seems like only yesterday the old season was ending - o wait, maybe it was only yesterday!)
Forgive me if I've missed out your favourite sport but it's bound to be on TV and radio somewhere. Usually on the BBC.
Now we have the Olympics. On BBC1, BBC2, BBC4, Reporting Scotland, BBC Online. Just about all the time. It's item 1 on the news at lunchtime, teatime and late at night.
I do surveys for a few online polling firms. I hasten to say I do this for money and not because I'm serving the god of merchandise, although that's sometimes how it feels. We're sometimes asked to evaluate products companies are thinking of marketing. The last one (on Tuesday) was about an 'instant breakfast' ready in 2 minutes in the microwave. In the wee space where opinions are invited, I asked about the calorific value of this feast, and whether a healthy option would be available - you know, gluten-free and lower-fat for diabetics - and about the point of asking people to shell out big money for something that they could prepare at home using fresh ingredients in about 10 minutes flat. I suspect I have missed the point. Nobody is expected to have these ingredients in their fridge. That's why companies can sell them freeze-dried, supermarket versions of real food. Except me. If I want a breakfast of mushroom omelette, I have the ingredients in my fridge. I doubt if my views can change the way these companies operate but it's nice to rattle their cage once in a while.
Other surveys ask about my TV viewing habits and want me to tick programmes I have watched over a 48 hour period on a whole range of TV stations. ITV3 is always in the list, as are Pick, Spike, W, Dave and Sky Atlantic. This is tricky for me because I mostly gave up watching live TV a few years back. I record anything I want to watch. That way, I can fast forward through the adverts, which I hate. As well as deciding 10 minutes into a programme that this is a waste of my time/an insult to my intelligence/a ridiculous idea and deleting it. I also record from stations that are never asked about in polls: Sky Arts, BBC4, Alba, the History Channel and RT once in a while.
Recently, I was asked about BBC current affairs programmes. That's also tricky: I don't watch BBC news programmes any more. I've seen and heard too many examples of BBC bias or omission. The latest was maybe on Monday when I heard a radio 4 interviewer ask a man who is standing for Labour in the Liverpool mayoral election about something Tom Watson, depute Labour leader, had said. You'll have to ask him, he said. And then about the Labour NEC's apparent bias against women. You'll have to ask the NEC, he said. He then invited the interviewer to ask him about the mayoral election, but she wasn't that keen. I don't want BBC presenters giving me their own personal version of what's happening in the UK. I want analysis of events. I don't get that from ITV either. So I"m reduced to watching C4 news. Heaven help us if C4 is privatised.
These surveys also offer me a very small space where opinions can be registered. I have tried telling the polling companies that their clients are not keeping up with viewing trends in an online world. I suspect the problem is that companies like the BBC which commission polls like big figures, preferably in the millions, to impress the Tory government which will set the TV licence fee in coming years.
Last year, I set out to annoy a polling company, which insisted on referring to every area of the UK as a 'region.' I pointed out that Wales is a principality, Northern Ireland a province and Scotland a country. They have finally changed their question about where we live. Lesson learned.
I have absolutely no reason to think that the polling companies will manage to persuade broadcasters like the BBC to change the way they think. The BBC is a bit like one of those huge tankers that need a lot of time to change direction. Sadly, I don't suppose the people who run the BBC see any need to change. They've got a nice life so why change it?
- Wimbledon
- The Euros
- The British Open
- Formula 1
- Horse racing
- Cricket
- The new Scottish football season (It has just started although it seems like only yesterday the old season was ending - o wait, maybe it was only yesterday!)
Forgive me if I've missed out your favourite sport but it's bound to be on TV and radio somewhere. Usually on the BBC.
Now we have the Olympics. On BBC1, BBC2, BBC4, Reporting Scotland, BBC Online. Just about all the time. It's item 1 on the news at lunchtime, teatime and late at night.
I do surveys for a few online polling firms. I hasten to say I do this for money and not because I'm serving the god of merchandise, although that's sometimes how it feels. We're sometimes asked to evaluate products companies are thinking of marketing. The last one (on Tuesday) was about an 'instant breakfast' ready in 2 minutes in the microwave. In the wee space where opinions are invited, I asked about the calorific value of this feast, and whether a healthy option would be available - you know, gluten-free and lower-fat for diabetics - and about the point of asking people to shell out big money for something that they could prepare at home using fresh ingredients in about 10 minutes flat. I suspect I have missed the point. Nobody is expected to have these ingredients in their fridge. That's why companies can sell them freeze-dried, supermarket versions of real food. Except me. If I want a breakfast of mushroom omelette, I have the ingredients in my fridge. I doubt if my views can change the way these companies operate but it's nice to rattle their cage once in a while.
Other surveys ask about my TV viewing habits and want me to tick programmes I have watched over a 48 hour period on a whole range of TV stations. ITV3 is always in the list, as are Pick, Spike, W, Dave and Sky Atlantic. This is tricky for me because I mostly gave up watching live TV a few years back. I record anything I want to watch. That way, I can fast forward through the adverts, which I hate. As well as deciding 10 minutes into a programme that this is a waste of my time/an insult to my intelligence/a ridiculous idea and deleting it. I also record from stations that are never asked about in polls: Sky Arts, BBC4, Alba, the History Channel and RT once in a while.
Recently, I was asked about BBC current affairs programmes. That's also tricky: I don't watch BBC news programmes any more. I've seen and heard too many examples of BBC bias or omission. The latest was maybe on Monday when I heard a radio 4 interviewer ask a man who is standing for Labour in the Liverpool mayoral election about something Tom Watson, depute Labour leader, had said. You'll have to ask him, he said. And then about the Labour NEC's apparent bias against women. You'll have to ask the NEC, he said. He then invited the interviewer to ask him about the mayoral election, but she wasn't that keen. I don't want BBC presenters giving me their own personal version of what's happening in the UK. I want analysis of events. I don't get that from ITV either. So I"m reduced to watching C4 news. Heaven help us if C4 is privatised.
These surveys also offer me a very small space where opinions can be registered. I have tried telling the polling companies that their clients are not keeping up with viewing trends in an online world. I suspect the problem is that companies like the BBC which commission polls like big figures, preferably in the millions, to impress the Tory government which will set the TV licence fee in coming years.
Last year, I set out to annoy a polling company, which insisted on referring to every area of the UK as a 'region.' I pointed out that Wales is a principality, Northern Ireland a province and Scotland a country. They have finally changed their question about where we live. Lesson learned.
I have absolutely no reason to think that the polling companies will manage to persuade broadcasters like the BBC to change the way they think. The BBC is a bit like one of those huge tankers that need a lot of time to change direction. Sadly, I don't suppose the people who run the BBC see any need to change. They've got a nice life so why change it?
Wednesday 10 August 2016
Gantin fur it
I'm a big fan of Karen Dunbar. Not that I've ever seen her perform live. I've heard her on the radio and seen her on the telly. She is what's referred to as 'edgy.' That means dangerous, because although on national media she's slightly curbed, live she doesn't give a rat's arse who she insults. I like that.
I like Betty reminiscing about what life was like in the west of Scotland during World War 2. Some of you will remember that the phrase 'gantin fur it' appeared in Betty's memories. I remember being relieved to hear Karen Dunbar use that phrase. Up to that point, if you listened to the authorities, life in WW2 seemed to be about defending the nation, working hard and being an upstanding citizen, whereas I just knew from listening to family and neighbours that all sorts of behaviour had gone on. Food smuggling and extra-marital houghmagandie were only two examples.
Houghmagandie is Scots - from Ayrshire maybe? Gantin fur it is Central Belt Scots. It's amazing to me how many different forms of the Scots language there are. And just as amazing is to find out how much the different strands of the Scots language are despised by everyone else: fellow Scots, scholars, even people from Northern Ireland. I've got used to the contempt with which some people react to Scots saying 'I seen' and 'I done' although these are perfectly acceptable expressions in the Scots language and refer back to a very old form of English/Scots. Just as I have come to accept that 'war' has no final r in some English dialects, although I still object to modern dictionaries that try to tell me that 'sure' and 'saw' are pronounced the same way.
Sadly, some experts go on arguing about what constitutes Scots, while others keep needling each other about keeping the language pure. Who knows what that means. The great thing about Scots is that it has kept on changing, with or without the permission of linguistic experts. Scots goes on evolving and I hope that will continue.
Saturday 6 August 2016
Steven Purcell
You know the man. Former leader of Glasgow City Council. Resigned in 2014 amid allegations of alcoholism, cocaine-snorting and depression. Seems to have spent 3 days in rehab - three days! - what a great recovery! - and then went off to Australia to get better. Now he's back and wants to get into politics in Glasgow again.
In the old days, with his connections, Steven would just have strolled back in. Got a safe seat on the council. Made his way back up the greasy pole. But things have changed in Glasgow. It's no longer the Labour stronghold it once was. The SNP are breathing down their neck. Elected representatives are now having to prove their contribution to the politics of Glasgow and the well-being of the people. And the one thing missing from Steven's interviews is a statement of what he thinks he can do for the people of Glasgow.
Still, I wish him good luck. It would be good to think he has changed and that his thoughts now are about how he can serve the city. We'll see.
He's giving interviews. He talks a lot about how he brought the Commonwealth Games to Glasgow. Funny that: I know quite a few people who actually did bring the Games to Glasgow and I don't think they would name Steven Purcell as the chief mover and shaker.
In the old days, with his connections, Steven would just have strolled back in. Got a safe seat on the council. Made his way back up the greasy pole. But things have changed in Glasgow. It's no longer the Labour stronghold it once was. The SNP are breathing down their neck. Elected representatives are now having to prove their contribution to the politics of Glasgow and the well-being of the people. And the one thing missing from Steven's interviews is a statement of what he thinks he can do for the people of Glasgow.
Still, I wish him good luck. It would be good to think he has changed and that his thoughts now are about how he can serve the city. We'll see.
Thursday 4 August 2016
Brexit
I've been doing a course on Futurelearn about the EU. I signed up for it before the EU referendum was announced in the UK and now I find the course has been hijacked by Brexiters trying to explain why they voted to leave the EU. They haven't actually managed to explain why they voted the way they did. Nor have they said what they think the UK will gain by leaving - so not a hope of a plan A or B from these people - but they are quite vociferous in their hatred of the EU, its bureaucracy and - how awful is this? - Angela Merkel.
I gave up the course at week 4 but then thought soddit! if I skipped week 5 (about the Bretton Wood agreement - yawn!) I could learn a bit from the presenter (he's a Catalan) in week 6 about what he thought the role of Germany and the future of the EU might be.
So it's the middle of the cacking night and here I am raging at a post by a fellow participant I reckon is probably mid- to late-80s:
He has taken issue with a post from another participant:
"Who do you identify as Britains ruling class Lynne-Marie? On 01.09.1939 I was evacuated to a village where the local Lord was the paternal and feudal lord of all he surveyed. They no longer exist apart from the one or two who open for visitors. Our leaders post war have been virtually all ex-grammar school and trade union apart from the socialist millionairs like Tony Benn".
I have replied to him several times on other issues, as I have to other Brexiters on the course, but tonight I've lost it:
"I'll tell you who Britain's ruling class are, James: they have inherited wealth; they are educated at private (I think you would call them public) schools and attend Oxford and Cambridge; they flood the house of commons and the lords bringing with them the attitudes of millionaires (which a lot of them are), a sense of entitlement and a lack of connection with the people they are apparently elected to serve. Some of the politicians who fit exactly this profile include Alec Douglas Home, Anthony Eden, Winston Churchill, David Cameron, Harold MacMillan. With the exception of Tony Benn, they are not in the Labour party. The mismatch between the voters and their elected representatives is growing and is a main reason for the disillusionment of the electorate. Nye Bevan got it right: <No amount of cajolery can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party … So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin.> And they haven't changed in a century.
I'm glad you got evacuated to a place of safety in WW2. My family didn't. My grandmother, mother and her sister lived 200 yards from the docks in Glasgow and worked in the food industry. They weren't evacuated till 1942 when things got really dangerous and then only for about 7 weeks".
So let's get this right: while some of us who voted to remain in the EU are so worried about what the future holds for us, our kids and their kids that we're sitting with our heads in our hands asking the Brexiters 'What have you done? What have you done?' the Brexiters are fannying around, deluded and delusional, unable to tell us what happens next, clinging to the fantasy that is the idyllic England of lords of the manor and no doubt old maids bicycling to church (to quote John Major), where you don't need to lock your door, blah blah - an ideal that never existed - and they expect the Remain camp to sort this out?
Almost as annoying is the fact that some of the Brexiters on this course credit the EU referendum with bringing the Labour Party to a crisis. I haven't commented on the Labour Party so far. It's not my party any more, but I am alarmed that these Brexiters are so thrilled that, in their view, the threat from UK Labour has been neutralised.
Seriously, folks, we can't afford to be without an opposition. Sky news now refers to the SNP in Westminster as the only 'organised' opposition.
So what do we do now? Well, me, I'm going to finish the course, respond to the 17 online comments that now await me(!) and go to bed!
I gave up the course at week 4 but then thought soddit! if I skipped week 5 (about the Bretton Wood agreement - yawn!) I could learn a bit from the presenter (he's a Catalan) in week 6 about what he thought the role of Germany and the future of the EU might be.
So it's the middle of the cacking night and here I am raging at a post by a fellow participant I reckon is probably mid- to late-80s:
He has taken issue with a post from another participant:
"Who do you identify as Britains ruling class Lynne-Marie? On 01.09.1939 I was evacuated to a village where the local Lord was the paternal and feudal lord of all he surveyed. They no longer exist apart from the one or two who open for visitors. Our leaders post war have been virtually all ex-grammar school and trade union apart from the socialist millionairs like Tony Benn".
I have replied to him several times on other issues, as I have to other Brexiters on the course, but tonight I've lost it:
"I'll tell you who Britain's ruling class are, James: they have inherited wealth; they are educated at private (I think you would call them public) schools and attend Oxford and Cambridge; they flood the house of commons and the lords bringing with them the attitudes of millionaires (which a lot of them are), a sense of entitlement and a lack of connection with the people they are apparently elected to serve. Some of the politicians who fit exactly this profile include Alec Douglas Home, Anthony Eden, Winston Churchill, David Cameron, Harold MacMillan. With the exception of Tony Benn, they are not in the Labour party. The mismatch between the voters and their elected representatives is growing and is a main reason for the disillusionment of the electorate. Nye Bevan got it right: <No amount of cajolery can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party … So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin.> And they haven't changed in a century.
I'm glad you got evacuated to a place of safety in WW2. My family didn't. My grandmother, mother and her sister lived 200 yards from the docks in Glasgow and worked in the food industry. They weren't evacuated till 1942 when things got really dangerous and then only for about 7 weeks".
So let's get this right: while some of us who voted to remain in the EU are so worried about what the future holds for us, our kids and their kids that we're sitting with our heads in our hands asking the Brexiters 'What have you done? What have you done?' the Brexiters are fannying around, deluded and delusional, unable to tell us what happens next, clinging to the fantasy that is the idyllic England of lords of the manor and no doubt old maids bicycling to church (to quote John Major), where you don't need to lock your door, blah blah - an ideal that never existed - and they expect the Remain camp to sort this out?
Almost as annoying is the fact that some of the Brexiters on this course credit the EU referendum with bringing the Labour Party to a crisis. I haven't commented on the Labour Party so far. It's not my party any more, but I am alarmed that these Brexiters are so thrilled that, in their view, the threat from UK Labour has been neutralised.
Seriously, folks, we can't afford to be without an opposition. Sky news now refers to the SNP in Westminster as the only 'organised' opposition.
So what do we do now? Well, me, I'm going to finish the course, respond to the 17 online comments that now await me(!) and go to bed!
Tuesday 2 August 2016
About the BBC website...
I'm quite prepared to accept that the Glasgow office is hog-tied by London. Never forget, when the big debate started about whether Scotland should have its own News at Six, the editor of Newsnight was quoted as saying it would be 'over my dead body.' Now, I've never been self-employed. Always had a boss so always had to ask myself: How will this go down with the boss man? I can't imagine having the freedom or the brass neck to express an opinion like this. Maybe he had his boss's permission to say it or maybe he just thought that despite being an employee of the BBC (paid for by you and me, as you know) he had the right to say this. Same with numpties like Jeremy Vine and Andrew Marr. Several times lately, I've heard myself wondering: Who cares what you guys think? Your opinion counts for no more than the view of the punter in the street. Whatever your ego may tell you.
I know some of the BBC Scotland journalists and they are able and intelligent people, but they have to follow the direction of the man in charge of the news. Funny how it's ay a man in charge but quite often women fronting the news on TV and radio. And I'll admit I was a bit surprised when an item on the enquiry into the Edinburgh trams was introduced by BBC News Scotland with the words: 'the Edinburgh trams fiasco.' Is that what we should expect from the impartial BBC? Really?
Just recently, I've started having a closer look at the BBC news website. It's a mess. Go ahead and check for yourself.
Scottish news is dominated by items from Police Scotland handouts. That, I guess, is because the information is free. Prisoners on the run, road accidents, people convicted by the courts earlier in the day. They're all there. Very little by way of real reporting. And none of it is updated between about 9pm and 9am, I'm guessing because the poor soul who maintains the page goes home then. Or is locked up in his padded cell for the night. And, of course, there is no news at all on a Saturday. Except the footie.
The UK news pages are just as desperate: a wee bit of politics, a couple of murders. Total trivia.
No attempt in either the regional news page or the UK news to offer any kind of analysis. Mind you, if you watch the BBC news on TV, it's much the same.
Remember James Robertson's The News Where You Are:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhL57cjN8xY
But it's the World news pages that are the pièce de cacking résistance. Again, no attempt to analyse events anywhere in the world. No comment on what Donald J Trump said to the parents of a Muslim soldier who died serving his country or what Barack Obama said about that. He said Trump was unfit to be president. It's a pretty alarming statement. I don't remember any president making such a comment in the past. Was it wise to say it? Could Obama's words come back to haunt the Democrats as Republican voters dig their heels in and decide they were right that Obama is a Socialist who is out to destroy the USA? We'll never know, not if we only read the BBC news website.
And stereotypes. If you want to see what's happening in Australia and suspect it will have to do with
cricket and sexist comments from yahoo politicians, the BBC website is the page for you. There will be no news from New Zealand because apparently nothing ever happens there. Don't expect to find any news about Canada on the North America bit of the website either. If you're looking at the Latin America page, get ready for items about Colombian and Bolivian drug barons, the zika virus in Brazil and bad economic news from Venezuela. Nothing about police death squads in Brazil killing people they think might be opponents of the government threatening the Olympics. For that information, you'll have to go to a serious website.
The other thing the BBC news website offers is the weather forecast. I don't bother with that because the map only shows the weather in Edinburgh. I live on a different coast served by different weather systems. I follow Windy Wilson's Weather on Facebook.
So what is the BBC up to with its news website? The BBC website is organised in a way that isn't seen in Sky or RT. Their websites keep their news reach fairly limited but what they do, they do well. The BBC seems to be trying to do everything. And as a result they don't do anything very well.
The website probably costs millions to run and employs well-trained people who could otherwise be working at the cutting edge of technology. I'd love to hear from them but I suspect I never will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)