What right has the Daily Mail to kill a career?

Lord Browne, chairman of BP, has resigned after failing to stop an article about his relationship with his former partner.

Jeff Chevalier had a 4 year long relationship with the head of BP before deciding to sell his story to the Daily Mail.

So why did the mail publish this story?

Because through it they could give a malicious, unnecessary and school bully style kicking to someone who earns lots of money. That is it. In the story there were also allegations of improper use of BP resources (denied by every one), but the only real reason is that Lord Browne is Gay.

Oh my god!! Lord Browne is gay!!! Lets all rush to the papers and destroy the horrible little man!

So what?

The Daily Mail, this miserable little paper, really has nothing better to do than kick someone who has been very well regarded in running one of Britain's highest profile and most successful companies.

Unfortunately, in his complete embarrassment, Lord Browne was not truthful about how he and Jeff Chevalier met, and now may face perjury charges. The editors of the Mail must be wetting themselves in their pathetic glee.

THIS is our society, where the bully wins, where publishers think they are the real judge and jury, should decide who runs the country, should promote the religion of celebrity and should do it all so they can take our money.

We had the stone age, the bronze age, the industrial age - this was meant to be the enlightened technology age, but instead it is just the Bully Age.


Nobody

BBC Artcle: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6612703.stm

Tags: Lord Browne, BP, Daily Mail, Gay, Bully

How the Press exploit victims

The BBC today is reporting how victims and families of victims of the 7/7 attacks in London are pushing the government for a full blown, independent inquiry into how the intelligence services conducted their inquiries. Click Here

These people are being exploited by the press to CREATE news that just isn't there.

Yes, there were contacts between the Fertilizer bombers and the 7/7 bombers - there were contacts with a thousand or so other people too. This was a massive intelligence operation, but despite that, there is no way that every single contact could have been followed continuously. And, lets face it, at that early stage how was anyone to guess these two people would go on to become suicide bombers 18 months later?

But still, the press sinks it's teeth into the victims. The press knows that the victims have no more valid opinion than the rest of us. In fact, like the rest of us, they know nothing of how intelligence operations of this type are conducted, what the limitations are and what is in reality possible. The press know that the victims can, however, be used for unreasonable, emotional pressure - with real reason other than the presses obsessive desire to make a story far bigger than it is.

So, the press encourage, push, mislead, anything to get the relatives to say the things that make great headlines.

And the victims groups - do they know how they are being used? Do they realise that they are not only the innocent victims of the terrorists, but are now the victims of the medias money making machine?

Sadly, victims, understandably grieving, often do not see how they are being used and abused by the media. Some do - in all of these groups there are always a few families who say nothing, do not go to the meetings or join the protests. But many do - and are sucked up, chewed and spat out by the press.

It is one of the sickest crimes of our modern society.

Tags: BBC, press, victims, 7/7, fertilizer bombers, exploitation

Naughty BBC Iplayer!

The BBC is launching later this year an iplayer to enable people to use their new, upcoming on demand service.

Slight catch - it will only work with Microsoft Windows!

If you are a Mac user you might get a version in 2 years time. If you are a Linux user you might as well whistle!

Even the BBC Trust are not too happy about this: Click Here

Does this mean that the BBC have accepted Microsoft's domination of the market without question? Does this mean that they, a publically funded body have decided to help promote Windows Vista and it's build in DRM?

Bill Gates must feel like hugging them!

So, if you are a MAC user, or a Linux user or simply don't think that the BBC should be allowed to get away with this, go and sign the downing street petition - HERE

Go on! What are you waiting for?


Nobody


Tags: BBC, iPlayer, DRM, downing street, petition, Microsoft, ondemand

Why I have a right to ignore fools

What is a fool?

To my mind it can be anyone of many things - aside from just occasionally being foolish which affects all. A fool can be the person who feels the need to shout, just when others realise the right thing is to be quiet. A fool can be the person who drives at 100mph, when all evidence says that is dangerous. A fool can be someone who does not realise that the process of growing up includes learning - if you haven't done one, you probably haven't done the other. And a fool can be someone who is determined to lead their life selfishly, even if it flies in the face of all sensible evidence.

People who qualify in this last category?


People who think we didn't go to the moon
Pro Smokers
People who think seatbelt law is wrong
Users of mobile phones while driving
Celebs who think that because you are famous, you know everything
Most bloggers (oops, that's me then)

You get the idea.

The nice thing about this internet thingy is that I can pick and choose my fights. I posted a bit about FOREST below and was immediately hit by a couple of daft pro-smokers. (Apparently one of them has TWO degrees - and that means?)

I published their first post and put a reply. Then I got a couple of additional posts from the two of them. And you know, I suddenly realised that they bored me. I realised I did not want to argue with a couple of selfish individuals who believe that their self interest is more important than my health. I didn't feel the need to justify myself to people who huddle together in lobby groups and reject any research that doesn't conveniently fit their arguments (that would be almost all research then.)

I thought, if I want to argue with people I can do it quite happily when I meet people who I know, who know who I really am, who don't make me justtify myself in the same way that I don't ask them to justify them selves. People who don't spend hour after hour feverishly building up a case for a cause that the vast number of people think of as dated and crazy.

To my mind, arguing the case FOR smoking or even the right to smoke is about as justifyable as arguing for slavery. The argument is 200 years too late.

So, I just deleted the comments, so I didn't need to reply to them, and went back to writing some music for a commission. And didn't think any more about it exept, "What am I cooking for dinner?" Chicken pie as it happens, and I have a pile of hungry, smoke free mouths to feed, so I better get on with it.



Nobody

PS: Probably a few typos and spellos above - think I will ignore those too!

There Are Some Forests I would be glad to see gone

Come summer this year, England will be subject to a ban of smoking in public places - Wales will have it come in slightly earlier.

Ahead of this the UK Government is launching a new series of hard hitting ads to promote the idea that smoking in front of other people is really not very nice - it is unsociable and down right poisenous. All true enough, and I doubt most right-minded people will have an issue with any of this. Certainly, medical experts have been hammering on about this for years. So that is that.

Out of curiosity, however, I thought I would wander across to the sites of ASH (Action on Smoking and Health) and their arch nemisis FOREST (Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco).

ASH, of course, have picked up the story pretty quickly. News and Press reveals an active mixture of good news and bad news (Europe is being a pain) Stuff in their e-news section, etc etc. All more or less up to date. February the 14 was the last entry.

Now onto FOREST. The last entry under News was "California, EU, More Big Smoke Debates" Which is dated 30 April 2004. Up to date then. So, lets get onto Press Office - Seems like last January they were giving away 5 copies of Thank You For Smoking - a comedy about a Tobacco Industry Lobbyiest and there is a Press Release form November last year. Well, that is all wonderfully current!

I have to admit to being totally biased against the Tobacco Industry financed FOREST and their idiotic president Anthony Worral-thickhead-Thompson. The man is either completely blind to medical reality or has really been standing way too close to a microwave.

However, with any luck FOREST will continue to lose so much credibility that they will simply dissapear in a puff of noxious smoke. Going by how slow their site is, I am assuming they can no longer afford a decent server, so are probably on their way out anyway.

So long!

Nobody

EDIT: There are a couple of comments on this article from the PRO smoking lobby below - a group of desperate people who obviously have nothing better to do than seek out obscure blogs like mine and publish their idiocies on there. I could have removed their comments but chose to leave them included. However, I think it is fair to state how I view them:

I group these people with the many daft conspiracy theorists out there - Ignorant fools lead by Selfish people.

Read thier post, but please, don't support their rediculous sites.

Do ID cards need to be such a problem?

One of the biggest debates over the next few years will be over Identity Cards. The whole issue of ID cards is a problem for a country that has never felt the need of them previously, or perhaps, more accurately, has ignored any need for them.

The debate worries me a little because I believe it will be taken over by the two extremes of the argument without looking at any solutions that actually might be halfway useful. In reality it is not even party political debate because if politicians were to be halfway honest, which they are not in this case, oppinion across the parties is all over the place.

So here I am going to put down my two penneth worth, and in so doing propose a basic ideology of a system that might work. I have taken as the start of my argument the thought that we are probably going to end up with some kind of system at some point in the future, so how about we get it right.

I originally posted this on Charles Clarkes 2020 Vision site in response to his arguments for identity cards. He made the point that:

"The issues are contemporary and controversial both within and between the political parties. But I believe that such databases are important for our liberty, our security and to defend our democracy."

You can read his article here.

Identity Cards - A New Approach

I think we are looking at this whole identity business backwards - bringing the policies forward based on reaction to events rather than a considered idea of whether these are useful. First, let’s break down where we need to establish identity, just in rough.

• We need it to register for tax.
• Obviously we need it for passports.
• And we need it for benefits.
  

And where we don't need to establish identity

• We don’t need it for walking down the street,
• It is not needed for paying bills in shops, online, etc
• Nor for just breathing, to be facetious.
  

So, there are times we need proof of identity and times we do not. This is making the assumption that most citizens are law abiding, of course, but that is a stance we SHOULD take.

Now, let’s look at a system that supports the above "needs."

The first, and most common need, is probably paying tax - though this does not need to apply to everyone. So, I apply for identity when I get my first job at, say, 19 years old. The Taxman requires basic data and needs to be able to access that data. I supply the data, and give him permission to access it. This includes my date of birth, place of birth, current address, etc.

Now, I want to register with a doctor and dentist. This requires me to supply data. Some of the data required by the NHS already exists - I just have to give them permission to access the bits they need. Any bits that are exclusive to the tax man (like my tax records) the NHS cannot access as I have not given permission.

Now, I want to go abroad, and need a passport. I now supply the additional data required and give the required permissions.

You get the idea. In all this process I am in direct control of my own data. I have to give permissions to agencies to be able to access only the data that they require.

In theory, I can refuse to give data and permission. However, I am not going to be able to get a passport if I do that, so that would be idiotic. Though, keeping that as my right is essential for the transparency of the thing.

Now, notice, I have not mentioned Identity Cards here. There is a very good and technical reason for this. We don't need them. Even supporting your arguments, Charles, we still don't need them.

Let me explain. I go into the DHS to get benefits. They want me to confirm my identity. Under your system I hand them my identity card which is full of data. They plug it into their machine. Their machine then goes of and does a query on the central database to confirm the data is as presented. To make sure that I then belong to the card, as it were, I allow a retinal scan and the taking of one thumb and one finger print and that is compared to the card data and the remote database data. Wow!

Alternative system: I walk into the DHS, they sit me in front of the retinal scan, which scans me. I enter a pin to bring up my record for comparison - the machine verifies it is me and I get my needs met.

You have not had to produce 60 million really expensive cards.

In addition, because the central database is permission based on a record by record basis, the database needs to be very basic. Rather than spend several billion setting it up, you grab a handful of top database designers from the open source community, and they put the whole thing together using MySql (which is both robust and free, by the way)

The expensive bit is the scanning equipment - but you are going to need that for what ever system you go for, sorry!

The main advantage to this kind of approach is that you are asking people to volunteer their information, rather than forcing it out of them, in return for services that are part of life. If they wished, they could avoid being on the database entirely, but they would have to live as a hermit in a cave somewhere.

It does not stop criminals - but then, they like to drop out of existence anyway, so no system will cover them.

The additional advantage is that once someone is on the system, they are both responsible for and in control of their data. They are the only person who has complete access to ALL their data in the normal course of events. Not even the government would have that access. Government departments would only have access to the data that is relevant to the service they supply.

Of course, the police and security services could apply to court for access to all data, and this job would be greatly simplified compared to now. But there would be no automatic right.

If people are in control of their own data, the Big Brother scenario is les relevant (though that would still worry even me)

My system, and its presentation, also has another little political bonus.

Since people would be controlling their access to services that are supplied by our government, under the way this system works these really would be seen as SERVICES ready for use by the public when they need them.

This really is returning government control to the people and fulfils my personal political mantra:

An MP is the employee of the People – not the other way around!

Nobody

Tags: ID Cards, 2020 Vision, Charles Clarke, New Diary of a Nobody, Nobody