Monthly Archives: February 2011

February 7, 2011 · 10:44 pm

#oneaday 24: The Fall of Rupert’s Empire?

My post #24 talked about the impending  implosion within the mainstream media, which was not neccessarily that life threatening all be it still pretty serious. In the fast moving world of the dark arts, our liberty seemingly is actually never respected. The story of the phone hacking scandal at Rupert Murdoch owned ‘News of the World’ has been well covered, admittedly after a very slow start. Unsurprisingly, there has been little or no coverage in the News International owned papers including The Sun, The Times and obviously the News of the World. The vanguard was led by The Guardian and Channel 4, alhough the BBC has now fully got behind the investigation.

To recap briefly on the scandal. A national newspaper, The News of the World has been accused of sanctioning wide spread phone hacking (of people in the public eye) and specifically Andy Coulson, former editor of the paper and latterly communications director at No 10 Downing Street, accused of knowingly allowing this disgusting practice to carry on regardless. Add to this the Metropolitan Police and the Press Complaints Commission’s credibility being seriously called to question and you have a right old caper. And not a very funny one.  When Andy Coulson resigned a couple of Friday’s back there was little media coverage, which has now called into question whether the phone hacking was restricted to the News of the World or actually whether it was and is rife throughout ‘Fleet Street’?

It is good to see the debate now in full flow and I for one hope that the practice of phone hacking is outlawed and ended. Indeed this scandal could strike deep into the heart of the 4th Estate and question the  power exerted in Britain by a foreigner living abroad. The influence of Rupert Murdoch may now be coming under increasing scrutiny and time will tell if the power of the newspapers, not just his, until now peerless and beyond reproach, is beginning to be questioned at long last.  Ultimately, the truth will out.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Tagged as ,

February 7, 2011 · 8:23 pm

#oneaday23: The Holey Trinity – is it a just Mexican stand off?

As our means of collecting and accessing information becomes faster and more comprehensive and the role of the traditional media becomes both questioned and strained, so the dynamics within the media challenge their very existence and importance.  We begin to see a backlash by the media against the media, especially  in Britain where it is a national habit to ‘build ’em up and knock ’em down’. Sometimes the backlash is serious, at other times somewhat more facile. The increasingly open nature of debate means we are seeing the ‘wisdom of the crowds’ becoming more prevalent , which can be a very good thing and sometimes a little more dangerous. This is nothing new, when people are put down, their natural instinct is to rise up. Think 1789 Paris for example. But the crowd is not always right. A couple of weeks back, two prominent presenters on Sky TV lost their jobs, one voluntarily and one without any choice. The ‘crowd’ was right to pronounce their abhorrence and the broadcaster took neccessary action.

But another broadcaster decided not to take action when 3 of their star presenters made racist and insulting comments about Mexicans on their Sunday evening episode of ‘Top Gear’. I did not see the episode, I gave up with Top Gear at the end of the last series, as it seemed to become far too cliched and actually quite boring, like many of these ‘familiar family favourites’ ultimately become. But I have since seen the clips on YouTube and on the national  news since, and it confirmed one thing that Top Gear is actually quite smug, full of itself and ultimately actually boring. The presenters are talented enough, but seeem to believe that they can do what they want, when they want and say what they want about whoever they want. In short they have believed in their own publicity and that is always a sad thing to witness. I am actually not really that bothered what these boys say, my main issue is one of consistency. If they had directed their ‘humour’ at women would there have been the same mute approach from our national broadcaster or indeed the ‘crowd’ in general?

Indeed, is it a decision or lack of it, dictated to by sheer commercial principle? Sky could afford to dispose of Messrs Gray and Keys, both reported to be on salaries of £1.3M per annum, as there are many more who could fill their football boots. But could the BBC afford to dispense wholesale with the Top Gear  triumvirate ? This series generates a massive amount of cash for BBC Worldwide and removing the holy trinity of Clarkson, Hammond and May would leave a massive hole in their P&L. I actually would not want to see anyone lose their job, but maybe the BBC should have a word in their shell like. Given the Russell Brand/Jonathan Ross episode, there is some track record here. If nothing else, it will give those who write Top Gear a kick up the arse of those Marlboro style cowboy booted, denimed clad legged presenters. Indeed Mr Clarkson stated that ‘it is impossible to be funny without offending someone’. I am not sure I completely agree with that. Mind you,  it may just make the show get back to its roots and bcome more interesting and less predictable.

Dear BBC – please restore our faith in your ability to make genuinely funny programmes.  We can but hope

1 Comment

Filed under TV, World Cup 2010

Tagged as , , ,

February 4, 2011 · 8:35 pm

#oneaday 22: Our democratic right to a reply?

I have just received a letter and Papers  from my local MP , Mr James Gray, in response to my letter to register my disapproval against the proposed sell off of our forests to private owners.

Here it is. Talk about using disingenuous pieces of information…..dear oh dear. It will be interesting to see what reply I get next time round. Hopefully one that actually addresses my questions rather than ‘here’s a load of information, pick the bones out of that’, which appears to be the norm. Transparency  is the word!

————————–

Dear Mr Gray,

Thank you for your letter of 28th January 2011 and for enclosing the recently published papers by Rt Hon. Caroline Spelman MP, Secretary of State for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs. I have posed a number of questions which I would like to put to you for consideration.

In the press notice, I question why it is stated that the ‘new direction for England’s public forest estate will protect for future generations’? Can I ask if the current status quo puts these forests under threat? Indeed, the paper goes on to state that ‘the transfer of heritage forests such as the New Forest and the Forest of Dean to charitable trusts will mean walkers, riders and cyclists will still be able to enjoy them as they do at the moment’. Again, are we to suppose that the current ownership model, by the us the people, will threaten our access in the future?

The paper goes on to state. ‘The proposals would remedy the situation where the Commisson is the largest commercial operator in the sector it also regulates’. Can I ask who exactly has made complaints that this is the case? Is it commercial competitors or is it the state, or indeed the people? Indeed, why has the Government already committed to taking 15% of the public forest estate out of state control over the course of this Parliament? You say you will generate £100m income, but what of the cost longer term? Is this a decision driven by the need to unlock money for assets or is it some other principle? £100m in the grand scheme of things, when we waste money on a daily basis in Afghanistan, is frankly pushing irony to its limit. Indeed, do we know how much this nation has spent on Afghanistan under this Government and the previous Government’s administration? Are these figures agreed, audited and known?

I note also the statement that ‘state control of forests dates back to the First World War. when needs were very different. There is now no need for Government to be in the business of timber production and forest management.’ This statement suggests that the concept of state ownership of forests is wrong, and by referencing the First World War, we are somehow living in an outdated manner. Given that we are still involved in t least one futile conflict, maybe your Government would consider rolling this principle out a little further and re-examining exactly what value we are getting from Her Majesty’s Forces being in Afghanistan?

Pam Warhurst, Chair of the Forestry Commission said, ‘Ministers have set out a new vision for forestry in England that will require a fundamental shift in our thinking and how we work. The proposals provide an opportunity to think about ownership and and sustainable land management in a new way and to engage in a wider cross section of society. The consultation will allow people to have their say and we encourage everyone with an interest to give us their views’.  Can I ask did Ms Warhust make this statement, as a public servant, before or after  Ms Spelman had issued her ideas? Does Ms Warhurst believe this is the righh thing to do, or is she just toeing the line? What was the process in Scotland and Wales, and did their Forestry Commissions decide to reject this policy?

I also refer to the letter to all Coalition MPs dated 27th January from Ms Spelman – headed ‘useful points to be aware of’. Frankly this looks like the work of an over eager undergraduate advisor!

1) Only 18% of England’s woodlands is managed by the Forestry Commission. The remainder being owned by various types of organisation. Is this some sort of statement to mitigate the process. Is she saying  ‘please don’t worry, there is nothing new here, it is quite normal, please move on’?
2) ‘Between 1997 – 2010 over 25,000 acres sold with significantly less access and benefit protections that would be the case now’. This somehow suggests, in that awfuly immature party political way that ‘what we are doing is so much better than the previous lot’. Just because Labour, new or otherwise, made a cock up and sold land off to private ownership does not mean it is OK to do the same, as long as you do it ‘better’. Why did we, the people, not know about this? Maybe, just maybe it was down  the appalling lack of transparency that abounded in our public life 5 years or so back.
3) Continuing along the line of argument that ‘Labour were doing this anyway so we are not sure what the problem is’, she states ‘reform of the public forestry estate has been under consideration for some time under the previous Government, with the 2009 ‘Operational Efficiency Programme’ detailing ‘alternatives to public ownership’ and ‘new commercial opportunities’ for the estate. Does this really make the case that this policy is right??

I have checked and noted that in the Commons vote on selling off our woodlands you have voted to support  this policy.  Over 400,000 people and counting have expressed their dismay by petition and yet MPs seem to take little notice. Many of these MPs are the very same Labour and Conservative MPs that refused to acknowledge 1 million ordinary people in the streets of London who marched against the war in Iraq.

Could you also explain to me why you believe that it’s us – the voters – who have got this wrong and not the government? I hope that as my representative in Parliament you will reconsider your position.

Finally, can you enlighten me on a question of Freedom of Information. If these proposals are made law, will the private companies who buy these forests be subject to FOI requests in the same way that the Forestry Commission are now? We are in an age of transparency after long last, and the Coalition Government pride themselves in a new ‘transparent’ approach.

I look forward to hearing from you,

With kind regards,

Andrew Payne

Leave a comment

Filed under Environment

Tagged as ,

February 1, 2011 · 7:32 am

#oneaday 21: When money is easy, madness follows

Yesterday was a significant day in the (English) Premier League – £135 m spent by football clubs in one day, bringing the spend in the January transfer window to in excess of £200m – tens times what it was last year. Significant, however for all the wrong reasons. Indeed is this the last hurrah before the UEFA’s new financial rules come into play in 2013?

Januray 31st 2011 was the day when the English Premier League broke all bonds with its fans, who have clearly become the least important constituent in the football universe. Sitting way back in stands, we peer at the antics of a bloated game, one which cannot produce a credible national team, despite pouring obscene amounts of money into a whole host of distinctly average players. It all starts with the owners. Nowadays these fall into 3 broad groups.

  • The rich individual – think Roman Abramovich at Chelsea (wealth quoted at £8billion) and Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan and his Abu Dhabi United Group at Manchester City. These people are often quotes as businessmen, yet there is often controversy surrounding their wealth. In the case of Abramovich it was gained in a very short period of time when Vladimir Putin broke up a communist, state owned economic system into pieces and bestowed it piece by piece on a number of favoured friends, the oligarchs. Over in Abu Dhabi, well it is a tale of black gold, oil.
  • The US based business conglomerate who may use debt to leverage the purchase, think the Glazers at Manchester United and Gillette and Hicks formerly of Liverpool who basically got it wrong and had to sell out to fellow American John W  Henry of New England Sports Ventures.
  • The rest, usually business men, whether they have made money in the pornography industry, sportswear or intensively farmed battery chickens, but ones who will find competing with the mega rich, just a little bit too, well, rich for them.

Yesterday saw the redistribution of a fraction of one Russian oligarch owners ‘wealth’, into an owner of a sports goods empire, via New England Sports Ventures. When Roman Abramovich decided to part with a mere £50m of his easy money,in return for Fernando Torres, he passed it to John W Henry at Liverpool, who flicked over £35m to Mike Ashley, owner of Sports Direct and Newcastle United for ‘England sensation’ Andy Carroll. I wonder if that money just goes to pay off some of the debts that Newcastle have accrued down the years? Either way I am sure it will be pretty useful to Mr Ashley. Along the way, the usual cuts would have been taken by the agents, even more money would have been put into the overpaid player’s pockets and who knows, maybe us tax payers will have gained a few quid towards our debts.

These amounts of money are nothing short of obscene. They show that the game at the ‘top end’ is nothing more that a bloated and rotten borough. In these troubled times, when pretty much all of the people who pay to watch the games via entrance fees or less so via a Sky Sports subscription, are facing an age of austerity, this sends out a message that the game has become nothing more than an effete and irrelevant sideshow, a circus. As crowd numbers fall off, the owners literally fiddle. It is yet to be seen if a fire has started, but the mood out there amongst the fans is starting to turn against their ‘heroes’.

Whether you wake up today as a Newcastle fan, a Liverpool fan or indeed a Chelsea fan this morning, you anger or elation may be short lived and the gloss may wear a little thin. Indeed, you have to ask whether the late, great Bill Shankly would ever utter his famous saying, ‘some say football is a matter of life and death. I say it is more important than that’, nowadays. Perhaps he would simply say ‘some say football is a matter of money. I say it is a matter of too much money’. I would like to think the great man would have something to say about the mess our once beautiful game is now in.

Leave a comment

Filed under Premier League

Tagged as , , , , ,