A mystical silence broods.....
Siderius Nuncius
Was it something I said?
--
Sid
Shepherds Bush, West London
Kim Andrews
<siderius...@tesco.net> wrote:
>Eleven posts since yesterday morning?
>
>Was it something I said?
Please Sir, I've got a note Sir, don't need to post much on Grand Prix
weekends Sir. ;o)
--
Cheers, Kimbo
Best of umra archive www.totternhoe.demon.co.uk/umra/
"May 6,000 strabismic telephone operators prance in your genitals.
oo-er, wrong newsgroup." Charles F Hankel -- Hapless FAQer on the Wirral peninsula. RIP.
TonyPhiz
"Siderius Nuncius" <siderius...@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:be8j16$2dltg$2...@ID-70308.news.dfncis.de...
I am beset with another mystery... I missed the conclusion of the £5 note
signatures survey, and the thread his disappeared from my news server; would
any umrat care to enlighten me as to the outcome?
Ahhhhh.... it's Sunday morning, the omni is on the wireless (just packed
wofe off to Kempton Park to do the race for life - sun is shining, so I'm
sure she'll enjoy) breakfast is on the go, French Grand Prix and the men's
final at Wombledin to come, and if all else fails I have a good book to
read... what a day! (I just thought I'd share that.)
Tony
Serena Blanchflower
wrote:
> I am beset with another mystery... I missed the conclusion of the £5 note
> signatures survey, and the thread his disappeared from my news server; would
> any umrat care to enlighten me as to the outcome?
We haven't been told. It seems to have disappeared into ether, along
with the rest of umra.
--
Cheers, Serena
Sometimes I sits and thinks ... and sometimes I just sits. (Punch cartoon)
George Middleton
>I am beset with another mystery... I missed the conclusion of the £5
>note signatures survey, and the thread his disappeared from my news
>server; would any umrat care to enlighten me as to the outcome?
It hasn't finished yet but here is another input.
Daughter - 2 and 0
--
George
Andrew Thomas Croft
"George Middleton" <Geo...@Middleton.net> wrote in message
news:XtAh7ZDdo+B$Ew...@blueyonder.co.uk...
I had one yesterday. My newsagent's got it now.
TonyPhiz
"Serena Blanchflower" <nos...@sblanchflower.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:ujqfgvoip95s7qf0q...@4ax.com...
Ah, I see. My mail server seems to hold only a very small cache of messages,
bless it, before they disappear for ever, and I thought I'd missed the boat.
Thanks - Tony
Fenny
I heard TonyPhiz say...
> Ahhhhh.... it's Sunday morning, the omni is on the wireless (just packed
> wofe off to Kempton Park to do the race for life - sun is shining, so I'm
> sure she'll enjoy) breakfast is on the go, French Grand Prix and the men's
> final at Wombledin to come, and if all else fails I have a good book to
> read... what a day! (I just thought I'd share that.)
>
assignment about "the importance of relating the design to its
surroundings" in order to get a distinction. It's that or watch the
tennis, so I'll be trawling Google for some photographic examples.
--
Fenny
Fictitious Facts of the Day - from a list by Andrew Burford
#130: The European space program is run by a single Sinclair ZX81 with
16k RAM pack.
Michael Parry
<Geo...@Middleton.net> writes
There's a reference in the BBC round up of the career of Eddie George at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3023336.stm to 'the five pound note
fiasco of last year'. I must have missed that.
<reuse>
>>would any umrat care to enlighten me?
</reuse>
--
Michael Parry michael...@ntlworld.com
TonyPhiz
"Michael Parry" <mic...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:ZEPbb994RCC$Ew...@ntlworld.com...
Ahhhhhh..... the fivers where the print rubs off?
Tony
Mike Ruddock
<siderius...@tesco.net> wrote:
>Eleven posts since yesterday morning?
>
>Was it something I said?
Similar results here: in my case only 5 posts in that time.
Mike Ruddock
Chris McMillan
<a...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>
>"Siderius Nuncius" <siderius...@tesco.net> wrote in message
>news:be8j16$2dltg$2...@ID-70308.news.dfncis.de...
>> Eleven posts since yesterday morning?
>wofe off to Kempton Park to do the race for life - sun is shining, so I'm
>sure she'll enjoy) breakfast is on the go, French Grand Prix and the men's
>final at Wombledin to come, and if all else fails I have a good book to
>read... what a day! (I just thought I'd share that.)
>
varying kinds. (Toodles dividing his life between graduation ceremonies
and concerts)
Sincerely Chris
--
Chris McMillan
reply to: chris.m...@ntlworld.com
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mike.mcmillan/
TonyPhiz
"Chris McMillan" <spam...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:0y0pZCFeJFC$Ew...@ntlworld.com...
Ah well now, I have to say that I too can enjoy a Sunday without so much as
a whiff of sport. If the mood is right, and the pace is easy (and there's a
good supply of tea and coffee) I can relax with the best of 'em, with
neither sight nor sound of propelled ball or turned wheel. Today though, was
a day which seemed to unfold in front of me with an inviting array of wheels
and balls, even if ultimately neither really provided the promised
spectacle. That's life.
Tony
Stephen GC Tilley
>
>I am beset with another mystery... I missed the conclusion of the £5 note
>signatures survey, and the thread his disappeared from my news server; would
>any umrat care to enlighten me as to the outcome?
Not yet - if you stick around you'll understand.
>Ahhhhh.... it's Sunday morning, the omni is on the wireless (just packed
>wofe off to Kempton Park to do the race for life - sun is shining, so I'm
>sure she'll enjoy) breakfast is on the go, French Grand Prix and the men's
>final at Wombledin to come, and if all else fails I have a good book to
>read... what a day! (I just thought I'd share that.)
And the Tour de France on C4.
--
Stephen Tilley -+- Ste...@Tilley.net
No longer resident in the South East.
Stephen GC Tilley
>
>news:ZEPbb994RCC$Ew...@ntlworld.com...
>> In message <XtAh7ZDdo+B$Ew...@blueyonder.co.uk>, George Middleton
>> <Geo...@Middleton.net> writes
>> >TonyPhiz writes
>> >>I am beset with another mystery... I missed the conclusion of the £5
>> >>note signatures survey, and the thread his disappeared from my news
>> >>server; would any umrat care to enlighten me as to the outcome?
>> >
>> >It hasn't finished yet but here is another input.
>> >Daughter - 2 and 0
>>
>> There's a reference in the BBC round up of the career of Eddie George at
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3023336.stm to 'the five pound note
>> fiasco of last year'. I must have missed that.
>> <reuse>
>> >>would any umrat care to enlighten me?
>> </reuse>
>
They coat fivers with a new anti-wear preparation. In the original batches of
the current fivers they *then* printed the serial numbers on top of this. So the
numbers didn't 'stick' to the fiver as they would if they were printed on paper.
So one could rub them off and sell them as freaks for more than GBP5.
AIUI they have overcome this by printing the numbers before the applying the
preparation.
Of course if they'd continued with organic, chemical-free notes none of this
would have happened.
TonyPhiz
news:bebjk...@drn.newsguy.com...
Ah yes (laughs to self for the omission): I did catch a bit of cycling, as
well.
Tony
TonyPhiz
news:m4iOa.120$Tj5...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
I believe I also saw some underwater chess
Tony :-)
K Richard W
Cablemodem News Service decided to tell uk.media.radio.archers that
>In message <tKRNa.5314$Pg7....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>, TonyPhiz
><a...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>>
>varying kinds. (Toodles dividing his life between graduation ceremonies
>and concerts)
>
bring back wooden rackets.
I spent much of day driving to Kings Cross and back, walking the dog,
mowing the lawn, eating dinner and collecting a daughter.
Oh and finally catching up on umra.
--
Kosmo Richard W
SNELLSS
Fenny
I heard TonyPhiz say...
> a day which seemed to unfold in front of me with an inviting array of wheels
> and balls, even if ultimately neither really provided the promised
> spectacle. That's life.
>
>
happy ;-)
--
Fenny
Fictitious Facts of the Day - from a list by Andrew Burford
Nick Atty
It's pretty obvious. Those of us who post in our spare time are very
much in a minority. This evening's haul proves it.
--
On-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk
(Waterways World site of the month, April 2001)
Stephen GC Tilley
>
>I believe I also saw some underwater chess
>
>Tony :-)
>
TonyPhiz
... a stalagmite channel (it was underground chess) ouch
Tony
K Richard W
tell uk.media.radio.archers that
>Those of us who post in our spare time are very
>much in a minority.
If someone paid me as much as I get paid for going to work to post to
umra I would happily make a career out of it.
Any offers?
Marjorie Clarke
"Siderius Nuncius" <siderius...@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:be8j16$2dltg$2...@ID-70308.news.dfncis.de...
>
> Was it something I said?
Must be my fault, I've been away on holiday for a fortnight. But I'm back
now so all is well.
--
Marjorie Clarke
Carole Appleyard
<allspamwil...@rickmansworth.mersinet.co.uk> writes
>Previously on Buffy the Vampire Slayer ^W^W^W^W uk.media.radio.archers,
>I heard TonyPhiz say...
>> Today though, was
>> a day which seemed to unfold in front of me with an inviting array of wheels
>> and balls, even if ultimately neither really provided the promised
>> spectacle. That's life.
>>
>>
>And today there is no tennis and Neighbours is back. Some of us are
>happy ;-)
I'm glad there is someone out there sharing my secret vice, the sons
all laugh at me and groan - friends say things like "I never have time
to watch television until 10 o'clock" and here I am worried about Toady
- or was that an irony smiley?
--
Carole
Andrew John Wineberg
wrote:
>I'm glad there is someone out there sharing my secret vice, the sons
>all laugh at me and groan - friends say things like "I never have time
>to watch television until 10 o'clock" and here I am worried about Toady
>- or was that an irony smiley?
An honorary Melbourne-rat informs interested parties that he is led to
believe that the actor who plays Toady (Todd Something?) has been known
to be... exceedingly and very privately entertaining to some lady
visitors on /Neighbours/ tours. Are Fenny and Carole off to Pin Oak
Court?
--
ajw, Stanmore
Fenny
> >And today there is no tennis and Neighbours is back. Some of us are
> >happy ;-)
>
> I'm glad there is someone out there sharing my secret vice, the sons
> all laugh at me and groan - friends say things like "I never have time
> to watch television until 10 o'clock" and here I am worried about Toady
> - or was that an irony smiley?
>
lots and lots of people who watch Corrie and Emmerdale and think that it
is perfectly acceptable, but sneer at Neighbours.
I hope Dee finds out about Darcy soon.
--
Fenny
Fictitious Facts of the Day - from a list by Andrew Burford
#101: Napoleon never said "Not tonight, Josephine" - it was Josephine
who said "Not tonight Napoleon - your breath stinks of garlic again."
Penny
allspamwil...@rickmansworth.mersinet.co.uk (Fenny) scrawled in the
dust...
>Previously on Buffy the Vampire Slayer ^W^W^W^W uk.media.radio.archers,
>I heard Carole Appleyard say...
>> >And today there is no tennis and Neighbours is back. Some of us are
>> >happy ;-)
>>
>> I'm glad there is someone out there sharing my secret vice, the sons
>> all laugh at me and groan - friends say things like "I never have time
>> to watch television until 10 o'clock" and here I am worried about Toady
>> - or was that an irony smiley?
>>
>I point out to people who laugh at me about Neighbours that there are
>lots and lots of people who watch Corrie and Emmerdale and think that it
>is perfectly acceptable, but sneer at Neighbours.
It occurred to me while following the "teenage girl absconds with internet
pen pal" story on radio news while we were away that tabloid journalism is
soap opera.
>I hope Dee finds out about Darcy soon.
Having missed all but two episodes over the last three weeks I am most
disappointed to find she _still_ hasn't done so.
--
Penny
Laughter is the dance of the spirit and the music of the soul.
umra Nicknames & Abbreviations http://www.bigwig.net/umra/nicks.html
Jenny M Benson
<sp...@labyrinth.freeuk.com> writes
>It occurred to me while following the "teenage girl absconds with
>internet pen pal" story on radio news while we were away that tabloid
>journalism is soap opera.
This prompts me to enquire of Umrats whether "we" ever heard the end of
the story of the little boy who went missing in Great Yarmouth a few
weeks ago?
Someone else asked me and I didn't know, but suspected that I would have
known if it had been published, so maybe it was a case of "not a pretty
little girl who can be described as An Angel so we're not interested in
this story any more".
--
Jenny
Michael Parry
<j...@cedarbank81.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>This prompts me to enquire of Umrats whether "we" ever heard the end of
>the story of the little boy who went missing in Great Yarmouth a few
>weeks ago?
No news is bad news it seems:
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/3052042.stm>:
:Police investigating the disappearance of seven-year-old Daniel
:Entwistle have withdrawn their search teams.
:Intensive searches of the river and coastlines around Great Yarmouth
:failed to find any trace of the boy.
<http://www.edp24.co.uk/content/News/story.asp?datetime=12+Jul+2003+13%3
A16&tbrand=EDPOnline&tCategory=NEWS&category=News&brand=EDPOnline&itemid
=NOED12+Jul+2003+13%3A16%3A46%3A487>:
:The father of missing seven-year-old Daniel Entwistle narrowly escaped
:being sent to prison yesterday for turning up at his estranged wife's
:home in the early hours in a drunken state.
--
Michael Parry
M...@mygaff0.demon.co.uk
<j...@cedarbank81.fsnet.co.uk> writes
drowned...sadly
--
Min
So where are all the buffaloes?
Fenny
> It occurred to me while following the "teenage girl absconds with internet
> pen pal" story on radio news while we were away that tabloid journalism is
> soap opera.
>
years that there is probably more truth in the average volume of Beano,
Dandy, Batman or comic of your choice than most tabloid papers. And the
comics tend to be a better read and have fewer pornographic images.
--
Fenny
Fictitious Facts of the Day - from a list by Andrew Burford
but I still wouldn't drink it.
Penny
>Previously on Buffy the Vampire Slayer ^W^W^W^W uk.media.radio.archers,
>I heard Penny say...
>> It occurred to me while following the "teenage girl absconds with internet
>> pen pal" story on radio news while we were away that tabloid journalism is
>> soap opera.
>>
>You've only just noticed this? I've been firmly of the belief for many
>years that there is probably more truth in the average volume of Beano,
>Dandy, Batman or comic of your choice than most tabloid papers. And the
>comics tend to be a better read and have fewer pornographic images.
I wasn't thinking so much of the fictitious nature of most journalism, I've
been aware of that since the age of about 12 when my ma was "quoted" by the
local paper when she hadn't even spoken to them. It was more a sort of
revelation about celebrity and its appeal to the masses. We will gossip and
speculate here about Susan Carter or Toady Rebecci, safe in the knowledge
that no real people will be harmed. "News" media try to give us the same
sort of insight into real people's lives, presumably so we will view them
in the same way and want to know what happens next. It's just a shame they
feel the need to make up the stuff they don't know.
Fenny
I heard Penny say...
> speculate here about Susan Carter or Toady Rebecci, safe in the knowledge
> that no real people will be harmed. "News" media try to give us the same
> sort of insight into real people's lives, presumably so we will view them
> in the same way and want to know what happens next. It's just a shame they
> feel the need to make up the stuff they don't know.
>
>
ignore anyway, but I really couldn't care less about the "celebs" that
they seem to want to push onto us at every opportunity. One of the guys
at work had left the mag from one of the Sunday tabloids in the break
room so I had a leaf through it. THere was a feature, based on the
photo of Prince William carrying bags of shopping from eTsco, showing
photos of allegedly famous people carrying stuff in carrier bags. OK, I
know who Leonardo di Caprio and a couple of the others are, but most of
them were total nobodies.
I also heard on the news yesterday that the bloke who used to manage the
Spice Girls is going to "manage" the Beckhams and try and revive
Victoria's singing career. Why? Who cares? I bet the rest of the Real
Madrid team were less than impressed when they arrived in China
yesterday that the press were only interested in their newest signing.
He may be a brilliant footballer, but he's certainly no great fashion
designer and I think some of his haircuts make him look a complete
idiot, but because the press report them, it's OK.
--
Fenny
Fictitious Facts of the Day - from a list by Andrew Burford
#149: Quiche Lorraine may only be made by people called Lorraine.
Judith
wrote:
> I've
>been aware of that since the age of about 12 when my ma was "quoted" by the
>local paper when she hadn't even spoken to them.
The opinion in our house is:
- You see or hear a report of something that you were personally
involved in or witnessed.
- The report is wrong in at least one significant way
- Therefore, ALL reports about EVERYTHING must be wrong!
Judith
Paradise Island Barchap
In my rare brushes with the broadcast media (one national TV
covering a "hot" Education issue and wanting to interview tame
school governors, another just local radio publicising a cycling
event) I was struck by the artificiality of it all. It's not
so much that they put words into your mouth, but they definitely
want an "angle", and I guess just keeping interviewing people until
they come up with the angle that they wanted all along. The other thing
is (especially with TV) how artifically they setup the scenes. I realise
this is partly a limitation of the medium, but that rather proves that
TV is not necessarily a good medium for that sort of thing. At least,
in the hands of experts, it still can be, but with the pressures of
deadlines, we just get what's possible in the time available, not
lovingly crafted expertise. Radio is of course far better, because
it is less intrusive.
badriya
<mi...@ellwoods.org.uk> wrote:
>In my rare brushes with the broadcast media (one national TV
>covering a "hot" Education issue and wanting to interview tame
>school governors, another just local radio publicising a cycling
>event) I was struck by the artificiality of it all. It's not
>so much that they put words into your mouth, but they definitely
I once organised the baby show for the Brownies fete and the local
paper came along and later credited me with organising the whole fete.
I thought the rest of the committee were going to lynch me!
>want an "angle", and I guess just keeping interviewing people until
>they come up with the angle that they wanted all along. The other thing
>is (especially with TV) how artifically they setup the scenes. I realise
>this is partly a limitation of the medium, but that rather proves that
>TV is not necessarily a good medium for that sort of thing. At least,
>in the hands of experts, it still can be, but with the pressures of
>deadlines, we just get what's possible in the time available, not
>lovingly crafted expertise. Radio is of course far better, because
>it is less intrusive.
Did anyotherrats watch the evening on asylum seekers this week? I
thought that didn't work and while discussion is good, this
trivialised things to the level of a game show where the audience
voted to expell an asylum seeker, like in Big Brother. ( I am
quoting a minister who did not actually watch the programme and was
lampooned today on Broadcasting House, but she was right, I thought. )
I felt the Panorama on unlawful activities of asylum seekers, trailed
for days beforehand and linked to the discussion on the night, did not
raise sympathy for people put in an impossible position when they
arrive here, no shelter or food, not allowed to work, but concentrated
on the scams some set up. It seemed unfaily biased to me.
I felt disgusted with the result of the voting and very upset and
angry.
Vicky
--
Cybergypsy
Remember, amateurs built the Ark - Professionals built the Titanic
(Sig I saw and loved and nicked)
George Middleton
>I once organised the baby show for the Brownies fete and the local
>paper came along and later credited me with organising the whole fete.
>I thought the rest of the committee were going to lynch me!
I went to the top of Helvellyn to see the sun rise on the Summer
Solstice and submitted some photos of the event to the North Western
Evening Mail. They used them but did not mention the Barrow Ramblers who
organised the outing. I too have suffered the disapproval of my betters.
--
George
Kim Andrews
<Geo...@Middleton.net> wrote:
>I went to the top of Helvellyn to see the sun rise on the Summer
>Solstice and submitted some photos of the event to the North Western
>Evening Mail. They used them but did not mention the Barrow Ramblers who
>organised the outing. I too have suffered the disapproval of my betters.
They can't be that much better if they still believe that an
individual has any control over what's written about them in the
press! ;o)
--
Cheers, Kimbo
Best of umra archive www.totternhoe.demon.co.uk/umra/
"May 6,000 strabismic telephone operators prance in your genitals.
oo-er, wrong newsgroup." Charles F Hankel -- Hapless FAQer on the Wirral peninsula. RIP.
BrritSki
Kim Andrews wrote:
>
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 11:04:34 +0100, George Middleton
> <Geo...@Middleton.net> wrote:
>
> >I went to the top of Helvellyn to see the sun rise on the Summer
> >Solstice and submitted some photos of the event to the North Western
> >Evening Mail. They used them but did not mention the Barrow Ramblers who
> >organised the outing. I too have suffered the disapproval of my betters.
>
> They can't be that much better if they still believe that an
> individual has any control over what's written about them in the
> press! ;o)
>
No no, he means the people who gambled against him getting to the top
:)
Penny
<no.spam.for....@aol.com> scrawled in the dust...
That's pretty much my view. When interviewed by my own local rag a while
back I spent some time persuading the reporter that my age was irrelevant
to the story*, I suppose it is to his credit he did not make one up.
Being away from TV news reports for most of the last 3 weeks I found it
slightly odd to hear the BBC reports about what the BBC had (allegedly)
done. In fact we both got somewhat confused as to who was accusing whom of
what. The tone of the ITN report I finally caught last week was quite
different.
* I'm not particularly coy about my age but "51 year old widow, Penny
Mayes" seems to me to contain at least two totally irrelevant facts
BrritSki
Penny wrote:
>
> Being away from TV news reports for most of the last 3 weeks I found it
> slightly odd to hear the BBC reports about what the BBC had (allegedly)
> done. In fact we both got somewhat confused as to who was accusing whom of
> what. The tone of the ITN report I finally caught last week was quite
> different.
I was amazed today to hear Gavin Davies talk about the BBC's "editorial
line".
Hello ? Editorial line ? Since when has the BBC had one of those or am
I just naive ?
Individual programs may have an editorial line, and individual
journalists may push their own opinions (whatever they maybe), but
afaiac the BBC overall should be neutral. I am seriously thinking of
stopping paying my licence fee if the BBC are going to take a political
stance. I've known for years that they have had one, but once again, I'm
amazed that they admit it and seem to be proud of it. Lord Reith would
be spinning in his grave (94KHz).
Kim Andrews
wrote:
>
>I was amazed today to hear Gavin Davies talk about the BBC's "editorial
>line".
You *were*!!?? Cripes.
>
>Hello ? Editorial line ? Since when has the BBC had one of those or am
>I just naive ?
Well I'd have said the latter, except you admit further down that
you've always known they had one. So it's just the admission that
surprises you.
>
>Individual programs may have an editorial line, and individual
>journalists may push their own opinions (whatever they maybe), but
>afaiac the BBC overall should be neutral.
Should be, perhaps. Never has been though. There are, of course,
various rules that are applied around party campaign times, but
otherwise their general left-leaning is hardly unnoticeable. If it was
more subtle, it would probably bother me more. What's been surprising
this time around is that it's the theoretical left that they've got
into a spat with. I think their natural anti-establishment tendency
has tripped over their pro-labourness and they've got a tad confused.
;o)
> I am seriously thinking of
>stopping paying my licence fee if the BBC are going to take a political
>stance. I've known for years that they have had one, but once again, I'm
>amazed that they admit it and seem to be proud of it.
I tend to think of my particular bit of the licence fee as paying for
interesting documentaries and poncey historical drama. I feel sure
all that anything along the line of "all coppers are bastards" or
"sleeze, sleeze, sleeze" is paid for by somebody else. ;o)
> Lord Reith would
>be spinning in his grave (94KHz).
Dunno much about the bloke, I must admit.
Fenny
> There are, of course,
> various rules that are applied around party campaign times, but
> otherwise their general left-leaning is hardly unnoticeable.
>
gummint whinging that the BBC had it in for them, now the current lot
are complaining that the BBC don;t agree with what they are saying.
Perhaps it really is cos the left-leaningness of the BBC is unnoticable
and if we get a Labour gummint, the BBC will agree with every word they
say.
--
Fenny
Fictitious Facts of the Day - from a list by Andrew Burford
For You)' by Bryan Adams.
Siderius Nuncius
BrritSki wrote
>
>I was amazed today to hear Gavin Davies talk about the BBC's "editorial
>line".
>
>Hello ? Editorial line ? Since when has the BBC had one of those or am
>I just naive ?
>
>Individual programs may have an editorial line, and individual
>journalists may push their own opinions (whatever they maybe), but
>afaiac the BBC overall should be neutral. I am seriously thinking of
>stopping paying my licence fee if the BBC are going to take a political
>stance. I've known for years that they have had one, but once again, I'm
>amazed that they admit it and seem to be proud of it. Lord Reith would
>be spinning in his grave (94KHz).
Shurely an "editorial line" is about a judgement and interpretation of
information received. That judgement can be influenced by many things,
including political bias, but it is not the same thing as a political
stance. I don't know what the whole truth of the 45-minute business is. I
hope the Inquiry (or is it Enquiry?) will shed some light, although I'm not
that confident. I do, however, know that the Government has been
*vehemently* denying things which the BBC has never accused them of.
Further, they have arranged for Dr Kelly's name to be made public and
consequently for this seemingly decent, honourable and truthful man to be
given a terrible time, following which he is dead. In the midst of all
this, for a man with Alistair Campbell's (sp?) record to complain that
someone has publicly interpreted information in a way that puts him and the
government in a bad light is simply laughable.
I am *glad* that the BBC is standing up to the government. Somebody has to,
and the current Opposition is about as effective as Michael Foot's Labour
Opposition was in Mrs. T's early years.
As to left-wing bias: well, maybe. As a leftie myself, I would be less
likely to notice it and complain than a more right-leaning person. I think
there may be an anti-government bias, but after six tears [TWATBILI] of
bullsh*t, spin, lies and downright insults to the intelligence of
broadcasters and public, I don't find that surprising. And anyway, it is
the *job* of journalists in a democracy to probe, question and challenge the
establishment. And left-wing bias for years? Those of us who remember the
reporting of the Miners' Strike would find it hard to agree. My
recollection is that every government has accused the BBC of having a
political bias against it.
--
Sid
Shepherds Bush, West London
Kim Andrews
<siderius...@tesco.net> wrote:
>And left-wing bias for years? Those of us who remember the
>reporting of the Miners' Strike would find it hard to agree. My
>recollection is that every government has accused the BBC of having a
>political bias against it.
My own interest in politics and the governance of my country was
fairly late-blooming, so my opinion is admittedly comparatively
recently formed (maybe ten years or so).
Major James Bigglesworth
<som...@hotmail.com> writes
>On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:28:13 +0100, "Siderius Nuncius"
><siderius...@tesco.net> wrote:
>
>>And left-wing bias for years? Those of us who remember the
>>reporting of the Miners' Strike would find it hard to agree. My
>>recollection is that every government has accused the BBC of having a
>>political bias against it.
>
>My own interest in politics and the governance of my country was
>fairly late-blooming, so my opinion is admittedly comparatively
>recently formed (maybe ten years or so).
You have lovely hips... ;-)
--
Major James Bigglesworth DSO, DFC
http://members.lycos.co.uk/Biggles266/main.htm
badriya
<siderius...@tesco.net> wrote:
>I am *glad* that the BBC is standing up to the government. Somebody has to,
>and the current Opposition is about as effective as Michael Foot's Labour
>Opposition was in Mrs. T's early years.
>
>As to left-wing bias: well, maybe. As a leftie myself, I would be less
>likely to notice it and complain than a more right-leaning person. I think
>there may be an anti-government bias, but after six tears [TWATBILI] of
>bullsh*t, spin, lies and downright insults to the intelligence of
>broadcasters and public, I don't find that surprising. And anyway, it is
>the *job* of journalists in a democracy to probe, question and challenge the
>establishment. And left-wing bias for years? Those of us who remember the
>reporting of the Miners' Strike would find it hard to agree. My
>recollection is that every government has accused the BBC of having a
>political bias against it.
>--
>Sid
>Shepherds Bush, West London
We said more or less that today after listening to the Weekend at One.
The conservatives used to complain about the BBC and didn't the Wilson
government?
Governments want to be able to use the BBC to say what they want but
that is because the BBC are listened to worldwide when other radio
stations are felt to be under the control of their governments. If
any UK government succeeded in getting control of the BBC then there
would no longer be the same point in having control as people would no
longer believe it.
They might not be perfectly neutral just as our system might not be
perfectly democratic, but both are alot better than most of the
alternatives.
Jane Vernon
<sp...@labyrinth.freeuk.com> writes
>When interviewed by my own local rag a while
>back I spent some time persuading the reporter that my age was irrelevant
>to the story*, I suppose it is to his credit he did not make one up.
>
>Mayes" seems to me to contain at least two totally irrelevant facts
We had a photographer taking "pre" pictures last week and he insisted
that he had to know the ages of all three of us taking part in the
exhibition. We've never been asked that before, IIRC. I'm not
particularly coy about my age either, but somehow would just rather it
didn't say that that two of us were 35 and one of us 49. I have no
logical explanation for my feelings.
--
Jane
The potter in the purple socks
http://www.clothandclay.co.uk
http://www.clothandclay.co.uk/umra/cookbook/contents.htm
BrritSki
>
> BrritSki wrote
> >
> >I was amazed today to hear Gavin Davies talk about the BBC's "editorial
> >line".
> >
> >Hello ? Editorial line ? Since when has the BBC had one of those or am
> >I just naive ?
> >
> >Individual programs may have an editorial line, and individual
> >journalists may push their own opinions (whatever they maybe), but
> >afaiac the BBC overall should be neutral. I am seriously thinking of
> >stopping paying my licence fee if the BBC are going to take a political
> >stance. I've known for years that they have had one, but once again, I'm
> >amazed that they admit it and seem to be proud of it. Lord Reith would
> >be spinning in his grave (94KHz).
>
> Shurely an "editorial line" is about a judgement and interpretation of
> information received. That judgement can be influenced by many things,
> including political bias, but it is not the same thing as a political
> stance.
Perhaps you are right, but that's not how I interpreted what Davies was
saying.
> I don't know what the whole truth of the 45-minute business is. I
> hope the Inquiry (or is it Enquiry?) will shed some light, although I'm not
> that confident. I do, however, know that the Government has been
> *vehemently* denying things which the BBC has never accused them of.
Possibly, but see my answer below - the BBC in its knee-jerk defence of
Gilligan has made it easier for the Gov't to get away with this.
> Further, they have arranged for Dr Kelly's name to be made public and
> consequently for this seemingly decent, honourable and truthful man to be
> given a terrible time, following which he is dead. In the midst of all
> this, for a man with Alistair Campbell's (sp?) record to complain that
> someone has publicly interpreted information in a way that puts him and the
> government in a bad light is simply laughable.
Agreed also, but the BBC have played into his hands.
>
> I am *glad* that the BBC is standing up to the government. Somebody has to,
> and the current Opposition is about as effective as Michael Foot's Labour
> Opposition was in Mrs. T's early years.
I agree that the BBC should stand up for what is right and true. I'm not
at all convinced that this is what they've been doing with Gilligan.
As for the opposition, yes I'm ashamed of us :( But how much is their
ineffectiveness down to the drip drip drip of negative publicity from
the BBC ? Not all of it, and probably not even most of it, but I think
it's had a definite effect and is bad for democracy.
>
> As to left-wing bias: well, maybe. As a leftie myself, I would be less
> likely to notice it and complain than a more right-leaning person. I think
Understood - it's why we occasionally get some unthinking anti-right
bias here in umra - not from you - yours is *thinking* anti-right bias
:)
> there may be an anti-government bias, but after six tears [TWATBILI] of
> bullsh*t, spin, lies and downright insults to the intelligence of
> broadcasters and public, I don't find that surprising. And anyway, it is
> the *job* of journalists in a democracy to probe, question and challenge the
> establishment. And left-wing bias for years? Those of us who remember the
> reporting of the Miners' Strike would find it hard to agree. My
> recollection is that every government has accused the BBC of having a
> political bias against it.
>
Yes, but this Gov't didn't for the first few years when the love affair
was going strong.
Anyway, here's what I wrote in another place on the subject on Saturday:
Dr. Kelly spoke to 3 BBC journalists. Only 1 was attacked by Alisatair
Campbell because he was personally accused of adding things to the
war-justifying report and "sexing it up". While I have no doubt that the
Gov't and Campbell did mislead us and emphasise things to their
advantage, I doubt if the specific charge that Gilligan made on air and
in his Daily Mail article will stand up when the Inquiry reports -
certainly not on the basis of what Kelly told him. The BBC have long
since rowed back from the "inserted" claim to "undue emphasis" and from
specific claims against Campbell. The other 2 reporters didn't include
these claims, only Gilligan - he did exactly what he was accusing
Campbell of and he let Kelly get crucified by the Select Committee when
if he'd have admitted he was the source, we would all have known that
the sexing up was done by Gilligan, not by Kelly saying things that he
could have no knowledge of and not because the MoD wanted to hound him.
The really sad thing about this, as pointed out by Matthew Parrish in
today's Times, is that like the cheap shyster he is, Campbell can go
into battle with all guns blazing on 1 small inaccuracy and ignore the
much bigger picture. Pity a guy felt the need to kill himself over it
too.
The other really sad thing is this: The BBC have been biased for years.
Every Tory knows it - part of the reason that the BBC can claim to be
the only opposition is that they have been doing down the Tories for
decades. The BBC sucked up to Blair and his Gov't for years until they
decided they weren't left-wing enough. Some of the reporting before the
war and during the early phases about how everything was going wrong
was simply disgraceful. Most of the time they don't even realise they
are doing it, but it's inevitable when the great majority of the
journalists, news staff and management are left-wing Guardianistas, just
as it would be in the opposite direction if everyone was of my political
leaning. They are entitled to their opinions and to broadcast them, but
they should have alternative opinions too - a balanced political staff
and management will lead to balanced reporting. As it is, they will get
their come-uppance and will be severely punished by this, probably to
the extent IMHO of losing their public funding and I for one will be
glad as I'm fed-up funding propaganda for the anti-war movement, but
it's sad that we'll lose some of the excellent programs that the BBC has
made over the years.
And finally, all these people quibbling about whether WMDs are found or
not and who said what are doing exactly what Alistair Campbell is doing
- they're attacking the detail and missing the bigger picture. I have no
doubt at all that it was right to go to war to depose an evil tyrant and
mass murderer who was a threat to us all in the future. Despite my
dislike of Blair and everything else he has done, I think he was right
not to take a gamble on this one and risk deployment of biological,
chemical and nuclear weapons by terrorists very close to home.
Kim Andrews
<Purple...@clothandclay.co.uk> wrote:
>
>We had a photographer taking "pre" pictures last week and he insisted
>that he had to know the ages of all three of us taking part in the
>exhibition. We've never been asked that before, IIRC. I'm not
>particularly coy about my age either, but somehow would just rather it
>didn't say that that two of us were 35 and one of us 49. I have no
>logical explanation for my feelings.
I'm with you and Penny. I have never understood this compulsion to
put ages to every name in a report. If it's relevant, such as showing
the individual was only 14 when they got their degree, or 104 at the
time of their first sky-dive, then fine. Otherwise, who cares? It's
an invasion of privacy with no good excuse for it.
George Middleton
>That's pretty much my view. When interviewed by my own local rag a
>while back I spent some time persuading the reporter that my age was
>irrelevant to the story*, I suppose it is to his credit he did not make
>one up.
When there has been a road traffic accident the make and model of the
cars are usually stated even when *that* is irrelevant.
I think that these details just help to get people involved in the
story, particularly when there *is* no story.
--
George
Paradise Island Barchap
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 08:33:08 +0100, Jane Vernon
> <Purple...@clothandclay.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >We had a photographer taking "pre" pictures last week and he insisted
> >that he had to know the ages of all three of us taking part in the
> >exhibition. We've never been asked that before, IIRC. I'm not
> >particularly coy about my age either, but somehow would just rather it
> >didn't say that that two of us were 35 and one of us 49. I have no
> >logical explanation for my feelings.
>
> I'm with you and Penny. I have never understood this compulsion to
> put ages to every name in a report. If it's relevant, such as showing
> the individual was only 14 when they got their degree, or 104 at the
> time of their first sky-dive, then fine. Otherwise, who cares? It's
> an invasion of privacy with no good excuse for it.
How about telling the reporter: "I'll tell you mine if you'll tell me
yours (and print it)"?
Neil Hopkins
The by-line would have to be "Middle aged hack, 45, with sagging beer
belly and receding hairline, father of two" ...
--
neil h.
Anya : "I provide much needed sarcasm"
Xbox live : neil hopkins
Kim Andrews
<mi...@ellwoods.org.uk> wrote:
>
>How about telling the reporter: "I'll tell you mine if you'll tell me
>yours (and print it)"?
Reminds me of the Bernie Ecclestone / press exchange, at the time of
the Labour Party donation fracas. Paraphrased:
Journo: how much do you earn?
BE: how much do *you* earn?
J: 45K. So how much do you earn?
BE: I'm not telling you that.
J: But I told you!
BE: Yes, and that was very nice of you, but I don't choose to.
Made I larf.
Jane Vernon
<neil_h...@hotmail.com> writes
In our case if the photographer had not told us he had done two years
for a Manchester paper previously, I would have said he had left school
this year :)
Neil Hopkins
<Purple...@clothandclay.co.uk> wrote:
"Pimply faced youth, 18" ... :-)
Jane Vernon
Linda Fox
<Purple...@clothandclay.co.uk> wrote:
>>"Pimply faced youth, 18" ... :-)
>
>IRTA eighteen inches.
Increase the size of your pianist...
lff
Natalie Mayer-Hutchings
> Increase the size of your pianist...
...so's he can easily reach tenths, etc.?
nattie, emphatically not here, honest. Move along, nothing to see.
Bear
> In article <75baiv8l9ldm7kqur...@4ax.com>, Linda Fox wrote:
>
> > Increase the size of your pianist...
>
> ...so's he can easily reach tenths, etc.?
"These notes are small, but those are far away"
--
Bear
These are my own opinions, and not necessarily those of all Bears
"I was so much older then; I'm younger than that now"
Bear's Current Paw Track: Dust Junkies: "Movin' On (Mega Bubble Dub)"
Kim Andrews
<bastardUND...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Natalie Mayer-Hutchings wibbled ...
>> In article <75baiv8l9ldm7kqur...@4ax.com>, Linda Fox wrote:
>>
>> > Increase the size of your pianist...
>>
>> ...so's he can easily reach tenths, etc.?
>
>"These notes are small, but those are far away"
"Down with that sort of thing".
Linda Fox
Ney, welcome to umra, Nattie!
lff, Cambridge
BrritSki
>
> In message <3f250ed6....@news.cis.dfn.de>, Neil Hopkins
> <neil_h...@hotmail.com> writes
> >>
> >>for a Manchester paper previously, I would have said he had left school
> >>this year :)
> >
> >"Pimply faced youth, 18" ... :-)
>
> IRTA eighteen inches.
>
Dream on :)
Neil Hopkins
<nats-...@decadentplace.org.uk> wrote:
Heh. You don't get away that easily - no re-lurking allowed round
here. Welcome to UMRA, nattie!
Ben Blaney
>And finally, all these people quibbling about whether WMDs are found or
>not and who said what are doing exactly what Alistair Campbell is doing
>- they're attacking the detail and missing the bigger picture. I have no
>doubt at all that it was right to go to war to depose an evil tyrant and
>mass murderer who was a threat to us all in the future.
The bigger picture for me is that it was wrong for the US and the UK to
ignore the UN. That sets a very dangerous precedent.
--
Ben Blaney
There's no justice, there just is.
Kim Andrews
Mike McMillan
<lind...@ntlworld.com> writes
"If you want bigger triangles ...
--
Mike McMillan,
The email address is spam trapped but any genuine communications may be sent to
mike dot mcmillan at ntlworld dot com
"Let's all calm down shall we? Let's forget there is a llama in here at all."
(Lynda Snell, 010603)
Tel: (+44) 0118 9265450. website: <http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mike.mcmillan/>
Gumrat
Agreed. And may I put in a word for the Greek lawyers who are taking Blair
and various of his government to court for breach of international law?
All that puzzles me is, why aren't they trying to do the same to Bush Jr.?
All the best,
Anne, Gumrat.
--
Our motto is: Ever serve you right. (Gerard Hoffnung)
Gumrat
<siderius...@tesco.net> wrote:
>
> BrritSki wrote
>>
>> I was amazed today to hear Gavin Davies talk about the BBC's "editorial
>> line".
>>
>> Hello ? Editorial line ? Since when has the BBC had one of those or am
>> I just naive ?
<snip for space>
> I am *glad* that the BBC is standing up to the government. Somebody has
> to,
> and the current Opposition is about as effective as Michael Foot's Labour
> Opposition was in Mrs. T's early years.
Absolutely.
> As to left-wing bias: well, maybe. As a leftie myself, I would be less
> likely to notice it and complain than a more right-leaning person. I
> think
> there may be an anti-government bias, but after six tears [TWATBILI] of
> bullsh*t, spin, lies and downright insults to the intelligence of
> broadcasters and public, I don't find that surprising. And anyway, it is
> the *job* of journalists in a democracy to probe, question and challenge
> the
> establishment. And left-wing bias for years? Those of us who remember
> the
> reporting of the Miners' Strike would find it hard to agree. My
> recollection is that every government has accused the BBC of having a
> political bias against it.
MTAAW. Apparently, unbeknownst to me, since I first voted, I have changed
my political stance from slightly left of centre to extremely left-wing
- but *I* haven't moved, gov, honest:-))
<thread mingle>
As to mis-reporting of news - until husbad explained it to me and I
subsequently checked out Auntie Beeb's "Have your say" site, and saw
messages from some BA staff involved in the present dispute, I had
understood from the news items I'd heard, read and seen on various BBC
channels that it was simply an unreasonable argument about a new
clocking-on system using swipe-cards rather than signing-in. Not at
all. It's about something oddly (to my mind) called "annualisation",
whereby BA reserves the right to impose irregular shifts on staff, sending
staff on duty home during lulls and recalling them when it becomes busy
again, thus, effectively, constraining them to be available, though not
necessarily physically
present, for work for many more hours in the day than contractually agreed -
not
to mention the potential repercussions on child-care, family and social
lives,
as well as the further costs which would be incurred through travelling
to and from work more than once daily. (Check this link out for fuller info
(from both points of view!):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3089507.stm
*I'd* be out wild-catting (go *away*, Brritski) if someone were trying to
impose those working conditions on me. (Of course, Swiss law being what it
is, I wouldn't, as, as far as I can tell, it's illegal to be a trade-union
member here - Jo, hammerite?)
All the best,
Anne, ranting Gumrat (sorry, exceptionally bad day).
--
Ignore all left and right signs, these are merely political slogans.
(Gerard Hoffnung)
Chris McMillan
Paradise Island Barchap <mi...@ellwoods.org.uk> writes
>On Sat, 26 Jul 2003, Penny wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 19:13:19 +0100,
>> allspamwil...@rickmansworth.mersinet.co.uk (Fenny) scrawled in the
>> dust...
>>
>> >Previously on Buffy the Vampire Slayer ^W^W^W^W uk.media.radio.archers,
>> >I heard Penny say...
>> >> It occurred to me while following the "teenage girl absconds with internet
>> >> pen pal" story on radio news while we were away that tabloid journalism is
>> >> soap opera.
>> >>
>> >You've only just noticed this? I've been firmly of the belief for many
>> >years that there is probably more truth in the average volume of Beano,
>> >Dandy, Batman or comic of your choice than most tabloid papers. And the
>> >comics tend to be a better read and have fewer pornographic images.
>>
>> I wasn't thinking so much of the fictitious nature of most journalism, I've
>> been aware of that since the age of about 12 when my ma was "quoted" by the
>> local paper when she hadn't even spoken to them. It was more a sort of
>> revelation about celebrity and its appeal to the masses. We will gossip and
>> speculate here about Susan Carter or Toady Rebecci, safe in the knowledge
>> that no real people will be harmed. "News" media try to give us the same
>> sort of insight into real people's lives, presumably so we will view them
>> in the same way and want to know what happens next. It's just a shame they
>> feel the need to make up the stuff they don't know.
>
>
>In my rare brushes with the broadcast media
>
Things have changed a lot since we first started getting our knickers
flashed back in the early 1970s when we set up a local charity and did a
lot of fundraising. Then, it was definitely that your name was spelt
wrongly, and the facts were definitely 'slanted' to over-dramatise them.
>
These days when we've had things published, they are more or less word
for word what we've said.
>
>event) I was struck by the artificiality of it all. It's not
>so much that they put words into your mouth, but they definitely
>want an "angle",
>
Both - but what I dislike - and am no good at - is apparently giving
your views to the thin air. Until the last couple of years one did at
least hear a preceding question - even if the interview was down the
phone. But recently In Touch have rung me up, talked to me about what
they want me to say, and then told me how many seconds I have to put
that point over. And I've muffed it. It just isn't me. Didn't make it
easier when I did a short piece for TV.
>
>is (especially with TV) how artifically they setup the scenes. I realise
>this is partly a limitation of the medium,
>
Its to do with lighting the area as much as anything. And an insistance
that the lighting doesn't change. Anyone who's seen our kitchen will
know how much daylight/sun we can get over a few hours.
>
Doing something for a news programme with lots of other people is
comparatively easy.
Sincerely Chris
>
--
Chris McMillan
reply to: chris.m...@ntlworld.com
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mike.mcmillan/
Chris McMillan
<slrnbiacoo.9t...@bunthorne.i.decadentplace.org.uk>, Natalie
Mayer-Hutchings <nats-...@decadentplace.org.uk> writes
Well you're welcome Natalie.
Nick Atty
wrote:
>MTAAW. Apparently, unbeknownst to me, since I first voted, I have changed
>my political stance from slightly left of centre to extremely left-wing
> - but *I* haven't moved, gov, honest:-))
That's trivial. I've moved from wet Tory to far to the left of Labour.
But somehow I feel I've stood still while this has happened.
--
On-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk
(Waterways World site of the month, April 2001)
Bear
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:25:15 +0200, Gumrat <simply...@operamail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >MTAAW. Apparently, unbeknownst to me, since I first voted, I have changed
> >my political stance from slightly left of centre to extremely left-wing
> > - but *I* haven't moved, gov, honest:-))
>
> That's trivial. I've moved from wet Tory to far to the left of Labour.
> But somehow I feel I've stood still while this has happened.
Why am I reminded of the "History Now" sketch that ends with the
punchline "that's how *you* drive, that is. All over the shop"
:)
Natalie Mayer-Hutchings
> Well you're welcome Natalie.
Aw, thanks :) I'll stick around then and will post if I have something
relevant/irrelevant/daft (delete as appropriate) to say.
nattie
(hoping the man in the bright coat doesn't spot her)
BrritSki
and achieve something with UN backing if France hadn't acted as they
did.
BrritSki
It would be too funny if he was extradited to Greece under the new EU
treaty. Let's see how keen he would be on Europe if that happened.
BrritSki
>
> As to mis-reporting of news - until husbad explained it to me and I
> subsequently checked out Auntie Beeb's "Have your say" site, and saw
> messages from some BA staff involved in the present dispute, I had
> understood from the news items I'd heard, read and seen on various BBC
> channels that it was simply an unreasonable argument about a new
> clocking-on system using swipe-cards rather than signing-in. Not at
> all. It's about something oddly (to my mind) called "annualisation",
Yes, that was reported here from early on, maybe not on the BBC
(although I think it probably was) but certainly in the Times. BA claim
that this was never their intention, and that they wouldn't need a new
system to do this - they could do it with the current pen and paper
system.
Their baggage handlers have had this swipe-card system for 3 years
apparently without problems, although they are now talking about a
strike ballot too.
Reports this weekend say that what it is REALLY about is stopping
time-theft, where people were signed in and out by others when they were
actually elsewhere in an echo of the Fleet St. disputes a couple of
decades ago.
I have no idea what if any of this is true, and I certainly share
otherrats experience where I know the real facts behind a story and see
how it is distorted in reports in both TV and press.
What is certainly true is that BA have to change to meet the challenges
of the likes of Ryanair and EZJet, they have shed a lot of cost and jobs
but still need to go further, and there seems to have been a break-down
in communications both ways. It seems like the 3 unions involved having
different views is not helping with a resolution either.
What really staggered me was how little the counter-staff get paid
- 10-12K pa was reported, not sure if that was for a full week though
- (news merge) can't they get some asylum seekers in to do the job ?
<--irony smiley
Jo Lonergan
<simply...@operamail.com> wrote:
>Agreed. And may I put in a word for the Greek lawyers who are taking Blair
>and various of his government to court for breach of international law?
>All that puzzles me is, why aren't they trying to do the same to Bush Jr.?
>
Because it's the International Criminal Court. The US opposes it, and
has been pressuring signatories into signing exemptions for US
nationals. (No doubt on the grounds that, if you're the White Hats,
nothing you might do can actually be wrong)
--
Jo
Jo Lonergan
<spam...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Things have changed a lot since we first started getting our knickers
>flashed back in the early 1970s when we set up a local charity and did a
>lot of fundraising. Then, it was definitely that your name was spelt
>wrongly, and the facts were definitely 'slanted' to over-dramatise them.
> >
>These days when we've had things published, they are more or less word
>for word what we've said.
Probably because you're publishing them in digital form? It's easier
to cut and paste than to write something original.
--
Jo
Jo Lonergan
wrote:
My feeling at the time is that they would have been glad to have the
UN on board, but they were going to war anyway, and on a date that had
already been decided. The UN discussions were only going to go on as
long it took them to get their forces into position.
--
Jo
Jo Lonergan
wrote:
(BA dispute)
>Reports this weekend say that what it is REALLY about is stopping
>time-theft, where people were signed in and out by others when they were
>actually elsewhere in an echo of the Fleet St. disputes a couple of
>decades ago.
>
But what I don't understand is how swiping a card, which after all can
easily be detached from the person, is going to prevent this? There's
nothing to stop them from e.g. giving the card to a colleague to swipe
later and leaving for home via the public areas. Don't they have
supervisors to notice if desks are left unmanned?
<snip>
>What really staggered me was how little the counter-staff get paid
>- 10-12K pa was reported, not sure if that was for a full week though
>- (news merge) can't they get some asylum seekers in to do the job ?
> <--irony smiley
I wonder if it includes shift allowances? The counters are open about
18 hours a day.
You'd be surprised how many people working in central London get paid
similar salaries. I can't understand how they can afford to live in
the region, even with two full-time earners in a household.
--
Jo
Kim Andrews
<jolon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>But what I don't understand is how swiping a card, which after all can
>easily be detached from the person, is going to prevent this? There's
>nothing to stop them from e.g. giving the card to a colleague to swipe
>later and leaving for home via the public areas. Don't they have
>supervisors to notice if desks are left unmanned?
As the card would need to be returned to the original owner to allow
them to wipe back in, there's a good chance it would at least *reduce*
such abuse, isn't there? There's quite a difference between signing
somebody out, and swiping them out then visiting their home to return
the card. Of course, drinking buddies or neighbours would still have
a simple route should they wish to cheat, but *if* the problem is of
the scale BA are implying, even a reduction would represent quite a
saving, I suppose.
Stephen GC Tilley
>
>On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 07:30:28 +0100, BrritSki <Brri...@iname.com>
>wrote:
>
>(BA dispute)
>
>>Reports this weekend say that what it is REALLY about is stopping
>>time-theft, where people were signed in and out by others when they were
>>actually elsewhere in an echo of the Fleet St. disputes a couple of
>>decades ago.
>>
>But what I don't understand is how swiping a card, which after all can
>easily be detached from the person, is going to prevent this?
CCTV?
AIUI they currently use a manual system. Now when I was under a similar system
you had to keep your timesheet on your desk all the time. One of the reasons was
so that colleagues could know if you'd signed off for the day (or not arrived
yet). I can't see how this could be properly enforced with staff who move around
from one place to another all day as part of their work. So I think time-theft
is a valid managerial concern - equally I see how the unions resent it as, IME,
union personnel tend to be the worst thieves of time although, on the othewr
hand, the worst time thief I ever worked with was an extreme right-winger.
--
Stephen Tilley -+- Ste...@Tilley.net
No longer resident in the South East.
Stephen GC Tilley
>
>In article <Jvo2eRDCQZJ$Ew...@ntlworld.com>, Chris McMillan wrote:
>
>> Well you're welcome Natalie.
>
>Aw, thanks :) I'll stick around then and will post if I have something
>relevant/irrelevant/daft (delete as appropriate) to say.
I think you'll find all three are equally acceptable.
Mike Ellwood
The capitalist system depends on large numbers of people being prepared
to accept, or being forced into accepting, low wages. At one time they
were in fields, factories or down mines. Now they are in cleaner
(if not healthier) environments and have to dress smartly, but they are
no less wage slaves.
Recently I heard a critique of the current Labour Government, as compared
to previous Labour post-war governments. The latter had tended to
reduce the differences between rich and poor. the former had overseen
the continued increase, as encouraged by the 79-96 Tory period.
Of course the Tories openly believe in such differences, but even
"New" Labour might have been expected to be different. I think they
have genuinely tried to mitigate the effects of extreme povety, but
in other respects, they seem quite happy with the notion of a two-tier
society. "They" will always be in the upper tier, of course.
Stephen GC Tilley
>
>On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 08:33:08 +0100, Jane Vernon
><Purple...@clothandclay.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>We had a photographer taking "pre" pictures last week and he insisted
>>that he had to know the ages of all three of us taking part in the
>>exhibition. We've never been asked that before, IIRC. I'm not
>>particularly coy about my age either, but somehow would just rather it
>>didn't say that that two of us were 35 and one of us 49. I have no
>>logical explanation for my feelings.
>
>I'm with you and Penny. I have never understood this compulsion to
>put ages to every name in a report. If it's relevant, such as showing
>the individual was only 14 when they got their degree, or 104 at the
>time of their first sky-dive, then fine. Otherwise, who cares? It's
>an invasion of privacy with no good excuse for it.
Many years ago, when I was worth interviewing, a journo explained that it was in
your (the interviewee's) interests that they quoted your age. It was to stop
other readers contacting you to say "are you the <insert name here> who was at
<insert name of school, uni, military unit, asylum> in 1970? The theory was that
if they knew you to be of an age that made that impossible then you wouldn't be
pestered.
The supplementary reason given was that if they padded out the story with a
picture of you it helped the picture editor use the right one, which is why
photographers always ask.
Had I took the hint about co-education-receivers trying to locate one another I
would have invented Friends Reunited and be very rich by now.
Kim Andrews
wrote:
>
>Many years ago, when I was worth interviewing, a journo explained that it was in
>your (the interviewee's) interests that they quoted your age. It was to stop
>other readers contacting you to say "are you the <insert name here> who was at
><insert name of school, uni, military unit, asylum> in 1970? The theory was that
>if they knew you to be of an age that made that impossible then you wouldn't be
>pestered.
<cough> Bullshit! </cough> ;o) ... unless they were printing your
address and telephone number as well, folks could wonder as much as
they liked, but it wasn't going impact on you.
Jo Lonergan
<simply...@operamail.com> wrote:
Well, they've got a federation, so I suppose that somebody has joined:
http://www.sgb.ch/fr/f-homeframeset.html
I have a friend who works for a large German airline at Basel airport.
The deterioration in her conditions over the last ten years or so has
been (IMO) outrageous. If BA has similar plans, I'd encourage the
staff to walk out now, and look for somewhere else to work.
--
Jo
Paradise Island Barchap
Well you can't have something for nothing, "you" in this case being the
passengers. You can't go on and on cutting prices and expect it not to
be paid for somewhere. In this case it is (arguably) worse working
conditions (and probably wages) for the staff. Interesting that BA
are using the "M" word (modernisation).
In any case, I'm not at all sure we should be encouraging more and more
air travel. It is harmful to the environment, directly and indirectly
with all sorts of knock-on effects.
Mike Ellwood
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:25:15 +0200, Gumrat <simply...@operamail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >MTAAW. Apparently, unbeknownst to me, since I first voted, I have changed
> >my political stance from slightly left of centre to extremely left-wing
> > - but *I* haven't moved, gov, honest:-))
>
> That's trivial. I've moved from wet Tory to far to the left of Labour.
> But somehow I feel I've stood still while this has happened.
I'd guess that all of the post-war Tory Prime Ministers prior to
Margaret Thatcher were well to the left of Tony Blair, in practice,
if not in theory.
Jo Lonergan
Back in the 70s, I remember wishing that the two main parties weren't
so similar. Then we got Thatch :-(
--
Jo
Jo Lonergan
wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, I'm sure that I heard Natalie say ...
>>
>>In article <Jvo2eRDCQZJ$Ew...@ntlworld.com>, Chris McMillan wrote:
>>
>>> Well you're welcome Natalie.
>>
>>Aw, thanks :) I'll stick around then and will post if I have something
>>relevant/irrelevant/daft (delete as appropriate) to say.
>
>I think you'll find all three are equally acceptable.
But especially daft, if I may express a preference.
--
Jo
Paradise Island Barchap
> On 29 Jul 2003 03:20:23 -0700, Stephen GC Tilley <Ste...@Tilley.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Many years ago, when I was worth interviewing, a journo explained that it was in
> >your (the interviewee's) interests that they quoted your age. It was to stop
> >other readers contacting you to say "are you the <insert name here> who was at
> ><insert name of school, uni, military unit, asylum> in 1970? The theory was that
> >if they knew you to be of an age that made that impossible then you wouldn't be
> >pestered.
>
> <cough> Bullshit! </cough> ;o) ... unless they were printing your
> address and telephone number as well, folks could wonder as much as
> they liked, but it wasn't going impact on you.
I wonder if you have the right to remain anonymous (like Kenneth Horne
in one of his radio shows). So that then, if you were on good terms
with the reporter, you could weave an idealised portrait of yourself
for the readers to enjoy, you know, in just the way that (as mentioned
here some time ago) all umrats are beautiful and/or handsome, if female
slender and willowy, if male slim but muscular, intelligent, gifted,
humourous and generous, perfect cooks, connoisseurs of the finest
beers, wines and chocolates, good in the garden and in bed (flowerbed
of course).
BrritSki
>
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, I'm sure that I heard Natalie say ...
> >
> >In article <Jvo2eRDCQZJ$Ew...@ntlworld.com>, Chris McMillan wrote:
> >
> >> Well you're welcome Natalie.
> >
> >Aw, thanks :) I'll stick around then and will post if I have something
> >relevant/irrelevant/daft (delete as appropriate) to say.
>
> I think you'll find all three are equally acceptable.
>
Marjorie Clarke
"Penny" <sp...@labyrinth.freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:9rs7iv0msb9qa8m6f...@4ax.com...
> * I'm not particularly coy about my age but "51 year old widow, Penny
> Mayes" seems to me to contain at least two totally irrelevant facts
I'm kind of hoping to get described as "Local grandmother" or something like
that, now that this title is one I can legitimately claim. But I don't seem
to have done anything newsworthy enough to make the papers lately. I really
must try harder.
I am in the habit of riding my bike on the seafront promenade, in
contravention the by-laws, and sometimes elderly men shout at me for it
(it's always men and they're always in their sixties). I'm really looking
forward to saying to the next one: "Look, it's not an invading tank, It's
not a raging bull. It's a a grandmother on a pushbike, OK? Am I really such
a threat to your safety? Go and worry about something worthwhile!"
I suppose there are lots of times when it is of some interest, if not
crucial. to know the person's age. In RTAs, for instance, it's often easier
to understand why it happened when you read that the driver (or the
pedestrian he hit) was 88. Or, for that matter,18. The recent south coast
diving tragedy is a similar case in point: local divers who dive around here
regularly want to know what happened and reassure themselves there was an
avoidable reason for it. In this case, the diver who died was a 58-year-old
attempting (I think) a 60-metre dive in fairly rough conditions. No doubt
there will eventually be an official verdict, but the dangers of such a deep
dive in a choppy sea are likely to have been compounded by the diver being
past his prime, even though experienced.
--
Marjorie Clarke (Worthing grandmother, 55)
Paradise Island Barchap
> Marjorie Clarke (Worthing grandmother, 55)
ITYM "Slim and Willowy, of Worthing".
You could have had "seaside temptress", but I couldn't make it
alliterate.
Major James Bigglesworth
Paradise Island Barchap <mi...@ellwoods.org.uk> writes
>
>I wonder if you have the right to remain anonymous (like Kenneth Horne
>in one of his radio shows). So that then, if you were on good terms
>with the reporter, you could weave an idealised portrait of yourself
>for the readers to enjoy, you know, in just the way that (as mentioned
>here some time ago) all umrats are beautiful and/or handsome, if female
>slender and willowy, if male slim but muscular, intelligent, gifted,
>humourous and generous, perfect cooks, connoisseurs of the finest
>beers, wines and chocolates, good in the garden and in bed (flowerbed
>of course).
>
Someone called?
--
Major James Bigglesworth DSO, DFC
http://members.lycos.co.uk/Biggles266/main.htm
Ben Blaney
>Ben Blaney wrote:
>>
>> The bigger picture for me is that it was wrong for the US and the UK to
>> ignore the UN. That sets a very dangerous precedent.
>>
>True - but I think they (well Blair anyway) would have continued to try
>and achieve something with UN backing if France hadn't acted as they
>did.
I heard from French geezer on the radio a few days ago (Any Questions,
it could have been) and he categorically denied that the French had
their minds made up on the issue, contrary to popular press opinion.
In any case, it doesn't justify the US and the UK ignoring the UN to say
that the French were about the queer the pitch.
--
Ben Blaney
There's no justice, there just is.
Stephen GC Tilley
>
>On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Marjorie Clarke wrote:
>
>> Marjorie Clarke (Worthing grandmother, 55)
>
>ITYM "Slim and Willowy, of Worthing".
>
>You could have had "seaside temptress", but I couldn't make it
>alliterate.
I suppose "Seaside Siren" could be misunderstood.