Twitter...

Posts Tagged ‘BBC’

Quote of the day

From the Highways Agency via BBC news:

it’s the wrong type of grit for the wrong type of snow

 

Thanks to Ewan Spence for the tip via Twitter

EDIT

It’s a close one between the above quote and this little musing heard on twitter from @seaneeboy

..funny how heavy snowfall in Scotland never gets this amount of news coverage
Yes, but that’s because:
a) News is by definition unusual, a once in 18 years snow fall would naturally get more attention than an annual event.
b) It’s London you cock monkey. London is where around a quarter of the population live and the center of our nation’s economy. If 80% of the population of Scotland don’t go to work… hang on I think this is already the case, but my point is that it does not matter quite as much as if 80% of the population of London don’t make it to work. It pretty much matters about half as much because the GDP of the whole of Scotland is about half that of London (and that doesn’t include the home counties either).

Cruising for Scientologie

One of my close family members is an alcoholic, or to quote a popular tshirt, she’s a drunk (because alcoholics go to meetings). She wasn’t always a drunk but she has always been a borderline sociopath with very little empathy for others and this has exhibited itself quite strongly over the last decade while she has covered up her tracks. Apart from isolating her youngest child from his paternal grandparents and spreading rumours about her other children to discredit their stories of her drinking she managed to polarise many of her family members in a big dispute that she orchestrated. She relied on the fact that she could stage manage her family by keeping them from trusting each other and feeding them carefully crafted versions of her ‘truth’ that in most cases directly contradicted each other. She promoted various unsavoury rumours about family members, going so far as to accuse a grandparent of being a paedophile, in order to keep disparate members of the family from talking to each other and told several family members that I was a drug addict when I mentioned to a family member that her drinking was getting out of hand.  

Eventually the matter came to the attention of Children’s Services and during the proceedings with them she maintained many separate personalities and was charming and helpful to those she believed to be of influence and rude and abusive to everyone else. She relied on the fact that the different staff members were rarely present at the same time in order to give her ‘truth’ to anyone who would listen. Children’s Services, with a care order in hand, ensured that she was supervised at all times when with her youngest child so that she would not be able to manipulate him with her version of the events. Eventually her finely constructed web of lies fall by the wayside when the courts were able to pick through all the reports prepared by various different social workers, family members and friends to come up with an integrated and overall view. Her lies did not stand up to scrutiny and one of her older children was granted guardianship of her youngest child. Since all contact with family is now done in an open and recorded setting she has no opportunity to manipulate the truth and so family members who were once loyal to her have seen the real truth behind her lies.

This story sprung right into the forefront of my mind when I read about the practices or Scientology, a popular and growing cult which has gained a lot of fame for the many Hollywood A-listers who make up the ‘faithful’. Scientology is shrouded in secrecy and uses a phalanx of lawyers to protect it from any form of criticism. They use intellectual property rights to protect the inner workings of their bizarre auditing machines (a device which appears to measure electrical resistance through the body) and have direct access to the ebay systems in order to remove listings for second hand auditing machines. Scientology has even been accused of using search engine optimisation to ensure that search engine results about Scientology are positive and that negative search results are buried.

L Ron Hubbard, the father of “dianetics”, was a science fiction writer who later repackaged his ideas about dianetics using the concept of ‘Scientologie’ which he borrowed from Dr. A. Nordenholz. Dr Nordenholz was a german who published a book in 1934 which concerned itself with the science of understanding and consciousness. While the original dianetics piece was not particularly successful (self published and with little circulation, a true vanity piece) the later, probably borrowed, ideas of Scientology have been more successful and amassed LRH a considerable personal wealth prior to his death.

The Scientology corporation continues now after his death and for a few thousand dollars you can buy into their stories of aliens and mystical science machines. For a few more bucks you can train up to be an auditor and then charge your fellow Scientologists for the pleasure of being audited (hmmm, a cynic might say ‘pyramid’ right about now). Those who are critical of Scientology continue to endure negative propaganda and those who attack it are branded as whackos, conspiracy theorists and bigots.

Of course now that I have published something slightly critical of Scientology I shall no doubt be branded a whacko, conspiracy theorist or bigot. One of those accusations would be true.

You’ve had 50 years, you could have moved house

I was quite pleased to see that noted scientist, economist and government policy advisor* Alistair McGowan has been speaking out about the proposed (and de facto approved) plans to expand Heathrow with a further terminal and runway. I wonder if Mr McGowan has gotten a little carried away with his day job; one where he impersonates people who either know what they are talking about or whose opinion the public cares about. Along with a bunch of other well meaning luvvies, McGowan would rather see an investment in high speed rail links and people being ferried around the country between smaller distributed airports.

Like Cardiff.

The BBC, meanwhile is doing a Have Your Say item in which literally dozens of people who live near Heathrow are complaining that it’s too noisy and they don’t think that there should be an airport expansion. Oddly enough they are quiet about their choice of airport to fly from, one must assume that they trek up to ‘London’ Stanstead or ‘London’ Luton for their flights or down to ‘London’ Gatwick or maybe over to ‘London’ Bristol airport. Maybe they take the tube, bus and walk to the easily accessible London ‘City’ airport which is somewhere in the docklands and great for those who happen to also own a helicopter to get them there.

Heathrow is the busiest airport for a bunch of reasons, most are pretty dull and have something to do with it being a major carrier hub, close to London and well connected on the rail and tube networks. It is, in fact, the only airport in the UK that is within the M25 and connected to both the rail and tube networks so logically it’s the airport of choice for anyone in the south east who does not want to:

  • Fly with a bunch of rapists to Marbella from Gatwick
  • Spend most of their holiday on the M11 to Stanstead
  • Spend more time getting to Luton than actually flying and then be herded around like an easyjet customer
  • Buy a helicopter
With this in mind it’s only going to get busier and anyone who has been stacked over London on a Sunday night after a weekend away will know how crammed LHR can get, even the smallest disruption to an airport which handles half a million takeoff/landings per year will create havoc in the schedules because the airport is running at around 99% of capacity. As the major hub not just of our national operator but also for getting people in and out of our main business district, there is just not enough redundant capacity to cope with a problem.
All that aside though, the choice to build the airport has been made and it is one that most people will no doubt support so why the shuddering fuck are we prepared to let a comic and his whining greeny mates buy up land to slow the inevitable. It won’t stop the airport expansion, but it just might make it cost the tax payer a few more quid.

 

* Not really, he’s just the most famous person that Greenpeace could get their paws on. Yes, that’s the best they could do.

Stupidity Roundup

Thanks to Grumpy for the tip off about this little storm of stupidity. I am almost loathe to  mention it because it’s such a ridiculous idea that people would complain about something so entirely unimportant. Can’t we all just rise above complaining about the little things and concentrate on fixing the big things?

BBC finds lone smart person

The BBC has a long tradition of seeking out idiots for their dumbed down yoof radio news and then parading them around as examples of the sort if malformed opinion that their listeners should aspire to. My favourite in recent weeks has been the lady who said that “most people don’t understand percentages but I do because I work in a band” after explaining that something which had previously cost £100 would cost £2.50 less after the reduction in VAT (for the correct answer and an explantaion just twitter “@fuckingstupid I am a fucktard with no concept of math” and I will be happy to help).

This morning on the BBC’s yoof dumbed down news for retards who don’t care about news but are having it forced down their throats by our public service broadcaster, Radio 1 Newsbeat, they seemed to have found a person who either cannot read or has actually chosen to ignore the Daily Mail.

The news item was a breathless revalation that Karen Matthews may not have been a model parent and that Children’s Services (that’s Social Services to you and me) had visited the family of mongs on a few occasions in the past.

 

A whole heap of genetics gone wrong

Of course this is not actual news because it would take an enormous leap of faith of biblical scale to think that Karen Matthews was a soccer mom gone wrong rather than a nasty spiteful little cow who has made a living by pissing in the gene pool; in order to sex it up a little and make it more newsworthy the editorial idea was to focus on how it could be seen as another Baby P style witch hunt to see who in Children’s Services could be blamed for this outrage.

The clever one, however, saw right through this and was quoted in a quaint but dim sounding northern accent saying “everyone’s trying to blame Social Services and the family and the friends but it’s not them to blame it’s Karen”. When you consider that Karen Matthews is most likely a sociopath it’s unlikely that she will ever accept responsibility for her actions but that does not mean we can’t squarely lay the blame at her feet. Children’s Services had their eye on her and they knew that she was one of those mothers to whom children are an inconvenience or a paycheck rather than a blessing and within their powers and mandate they did what they could. There is no way that they could have predicted the bizarre scheme that Karen Matthews hatched and so should be left to get on with their jobs rather than harrangued by inquiries and mass sackings.

What remains now is the question of if  the ’substantial custodial sentence’ will be as substantial as it should be.