This isn't a the usual rant, this is a brief love letter. I have just taken delivery of a BMW 325i Coupe thanks to LingsCars.com. Ling Valentine runs an online business providing car leasing. I can't guarantee that it is the cheapest you can find, although I think it might well be. I certainly feel that I got a brilliant deal. Ling acts as agent, a go-between, between finance companies, car dealerships and the consumer. Well, her website says it all. It is a little mad, but I received a brilliant service from Ling and her small team, and I thoroughly recommend them.
But to the car! I fell in love with the design two years ago and would have bought one then if circumstances had allowed. As it was, I waited two years to lease one. I still love the design - the car looks gorgeous - and I am happy to say that the car drives every bit as well as I remember from the test drives two years ago. "The ultimate driving machine" indeed. Put your foot down in 6th gear at 50mph and the car feels like it is in 3rd.
But it is the gadgets, always the gadgets. Load a CD and the iDrive system asks you if you want to save it in the car's 12Gb hard drive. At the same time it will download the track details from Gracenote using the in-car telematics. It doesn't matter if someone has adjusted the driver's seat - open the car with your own remote and the seat automatically goes back to your preferred settings. Tell the satnav where you want to go and it will guide you, as well as point out items of interest such as petrol stations, restaurants and museums. Tell it mind, there's no need to press any buttons!
Well, what can I say? I'm easily pleased.
Friday, 29 October 2010
Tuesday, 12 October 2010
Mind The Space
Classic case of a corporation gaining gazillions of dollars of free promotion simply by inventing a story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11520930.
To be fair, there may be more than a kernel of truth in the original 'story', but boy has Gap successfully milked it for all it was worth.
So are the media outlets suckers? No, they're just playing the game. They know it is far cheaper to simply recycle a press release than to approach it with journalistic scepticism. The former is just commercial sense. The latter would be... like... ethical or something.
To be fair, there may be more than a kernel of truth in the original 'story', but boy has Gap successfully milked it for all it was worth.
So are the media outlets suckers? No, they're just playing the game. They know it is far cheaper to simply recycle a press release than to approach it with journalistic scepticism. The former is just commercial sense. The latter would be... like... ethical or something.
Tuesday, 28 September 2010
Oh, Just Grow Up!
Hurrah. Ed Miliband is urging the media to be 'grown up' in its political reporting. He illustrated his point by saying: "Red Ed? Come off it".
Media soundbite - check.
Grown up politics - er...
Media soundbite - check.
Grown up politics - er...
Monday, 27 September 2010
Won't Someone Think Of The Children?
Apparently To Kill A Mockingbird is one of the most objected-to novels on US curriculae, due largely to the language used.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11417672
As one 'commenter' points out, use of the word "nigger" reflects in part the era in which the book was set. However, we can make a broader statement. In order to excuse particular forms of language in novels, it is enough to recognise that reported speech is just that. If we want authors to write honestly and meaningfully, we need to accept that characters in novels will sometimes use language that we do not approve of. If parents object to that, they are in effect saying they want their children to be sheltered from certain aspects of reality. That is OK to a point, of course, but it sounds as though there are an awful lot of censorious parents out there who cannot tolerate any version of reality that doesn't look and sound a lot like Disneyland.
Catcher In The Rye is also on the list for similar reasons. A shame. It should be on the list because it's rubbish.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11417672
As one 'commenter' points out, use of the word "nigger" reflects in part the era in which the book was set. However, we can make a broader statement. In order to excuse particular forms of language in novels, it is enough to recognise that reported speech is just that. If we want authors to write honestly and meaningfully, we need to accept that characters in novels will sometimes use language that we do not approve of. If parents object to that, they are in effect saying they want their children to be sheltered from certain aspects of reality. That is OK to a point, of course, but it sounds as though there are an awful lot of censorious parents out there who cannot tolerate any version of reality that doesn't look and sound a lot like Disneyland.
Catcher In The Rye is also on the list for similar reasons. A shame. It should be on the list because it's rubbish.
Wednesday, 15 September 2010
Dope
The Pope is coming, lock up your children!
Alright, I admit it, I'm not a fan. After all, the Pope apparently believes in 'God', so it would be somewhat difficult for me to be an admirer. I don't generally hero worship the mentally ill.
I could go on about how El Papa's visit to the UK is going to cost me and my fellow taxpayers £10m plus all the policing costs. But so what? We frequently host vile heads of state (although I note that Joe Ratzinger's status as such is highly debateable - something to do with an illegal agreement signed by Mussolini). Anyway, £10m is nothing in the scheme of things. What is it compared to, say, the molestation of nine boys by a priest in one case in one diocese in one country (the scale of paedophilia in the Catholic church is such that Wikipedia lists 10 separate cases involving hundreds of children in the UK alone - not even a catholic country. I refer specifically to the case of Father Michael Hill, jailed for abusing nine boys over 20 years, so take your own guess at the true number he abused.)
Actually, most of the things worth saying were summed up slightly obliquely by Ben Goldacre a few days ago in The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/11/bad-science-pope-anti-condom), so I leave it to him:
"You will have your own views on the discrimination against women, the homophobia, and the international criminal conspiracy to cover up for mass child rape. My special interest is his role in the 2 million people who die of Aids each year."
Alright, I admit it, I'm not a fan. After all, the Pope apparently believes in 'God', so it would be somewhat difficult for me to be an admirer. I don't generally hero worship the mentally ill.
I could go on about how El Papa's visit to the UK is going to cost me and my fellow taxpayers £10m plus all the policing costs. But so what? We frequently host vile heads of state (although I note that Joe Ratzinger's status as such is highly debateable - something to do with an illegal agreement signed by Mussolini). Anyway, £10m is nothing in the scheme of things. What is it compared to, say, the molestation of nine boys by a priest in one case in one diocese in one country (the scale of paedophilia in the Catholic church is such that Wikipedia lists 10 separate cases involving hundreds of children in the UK alone - not even a catholic country. I refer specifically to the case of Father Michael Hill, jailed for abusing nine boys over 20 years, so take your own guess at the true number he abused.)
Actually, most of the things worth saying were summed up slightly obliquely by Ben Goldacre a few days ago in The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/11/bad-science-pope-anti-condom), so I leave it to him:
"You will have your own views on the discrimination against women, the homophobia, and the international criminal conspiracy to cover up for mass child rape. My special interest is his role in the 2 million people who die of Aids each year."
Wednesday, 11 August 2010
Filth
Most puzzled by this comment on bbc.co.uk about Channel Five: "Plans to invest £1.5bn in the channel for programming over the next five years were also confirmed." Wow! That's the UK's fifth terrestrial television channel? The one recently acquired (subject to Ofcom approval) by Richard Desmond? One-point-five billion pounds?
Sounds pretty amazing. That much cash could produce an awful lot of quality drama. Or educational documentaries. Or top drawer news output. Or it could buy in the very latest and best of US programming. But this is Richard Desmond, the owner of Northern and Shell; the publisher of OK! Magazine, The Daily Express and The Daily Star? That much money sounds just a little unlikely given the editorial values at Express Group Newspapers. This is a publisher that doesn't believe in journalists, cribs most of its stories from the internet, makes the rest up, and the main purpose of whose newspapers is to plug OK! and sell premium rate phone competitions to premium rate stupid people?
Well I never. Perhaps I'm being unfair on Des (Dirty Des to his friends). £1.5bn! Let's have a closer look at what sort of programming we might expect. This is easier than you might think. After all, Des already broadcasts numerous satellite/cable channels, so he's not new to the game. let's have a look at the sort of programmes his other channels produce. Rim Junkies. Hmm. A programme about golfers who actually enjoy missing puts? Strange. What's this? Man Bitch. Er, a nature documentary about a lesser known bread of asexual canines? More and more puzzling. But what are the television channels called? Dirty Talk.... Red Hot Fetish....
Now it makes sense. You see Desmond is a pornographer. Nothing wrong with that in my mind, but is it really appropriate that one of the UK's five terrestrial television stations is owned and run by a man who made his millions publishing porn magazines such as Asian Babes? Maybe? OK, what about a man whose businesses have: -
- been reprimanded by the television regulator on numerous occasions for broadcasting R18-rated material which can only legally be sold in sex shops;
- had numerous complaints upheld by the Advertising Standards Authority regarding dubious reader offers in its publications;
- been censured by the Press Complaints Commission for failing to provide adequate apologies for arroneous or inappropriate stories on six occasions;
- made numerous libel settlements for false stories, including "more than 100 articles (about Madeleine McCann's parents) which were seriously defamatory to the couple"; and
- received a criminal prosecution for printing a misleading cover line on OK!?
The man who has in the past associated with the New York mafia; the man who has paid compensation to a ex-employer for physically assaulting him; the man who has just paid off a female member of staff to avoid an accusation of sexual harrassment?
Ofcom has the power to overrule the acquisition, but it seems highly likely that they will wave it through, deeming Desmond a "fit and proper person". Sigh!
£1.5bn! Amazing. Another rquote from the story: "The £20m cost-cutting drive is past of an 'ambitious new investment plan that will see the channel go toe-to-toe with the biggest players in the TV world,' a statement from the channel added." (emphasis mine). This is the true story. Desmond will come in and slash costs wherever possible. To the maximum extent permissable by the regultor, programming will consist of plugs for Desmond's other business (see The Daily Express for a sample), cut-price celebrity nonsense (you ain't seen nothing yet), 'tasteful' soft pornography and late night t&a. The "£1.5bn" investment story is, how does one say.... 'bollocks'.
In case you were wondering, "Filth" is the title of another one of Desmond's existing television channels, but seems an appropriate heading for slightly different reasons.
Sounds pretty amazing. That much cash could produce an awful lot of quality drama. Or educational documentaries. Or top drawer news output. Or it could buy in the very latest and best of US programming. But this is Richard Desmond, the owner of Northern and Shell; the publisher of OK! Magazine, The Daily Express and The Daily Star? That much money sounds just a little unlikely given the editorial values at Express Group Newspapers. This is a publisher that doesn't believe in journalists, cribs most of its stories from the internet, makes the rest up, and the main purpose of whose newspapers is to plug OK! and sell premium rate phone competitions to premium rate stupid people?
Well I never. Perhaps I'm being unfair on Des (Dirty Des to his friends). £1.5bn! Let's have a closer look at what sort of programming we might expect. This is easier than you might think. After all, Des already broadcasts numerous satellite/cable channels, so he's not new to the game. let's have a look at the sort of programmes his other channels produce. Rim Junkies. Hmm. A programme about golfers who actually enjoy missing puts? Strange. What's this? Man Bitch. Er, a nature documentary about a lesser known bread of asexual canines? More and more puzzling. But what are the television channels called? Dirty Talk.... Red Hot Fetish....
Now it makes sense. You see Desmond is a pornographer. Nothing wrong with that in my mind, but is it really appropriate that one of the UK's five terrestrial television stations is owned and run by a man who made his millions publishing porn magazines such as Asian Babes? Maybe? OK, what about a man whose businesses have: -
- been reprimanded by the television regulator on numerous occasions for broadcasting R18-rated material which can only legally be sold in sex shops;
- had numerous complaints upheld by the Advertising Standards Authority regarding dubious reader offers in its publications;
- been censured by the Press Complaints Commission for failing to provide adequate apologies for arroneous or inappropriate stories on six occasions;
- made numerous libel settlements for false stories, including "more than 100 articles (about Madeleine McCann's parents) which were seriously defamatory to the couple"; and
- received a criminal prosecution for printing a misleading cover line on OK!?
The man who has in the past associated with the New York mafia; the man who has paid compensation to a ex-employer for physically assaulting him; the man who has just paid off a female member of staff to avoid an accusation of sexual harrassment?
Ofcom has the power to overrule the acquisition, but it seems highly likely that they will wave it through, deeming Desmond a "fit and proper person". Sigh!
£1.5bn! Amazing. Another rquote from the story: "The £20m cost-cutting drive is past of an 'ambitious new investment plan that will see the channel go toe-to-toe with the biggest players in the TV world,' a statement from the channel added." (emphasis mine). This is the true story. Desmond will come in and slash costs wherever possible. To the maximum extent permissable by the regultor, programming will consist of plugs for Desmond's other business (see The Daily Express for a sample), cut-price celebrity nonsense (you ain't seen nothing yet), 'tasteful' soft pornography and late night t&a. The "£1.5bn" investment story is, how does one say.... 'bollocks'.
In case you were wondering, "Filth" is the title of another one of Desmond's existing television channels, but seems an appropriate heading for slightly different reasons.
Tuesday, 10 August 2010
It's the ship that made the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs
I started this blog entry back in July. I only got as far as a title and now (in September) have no idea what it was supposed to be about. I expect it was something to do with what a knob George Lucas is, or the decline of mainstream cinema after 1977, or how Jennifer Aniston should win a lifetime achievement Oscar for her diligent and repeated interpretations of the character 'Jennifer Aniston' in the increasingly little-known genre 'RomComs featuring Jennifer Aniston as Jennifer Aniston'. Or something like that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)