“Who gives a crap about some imbecile?”

December 21st, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

The American 1% defend themselves

At a lunch in New York, Stemberg and Allison shared their disdain for Section 953(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires public companies to disclose the ratio between the compensation of their CEOs and employee medians, according to Allison. The rule, still being fine-tuned by the Securities and Exchange Commission, is “incredibly wasteful” because it takes up time and resources, he said. Stemberg called the rule “insane” in an e-mail to Bloomberg News.

“Instead of an attack on the 1 percent, let’s call it an attack on the very productive,” Allison said. “This attack is destructive.”

via Geeoharee

PCC wants to regulate blogs

December 15th, 2011 § 5 comments § permalink

Jon Slattery

Lord Hunt, PCC chairman since October, told Exaro in an interview with David Hencke: “At the moment, it is like the Wild West out there. We need to appoint a sheriff.”

His initial plan for online media is to invite bloggers who write on current affairs to volunteer to be regulated by the replacement body for the PCC.

Lord Hunt wants a ‘kitemark’ style badge for bloggers, who will have to pay for the privelige.

When this type of thing was suggested for the papers at last years Editors Cose review it was given no thought at all. I realise that the PCC was Baroness Buscombe then, but still. The idea of regulating blogs was also raised by the PCC then, and the response was a big resounding no by bloggers. How would it work? Who would it cover? It would just be unenforcable etc.

Lord Hunt should concentrate on getting together a proper regulatory process with proper sanctions before trying to widen his remit.

Until then, Lord Hunt can go fuck himself.

Ethical blindness

December 8th, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

Independent

The co-founder of Wikipedia Jimmy Wales has criticised Bell Pottinger’s “ethical blindness” as the lobbying company admitted altering details of its clients’ reputations online.

Bell Pottinger last night said that its digital team used a number of accounts to edit Wikipedia articles, although it stressed it had never done anything illegal.

Last night, Mr Wales told The Independent: “I am astonished at the ethical blindness of Bell Pottinger’s reaction. That their strongest true response is they didn’t break the law tells a lot about their view of the world, I’m afraid.

Of course they’re ‘ethically blind’. They’re fucking paid mouthpieces. You pay them money, they make you look good, or not as bad as you really are.

There are ‘ethical’ PR/lobbying firms out there. That’s the surprise.

footnote:
Its nice to see Tim get credited, and to see him doing something other than fire-fighting all that shit the fucking Tories and their hangers on keep throwing at him.

Billy No-Mates

December 8th, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

Guardian

European leaders have embarked on a mammoth effort to forestall the ruin of the single currency at what was seen as the most important Brussels summit in years, with France, Germany and the leaders of the eurozone lined up against David Cameron and his campaign to extract a price in return for agreeing to Europe’s new “fiscal compact”.

President Nicolas Sarkozy of France said the two-day summit was the EU’s last chance to save the euro. Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, the central figure pushing a new punitive euro regime, voiced confidence that a satisfactory deal would be reached. Cameron insisted he wanted a “fair deal” for Britain and warned he would not hesitate to veto Franco-German proposals unless he got something in return.

Tough-talking Cameron. Showing them foreigners who’s boss, eh?

In what was seen as a warning on behalf of Germany and France, Jean-Claude Juncker, the prime minister of Luxembourg and chairman of the Eurogroup, told Cameron to back off or face the prospect of being sidelined by a new treaty forged simply among the 17 eurozone countries.

Does he really think that all these countries that are directly affected gonna not implement what they think they need to because some jumped up, shiny headed, PR man from Britain thinks it’s a bad move for his tiny country?

The Eurozone, those countries that use the Euro currency, are the majority. 17 out of 27 countries. This summit is about saving the Euro, not bringing closer integration or forwarding the European project. This is not about us. It’s about them.

Cameron hasn’t got a chance, what-ever happens he’s fucked, at home or abroad and he’s just carries on like nobodies noticed.

Psst! Wanna know what?

December 2nd, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

It’s not the content, it’s the medium that’s offensive

December 2nd, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

Upponnothing

My thoughts on Clarkson’s comments are simple: make them on TV and you can expect to get lots of complaints and outrage; make them in a newspaper and you’d be handsomely rewarded as a ‘star’ columnist. If anything, Clarkson has just provided a perfect example of the kind of jokey hyperbole he gets away with in print without a whisper of outrage being deemed as the work of Satan just because he said it on TV.

There is a very interesting double standard in this country when it comes to what is acceptable on TV compared to what is acceptable in print. Just imagine – for example – a TV news broadcast flicking from a serious news story to an upskirt shot of some female celeb getting out of a taxi or a video report about what Suri Cruise has worn during the week or how ‘she looks all grown up’. It, of course, would probably crash the phone network as outraged masses call in their disgust and complaints.

Yet this is what we get in the tabloids. It seems to me that British Society finds the medium of TV inherently more offensive than the medium of print.

I’m awaiting a rant…

December 1st, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

Scottish comedian Brian Limond (@daftlimmy) expressed how happy he would be when Thatcher dies and Louise Mensch, the Conservative MP for Corby, is horrified, horrified I tells you, that the BBC would employ such a man

Free speech includes the right to be offensive. It includes the right to describe an old woman in terms of such bitter hatred that you talk about her death being a jackpot. It includes the right to post faux-serious arguments like saying you are “removed from reality” if you don’t see that old woman’s death as a celebration. But the point is that our license fee should not go to BBC Scotland so they can commission multiple series from a healthy, middle-aged male who chooses to rain such hate on a woman of eighty-six, now mentally frail, vulnerable and unable to answer him back or defend herself. I hope Mr Limond feels like a big man for frothing over the forthcoming death of a very old woman.

Brian Limond didn’t say he would kill the ex-Priminister, just that he would be so happy he doesn’t think his heart would be able to take it.

I can only imagine how upset and disturbed Louise Mensch is about another BBC employee stating how, if he were in charge he would execute people in front of their family for striking

Clarkson was asked what he would do with strikers, he replied: “I would have them all shot.”

He continued: “I would take them outside and execute them in front of their families.”

I await an outraged article in a newspaper somewhere calling for the BBC to give this psychopath the sack instead of our hard earned licence fee.

(last paragraph amended so it wasn’t a load of gibberish)

Harry Cole (AKA @torybear) is…

November 24th, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

… a cunt.

What? You didn’t expect me to say he’s a nice bloke, did you?

h/t D-Notice

The Red Cross. Still banning Christmas, apparently.

November 22nd, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

The Daily Mail has admitted that Winterval, as a replacement for Christmas, is a myth, but there is another myth that originated with the Daily Mail that, although not quite as old, is potentially more damaging.

I’ve wrote about it last year and it’s reared it’s ugly head again: The Red Cross Ban Christmas.

The Mail story goes back to 2002 and about this time of year, just like Winterval, someone new finds this story and starts the shouting all over again. Go and read my previous post, here, and then come back.

Now you know the background to the Daily Mail story I want to re-iterate just why the Red Cross/Crescent needs to not do Christmas or any other religion.

One of the Red Cross’ Seven Fundamental Principles is neutrality. Without this, they are just another charity. I don’t mean to denigrate charities or make them sound inferior to the Red Cross, but without these seven principles, especially neutrality, the Red Cross wouldn’t enjoy the respected and unique position it has.

The Principle of Neutrality

the purpose of complying with the principle of Neutrality is to enjoy the confidence of all. Implicitly, this compliance with the principle of Neutrality is also a condition for operational efficiency, which requires confidence of all in many contexts, i.e. not only in armed conflicts contexts;

the principle of Neutrality prohibits a component of the Movement from taking part in hostilities;

the principle of Neutrality prohibits the Movement from engaging at any time in controversies of a political, racial, religious or ideological nature.

The point is that the Red Cross is not a political or religious organisation. This neutrality is one of our fundamental principles and governs everything we do in the whole Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. It means that we can reach and help people in need, whoever and wherever they are. Often we provide help in countries that other organisations cannot or will not work in.
We cross front lines in times of war to help conflict victims and visit prisoners of war on both sides. We can only do this life-saving work because we are understood to be a completely neutral, independent organisation. Put simply, our neutrality saves lives.

We can’t let people in need down by compromising our neutrality. That is why we do not align ourselves with any particular political cause or religious creed anywhere in the world. And that’s why we don’t have any items of a religious nature in our shops.

A nativity scene in a shop in Kent might seem like it has nothing to do with our sensitive, precarious work in a war zone in Africa or the Middle East. But in a world where information travels quickly and pervasively – a world where an eight-year-old news story is still raising questions with our supporters – we have to make sure we act consistently across the board with regard to our neutrality.

Source

I’m pretty sure most shops wouldn’t bother with xmas if they didn’t lose sales. The Red Cross would ‘do Christmas’ if it didn’t have ramifications in other areas of it’s operations.

People claim that the Red Cross is pandering to Muslims and minorities and being politically correct. Every time the story is repeated, the poster, a commenter or a forum thread member say they are going to stop donating, if they ever did in the first place, because of this. “This is a Christian country” they claim. This is flip side of the coin that the Red Cross gets from other quarters that mean there is a Red Crescent organisation. Exactly the same sentiment that shows exactly why the Red Cross needs, at it’s core, to be and to be seen to be neutral.

The Red Cross and Red Crescent need to be above this sort of bickering and this neutrality principle is them saying that they do not care where you are from, what you look like, who you believe in or what you have done. They will help you and you can let them help you because they will not preach, or condemn you, and the authorities will let them help because they will not interfere.

The Red Cross’ neutrality means that they can use that money were it’s needed, where other organisations cannot get to. I would say that is a little more important than pandering to people that want to see a little model nativity scene in every building they walk in to.

Is a fairy on a tree really that important?

The Daily Mail receives a letter from a lawyer

November 14th, 2011 § 2 comments § permalink

This (.pdf) is one of the most pleasant things I’ve read in a long time…

Florida based celebrity photo agency Mavrix have filed suit against the British newspaper for multiple copyright infringements, and are seeking statutory damages of $150,000 per infringement. With up to 10 images involved the total sought comes to $1.5m plus attorney’s fees and “any such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and appropriate”.

In court documents Mavrix accuse the Mail of “a pattern and practice of intellectual property piracy”:

“One of the Daily Mail employees who Mavrix interacted in the past regarding Mavrix images was Elliot Wagland, the Daily Mail Online Picture Editor. Defendants with Mr. Wagland’s assistance have a history of copyright piracy conduct. Indeed, the pattern and practice of Defendants is to ignore the demand of photo agencies or photographers to agree to rates before use and to simply take the pictures and use them without compensation or to then offer token compensation.”

h/t @waxnip