I know I'm a Brawn girl, but I'd have to be a really heartless witch not to be pleased for Mark Webber as he celebrates his first Grand Prix victory after 7 years in the sport.
Just 8 months ago, he was nursing a badly broken leg from a horrendous accident, not at 200mph on the race track, but during a charity cycling event.
It's amazing that he was able to deal with physically and mentally getting himself back into shape to even be able to get in the car at the beginning of the season and he thoroughly deserves this win.
He was so thrilled. I thought it was really funny that DC compared his post race emotional cheering fit to THAT scene in When Harry Met Sally. Not a film I really ever thought DC would have watched, but you learn something new every day.
Today's victory was all the more remarkable as he managed to stay ahead despite getting a drive through penalty for a swerving into Rubens Barrichello's path at the first corner. I think he was pushing his luck, but no harm was done to either of them and the stewards were probably a bit harsh in the circumstances. However someone at Red Bull had been kissing black cats and picking up pennies because he managed to regain the lead. The team's brilliant decision to take the drive through during Barrichello's first pit stop saw to that.
Rubens actually got past him at the first corner but ended up trailing behind Massa after his first pit stop. Massa wasn't due to stop for a further 11 laps. The only chance he had of winning was to pass this countryman and put in some stonking lap times but he wasn't able to do that and ended up losing valuable time which let Webber catch up with him. The Brawn team, with their magical strategic sense, decided to take him down from a 3 stopper to a 2 stopper but unfortunately the fuel rig had other ideas so he had to come in again.
Jenson Button had a pretty miserable start and ended up exactly where he didn't want to be, behind Kovaleinen with some Ferraris up his backside. He managed to pass the McLaren though
Before the last stop he found himself behind Barrichello and felt he was being held up and we heard an angry radio transmission to the effect that they had to get him ahead. They did in the third and final pit stop and that's how they finished, in 5th and 6th, a second apart. Rubens had a total strop about that at the end, but I'll cover that in a separate post.
This was always going to be a tough weekend for Brawn. There is a certain irony of having a British car that doesn't go well in British style weather and the relatively cold conditions at Silverstone and the Nurburgring just didn't suit them and help them get heat into their tyres. As the F1 circus moves south, it'll get better again, but the seeming invincibility they had in the first part of the season has been dented. This was the first race all year there hasn't been a Brawn boy on teh podium which is not good relative to Red Bull who are now creeping up fast on them in the Constructors' Championship. The Red Bull drivers have now leapfrogged Barrichello to take second and third places. I'd say they shouldn't get too comfy there, though - there's only 3 points between Vettel in second and Barrichello in 4th and Jenson still does have a 21 point lead.
If Brawn had a bad day, Lewis Hamilton had a terrible one - he almost got the lead off the start into the first corner but ended up puncturing his tyre on Mark Webber's rear wing and ended up spending his afternoon in the position he's become accustomed to this year - at the rear of the pack. It must have hurt to see Kovaleinen pick up the last point of the day when all the upgrades had gone on his car.
It's been a good week for Felipe Massa, though. He announced that he's not going to be the most baby faced one in his family as his wife is due to have their first baby in November and he ended up being the first Ferrari driver on the podium this year.
The Nurburgring provided us with one of the most exciting races from the year. It wasn't obvious from the start who was going to win - we knew that Barrichello's lead at the start was fragile because of the relative fuel loads.
The scene is set for an action packed, tension filled second half of the season - and that's just on the track!
LibDig This!
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Ari Vatanen lays out his stall
FIA Presidential hopeful Ari Vatanen, who confirmed yesterday that he did intend to stand in the race to replace Max Mosley, has been talking to the BBC.
Now, it has to be said, I think my hamster could do a better job of running the FIA than Mosley, so to say that I think Ari is better than Max is hardly a compliment. However, I have to say so far so good.
He's certainly talking the talk of a man who wants to see an invigorated FIA where people work together for the good of sports. He talked about a common sense approach and about having 2 ears and 1 mouth and being more consensual "It's the right time for change. You can't govern in an autocratic manner." He's careful as well, though, not to fawn too much to FOTA, which might also be counterproductive with the electorate.
He was keen to emphasise that he had a wide range of support from clubs across the world - and support of these member clubs will be crucial in the October election.
Jean Todt, ex team principal of Ferrari, has been touted as Max's chosen one which in itself is enough to turn the rest of the world off him. Vatanen will have a tough job to beat him, because it's the FIA, not the rest of the world who's voting, but he's made a good start. The BBC gave him loads of time and EJ was practically drooling at the prospect of him as President.
As an MEP for 10 years, he'll have developed the political skills to create a coalition of support. I've had a brief look at his record which is solid if unspectacular. Sure, he's a centre right figure, but not a loony type, like our Tories have got together with. I want to find more out about why he's been elected for two parties from two different countries - his first term was on the list for the Finnish National Coalition despite the fact that he was living in France, but the second was for Sarkozy's party. He stood on the Finnish list again this time but wasn't elected.
Whether Ari is up against Todt or Mosley, he is a thoroughly credible candidate with his long experience in motorsport. He has the right philosophy for leadership and his first foray into the world of FIA politics over the last couple of days has been promising.
I want to find out more, but it certainly seems like he's got the experience, the personality and the attitude to seriously improve the FIA.
LibDig This!
Now, it has to be said, I think my hamster could do a better job of running the FIA than Mosley, so to say that I think Ari is better than Max is hardly a compliment. However, I have to say so far so good.
He's certainly talking the talk of a man who wants to see an invigorated FIA where people work together for the good of sports. He talked about a common sense approach and about having 2 ears and 1 mouth and being more consensual "It's the right time for change. You can't govern in an autocratic manner." He's careful as well, though, not to fawn too much to FOTA, which might also be counterproductive with the electorate.
He was keen to emphasise that he had a wide range of support from clubs across the world - and support of these member clubs will be crucial in the October election.
Jean Todt, ex team principal of Ferrari, has been touted as Max's chosen one which in itself is enough to turn the rest of the world off him. Vatanen will have a tough job to beat him, because it's the FIA, not the rest of the world who's voting, but he's made a good start. The BBC gave him loads of time and EJ was practically drooling at the prospect of him as President.
As an MEP for 10 years, he'll have developed the political skills to create a coalition of support. I've had a brief look at his record which is solid if unspectacular. Sure, he's a centre right figure, but not a loony type, like our Tories have got together with. I want to find more out about why he's been elected for two parties from two different countries - his first term was on the list for the Finnish National Coalition despite the fact that he was living in France, but the second was for Sarkozy's party. He stood on the Finnish list again this time but wasn't elected.
Whether Ari is up against Todt or Mosley, he is a thoroughly credible candidate with his long experience in motorsport. He has the right philosophy for leadership and his first foray into the world of FIA politics over the last couple of days has been promising.
I want to find out more, but it certainly seems like he's got the experience, the personality and the attitude to seriously improve the FIA.
LibDig This!
Webber and Barrichello get back in the game in Germany
We're half way through the Formula One season and so far only two men have got to the top step of the podium. Jenson Button has won 6 races, and Sebastian Vettel has won 2, including Jenson's home race at Silverstone 3 weeks ago.
The talk coming into the German Grand Prix was whether Jenson would get his own back and win Vettel's home race.
In fact, it's Button and Vettel's team mates, Australian Mark Webber and Brazilian Rubens Barrichello who won through in a thrilling qualifying session which was punctuated with showers and was horrendously difficult to call for drivers, teams and anyone watching. Anything could have happened. People were dashing in and out of the pits for intermediates and then Brawn's knack for calling it right saw Rubens Barrichello come in first for slicks.
I have been thinking for days, even before I saw Lewis Hamilton storm round the track in a McLaren that's been given a new lease of life, that I'd have to watch Q3 from behind a pillow. The weather which had blighted Brawn's chances in the British Grand Prix was forecast to be, if anything, even colder at the Nurburgring. For some reason the way the Brawn is built means that if it's cool, they just can't get heat into and consequently enough grip from the tyres. When it's hot, this works very much in their favour as we saw in Monaco when the softer tyres were goosed in a few laps on the Red Bulls but lasted the Brawns a race winning stint longer. It certainly didn't look as if we could expect great results from the Brawns and their practice times weren't spectacular.
Q2 provided the first really scary moment when it took Jenson until the dying moments to get into the top ten. It was so close to being the first time Brawn had not made the final session and would have been a disaster. However, with his talent for pulling it out the bag when it matters he made it and my blood pressure went back to something like normal. Not so lucky was Alonso. I was glad that his team-mate Nelson Piquet Jr, whose jacket is rumoured to be on a very shoogly peg, but who has won the hearts of the F1 Twitterverse this week, made it into Q3. If Flav wants to get rid of him now, I suspect he'll find an angry mob of F1 tweeters at his door.
Q3 was its usual on the edge of your seat kind of stuff. The Brawns got out there first, and Barrichello was the first to post a time. The lead them seesawed between the Brawns and Red Bulls with Hamilton briefly grabbing the top slot. Nobody else was anywhere.
I can understand the frustration of British cricket loving F1 fans, who on one channel could hear Australia giving England a good kicking around Cardiff and who tweeted "f***ing Australians" as Mark Webber clinched his first ever pole position. I don't share that sentiment, though. I really like Mark Webber. He came across here with barely any money and worked like a demon to make his way into F1. He has earned any success that comes his way. Read this feature the Sunday Times did recently to see what a good bloke he is.
Having said that, if he is to make the podium tomorrow, I'd obviously prefer it to be behind the Brawn boys. I was so thrilled to see Rubens qualify ahead of Jenson and I'd like it even more if he won. He has given a huge amount to the team and his generosity in sharing set up information at races when Jenson was finding it hard to hit his groove has proved that lovely Ross was right to go for him rather than Bruno Senna.
An honourable mention has to go to Adrian Sutil, too. Ok, he might have been lucky with the weather, but for a Force India to qualify in 7th is fabulous.
I wonder if blind fury has a place in deciding qualifying position. The McLaren team only managed to make one set of upgrades for their car. We don't know whether the management decided themselves or whether Heikki Kovaleinen and Lewis Hamilton arm wrestled for them in the motorhome, but they all went on Hamilton's car. Kovaleinen was reportedly not a happy bunny. However, despite Hamilton's advantage in practice, Heikki finished just behind Lewis on the grid, although the gap was a stonking 1.2 seconds he is still breathing down Hamilton's neck.
It's also worth feeling sorry for poor old Timo Glock, who saw a succession of disasters knock him and his Toyota out in Q1, in 19th place with a time of 1:32.423 which was actually quicker than Jenson qualified in 3rd at 1:32:473.
We still don't know what the German weather will bring tomorrow - there have been reports of everything from dry to deluge. If, like me, you are having trouble waiting that long, here's a wee treat. There's a much longer, historic 24 km track at the Nurburgring called the Nordschleife. Enjoy this footage of Nick Heidfeld going round it in a BMW. It's quite spectacular.
.
The talk coming into the German Grand Prix was whether Jenson would get his own back and win Vettel's home race.
In fact, it's Button and Vettel's team mates, Australian Mark Webber and Brazilian Rubens Barrichello who won through in a thrilling qualifying session which was punctuated with showers and was horrendously difficult to call for drivers, teams and anyone watching. Anything could have happened. People were dashing in and out of the pits for intermediates and then Brawn's knack for calling it right saw Rubens Barrichello come in first for slicks.
I have been thinking for days, even before I saw Lewis Hamilton storm round the track in a McLaren that's been given a new lease of life, that I'd have to watch Q3 from behind a pillow. The weather which had blighted Brawn's chances in the British Grand Prix was forecast to be, if anything, even colder at the Nurburgring. For some reason the way the Brawn is built means that if it's cool, they just can't get heat into and consequently enough grip from the tyres. When it's hot, this works very much in their favour as we saw in Monaco when the softer tyres were goosed in a few laps on the Red Bulls but lasted the Brawns a race winning stint longer. It certainly didn't look as if we could expect great results from the Brawns and their practice times weren't spectacular.
Q2 provided the first really scary moment when it took Jenson until the dying moments to get into the top ten. It was so close to being the first time Brawn had not made the final session and would have been a disaster. However, with his talent for pulling it out the bag when it matters he made it and my blood pressure went back to something like normal. Not so lucky was Alonso. I was glad that his team-mate Nelson Piquet Jr, whose jacket is rumoured to be on a very shoogly peg, but who has won the hearts of the F1 Twitterverse this week, made it into Q3. If Flav wants to get rid of him now, I suspect he'll find an angry mob of F1 tweeters at his door.
Q3 was its usual on the edge of your seat kind of stuff. The Brawns got out there first, and Barrichello was the first to post a time. The lead them seesawed between the Brawns and Red Bulls with Hamilton briefly grabbing the top slot. Nobody else was anywhere.
I can understand the frustration of British cricket loving F1 fans, who on one channel could hear Australia giving England a good kicking around Cardiff and who tweeted "f***ing Australians" as Mark Webber clinched his first ever pole position. I don't share that sentiment, though. I really like Mark Webber. He came across here with barely any money and worked like a demon to make his way into F1. He has earned any success that comes his way. Read this feature the Sunday Times did recently to see what a good bloke he is.
Having said that, if he is to make the podium tomorrow, I'd obviously prefer it to be behind the Brawn boys. I was so thrilled to see Rubens qualify ahead of Jenson and I'd like it even more if he won. He has given a huge amount to the team and his generosity in sharing set up information at races when Jenson was finding it hard to hit his groove has proved that lovely Ross was right to go for him rather than Bruno Senna.
An honourable mention has to go to Adrian Sutil, too. Ok, he might have been lucky with the weather, but for a Force India to qualify in 7th is fabulous.
I wonder if blind fury has a place in deciding qualifying position. The McLaren team only managed to make one set of upgrades for their car. We don't know whether the management decided themselves or whether Heikki Kovaleinen and Lewis Hamilton arm wrestled for them in the motorhome, but they all went on Hamilton's car. Kovaleinen was reportedly not a happy bunny. However, despite Hamilton's advantage in practice, Heikki finished just behind Lewis on the grid, although the gap was a stonking 1.2 seconds he is still breathing down Hamilton's neck.
It's also worth feeling sorry for poor old Timo Glock, who saw a succession of disasters knock him and his Toyota out in Q1, in 19th place with a time of 1:32.423 which was actually quicker than Jenson qualified in 3rd at 1:32:473.
We still don't know what the German weather will bring tomorrow - there have been reports of everything from dry to deluge. If, like me, you are having trouble waiting that long, here's a wee treat. There's a much longer, historic 24 km track at the Nurburgring called the Nordschleife. Enjoy this footage of Nick Heidfeld going round it in a BMW. It's quite spectacular.
.
How dare you, Irfan!
"Many women don’t have a clue about politics so they need someone to make their decisions for them and for that reason its OK for the man to decide who the women votes or is it? I don’t see anything wrong with a man making the decision in the household to who everyone votes but then that is just me."
Flippin' eck! The most surprising thing about the above comment above is that it came from someone who purports to be a Liberal Democrat. I'm not linking to him but Stephen and Paul have if you really want to read the rest of his post. I personally don't think it's worth taking the time.
I am horrified that anyone in this day and age thinks it's appropriate for a man to tell the rest of his household how to vote. I'm sure that some do, but it's never right.
I remind Irfan of the Preamble to our Constitution, which we all sign up to as members:
"The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full. We aim to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity. We believe that the role of the state is to enable all citizens to attain these ideals, to contribute fully to their communities and to take part in the decisions which affect their lives.
We look forward to a world in which all people share the same basic rights, in which they live together in peace and in which their different cultures will be able to develop freely. We believe that each generation is responsible for the fate of our planet and, by safeguarding the balance of nature and the environment, for the long term continuity of life in all its forms.
Upholding these values of individual and social justice, we reject all prejudice and discrimination based upon race, colour, religion, age, disability, sex or sexual orientation and oppose all forms of entrenched privilege and inequality."
I personally think that inferring that any woman is so clueless that they can't work out for themselves how to vote without a man's input is highly insulting. To imply that many are in this situation is complete and utter rubbish.
I've been lucky enough to always have known how I'm going to vote in public elections beyond any shadow of a doubt. However, there have been times when I've not been so sure in internal party elections. I had to really think about who to support in the last two party leadership elections. Did I need someone to help me make my decision? No way. I read, questioned and challenged the participants until I had enough information to make up my mind.
I don't know whether Irfan's post was designed to shoot him up the Wikio rankings as we all link to him in outrage, but if he is going to continue to post sexist, misogynistic, discriminatory crap like this, he's going to have to expect to be challenged.
LibDig This!
Torchwood Terror (includes Spoilers)
It's a long time since a tv progamme left me physically shaken and emotionally shocked and stunned, but Torchwood did it.
First of all, I'm glad that the BBC didn't shy away from the hideous nature of the conclusion and order writer Russell T Davies to make it all a bit more cosy, so congratulations to them for keeping the deep, deep darkness in.
Secondly, what a triumph of writing, casting (Peter Capaldi as the Government official unable to find the spine to do the right thing), music, from the tense, pacy stuff to haunting choral melodies, and effects (why is it that nothing makes you jump quite as much as a liberal splattering of green goo?) this was, all brought together by director Euros Lyn.
For me the scariest thing wasn't the druggie alien in the tank, frightening though its misty profile was, but the way in which the Government first covered up the past and then conjured up a truly evil plan to deal with the situation. The cleverness of the writing, tapping into our perception of the current political scene, even tapping into the Swine Flu anxiety, to create a chilling credibility, had me shaken. If I, who generally view politicians as good people, could find the fictitious Government's actions so easy to believe, we really do have a problem.
Having said that, I can't imagine that anybody really thinks that the real life Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg would ever preside over a Government that would hand over 10% of our kids to a random alien junkie, but everybody's favourite elephant has done a much better job than I ever could of showing exactly why we could so easily fall for that storyline in his reviews of the last few days. I do disagree, however, with Millennium's comparison of Denise with Harriet Jones. Davies shut off any avenue of hope for the future by ensuring that the discredited PM was replaced by the Jacqui Smith type who came up with the idea of selecting the kids from the failing schools.
While I'm on this theme, I don't quite understand why Gwen and Rhys don't, if this woman becomes PM, release the recordings they had tfrom the earlier discussions to discredit her.
I wondered how Aaron Sorkin might have tackled the plot challenge of an alien demanding the handover of children. I can't imagine that complying would ever have entered Jed Bartlet's head. I suspect that his administration would have concentrated on trying to either cure the alien species of its dependence or tried to produce a synthetic substitute.
What did defy credibility was that a Government could so quickly and efficiently organise a round up of all those children when they had spectacularly failed to kill three relatively unarmed people. Sure, they had the ingenious ideas of bombs in stomachs and encasing the man who can't die in concerete, showing him naked, handcuffed to a table first, but they could have saved themselves loads of trouble by simply making sure that their snipers had had eye tests. How many of them missed both Ianto and Gwen, leaving them free to turn up at the secret base where Jack was being held? How incompetent was it of the bosses not to circulate to the gate people pictures of Gwen and her husband as they turned up in the undertaker's car? Did their Welsh accents not ring any bells? Really!
As if the scary Government wasn't bad enough, the final conclusion, where Jack sacrificed his own grandson, was grotesque and something which actually hurt to watch. Stephen was here watching it with me. He had the help of a rather nice bottle of night harvested Aussie dolcetto to help with the pain and prevent him from having the ability to get behind the sofa, while I had to rely on Coke Zero.
Seriously, though, a programme which could render two blethers like us speechless was quite something.
And for the future - yes, there's potential for Jack to meet up with the Doctor in the future. The ending might have looked like the end for Torchwood, but I suspect the BBC will bring it back given the critical acclaim this series has received.
LibDig This!
First of all, I'm glad that the BBC didn't shy away from the hideous nature of the conclusion and order writer Russell T Davies to make it all a bit more cosy, so congratulations to them for keeping the deep, deep darkness in.
Secondly, what a triumph of writing, casting (Peter Capaldi as the Government official unable to find the spine to do the right thing), music, from the tense, pacy stuff to haunting choral melodies, and effects (why is it that nothing makes you jump quite as much as a liberal splattering of green goo?) this was, all brought together by director Euros Lyn.
For me the scariest thing wasn't the druggie alien in the tank, frightening though its misty profile was, but the way in which the Government first covered up the past and then conjured up a truly evil plan to deal with the situation. The cleverness of the writing, tapping into our perception of the current political scene, even tapping into the Swine Flu anxiety, to create a chilling credibility, had me shaken. If I, who generally view politicians as good people, could find the fictitious Government's actions so easy to believe, we really do have a problem.
Having said that, I can't imagine that anybody really thinks that the real life Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg would ever preside over a Government that would hand over 10% of our kids to a random alien junkie, but everybody's favourite elephant has done a much better job than I ever could of showing exactly why we could so easily fall for that storyline in his reviews of the last few days. I do disagree, however, with Millennium's comparison of Denise with Harriet Jones. Davies shut off any avenue of hope for the future by ensuring that the discredited PM was replaced by the Jacqui Smith type who came up with the idea of selecting the kids from the failing schools.
While I'm on this theme, I don't quite understand why Gwen and Rhys don't, if this woman becomes PM, release the recordings they had tfrom the earlier discussions to discredit her.
I wondered how Aaron Sorkin might have tackled the plot challenge of an alien demanding the handover of children. I can't imagine that complying would ever have entered Jed Bartlet's head. I suspect that his administration would have concentrated on trying to either cure the alien species of its dependence or tried to produce a synthetic substitute.
What did defy credibility was that a Government could so quickly and efficiently organise a round up of all those children when they had spectacularly failed to kill three relatively unarmed people. Sure, they had the ingenious ideas of bombs in stomachs and encasing the man who can't die in concerete, showing him naked, handcuffed to a table first, but they could have saved themselves loads of trouble by simply making sure that their snipers had had eye tests. How many of them missed both Ianto and Gwen, leaving them free to turn up at the secret base where Jack was being held? How incompetent was it of the bosses not to circulate to the gate people pictures of Gwen and her husband as they turned up in the undertaker's car? Did their Welsh accents not ring any bells? Really!
As if the scary Government wasn't bad enough, the final conclusion, where Jack sacrificed his own grandson, was grotesque and something which actually hurt to watch. Stephen was here watching it with me. He had the help of a rather nice bottle of night harvested Aussie dolcetto to help with the pain and prevent him from having the ability to get behind the sofa, while I had to rely on Coke Zero.
Seriously, though, a programme which could render two blethers like us speechless was quite something.
And for the future - yes, there's potential for Jack to meet up with the Doctor in the future. The ending might have looked like the end for Torchwood, but I suspect the BBC will bring it back given the critical acclaim this series has received.
LibDig This!
Thursday, July 09, 2009
How to opt out of new mobile phone directory
I've just followed the example of Tom Harris and Subrosa and opted out of this new mobile phone directory that's being set up.
I value my privacy, and I simply don't trust that my number won't get into the hands of people who want to sell me things I don't want to buy.
I'm going to check it out when it goes live later this month, too, just to make sure that my request has been acted upon. It's not that I don't trust them, or anything, but....
Anyway, if you want to do the same, follow this link and follow the instructions. It's just a question of entering your mobile number, going through a spam trap captcha thingy and then they text you a code to enter in the next screen. Once you have entered that code, the process is, in theory, complete.
LibDig This!
I value my privacy, and I simply don't trust that my number won't get into the hands of people who want to sell me things I don't want to buy.
I'm going to check it out when it goes live later this month, too, just to make sure that my request has been acted upon. It's not that I don't trust them, or anything, but....
Anyway, if you want to do the same, follow this link and follow the instructions. It's just a question of entering your mobile number, going through a spam trap captcha thingy and then they text you a code to enter in the next screen. Once you have entered that code, the process is, in theory, complete.
LibDig This!
Strictly Sexist
I am raging at the news that the BBC has replaced Arlene Phillips as a judge on Strictly Come Dancing with Alesha Dixon.
Now I love Alesha, don't get me wrong, but her formal dance experience amounts to 12 weeks in the arms of the gorgeous and entirely lovable Matthew Cutler. How on earth did that give her credibility as a judge?
Alesha is beautiful, sassy, a great singer and comes across very well and very naturally on camera. She danced a great quickstep with His Royal Vinceness on This Week as well. However, she cannot even hope to match Arlene's decades of experience in dance of all kinds as performer and choreographer.
How come the producers have decided that Arlene is to be the sacrificial lamb if they want to make the show younger and sexier when Len Goodman, who is in the end of the day only a few months younger than her, retains his place at the head of the panel?
Being in your 40s, 50s, 60s, or even 70s or 80s, like Bruce, is not a barrier if you are a man in tv, but woe betide you if you're female, cos you very quickly get past your sell by date.
I actually think they should have kept the judging panel as it was - the chemistry and banter was about right. In fact, on the forums and amongst fans, there is more complaining about Bruno and Craig than ever about Arlene, but I love them all.
If they wanted to find a role for Alesha, I would have moved Tess on and made her the co-presenter. She'd bring a lot more natural warmth and humour to the job than Tess can.
I am seriously in a total fury about the injustice that's been done to Arlene. What is the point of a broadcaster being publicly funded if they are allowed to behave in such a sexist, discriminatory way?
LibDig This!
Now I love Alesha, don't get me wrong, but her formal dance experience amounts to 12 weeks in the arms of the gorgeous and entirely lovable Matthew Cutler. How on earth did that give her credibility as a judge?
Alesha is beautiful, sassy, a great singer and comes across very well and very naturally on camera. She danced a great quickstep with His Royal Vinceness on This Week as well. However, she cannot even hope to match Arlene's decades of experience in dance of all kinds as performer and choreographer.
How come the producers have decided that Arlene is to be the sacrificial lamb if they want to make the show younger and sexier when Len Goodman, who is in the end of the day only a few months younger than her, retains his place at the head of the panel?
Being in your 40s, 50s, 60s, or even 70s or 80s, like Bruce, is not a barrier if you are a man in tv, but woe betide you if you're female, cos you very quickly get past your sell by date.
I actually think they should have kept the judging panel as it was - the chemistry and banter was about right. In fact, on the forums and amongst fans, there is more complaining about Bruno and Craig than ever about Arlene, but I love them all.
If they wanted to find a role for Alesha, I would have moved Tess on and made her the co-presenter. She'd bring a lot more natural warmth and humour to the job than Tess can.
I am seriously in a total fury about the injustice that's been done to Arlene. What is the point of a broadcaster being publicly funded if they are allowed to behave in such a sexist, discriminatory way?
LibDig This!
FIA and FOTA fall out again
We may all have been a bit premature in celebrating the formula one peace deal announced 2 weeks ago as it has been slowly unravelling ever since. Within two days FIA President Max Mosley decided that he might just stay on as FIA President after all and it's been gently downhill ever since.
The latest development is FOTA, the teams' association, walking out of a technical rules meeting yesterday. The FIA's statement on the subject was short and to the point, suggesting not surprisingly that it was all FOTA's fault.
FOTA's version of events, however, had more detail and, more's to the point, more credible information.
The FIA is saying, as far as I can see, that FOTA are not entered for next year after all, and that if there are to be changes to the regulations in accordance with the Paris deal, then the new teams as well as Force India and Williams, need to agree them. If that is the case, and FOTA were told they had no rights within the meeting then it was a complete waste of their time being there. The FIA might have cast them as the baddies for walking out, but I can see teams' point.
There was certainly no mention that the Paris deal was in any way conditional in the statement issued by the World Motor Sport Council. Nor was there any figment of ambiguity in the entry list.
This all seems to me like an increasingly discredited Max Mosley stirring it. He clearly went back from the WMSC meeting where the deal was struck, got his hatchet out of the cupboard and has been looking for places to bury it ever since.
Is it a coincidence that the entire autosport press are now talking about this new row and not about the allegations about FIA Chief Steward Alan Donnelly, or about the alleged pressure put on new teams to sign up to an engine deal with Cosworth?? It seems completely bizarre that teams such as Lola and Aston Martin saw their bids rejected. Max had certainly been keen on a big deal with Cosworth at the end of last year.
Not for the first time, I wonder if the fact that the management of Formula 1 is exclusively male contributes to the turbulent and often aggressive nature of its decision making process.
Anyway, this drama clearly has some way to play out. We may yet see a breakaway, although I think the teams would possibly be better advised to quietly set about ensuring that if Mosley should stand again in October, that he has credible opposition. The teams can't do that themselves, because unseating Mosley will require a coalition across all levels of FIA regulated motorsport, but they can play their part in securing a new president with a more pragmatic way of doing things.
Ari Vatanen, the former rally driver and MEP, has had his name put in the frame but his path to the presidency against a truculent Mosley will not be easy as the process for re-election strongly favours the incumbent. While the requirement to have 22 Cabinet members is supposedly to ensure no protest candidates (and why should they be outlawed anyway?), it may be that key figures would not be willing to publicly side against an incumbent in such an obvious way in case they have to end up working with him again.
I think that F1 would be better without Mosley in it from now. He appears to be the main obstacle to a lasting peace at the moment.
You have to have some sympathy for Ross Brawn, one of the few consistently reasonable voices in F1, who apparently said in yesterday's meeting to Charlie Whiting, who was delivering the bad news from the FIA "Isn't this all a bit silly. Can't we just get on with it."
The latest development is FOTA, the teams' association, walking out of a technical rules meeting yesterday. The FIA's statement on the subject was short and to the point, suggesting not surprisingly that it was all FOTA's fault.
FOTA's version of events, however, had more detail and, more's to the point, more credible information.
The FIA is saying, as far as I can see, that FOTA are not entered for next year after all, and that if there are to be changes to the regulations in accordance with the Paris deal, then the new teams as well as Force India and Williams, need to agree them. If that is the case, and FOTA were told they had no rights within the meeting then it was a complete waste of their time being there. The FIA might have cast them as the baddies for walking out, but I can see teams' point.
There was certainly no mention that the Paris deal was in any way conditional in the statement issued by the World Motor Sport Council. Nor was there any figment of ambiguity in the entry list.
This all seems to me like an increasingly discredited Max Mosley stirring it. He clearly went back from the WMSC meeting where the deal was struck, got his hatchet out of the cupboard and has been looking for places to bury it ever since.
Is it a coincidence that the entire autosport press are now talking about this new row and not about the allegations about FIA Chief Steward Alan Donnelly, or about the alleged pressure put on new teams to sign up to an engine deal with Cosworth?? It seems completely bizarre that teams such as Lola and Aston Martin saw their bids rejected. Max had certainly been keen on a big deal with Cosworth at the end of last year.
Not for the first time, I wonder if the fact that the management of Formula 1 is exclusively male contributes to the turbulent and often aggressive nature of its decision making process.
Anyway, this drama clearly has some way to play out. We may yet see a breakaway, although I think the teams would possibly be better advised to quietly set about ensuring that if Mosley should stand again in October, that he has credible opposition. The teams can't do that themselves, because unseating Mosley will require a coalition across all levels of FIA regulated motorsport, but they can play their part in securing a new president with a more pragmatic way of doing things.
Ari Vatanen, the former rally driver and MEP, has had his name put in the frame but his path to the presidency against a truculent Mosley will not be easy as the process for re-election strongly favours the incumbent. While the requirement to have 22 Cabinet members is supposedly to ensure no protest candidates (and why should they be outlawed anyway?), it may be that key figures would not be willing to publicly side against an incumbent in such an obvious way in case they have to end up working with him again.
I think that F1 would be better without Mosley in it from now. He appears to be the main obstacle to a lasting peace at the moment.
You have to have some sympathy for Ross Brawn, one of the few consistently reasonable voices in F1, who apparently said in yesterday's meeting to Charlie Whiting, who was delivering the bad news from the FIA "Isn't this all a bit silly. Can't we just get on with it."
Two approaches to the war in Afghanistan
I've woken up this morning to two different articles on the war in Afghanistan. The first is by Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg in the Telegraph in which he outlines the ways in which the Government could improve the way it's dealing with the situation there. He highlights how lack of appropriate equipment is costing lives and calls on the Government to address this.
Nick is completely behind the need for military action in Afghanistan:
"I am a Liberal interventionist, who believes military action is justified when supported by reason and the law. I support the aim of our mission wholeheartedly: to stop Afghanistan reverting to a haven for terrorism, with its people oppressed and impoverished. To achieve that, military forces need to create enough space for stability and good governance to take root."
However, he also shows how the aims of the mission are being compromised and lives are being lost by sending troops into battle:
"If you send people to war, you must supply the resources they need, or you should not send them at all. Otherwise you are betraying the fundamental covenant between a nation and its armed forces. I am appalled that so many of our soldiers have been killed because of inadequate equipment, and disturbed to hear from experts that we don't have enough forces to hold and rebuild territory once it has been won."
Nick also highlights the need for all the various troops and organisations engaged in Afghanistan to be properly co-ordinated and highlights how the Government has failed to contribute properly to that.
He also looks to the future and shows how important it is to deal with corruption, to give the Afghan people confidence in the new political system. I would have liked it if Nick had also talked about the continuing injustices to women as highlighted this year by Amnesty as another issue that urgently needs to be tackled.
Nick isn't just randomly making this up. One of the things that has always impressed me about him is his willingness to listen and learn. On this he's been taking advice from Paddy Ashdown, who certainly knows a thing or two about military matters.
If we are sending our forces into battle without the equipment they need to protect themselves and help them achieve their mission, then that is surely a national disgrace. All this at the same time money is being wasted on ID cards and replacing Trident.
Compare and contrast with the approach of Tom Harris. He certainly makes a good case for the intervention in Afghanistan and how we need to deal with the brutally repressive Taliban. What worried me was his solution:
"British soldiers are fighting and dying in the campaign to build a democratic and free Afghanistan. We should be hoping and praying for their safety and for their success against the remnants of a vile and disgusting fascist regime."
I can't believe that anyone would think that hope and prayer was an acceptable substitute for good strategy and appropriate equipment. To lose people unnecessarily, through failure to protect them sufficiently is simply wrong and must stop now. It's an insult to the troops, their families and all of our intelligence to suggest that hope and prayer will bring them home safely when they are crying out to be given even the basics they need for survival and the success of their mission. It's cash, not prayer, that is needed to sort that out.
LibDig This!
Nick is completely behind the need for military action in Afghanistan:
"I am a Liberal interventionist, who believes military action is justified when supported by reason and the law. I support the aim of our mission wholeheartedly: to stop Afghanistan reverting to a haven for terrorism, with its people oppressed and impoverished. To achieve that, military forces need to create enough space for stability and good governance to take root."
However, he also shows how the aims of the mission are being compromised and lives are being lost by sending troops into battle:
"If you send people to war, you must supply the resources they need, or you should not send them at all. Otherwise you are betraying the fundamental covenant between a nation and its armed forces. I am appalled that so many of our soldiers have been killed because of inadequate equipment, and disturbed to hear from experts that we don't have enough forces to hold and rebuild territory once it has been won."
Nick also highlights the need for all the various troops and organisations engaged in Afghanistan to be properly co-ordinated and highlights how the Government has failed to contribute properly to that.
He also looks to the future and shows how important it is to deal with corruption, to give the Afghan people confidence in the new political system. I would have liked it if Nick had also talked about the continuing injustices to women as highlighted this year by Amnesty as another issue that urgently needs to be tackled.
Nick isn't just randomly making this up. One of the things that has always impressed me about him is his willingness to listen and learn. On this he's been taking advice from Paddy Ashdown, who certainly knows a thing or two about military matters.
If we are sending our forces into battle without the equipment they need to protect themselves and help them achieve their mission, then that is surely a national disgrace. All this at the same time money is being wasted on ID cards and replacing Trident.
Compare and contrast with the approach of Tom Harris. He certainly makes a good case for the intervention in Afghanistan and how we need to deal with the brutally repressive Taliban. What worried me was his solution:
"British soldiers are fighting and dying in the campaign to build a democratic and free Afghanistan. We should be hoping and praying for their safety and for their success against the remnants of a vile and disgusting fascist regime."
I can't believe that anyone would think that hope and prayer was an acceptable substitute for good strategy and appropriate equipment. To lose people unnecessarily, through failure to protect them sufficiently is simply wrong and must stop now. It's an insult to the troops, their families and all of our intelligence to suggest that hope and prayer will bring them home safely when they are crying out to be given even the basics they need for survival and the success of their mission. It's cash, not prayer, that is needed to sort that out.
LibDig This!
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Peter Mandelson advising Bernie Ecclestone?
You're a Prime Minister in trouble trying to dodge the slings and arrows of outrageous Blairites. Your cabinet is disappearing faster than rats off a sinking ship. If this goes on much longer, you will have to appoint the Downing Street gardener as DEFRA secretary. What do you do? You sell your soul to the one person whose dark arts can smooth the troubled waters for the price of a fancy title and an enhanced job as Minister for Everything (or words to that effect). Even if you have to put up with the alleged fearsome strop, it's worth it to have your reputation saved.
You would think that getting the status and power to really kick ass within the Government would be enough of a challenge for the Guacamole One, but no, in his spare time, according to the Jewish Chronicle and Iain Dale, he's been helping Bernie Ecclestone get his foot out of his mouth after his faux pas at the weekend where he suggested that Hitler and Saddam were nothing if not efficient.
If that is the case, then Mandelson must be a bit of a glutton for punishment - you would think he had enough on his plate trying to sort the Government out and keep the mercurial PM on track without seeking out other lost causes to back.
I'm not so sure, though. The substance of Bernie's apology is not that great. He seems to think that democracy can't deliver strong change because people are unwilling to say what they really think. My interpretation of his apology is that he gets why his words were unacceptable to the general public, but I'm not convinced that he actually sees why they were wrong.
His comments to the Jewish Chronicle about having close Jewish friends smacks of the "I'm not racist but......." type thing.
My hunch is that Mandelson and Ecclestone might well have spoken privately, and Mandelson might have said words to the effect of "you prat, you're going to have to grovel to get out of this" but I suspect if Mandelson had been involved in the wording of the apology it would have ended after the words I'm sorry and not gone into some self justifying rant that did nothing more than re-insert the foot to the mouth. The Prince of Darkness is not so sloppy.
Iain Dale is trying to make out some sort of scandal associating the Labour Party with Ecclestone's comments, but that is I think just the usual mischief making on his part.
LibDig This!
You would think that getting the status and power to really kick ass within the Government would be enough of a challenge for the Guacamole One, but no, in his spare time, according to the Jewish Chronicle and Iain Dale, he's been helping Bernie Ecclestone get his foot out of his mouth after his faux pas at the weekend where he suggested that Hitler and Saddam were nothing if not efficient.
If that is the case, then Mandelson must be a bit of a glutton for punishment - you would think he had enough on his plate trying to sort the Government out and keep the mercurial PM on track without seeking out other lost causes to back.
I'm not so sure, though. The substance of Bernie's apology is not that great. He seems to think that democracy can't deliver strong change because people are unwilling to say what they really think. My interpretation of his apology is that he gets why his words were unacceptable to the general public, but I'm not convinced that he actually sees why they were wrong.
His comments to the Jewish Chronicle about having close Jewish friends smacks of the "I'm not racist but......." type thing.
My hunch is that Mandelson and Ecclestone might well have spoken privately, and Mandelson might have said words to the effect of "you prat, you're going to have to grovel to get out of this" but I suspect if Mandelson had been involved in the wording of the apology it would have ended after the words I'm sorry and not gone into some self justifying rant that did nothing more than re-insert the foot to the mouth. The Prince of Darkness is not so sloppy.
Iain Dale is trying to make out some sort of scandal associating the Labour Party with Ecclestone's comments, but that is I think just the usual mischief making on his part.
LibDig This!
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Mark's MPs Meme
The UK's third most influential Lib Dem blogger, Mark Reckons has challenged us to name all the MPs who had ever represented us.
That'll be a breeze, I thought, being the political geek that I am, they will all just trip out of my brain, just like that.
Not so - most were easy, but a couple took some checking on the internet.
I've been lucky enough to have been represented by a cabinet minister, and a good one who resigned on a matter of principle, a couple of ministers, a Scottish Party leader, a UK Party leader and a complete maverick - not so bad. I've lived in mostly safe seats, but with a couple of marginals in there too.
So, in chronological order, here they are:
1967-79: Russell Johnston, passionate about both home rule and Europe. I'm sorry that I was just that bit too young to get to know him properly, although I met him on several occasions.
1979-87: Robert Maclennan. Bob was the last leader of the SDP and one of the most decent people I've ever known in politics. Although I moved away from Caithness in 1985, I continued to go back to help in elections there until 1992. If you read this blog regularly, you'll be fed up of hearing how I got detention for skipping school to go canvassing for him in 1983 when I was 15!
Those of you who have known me for a long time will know that I was in Aberdeen for a couple of years as a student but I never came off the electoral roll in Caithness so I could vote for Bob in the 1987 election. Just to show I'm a geek, my local MP in Aberdeen North at that time was Robert Hughes
1987-88: Ron Brown, who added colour to the House of Commons and who eventually pissed Labour off so much that they deselected him.
1988-89: The one and only Lord Foulkes.
1989-92: After we moved to England, I was quite disconcerted to be represented by a Tory for the first 3 years, and one with a very Scottish sounding name, Andy Stewart, at that. He lost his seat in the 1992 election that saw John Major cling to power. Paddy Tipping, the Labour MP who succeeded him, is still there.
When we moved back here in 2000, we not only had a Westminster MP but an MSP too. Robin Cook, Foreign Secretary at the time and Bristow Muldoon had seemingly unassailable majorities at the time.
Sadly, Robin, who resigned from the Cabinet over the Iraq war, passed away in 2005 to be replaced by Jim Devine, who, it has to be said, is significantly down the food chain and who has recently been deselected by the Labour Party over his expenses.
Bristow lost his seat in 2007 to the SNP's Angela Constance. I've known Angela ever since I moved here when I was on the local Community Centre's management committee. As a local councillor, she attended practically every meeting. I have a lot of time for her. She works very hard and has always been very friendly and polite.
It's quite disappointing that I had to wait until I was almost 40 years old to be represented by a woman. The preceding list is depressingly male, and white for that matter. The issue of getting more women elected is something I want to explore more more fully over the next few weeks.
I am not going to tag anyone with this, so just go ahead and do it if you want to.
LibDig This!
That'll be a breeze, I thought, being the political geek that I am, they will all just trip out of my brain, just like that.
Not so - most were easy, but a couple took some checking on the internet.
I've been lucky enough to have been represented by a cabinet minister, and a good one who resigned on a matter of principle, a couple of ministers, a Scottish Party leader, a UK Party leader and a complete maverick - not so bad. I've lived in mostly safe seats, but with a couple of marginals in there too.
So, in chronological order, here they are:
1967-79: Russell Johnston, passionate about both home rule and Europe. I'm sorry that I was just that bit too young to get to know him properly, although I met him on several occasions.
1979-87: Robert Maclennan. Bob was the last leader of the SDP and one of the most decent people I've ever known in politics. Although I moved away from Caithness in 1985, I continued to go back to help in elections there until 1992. If you read this blog regularly, you'll be fed up of hearing how I got detention for skipping school to go canvassing for him in 1983 when I was 15!
Those of you who have known me for a long time will know that I was in Aberdeen for a couple of years as a student but I never came off the electoral roll in Caithness so I could vote for Bob in the 1987 election. Just to show I'm a geek, my local MP in Aberdeen North at that time was Robert Hughes
1987-88: Ron Brown, who added colour to the House of Commons and who eventually pissed Labour off so much that they deselected him.
1988-89: The one and only Lord Foulkes.
1989-92: After we moved to England, I was quite disconcerted to be represented by a Tory for the first 3 years, and one with a very Scottish sounding name, Andy Stewart, at that. He lost his seat in the 1992 election that saw John Major cling to power. Paddy Tipping, the Labour MP who succeeded him, is still there.
When we moved back here in 2000, we not only had a Westminster MP but an MSP too. Robin Cook, Foreign Secretary at the time and Bristow Muldoon had seemingly unassailable majorities at the time.
Sadly, Robin, who resigned from the Cabinet over the Iraq war, passed away in 2005 to be replaced by Jim Devine, who, it has to be said, is significantly down the food chain and who has recently been deselected by the Labour Party over his expenses.
Bristow lost his seat in 2007 to the SNP's Angela Constance. I've known Angela ever since I moved here when I was on the local Community Centre's management committee. As a local councillor, she attended practically every meeting. I have a lot of time for her. She works very hard and has always been very friendly and polite.
It's quite disappointing that I had to wait until I was almost 40 years old to be represented by a woman. The preceding list is depressingly male, and white for that matter. The issue of getting more women elected is something I want to explore more more fully over the next few weeks.
I am not going to tag anyone with this, so just go ahead and do it if you want to.
LibDig This!
Monday, July 06, 2009
Sexism alert: Formula One is not just for Boys.
It seems like ages since the British Grand Prix at Silverstone two weeks ago. These long Summer breaks are a pain. The season got off to an intense start with four races in the first six weeks so even the normal two week break between events seems too much to bear, especially when it's been such an exciting year so far.
But never fear, the teams and drivers are packing up to head for the Nurburgring, in between Cologne and Frankfurt in Germany this weekend. Hat tip to Kevin for highlighting the new video on the track's website showing off their new features. I was enjoying the gravelly voiced (how many cigarettes does it take to maintain that?) commentary on the new welcome centre and shop and museum and all they have to offer until I was lulled out of my Ferrari induced mellowness by the following sentence: "If you've enjoyed the film so far, there's only one question, how do you sell it to your wife."
They've got a bloody cheek too, mentioning the wife, when a few minutes earlier the commentary had gone on about optimising lap times on the go karting track "but you'll have to bring your pit babes along, or get to know them" in the bar.
Let me tell you something, Nurburgring management, I understand your need to diversify and all that, in these tough economic times. I think you've been quite clever in developing a holiday park with all sorts of facilities that should appeal to everyone. And then you go and ruin it with neanderthal, sexist marketing. You can drag yourself into the 21st century with our developments, but you're still in the 1950s with your attitude towards women. We girls like cars and racing and stuff like that too, you know - and we always did, even in the days when we were being told that the path to happiness involved stuffing mushrooms, embroidery, worshipping our husbands and baking scones. The idea that we shrewish women are out there to stop the boys having fun with the things they like to do is, frankly, insulting.
In my house, I tend to organise and book the holidays and my husband packs the cases. I think he'd probably say that he thinks he has the harder job. Every year he sighs as he sees what I expect him to squeeze in, but he always manages it. I suspect that I am not the only woman who does this.
There is no way on earth, even if I really wanted to go, that I would ever give money to that place given that they clearly think that I'm some little woman who couldn't possibly like cars and I hope no other self respecting woman will either until they learn that life has got a bit more equal.
This was going to be a post about lots of other things about the upcoming Grand Prix, but I think I've probably said enough for the moment. Plenty time for that tomorrow.
LibDig This!
But never fear, the teams and drivers are packing up to head for the Nurburgring, in between Cologne and Frankfurt in Germany this weekend. Hat tip to Kevin for highlighting the new video on the track's website showing off their new features. I was enjoying the gravelly voiced (how many cigarettes does it take to maintain that?) commentary on the new welcome centre and shop and museum and all they have to offer until I was lulled out of my Ferrari induced mellowness by the following sentence: "If you've enjoyed the film so far, there's only one question, how do you sell it to your wife."
They've got a bloody cheek too, mentioning the wife, when a few minutes earlier the commentary had gone on about optimising lap times on the go karting track "but you'll have to bring your pit babes along, or get to know them" in the bar.
Let me tell you something, Nurburgring management, I understand your need to diversify and all that, in these tough economic times. I think you've been quite clever in developing a holiday park with all sorts of facilities that should appeal to everyone. And then you go and ruin it with neanderthal, sexist marketing. You can drag yourself into the 21st century with our developments, but you're still in the 1950s with your attitude towards women. We girls like cars and racing and stuff like that too, you know - and we always did, even in the days when we were being told that the path to happiness involved stuffing mushrooms, embroidery, worshipping our husbands and baking scones. The idea that we shrewish women are out there to stop the boys having fun with the things they like to do is, frankly, insulting.
In my house, I tend to organise and book the holidays and my husband packs the cases. I think he'd probably say that he thinks he has the harder job. Every year he sighs as he sees what I expect him to squeeze in, but he always manages it. I suspect that I am not the only woman who does this.
There is no way on earth, even if I really wanted to go, that I would ever give money to that place given that they clearly think that I'm some little woman who couldn't possibly like cars and I hope no other self respecting woman will either until they learn that life has got a bit more equal.
This was going to be a post about lots of other things about the upcoming Grand Prix, but I think I've probably said enough for the moment. Plenty time for that tomorrow.
LibDig This!
Who is Lisa Greenwood?
The Telegraph and the Fail, amongst others, have reported on the dismissal of a relatively junior civil servant, Lisa Greenwood for posting an anonymous comment slagging Hazel Blears for her flipping of homes on one of the They Work for You websites from her work e-mail address.
Let's lay aside for a moment that the punishment appears excessive.
I'm particularly interested in the "They Work for You" angle to this. They have been widely quoted as the website where Lisa Greenwood is supposed to have made her comment, but a quick glance at their Twitter feed shows that they are mystified by it all and in fact their statement shows that they are mighty pissed off at the implication that they would just gamely hand over private information to a Government department, even if they had been able to trace it, without putting up a fight.
I think that the Department of Children, Schools and Families is going to have to come clean as to a) which website the comment is supposed to have been made on and b) how they found out about it. I think I need to feel reassured that Lisa Greenwood's e-mails were not being intercepted or scrutinised by her employers because that would be an unacceptable breach of privacy.
It does seem that the punishment handed out to Lisa Greenwood hardly fitted the crime. I would have thought that a warning would have sufficed if these were the only circumstances. It's obviously too late to help her, but it is a bit ridiculous to go sacking people for something that can't even be publicly traced back to the department.
The reporting of this story has raised significant questions which require to be answered. They Work for You have had their respect for confidentiality and privacy brought into doubt and that needs to be sorted out quickly. They've acted quickly to give their version of events and they have requested that anyone with more information contact them so they can get to the bottom of it all. So if you know Lisa Greenwood, or have any information that would help them, please get in touch with them via Twitter or their website.
LibDig This!
Let's lay aside for a moment that the punishment appears excessive.
I'm particularly interested in the "They Work for You" angle to this. They have been widely quoted as the website where Lisa Greenwood is supposed to have made her comment, but a quick glance at their Twitter feed shows that they are mystified by it all and in fact their statement shows that they are mighty pissed off at the implication that they would just gamely hand over private information to a Government department, even if they had been able to trace it, without putting up a fight.
I think that the Department of Children, Schools and Families is going to have to come clean as to a) which website the comment is supposed to have been made on and b) how they found out about it. I think I need to feel reassured that Lisa Greenwood's e-mails were not being intercepted or scrutinised by her employers because that would be an unacceptable breach of privacy.
It does seem that the punishment handed out to Lisa Greenwood hardly fitted the crime. I would have thought that a warning would have sufficed if these were the only circumstances. It's obviously too late to help her, but it is a bit ridiculous to go sacking people for something that can't even be publicly traced back to the department.
The reporting of this story has raised significant questions which require to be answered. They Work for You have had their respect for confidentiality and privacy brought into doubt and that needs to be sorted out quickly. They've acted quickly to give their version of events and they have requested that anyone with more information contact them so they can get to the bottom of it all. So if you know Lisa Greenwood, or have any information that would help them, please get in touch with them via Twitter or their website.
LibDig This!
Bad news on Irish Blasphemy Law
Ireland's quest to grace the red carpet at the Silly Law of the Year 2009 Awards gathers pace. Last Wednesday, the Parliamentary Justice Committee passed it by 3 votes and it now goes to the Dail this week where a final vote will be held.
Already there are plans to challenge the law if it is passed.
If you are an Irish citizen, and you are horrified by the fact that your freedom of speech could be threatened to the extent where uttering anything offensive to the followers of any religion could cost you 25,000 euros (reduced from 100,000, a bargain, surely) and have the Gardai at your door to search your house or office, there are still some things you could do before the final vote: contact your TD to make your views known and join the campaigns on Facebook and Twitter or get news direct from the Blasphemy Ireland website.
UPDATE: Within 40 minutes of posting this, there's a further development.
Apparently no time has been allocated for specific debate of the Blasphemy amendment in the debate on Wednesday. The blasphemy measure is part of a bigger Defamation Bill which has only been given an hour. Given the controversy it's caused across the country, you would think that it would be useful for people to see their TD's position on that issue alone in a parliamentary vote. It is also a bit insulting not to allocate parliamentary time to discuss the specifics of such a divisive measure.
The Blasphemy Ireland people are suggesting that you lobby TDs to get them to push the Government for more time or to get them to withdraw their own amendments so there's time to discuss the blasphemy one.
It certainly sounds to me that this is a Government trying to save face by steamrolling an unpopular and unjustifiable measure through.
LibDig This!
Already there are plans to challenge the law if it is passed.
If you are an Irish citizen, and you are horrified by the fact that your freedom of speech could be threatened to the extent where uttering anything offensive to the followers of any religion could cost you 25,000 euros (reduced from 100,000, a bargain, surely) and have the Gardai at your door to search your house or office, there are still some things you could do before the final vote: contact your TD to make your views known and join the campaigns on Facebook and Twitter or get news direct from the Blasphemy Ireland website.
UPDATE: Within 40 minutes of posting this, there's a further development.
Apparently no time has been allocated for specific debate of the Blasphemy amendment in the debate on Wednesday. The blasphemy measure is part of a bigger Defamation Bill which has only been given an hour. Given the controversy it's caused across the country, you would think that it would be useful for people to see their TD's position on that issue alone in a parliamentary vote. It is also a bit insulting not to allocate parliamentary time to discuss the specifics of such a divisive measure.
The Blasphemy Ireland people are suggesting that you lobby TDs to get them to push the Government for more time or to get them to withdraw their own amendments so there's time to discuss the blasphemy one.
It certainly sounds to me that this is a Government trying to save face by steamrolling an unpopular and unjustifiable measure through.
LibDig This!
Top Scottish Blogs on Wikio
The Wikio blog rankings are out for July and I've been going through them looking for Scottish political blogs and have been really surprised that I could only find seven in the top hundred.
The Wikio rankings aren't based on visitors to your site, but on the number of other bloggers who link to you. This is supposed to be a measure of how influential you are as a blogger. I think the easiest way for me to view this is complete narcissism - in months when I go up, it will be a very accurate measure, and when I go down, it'll be rubbish! It's also worth saying that people don't necessarily link to people because they like what they're saying. On the occasions I've linked to Iain Dale, or Tom Harris, it's usually because I disagree with them, however well they have expressed their point.
So, here are our Super Seven (sorry, Subrosa, for nicking your phrase)with the UK ranking in brackets:
1. Tom Harris (10)
2. Cute Greek Baby (17)
3. Subrosa (64)
4. SNP Tactical Voting (66)
5. Stephen's Linlithgow Journal (73)
6. Caron's Musings (79)
7. Amused Cynicism (82)
I think there are people who aren't on this list who should be, whose every word I read, like Kez, Yousuf, Andrew, Will, Bernard , Duncan and Malc. Let's hope we can get some more of us in there over the next few months.
LibDig This!
The Wikio rankings aren't based on visitors to your site, but on the number of other bloggers who link to you. This is supposed to be a measure of how influential you are as a blogger. I think the easiest way for me to view this is complete narcissism - in months when I go up, it will be a very accurate measure, and when I go down, it'll be rubbish! It's also worth saying that people don't necessarily link to people because they like what they're saying. On the occasions I've linked to Iain Dale, or Tom Harris, it's usually because I disagree with them, however well they have expressed their point.
So, here are our Super Seven (sorry, Subrosa, for nicking your phrase)with the UK ranking in brackets:
1. Tom Harris (10)
2. Cute Greek Baby (17)
3. Subrosa (64)
4. SNP Tactical Voting (66)
5. Stephen's Linlithgow Journal (73)
6. Caron's Musings (79)
7. Amused Cynicism (82)
I think there are people who aren't on this list who should be, whose every word I read, like Kez, Yousuf, Andrew, Will, Bernard , Duncan and Malc. Let's hope we can get some more of us in there over the next few months.
LibDig This!
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Scottish Round Up
What a day it's been! I am completely shattered after staying up too late last night and am emotionally drained after watching the Wimbledon Final. There was some unanimity amongst the Scottish Tweeting blogosphere - we were all supporting Andy Roddick and were disappointed when his valiant efforts ended in such a close defeat at 16-14 in the final set.
Anyway, I have spent this week putting together my first ever Scottish Round Up in easy stages. I've really enjoyed it. If you haven't seen it already, go and have a look and find out why Stephen tweeted me within minutes of it going up saying "Mr Eugenides is going to kill you".
LibDig This!
Anyway, I have spent this week putting together my first ever Scottish Round Up in easy stages. I've really enjoyed it. If you haven't seen it already, go and have a look and find out why Stephen tweeted me within minutes of it going up saying "Mr Eugenides is going to kill you".
LibDig This!
A gripping tale of what might have been
Some of you may not know that former Lib Dem Director Of Innovations, Mark Pack, is not only a campaigns guru, he's also an elections geek and his particularly speciality is the elections and politics of the 19th century.
He's written this counter factual report of what might have happened if a crucial knife edge vote on the Great Reform Act had led to its defeat rather than its passing.
Ok, so it's about a period in history I find absolutely fascinating anyway, but his account is quite gripping and is definitely worth spending some time on a Summer sunday morning on.
LibDig This!
He's written this counter factual report of what might have happened if a crucial knife edge vote on the Great Reform Act had led to its defeat rather than its passing.
Ok, so it's about a period in history I find absolutely fascinating anyway, but his account is quite gripping and is definitely worth spending some time on a Summer sunday morning on.
LibDig This!
MOD's weird sense of what's important
I know that service personnel and their families often get a raw deal - there have been scandals about our troops being ill equipped on duty, badly cared for if they are injured and poorly housed at home.
Now I discovered in today's Sunday Herald that the MOD includes travelling time from places like Iraq and Afghanistan in the calculation of soldiers' leave. So, exhausted troops, who may have faced all sorts of ordeals and traumas in the field, have their time at home, when they can relax with their families, and recharge their batteries, cut short.
No wonder soldiers and their families feel undervalued!
What worries me is that there are bound to be cuts in defence spending in the current financial climate. Will this Government sacrifice basic amenities at home and abroad for troops in order to waste £20 billion renewing Trident? Nick Clegg tried to pin the Prime Minister down on this at PMQs last week.
The Government will sign the first contracts for the replacement of Trident over the Summer. The economic climate was very different when Parliament made the decision to replace the system. That should surely be revisited.
It strikes me as bizarre that the MOD is splashing out on a new nuclear weapons system which, as well as being completely immoral, is strategically unnecessary, when the troops that we have on the ground are denied time with their families and not provided with the basics they need to do their jobs. Those are not the priorities I'd choose. In my experience you get the best out of people when you treat them properly. It's a lesson the MOD would do well to learn.
LibDig This!
Now I discovered in today's Sunday Herald that the MOD includes travelling time from places like Iraq and Afghanistan in the calculation of soldiers' leave. So, exhausted troops, who may have faced all sorts of ordeals and traumas in the field, have their time at home, when they can relax with their families, and recharge their batteries, cut short.
No wonder soldiers and their families feel undervalued!
What worries me is that there are bound to be cuts in defence spending in the current financial climate. Will this Government sacrifice basic amenities at home and abroad for troops in order to waste £20 billion renewing Trident? Nick Clegg tried to pin the Prime Minister down on this at PMQs last week.
The Government will sign the first contracts for the replacement of Trident over the Summer. The economic climate was very different when Parliament made the decision to replace the system. That should surely be revisited.
It strikes me as bizarre that the MOD is splashing out on a new nuclear weapons system which, as well as being completely immoral, is strategically unnecessary, when the troops that we have on the ground are denied time with their families and not provided with the basics they need to do their jobs. Those are not the priorities I'd choose. In my experience you get the best out of people when you treat them properly. It's a lesson the MOD would do well to learn.
LibDig This!
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Another humiliating climb down for Labour?
Of all the stupid things that this Government has done, abolishing the 10p tax rate was up there with the worst of them. For a party that's supposed to champion the working class, introducing a measure that cost the poorest most was illogical and incomprehensible. It was a disgrace to see people who earned the minimum wage having £30 less in their pockets.
Now the Government might be forced to ensure that nobody is penalised by this measure in a crucial Commons vote on Tuesday, according to the BBC.
Let's just hope that Alistair Carmichael is leading for the Lib Dems, as he has been on three of the four Government defeats in this Parliament!
UPDATE: Just realised this was my 700th post!
LibDig This!
Now the Government might be forced to ensure that nobody is penalised by this measure in a crucial Commons vote on Tuesday, according to the BBC.
Let's just hope that Alistair Carmichael is leading for the Lib Dems, as he has been on three of the four Government defeats in this Parliament!
UPDATE: Just realised this was my 700th post!
LibDig This!
It could be so much worse than having Gordon Brown as PM
We've all been complaining a lot about the pig's ear the Labour Government is making of the economy, of civil liberties, of, well, everything. Is there anything they are actually doing well?
Anyway, Bernie Ecclestone offered us a vision of an alternative which made me realise just how lucky we are. There are very few people I'd prefer Gordon Brown over, but Max Mosley is somewhere near the top of that list.
Bernie's interview was quite extraordinary - saying that Hitler was "able to get things done" - sure, it takes some organisational ability to carry out the detention and slaughter of millions of people based on their religion and sexuality, but that sort of atrocity is hardly something to boast about.
He had praise for Saddam Hussein as well, who was able to "control his country". Err, that was usually by genocide and torture, Bernie.
It's only in the light of those distasteful comments that his idea that Max Mosley would make a good PM pales almost into insignificance. However, after the mess Max made of Formula One, with his dictatorial style leading it to the brink of a catastrophic split a few weeks ago, I think we could safely say that Gordon Brown would do a better job.
Tom Harris has taken great exception to chick-lit novelist and Tory candidate Louise Bagshawe slagging off Bernie and reminding us all of the fact that he'd given a million to Labour and, then, entirely coincidentally, Formula One got an exemption from the tobacco advertising ban.
Tom seems to think that telling the truth is some sort of smear. I have no time for Bagshawe, but this was one of the rare things she got right.
But, going back to Bernie, I'm sure that anyone involved at a high level in any other sport would have to get the hell out if they expressed such highly objectionable views. Why should Formula One be any different?
LibDig This!
Anyway, Bernie Ecclestone offered us a vision of an alternative which made me realise just how lucky we are. There are very few people I'd prefer Gordon Brown over, but Max Mosley is somewhere near the top of that list.
Bernie's interview was quite extraordinary - saying that Hitler was "able to get things done" - sure, it takes some organisational ability to carry out the detention and slaughter of millions of people based on their religion and sexuality, but that sort of atrocity is hardly something to boast about.
He had praise for Saddam Hussein as well, who was able to "control his country". Err, that was usually by genocide and torture, Bernie.
It's only in the light of those distasteful comments that his idea that Max Mosley would make a good PM pales almost into insignificance. However, after the mess Max made of Formula One, with his dictatorial style leading it to the brink of a catastrophic split a few weeks ago, I think we could safely say that Gordon Brown would do a better job.
Tom Harris has taken great exception to chick-lit novelist and Tory candidate Louise Bagshawe slagging off Bernie and reminding us all of the fact that he'd given a million to Labour and, then, entirely coincidentally, Formula One got an exemption from the tobacco advertising ban.
Tom seems to think that telling the truth is some sort of smear. I have no time for Bagshawe, but this was one of the rare things she got right.
But, going back to Bernie, I'm sure that anyone involved at a high level in any other sport would have to get the hell out if they expressed such highly objectionable views. Why should Formula One be any different?
LibDig This!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
