Adopts sinister voice: "I'm Back"

And with a suitably onanistic post to re-start, thanks to Dick via Bella (and the chain in between):

OJ, June 17th, 1994

MSN: As such, the chase became a textbook 'where-were-you?' moment.

S-E: I think I'll stick with Dick's answer - he says it all really:

Where was I? Haven't a fucking clue.

Death of Diana, August 31st, 1997

MSN: It being a Sunday, virtually the entire nation was having a lie-in.

S-E : Ah, yes, this could actually individually identify me (if there is a copy of the Duty Officer list still knocking around.) So let's just settle for "by an Aroflex terminal, having opened the safe, wondering how much trouble being really fucking useless at drill was going to get me in to during the planning of the state funeral". Which, thankfully, never happened.

Challenger disaster, January 28th, 1986

MSN: It being a Tuesday, this meant that the first report of it on British television occurred at 5pm in an edition of the BBC weekday children’s programme Newsround.

S-E: Britannia Royal Naval College. Basic Training. Far, far too busy to worry about anything else.

Resignation of Thatcher, November 22nd, 1990

MSN: Even so, for those at work or school during the day, word of mouth had to make do until a television set could be found.

S-E: On Operation Granby (Desert Shield for any American visitors). Completely TV free. Although we did get very good news through the int people.

England v West Germany, July 4th, 1990

MSN: It was said even Princess Diana, attending a social function in London, was being kept in touch of the score by telephone.

S-E: Professional football? Does anybody seriously give a fuck? Anyway, I thought she was the Princess of Wales?

Queen Elizabeth's Coronation, June 2nd, 1953

MSN: The coronation was the first event in British history to be seen by a mass audience on the small screen.

S-E: Unborn.

Iranian Embassy siege, May 5th, 1980

MSN: Their dramatic rescue attempt took place in full view of the ITN cameras. Footage, however, was not broadcast live.

S-E: I probably did watch this. Can't really remember though.

September 11th, 2001

MSN: It was a weekday afternoon, so most people didn’t see pictures of the attacks until they got home from school or work.

S-E: At a security conference, with a lot of financial and disaster recovery people. Watched it live - having asked the hotel to open the bar 'cause there were a lot of people in serious need of a stiff drink or 15.

Assassination of JFK, November 22nd, 1963

MSN: It wasn’t until 11pm that the BBC was sufficiently organised to broadcast a proper tribute programme.

S-E: Still not born. And he was the American President so you would expect the BBC to have a tribute programme lined up for the event of his assassination? I dunno ...

So, not really 'The whole world turning on the TV' at all. Or is it just me?

Nope, clearly not just you. BTW, in case you are (to my great surprise) interested, the first "famous event" I saw was the Apollo 11 landing - my parents took the infant me to a neighbour's house, that having a TV. It is not recorded whether I dribbled, blew bubbles or just slept through the performance.

Mummy, When I Grow Up, I Want to be a Stasi Informer.

Hat tip to the Green Man for this:

So perhaps the occasional outing is just the level of control that the blogging community needs.

SO where does Murdoch get these stuck in a rut cunts from?

Three summers ago, while on work experience at The Sunday Times, I wrote a story outing a sex blogger, Zoe Margolis, who had just turned her online collection of back-alley exploits into a book titled Girl with a One Track Mind. The writer’s anonymity was used as a marketing gimmick and the piece was the first high-profile “exposé” of an online writer’s anonymity; I promptly became public enemy No 1 in the blogosphere.

Hmm, investigative journalist Google on ...

Nothing much here, just lots of shit about too expensive houses and scummy ex-Soviets. But, here, we have it. What the fuck is wrong with Oxford these days?

Musings of a late evening

Whilst reading about the unfortunate demise-by-exposure (shortly, possibly and even more unfortunately, maybe a 'doocing') of the blogger Jack Night (covered here, here and strangely here), I was engaged by the furore (in a blog-cup) over his "Evil Poor" post (the blog has gone but see here with yet more linky things in the comments).

Now, that got me thinking - always a dangerous thing.  Happy that the "evil poor" do actually exist, that they are a particular problem and that they are one overwhelmingly burdening on the non-evil (just to note that I am fully aware that the latter are the vast majority) poor.  Happy also that the "evil rich"exist  and the "evil moderately well off" and the evil ...  (Ed notes: stopped that with a brief application of 240V.)

What is the difference?  Might it be that impoverishment makes your search for subsistence the sole or overwhelming focus of your life?  The evil billionaire might be famed for the size of his yacht, the plasticity of wife No5, the vanity purchase of the football club etc, etc.  (Or even, to return to banking, the size of his pension!) The virtuous pauper (just to continue the moralistic fixatedness) is probably going to be considered a cleaner, a call-centre slavey (I can't actually think of a better word for their miserable existence), or a benefit-trapped proto-failure  than for their stunning personality, care for small animals, remarkable impressions of Monty Python actors or spectacular calligraphy.

Of course, I am being simplistic.  But then I'm a libertarian blogger so I'm just pandering to the stereotype.

Voting

Having been effectively disenfranchised for this election, I find myself joining (not of my own free will) the Chris Dillow school of cynics^*.  Personally, I am from the "spoil my ballot if I can't vote for anyone I could tolerate" wing, also known as the "none of the above" tendency.  Although I generally express this by voting Tory which, in Central Scotland, has the same impact as supporting Rangers at a Papal mass.

Still, from a distance, congratulations to all of you who had the opportunity and did drag yourself along - the first fruits of victory have already been harvested.

* Although I disagree massively with his implication that Neil Harding is anything other than a badly damaged autonomic propaganda troll.

BBC: Utter Cunts

Here.  You really shouldn't have to ask why.  But, as you are probably wondering, there is no such institution as the "British Navy".

There is a reason the law was written that way!

Bloody hell, first the French, now I'm agreeing with the fucking unions.  It must have been that extra sausage at brunch!  (Ed notes: Neither gibbering insanity nor a potty mouth being recognised symptoms of swine flu!  Nor is overcooked pork sausage a recognised way of catching it.)

Under the new rules universities are expected to monitor whether overseas students really attend their courses.

The Home Office said such things were part of their normal duty of care.

Indeed and undoubtedly. In fact:

Educational institutions have a duty of care to all their students and checking that they are attending and making progress in their studies is part of that responsibility.

The records we expect education providers to keep are those which most will keep for their own purposes anyway.

Which is exactly why the Data Protection Act 1998 states (Schedule 1, s2):

Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes.

So uni's can check whether you are attending lectures for the purposes of laughing at you when you fail your exams.  I'll even allow them using the attendance register to check on people who are claiming grants, student allowances or loans.

So would you just fuck off and watch your boss's hubby's p0rn collection, you bunch of fascist cunts.

Gordon Brown is a sanctimonious, hypocritical cunt.

And ill-educated to boot. The nerve of the pointless blob of cowardice:

The event was intended for prime ministers and presidents rather than royals, Mr Brown added.

"But if the queen wanted to attend these events or if any member of the royal family wanted to attend these events, I would make that possible," he said.

So what the fuckup meant was that the event was intended for Heads of State and Heads of Government.  Oh, and I wonder who the Head of State is in Brown's Britain.  Actually, I'm scared to ask, just in case the answer comes back "Peter Mandelson".

I really hate to agree with the French, in fact, I think it may be "dereliction of duty" but:

French officials said the Queen was welcome and the UK government was responsible for deciding who should attend what was "primarily a Franco-American ceremony"

.

An Utterly Stupid BBC News Headline

Here.

Mosquitoes 'resist malaria drugs'

Well, now.  Let's see.  Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the actual story - drug resistant malaria spread from Cambodia - mosquitos aren't (deliberately) targeted by malaria drugs.  Ed notes: We did try DDT on them once but that has been fairly uniformly condemned as a "bad thing™".

Anti-malarial drugs target the malaria parasite, Plasmodium, which happens to spend part of its life-cycle in the digestive systems of female Anopheles mosquitos.

Now, I am no biologist or medic, so if I knew this (although I'll admit that I did have to google the name of the parasite genus), why didn't the BBC?

BTW: Still on hiatus!

Oi, Hang on a Minute

Okay, so the Church of Jock has finally admitted that some of its ministers are of the homosexual persuasion and has openly supported one in Aberdeen.

The certainty is a good thing - the lily-livered wishy-washy mumbling of the Church of England is definitely a bad thing.  I am not saying that any of the open-promotion of homosexual clergy as in the Episcopal Church of America, the simplistic bigotry of Gafcon or the "don't ask, don't tell" attitude of the Episcopal Church of Scotland are right - I personally think they are all wrong (Ed notes: but you are just a contrary bastard).

And some of the Jockanese laity are upset.  Well, most church-goers in the UK are older, many are conservative (note size of "C") and it's their right to be upset and even to protest about it.

But - here is the "WTF" moment:

The demonstration at The Mound in Edinburgh on Saturday was led by Pastor Jack Bell of the Zion Baptist Church in Glasgow.

"We are absolutely opposed to that on the basis of what God has to say about homosexuality in the Bible," he said.

The Zion Baptist Church - "an independent church based in the south side of the city of Glasgow".  So not part of the Church of Scotland, then.  Or even, I suspect, formally in communion with it.  And, as their website makes it clear, the sort of fundamentalist evangelical Christians who make me cringe.  I wouldn't be surprised if they were "young-earth creationists".  Anyway, clearly not the sort of people you would expect to approve of poofs and their disgusting goings-on.  But about as much direct connection with the Rev Rennie's appointment as I will have with the election of the next Pope.

Oh, BTW: 

On Saturday night the 8th December, Zion Baptist Church lead by their Assistant Pastor Mr Bell, conducted a protest against the satanic influence and music of Marilyn Manson at the Braehead Arena, Glasgow."

Smirks!

BTW2: Still on hiatus - really.

Hiatus

I know you haven't noticed but this blog is having a temporary break from both profanity and its occasional attempts at profundity. 

Expect the usual whitterings to reappear in early July. 

Sauce for the Gander

So Hazel "Iain's chipmunk" Blears thinks that Woss and Brand should pay the BBC's Ofcom fine? Well, if that was what Ofcom intended, I think they would have fined the presenters for their comments rather than the BBC for their systematic failures of duty as a responsible broadcaster. But enough of that (especially as I don't think Ofcom currently have that power and giving more powers to quangos is not a good thing.)

I wonder how much of the DCLG's £230 million fine she will offer to pay? Or how much she suggest Hillary Benn will pay of DEFRA's £75 million fine? (Something from Tim on the subject of fining Government.)

Or do we have yet another lawyer publicly proposing one law (sentence handed down by the "court of public opinion" of course), for relatively harmless entertainment personalities and another for nu-Labour apparatchiks? I'll let you guess!

Can't she be struck off, together with the odious Harperson? Or are the "Solicitors (sic) Regulation Authority" a bunch of lickspittle toadies? I'll let you guess that one too.

Do I Entirely Believe This?

I have no real insight into Binyam Mohamed's detention and suffering in Guantanamo but:

In the interview, extracts of which were broadcast on Radio 4's Today programme, he said he was questioned by a middle-aged man with a ponytail claiming to be "Jim from the FBI".

Jim reportedly said he was a special agent sent from Washington to ask questions on behalf of the White House.

Now the pony tail doesn't fit with any of the FBI Special Agents I have ever met - even the female ones. (US) Special Forces, wannabee "Military Contractors", possibly the CIA (although if I had ever met any of them I wouldn't be allowed to talk about it even if I knew) but not the FBI. They are the definition of "square" as it applies to dress and demeanour.

I just wish

Lord Ahmed's barrister, Jeremy Baker QC, had argued the jail sentence could "irreparably and permanently" damage Lord Ahmed's ability to carry out community work in the future.

Oh, please. Anything to stop what that egregious fool considers "community work".

And more of the similar

Thanks to Steven at the Unspeak blog (I haven't read his book but it is now on the Amazon wish-list), I discovered the GSAT (Geek Social Aptitude Test). I got a measly 13 (out of 50).

Which, if you remember my 98% on the Geek Test, is somewhat worrying. Am I an amazingly social (Ed notes: no, not that) uber-geek? Or just a miserable wannabe with an abiding interest in trivia?

Oh, dear.

According to this test, I am apparently channelling Wesley Crusher. I am so disappointed I am not going to post the html.

By blog-iquette, a hat tip should go to Roger but I think a hat-pin may be more suitable.

A bunch of wibble dropped from a great height.

Thanks to somebody else and I am afraid I've forgotten who (sorry), this blog, via "Wordle":

Click to enlarge ...

Repeat 100 times: I must stop talking about bankers ...

Actions may speak louder but ...

There are no words of condemnation, as of 08:40 Sunday 8th March, of last night's murder of soldiers from 38 Engineer Regiment, from the political wing of the IRA via websites (main or Assembly), twitter feed or MSM.

Nor anything from Her Majesty's Deputy First Minister for the Province.

Though I did spot this and this.

I just don't have the words for it.

When "In-Band" isn't the best idea.

I got a brace of notes yesterday from an official (EU) mailing list I receive, telling me that I had been removed from the list, for 44969, 58107 and finally 63623 delivery errors.  By email.

The Myth of "Banking Qualifications"

It's a great rallying call for modern credentialism, isn't it, from last week's Private Eye:

Q: Who is the odd man out from the following list?

Lord Stevenson, HBOS; Andy Hornby, HBOS; Sir Fred, RBS; Sir Tom McKillop, RBS; John McFall, MP; A strategically shaved badger, MP & Treasury; Sir Terry Wogan, everywhere.

A: Terry - has a banking qualification.

Well, well.  The great and the good.  Unqualified for the positions they find themselves in.  And I sure Sir Terry doesn't even have a BA in Radio Presenting, or even an NVQ2 in Modern Music Analysis.  Edited to add: And, of course, Ian Hislop's degree is in English Lit, not in Journalism, so he is clearly unqualified to be the editor of a satirical news magazine and should quit with immediate effect.

What a load of fatuous bollocks.

Back in ancient times, when I ran a banking team, it was very highly qualified, had an extensive training budget, and everyone was a full member of at least one professional body (normally the BCS).  None of us had a "banking qualification".  

Q: Why ever not, you complete fraud?

A: Because we weren't providing banking advice to customers, numbskull.

In fact, we once sent back a whole bunch of business cards because they had the "will only give advice on our own products" FSA disclaimer on the back - and we pointed out that if we were giving advice on any financial products, we were so far outside the rules, the disclaimer wasn't going to help.

There is nothing wrong with banking qualifications and for the people at the customer-interacting level, they are to be encouraged.  There is nothing wrong with working your way up within a business - from the shop-floor to the boardroom.  Equally, there is nothing wrong with being in a more specialist area - law, accountancy, IT - or being a generic business manager - and getting to board level.

Let's just look at the Chartered Institute of Banking in Scotland and their "Chartered Banker" Qualification:

COMPULSORY SUBJECT

• Professionalism and Ethics
  

SECTION A - CORE SUBJECTS (Candidates must complete at least one credit from this section)

• Retail Banking
  
• Business Banking
  
• Building Society Operations
  
• UK Financial Services
  

SECTION B - CORE SUBJECTS (Candidates must complete at least three credits from this section)  

• Financial Management 
  
• Business Law
  
• Financial Economics
  
• Management Strategy and Leadership 
  

In addition to the 5 credits achieved by completing the compulsory elements, candidates must complete a further 6 credits from Sections A, B and C.

SECTION C - ELECTIVE SUBJECTS
Half Credits

• The Compliant Person and Regulatory Risk
  
• Credit Risk Practice 
  
• Private Banking and Wealth Management
• International Business 
  
• Customer Relationship Management
• Operational Risk Management 
  
• Project Management
• Money Laundering 
  
• Financial Crime 
  

Full Credits

• Corporate Finance
• Managing People 
  
• Marketing and Selling Financial Services
• Call Centre Management
• Investment 

Now, is this really the level of qualification you would require in somebody at board level?  I am not saying that none of the modules would help but, compared to, say, an MBA and appropriate experience?  Just what in this would have given Sir Fred, or whoever, the insight into international interconnectivity to predict the US mortgage security debacle?  Why is it now considered necessary for you to have a qualification for everything?

I mean, the only qualification necessary to be an MP is that you wore the right colour rosette?

Illiberal & Undemocratic

While reviewing the latest effluvia from the odious Harman, I saw:

"Nobody disputes that Sir Fred should be deprived of his pension," said its Treasury spokesman Vince Cable.

Nobody?  Are you entirely sure, Vince?  There are quite a few people speaking up for the rule of law and holding to contracts voluntarily engaged in.  You're clearly not listening to them, mind, but people like you never do.