Those nice people at Lib Dem Voice have been messing with the fragile and egotistical heads of we bloggers over the last few days. They've been teasing us with hints of secrets for days on Twitter, whipping us into an anticipatory frenzy. They even gave us a couple of hours' notice that the shortlists were going to be announced at 11:25 this morning. They were on time, too and you can read the full list here.
I had never had any expectation of being included in any of the shortlists, so I wasn't surprised not to see my name in any of the categories - and then I was completely flabbergasted to discover that this blog on the shortlist for the actual Blog of the Year award. Imagine, a one in five chance of getting a BOTY. Mind you, I tend to assess these sorts of chances in the same way as John Diamond, the late and much missed (by me, anyway) Times columnist who wrote in his book C, Because Cowards get Cancer too about his feelings about being told he had a 80% or a 60% chance of survival or whatever. He said, no, actually, it was 50-50 - he'd either survive or he wouldn't. On that logic, I'm in with a 50-50 chance of victory:-)
So, having talked up my chances of winning by two and a half times, I am crushed that I am not going to be able to be at the glittering awards ceremony on Sunday night at Bournemouth. No Kate Winslet moment for me.
You know when they do the Oscars, or the BAFTAs, they do them very early in the evening, and probably for good reason, because they don't want the participants to have been drinking free booze for an extended period of time. By my the time the awards start at 10pm, all the participants will have been enjoying the delights of the Conference fringe for several hours. That's going to be fun. The spirited and opinionated Liberal Democrat nature is only enhanced by copious amounts of wine and beer so I hope that there's championship quality banter.
Seriously, though, I find myself on a list with exceptionally talented people:
the wonderful Costigan, king of smut, innuendo and tearing the Daily Fail to pieces, also up for best new blog, and with one for Best Posting;
the original and talented Charlotte, also nominated for best new blog and with two posts up for the Best Posting on a Lib Dem blog;
the man they call the Lib Dem Blogosphere's Tactical Nuclear Bastard, previous champion, with his post on the appalling reporting of Jo Swinson's expenses up for best posting, fierce, provocative, sweary and usually right;
everybody's favourite elephant - for a long time, I sported a Bloggers for Fluffy Justice banner on this blog after he was shockingly denied victory last year, cos he's brilliant as this posting on the Megrahi affair shows.
So there you have it - but what of the other Scots? Well, we've done really well, with two of our number up for the "Best Blog from a Liberal Democrat holding public office", Willie Rennie MP and Cllr Fraser MacPherson.
Alexander Ryland's Lamp of Liberty is shortlisted for best new blog.
Jo Swinson gets the nod for her fabulous tweets and use of Facebook for which she's already received public acclamation.
Finally, in the Best Non Lib Dem Political Blog, our own Mr MacNumpty makes the shortlist. Nominations were invited from all Lib Dem Voice readers and I nominated J Arthur partly because his diligent round up of Holyrood happenings every week takes some effort and is a valuable historical asset and because of posts like this , this and this. Sure, he often has a good go at the Lib Dems, but then I often have a good go about the SNP but we generally make up over a discussion on Strictly Come Dancing.
We have a lot to be proud of in the Scottish and Lib Dem Blogospheres as the various lists that have come out in this awards season have shown.
Showing posts with label Costigan Quist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Costigan Quist. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Keeping Children Safe - an update and round up of reaction
I wrote this piece the other day about the new requirements to register with the Independent Safeguarding Authority for anyone who volunteers with children's groups. While this requirement to register for volunteers doesn't yet apply in Scotland, it soon will.
There have been a few very interesting comments in response to this article not only on this site, but on my Facebook page. With the authors' permission, I wanted to reproduce those comments here:
Sandra Grieve wrote:
"I think this blog covers all the bases. Neil, your memory serves you well, there has been a Scottish version of this for a number of years now. Disclosure Scotland is the organisation charged with carrying out checks on people who have significant access to children, they did not give birth to!
As one such person, although ... Read moresometimes it feels like the ones I gave birth to have unnecessarily, unfettered access to me, I have 'enhanced disclosures' done at least twice a year, occasionally more frequently than that. For goodness sake, I hear you say, she's never been that dangerous.
It's been too long since I was mad, bad and dangerous to know! However, I do work with children through a number of organisations and agencies, each one requires its own personal Enhanced Disclosure. I can hear the staff of Disclosure Scotland groan each time I post off the form, not her again!!
The irony is that children are predominantly and significantly at risk from people who gave birth to them, or their close relatives, so what next? Let's not even think about going there.............."
She goes on to make a very relevant point about child wellbeing:
Despite our neurotic interference in the lives of children and families, we do not fare well in the child well being department
Since I wrote my posting, I've discovered a few more excellent offerings on the same subject:
Sara shows how an unconventional lifestyle could lead to you being barred from working with children I have my own worries about that. What if you home educate or don't immunise your children? Could those departures from what is considered the "norm" lead to you being barred from helping at Brownies?
Charlotte takes this a bit futher with a detailed analysis of the guidelines under which decisions as to people's suitability will be determined. While I don't quite agree that this signifies the advent of a totalitarian regime, her posting raises brilliantly takes the guidance apart and raises some very legitimate concerns.
Costigan takes issue with Charlotte on her totalitarian comments but raises his own concerns about the system.
Jeff has also written about this and if you look at the comments, particularly the one from Ferret, you'll see that we're going to get very similar requirememts for volunteers to submit themselves for vetting next year.
Mark looks at some of the effects that the introduction of these requirements is likely to have.
Tom Harris takes the opposite view but his piece is well balanced, and he raises the spectre that now this system is in, it would be politically very difficult for a future Government to get rid of it - and points out that the Tories have made no commitment to do so, whatever they might say.
Most worrying of all, the Telegraph reports that our biggest children's charity has added its voice to the concerns about this system. When they, and Esther Rantzen, whose long association with Childline makes her an expert in the field, think a mistake has been made, we should all sit up and take notice.
There have been a few very interesting comments in response to this article not only on this site, but on my Facebook page. With the authors' permission, I wanted to reproduce those comments here:
Sandra Grieve wrote:
"I think this blog covers all the bases. Neil, your memory serves you well, there has been a Scottish version of this for a number of years now. Disclosure Scotland is the organisation charged with carrying out checks on people who have significant access to children, they did not give birth to!
As one such person, although ... Read moresometimes it feels like the ones I gave birth to have unnecessarily, unfettered access to me, I have 'enhanced disclosures' done at least twice a year, occasionally more frequently than that. For goodness sake, I hear you say, she's never been that dangerous.
It's been too long since I was mad, bad and dangerous to know! However, I do work with children through a number of organisations and agencies, each one requires its own personal Enhanced Disclosure. I can hear the staff of Disclosure Scotland groan each time I post off the form, not her again!!
The irony is that children are predominantly and significantly at risk from people who gave birth to them, or their close relatives, so what next? Let's not even think about going there.............."
She goes on to make a very relevant point about child wellbeing:
Despite our neurotic interference in the lives of children and families, we do not fare well in the child well being department
Since I wrote my posting, I've discovered a few more excellent offerings on the same subject:
Sara shows how an unconventional lifestyle could lead to you being barred from working with children I have my own worries about that. What if you home educate or don't immunise your children? Could those departures from what is considered the "norm" lead to you being barred from helping at Brownies?
Charlotte takes this a bit futher with a detailed analysis of the guidelines under which decisions as to people's suitability will be determined. While I don't quite agree that this signifies the advent of a totalitarian regime, her posting raises brilliantly takes the guidance apart and raises some very legitimate concerns.
Costigan takes issue with Charlotte on her totalitarian comments but raises his own concerns about the system.
Jeff has also written about this and if you look at the comments, particularly the one from Ferret, you'll see that we're going to get very similar requirememts for volunteers to submit themselves for vetting next year.
Mark looks at some of the effects that the introduction of these requirements is likely to have.
Tom Harris takes the opposite view but his piece is well balanced, and he raises the spectre that now this system is in, it would be politically very difficult for a future Government to get rid of it - and points out that the Tories have made no commitment to do so, whatever they might say.
Most worrying of all, the Telegraph reports that our biggest children's charity has added its voice to the concerns about this system. When they, and Esther Rantzen, whose long association with Childline makes her an expert in the field, think a mistake has been made, we should all sit up and take notice.
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Great Post on Gay Rights, Nick, but did you have to write for THEM?
First of all, the good news. We have a leader who is not ashamed to trumpet his long standing support for equality and gay rights. And, unlike Cameron, he has been consistenly supportive of them all his political life. And, unlike Brown, he would not lead a government where gay people were told to be discreet before being deported back to face persecution from homophobic regimes.
We knew this. He's not been shy about it - and it was good that he specifically mentioned gay rights in his speech at Spring Conference earlier this year.
So, lots of well deserved praise for the leader on one hand.
But now, Nick, please tell me what went through your mind when you decided that writing for Labour List was a good idea?
I'm usually pretty helpful, but I'm not linking to it because I don't want them to go up in the rankings cos of links from outraged Lib Dem bloggers. I'm sure if you want to read it, you'll find it.
Sure, every single word of that article is brilliant - especially the way he pointed out that
"Gay rights, like all minority rights, should by now have become unquestionable. But in practice they are still too often treated like privileges, falling in and out of favour with politicians. David Cameron’s recent apology over Section 28 is a prime example. Leadership is about speaking out on issues when they matter, not simply when you judge public opinion has moved."
I did wonder for a little while whether I was being too tribal hence waiting for a while to calm down before writing this, but I still feel suitably aggrieved that Nick has chosen to write for a site which is there to promote the Labour Party. I don't have a problem with our people writing for The Times, or the Guardian, or even, for heaven's sake, the Sun. Vince writes for the Fail on Sunday. That's different, though.
However, never, ever, would I allow an opposition politician any sort of house room on an election leaflet, nor would I want to be associated with anything they might write on their literature and I'm surprised and a little annoyed that Nick has done so.
UPDATE: Jennie agrees with me, but Mr Quist seems to have got the wrong end of the stick on Twitter:
"Hearing rumours that Nick Clegg has come out of the closet as a gay Labour supporter. Will check it out later.
30 minutes ago from web"
UPDATE 2. The delightful Mr Howells reminds us about this post by Alex which highlights the differences in approach to gay rights between Labour and the Lib Dems.
UPDATE 3: In the interests of balance, lovely Stephen thinks it's a good thing.
LibDig This!
We knew this. He's not been shy about it - and it was good that he specifically mentioned gay rights in his speech at Spring Conference earlier this year.
So, lots of well deserved praise for the leader on one hand.
But now, Nick, please tell me what went through your mind when you decided that writing for Labour List was a good idea?
I'm usually pretty helpful, but I'm not linking to it because I don't want them to go up in the rankings cos of links from outraged Lib Dem bloggers. I'm sure if you want to read it, you'll find it.
Sure, every single word of that article is brilliant - especially the way he pointed out that
"Gay rights, like all minority rights, should by now have become unquestionable. But in practice they are still too often treated like privileges, falling in and out of favour with politicians. David Cameron’s recent apology over Section 28 is a prime example. Leadership is about speaking out on issues when they matter, not simply when you judge public opinion has moved."
I did wonder for a little while whether I was being too tribal hence waiting for a while to calm down before writing this, but I still feel suitably aggrieved that Nick has chosen to write for a site which is there to promote the Labour Party. I don't have a problem with our people writing for The Times, or the Guardian, or even, for heaven's sake, the Sun. Vince writes for the Fail on Sunday. That's different, though.
However, never, ever, would I allow an opposition politician any sort of house room on an election leaflet, nor would I want to be associated with anything they might write on their literature and I'm surprised and a little annoyed that Nick has done so.
UPDATE: Jennie agrees with me, but Mr Quist seems to have got the wrong end of the stick on Twitter:
"Hearing rumours that Nick Clegg has come out of the closet as a gay Labour supporter. Will check it out later.
30 minutes ago from web"
UPDATE 2. The delightful Mr Howells reminds us about this post by Alex which highlights the differences in approach to gay rights between Labour and the Lib Dems.
UPDATE 3: In the interests of balance, lovely Stephen thinks it's a good thing.
LibDig This!
Friday, June 26, 2009
Costigan and Charlotte reach new heights of brilliance...
Mr Quist is not always right but can be relied upon to be pertinent and occasionally outrageous and provocative.
I'm not at all jealous that he seems to have found the literary equivalent of the fountain of eternal youth at the moment and has come up with another brilliant post. Go read it. Now. And while you're at it, read Charlotte's original. She was complaining about writers' block recently. If this is what she produces in that situation...........
Those two have the Golden Dozen between them this week, I can see it.
LibDig This!
I'm not at all jealous that he seems to have found the literary equivalent of the fountain of eternal youth at the moment and has come up with another brilliant post. Go read it. Now. And while you're at it, read Charlotte's original. She was complaining about writers' block recently. If this is what she produces in that situation...........
Those two have the Golden Dozen between them this week, I can see it.
LibDig This!
Monday, June 22, 2009
If you read nothing else today.....
the wonderful Mr Quist has got it spot on with this post about how people expect so much from their MPs but don't want to pay for it.
LibDig This!
LibDig This!
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Lapdancing - does it cause harm?
Costigan Quist has taken issue with a report I referred to in this posting the other day.
My main issue was with reality show Britain's Got Talent including an act at the very end which was to all intents and purposes a striptease - and one which got through the audition stage, too. Children are not normally permitted to view such material. Lapdancing clubs are open to adults only, yet this show brought what I feel is an inappropriate environment for children into our living room. For those who say that it was all good harmless fun and it was after the watershed, well, frankly, I would never have expected a programme which started at 7:45 pm, which is clearly aimed at families to contain such material. It was obvious that children would be watching and given that we were given no warning of what was about to take place, I could hardly get my daughter out of the room before it was shown.
Costigan's issue is with the Lilith Report's evidence about increase in reports of rapes and sexual assaults near lapdancing clubs. I take on board what he's saying that you can't prove cause and effect - but nor can you say that it is insignificant. I don't think you can dispute that these clubs do not help to reinforce the idea that women are equal members of society.
I found this study of lapdancing clubs in Glasgow and London interesting. It has no hesitation in concluding that lapdancing is a part of the sex industry and recommending that there should be much greater regulation of the industry with greater power to local authorities to restrict them.
Of concern was the way in which dancers reported harassment and pressure by both clients and management, and are the fall guys when the authorities discover breaches of conditions, which has also been documented here and powerfully here and here. What is particularly interesting about the last report is that it mentions a study of men in East London who paid for sex and who basically didn't even recognise the women who provided these services as human beings.
As well as all this, the office trip out to the lapdancing club with a client is seen as the norm. I actually know straight, male friends of mine who have felt pressure to participate in this type of outing and if it's bad for them, how on earth must it feel for their female colleagues? Have a read of this account of one woman's experience. I wonder what happened to the colleague who paid for this humiliating experience for her "as a joke."
I think there's enough evidence out there to make the case for proper regulation of lapdancing clubs and a recognition that they are part of the sex industry. I don't think it's healthy or appropriate for them to be seen as mainstream entertainment, either and I hope that the producers of Britain's Got Talent take note.
LibDig This!
My main issue was with reality show Britain's Got Talent including an act at the very end which was to all intents and purposes a striptease - and one which got through the audition stage, too. Children are not normally permitted to view such material. Lapdancing clubs are open to adults only, yet this show brought what I feel is an inappropriate environment for children into our living room. For those who say that it was all good harmless fun and it was after the watershed, well, frankly, I would never have expected a programme which started at 7:45 pm, which is clearly aimed at families to contain such material. It was obvious that children would be watching and given that we were given no warning of what was about to take place, I could hardly get my daughter out of the room before it was shown.
Costigan's issue is with the Lilith Report's evidence about increase in reports of rapes and sexual assaults near lapdancing clubs. I take on board what he's saying that you can't prove cause and effect - but nor can you say that it is insignificant. I don't think you can dispute that these clubs do not help to reinforce the idea that women are equal members of society.
I found this study of lapdancing clubs in Glasgow and London interesting. It has no hesitation in concluding that lapdancing is a part of the sex industry and recommending that there should be much greater regulation of the industry with greater power to local authorities to restrict them.
Of concern was the way in which dancers reported harassment and pressure by both clients and management, and are the fall guys when the authorities discover breaches of conditions, which has also been documented here and powerfully here and here. What is particularly interesting about the last report is that it mentions a study of men in East London who paid for sex and who basically didn't even recognise the women who provided these services as human beings.
As well as all this, the office trip out to the lapdancing club with a client is seen as the norm. I actually know straight, male friends of mine who have felt pressure to participate in this type of outing and if it's bad for them, how on earth must it feel for their female colleagues? Have a read of this account of one woman's experience. I wonder what happened to the colleague who paid for this humiliating experience for her "as a joke."
I think there's enough evidence out there to make the case for proper regulation of lapdancing clubs and a recognition that they are part of the sex industry. I don't think it's healthy or appropriate for them to be seen as mainstream entertainment, either and I hope that the producers of Britain's Got Talent take note.
LibDig This!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
