On taking mistakes seriously

August 11th, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

I got a small mention in the latest edition of a trade magazine as part of a press release about our company. For a cut and paste job, they got it completely arse about face, but in my mind it wasn’t a big important announcement, just a little bit of guff about us, so no big deal.

This is the apology we received (my emphasis)…

Hi [snip],

My sincere apologies for the factual errors in the [snip] article. It was myself who wrote the piece for this page, and I can only apologise for the errors.

We will of course print the correct details in the next edition of the magazine. I will also write a summary of the changes at [snip] to publish on the [snip] website today.

Perhaps it would be best if we can arrange a meeting with [snip] to apologise in person and also see about their plans for the future?

They may not have the circulation of the dailies or an agenda to keep to, so are more forthcoming with a ‘sorry’, but still, it’s nice to see someone in some part of the media take mistakes seriously.

More on cloaca

January 15th, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

A cloaca I’ve been given QI’s The Second Book of General Ignorance and in it there is a little about snakes which includes this little gem…

Another use of the cloaca in some snake species is ‘popping’. This is where air is expelled from it in short sharp bursts, indistinguishable in timbre and volume from high-pitched human farts. The foul smell (and surprise value) help keep predators at bay.


Richard Littlejohn – more than just an arse

July 7th, 2010 § 3 comments § permalink


He shits on people

It might not be fashionable, or even acceptable in some quarters, to say so, but in their chosen field of “work’=”, death by strangulation is an occupational hazard.
That doesn’t make it justifiable homicide, but in the scheme of things the deaths of these five women is no great loss.

He takes the piss out of people appearance, in a very public way, just because he doesn’t particularly like the way someone looks. Oh, and he fucks things up because he’s a lazy cunt that can’t be bothered to research what he writes about.

Hmm. There’s a connection there. Shit, piss, and vaginal ‘things’ all from the same orifice, That’s a cloaca. Doesn’t it just suit him down to the ground.

Richard Littlejohn. Three-in-one. A cloaca.

See also Tims’ post for more reasons why cloaca is such a perfect description of Littlejohn.

PPC Code of Practice suggestions: Now with added video

January 19th, 2010 § 1 comment § permalink

If reading a page full of text about how the PCC Editors Code of Practice could be improved isn’t your thing and you’d rather watch a lovely spangley video with some great music, then watch this (there’s even a game at the end for you to enjoy).

go and sign the petition and maybe even leave your own suggestion.

Oh, and tell yer mates, too.

Press Complaints Commission annual review

January 18th, 2010 § 2 comments § permalink

Update: A quick note from Tim Ireland…

[NOTE – It’s probably something to do with the sudden popularity of our petition, but ipetitions.com have now started displaying a donation page (instead of a ‘thank you’ page) after you submit your details. I understand why ipetitions.com have done this – and Dog knows they deserve a donation or two for providing a superior petition service – but I’m less-than-impressed by the way they’ve gone about it. At this stage, I can only apologise for this unexpected feature and provide new people with advance warning; you do not have to make a donation for your signature to register.]

The PCC is holding its’ annual review of its’ Code of Practice, the rules that govern the behaviour of the press and it’s members.

The PCC want suggestions from, not just the industry itself, but from the general public too.

(Update: We will also be submitting our suggestions to the to the Independent Governance Review in time for the 25 Jan 2010 deadline

A few of us bloggers that take an interest in this sort of thing have got together and come up with some suggestions, which we feel, should be a priority for the PCC to incorporate into its’ Code of Practice, while we await and try to get started a bigger discussion of who and how it should regulate.

The idea being a ‘safety in numbers’ thing, the more people put their names to these suggestions the harder it will be for the PCC to ignore than if a lot of suggestions come from individuals.

We need you to sign the petition and also, in the comments section, you can leave you’re own suggestion. The petition will be delivered in a format that means that any individual suggestions can be responded to by the PCC, not just the main group petition. You can use a nickname or your real name (if you use your real name it can be hidden from public view if you wish) and the PCC will still count as valid.

For more, see Bloggerheads.com

The text of the petition is below, just follow the link and digitally sign it, please.

SUGGESTION ONE: Like-for-like placement of retractions, corrections and apologies in print and online (as standard).

Retractions, corrections, and apologies should normally be at least equally prominent to the original article, in both print and online editions. Any departure from this rule should only be in exceptional circumstances, and the onus on showing such circumstances should be on the publication.

SUGGESTION TWO: Original or redirected URLs for retractions, corrections & apologies online (as standard).

Retractions, corrections, and apologies in respect of online articles should always be displayed either at the original URL or at a URL to which the reader is redirected.

SUGGESTION THREE: The current Code contains no reference to headlines, and this loophole should be closed immediately.

Headlines should be covered by the same rules as the rest of a story. Further, headlines and titles for links should never be misleading in what they imply or offer and should always be substantiated by the article/contents.

SUGGESTION FOUR: Sources to be credited unless they do not wish to be credited or require anonymity/protection.

Sources should normally be credited. Any departure from this rule should only be when the source does not wish to be credited or if the source requires anonymity/protection.

SUGGESTION FIVE: A longer and more interactive consultation period for open discussion of more fundamental issues.

We submit all of the above without implying support for the PCC, the remainder of Code as it stands, or even the concept of self-regulation, and request that the 20th year of the PCC be marked with an open debate about its progress to date, and its future direction.

Further issues or suggestions may be included as a ‘comment’ and individual responses to these concerns/suggestions (via the corresponding email address) would be appreciated.

Thank you.

sign here

These suggestions were decided upon by Tim Ireland, Kevin Arscott, Adam Bienkov, Dave Cross, Sunny Hundal, Jack of Kent, Justin McKeating, MacGuffin, Mark Pack, septicisle, Jamie Sport, Clive Summerfield, Unity, Anton Vowl.

Whispered apologies

January 12th, 2010 § 3 comments § permalink

How fucking hard is it to find a snap shot of a newspaper frontpage, eh?


Peaches Geldof has accepted substantial undisclosed libel damages at London’s High Court over a claim that she was a prostitute who charged £5,000 a night for sexual services.

The 20-year-old TV presenter and model had brought proceedings over a September 2008 front page story in The Daily Star.

That is quite insulting, isn’t it? It could ruin a career, an accusation like that, and once mud has been thrown it can be bloody hard to get off.

Peaches initially went to the Press Complaints Commission, which according to the PCC is the right thing to do, and the complaint was upheld and the Daily Star published an apology and retraction. So if Peaches got an apology, why sue?…

“The defendant refused to publish a retraction and apology on its front page but instead published it on page two.

“As the publication was substantially smaller, the claimant considered this to be unacceptable as it was not, in her view, adequately prominent.”

The PCC felt that an apology on the inside of the paper, even though the offending headline was on the front page, was fine. As far as the PCC was concerned it was job done. Next, please.

But it isn’t fine, is it? What the Star did was the equivilent to standing in the street shouting about how Peaches Geldof is a whore to all and sundry that passed by. What the PCC let them do is tell only the people that stop by their office that, actually, Peaches isn’t a whore.

The headlines on the front page scream to the world whether the paper is bought or not. When you buy a paper people notice the other papers, just because they have to find it on the shelf. Many more people would’ve seen that headline, and changed their opinion for the worse, than would’ve seen the retraction and apology.

What, though, would the PCC have done if it had deemed an apology on the second page not good enough and the Daily Star still refused to put it on the front page? Would it have fined the Star? Would it have helped Peaches take the Star to court? Of course not. It would’ve done nothing, because it can do nothing more.

The question is purely academic, anyway. The PCC may have ruled that the complaint was valid, but the ‘punishment’ (yeah, yeah. stop laughing) would’ve been negotiated. The Star, along with many other papers, would never put an apology on the front page, it would’ve told the PCC to fuck right off, so as a compromise, the second page it was.

Quite rightly, the second page was found not to be good enough.

Fortunately, Peaches has the money to take the matter further, not everyone does. The next time it could be you, unable to make a paper stand in the street and tell everyone it was wrong about you.

via Scaryduck

The Sun on Afghanistan and Gordon Brown

August 28th, 2009 § 0 comments § permalink

As an Editor of the Sun Lies blog I get to bask in the reflected glory of this post from Scepticisle

it [The Sun] seems a little hazy on history as well, as this passage from the editorial makes plain:

Mr Brown has taken the country to war but is ducking responsibility for the conduct of it. The tradition of our country is that in wartime, the Prime Minister takes charge.

Lloyd George led us in World War One and Winston Churchill in World War Two.

Margaret Thatcher led from the front in the triumphant Falklands War in 1982.

John Major took charge in the first Gulf War of 1991. Tony Blair assumed full responsibility when we invaded Iraq to topple Saddam. And he did the same over the liberation of Kosovo.

Except Gordon Brown hasn’t taken the country in Afghanistan; Tony Blair did, in 2001. We’ve been there ever since. Brown as chancellor provided the funds for the war, it’s quite true, but was not personally responsible for taking us there. He also wasn’t prime minister when we entered Helmand in 2006: the defence secretary then was John Reid, who famously said he hoped that we would leave without firing a single shot. Then there’s the fact that we’re there in the country, not just on our own, but as part of the ISAF NATO coalition. Additionally, if we’re going to split hairs, Winston Churchill didn’t lead us into WW2; Neville Chamberlain did. The war in Afghanistan is also not, in any meaningful sense, a war with specific aims like all of those the Sun lists. It’s far more comparable to what we were doing in Iraq from the fall of Saddam up until our exit this year: peacekeeping, reconstruction and providing security. Missions, like Operation Panther’s Claw, which had the specific aim of clearing out Taliban so that people could vote in the presidential election, have been few and far between. As also argued above, we are quite clearly not in “wartime”.

I would like to post the lot, but that would be a little too much, I think. So, go and read the rest

NotW: BNP Festival report

August 24th, 2009 § 2 comments § permalink

I know, I know. It’s the News of the World and the News of the World does have it’s own parking place at the Old Bailey car park.

Wouldn’t it be nice, though? To have see John Coombes and Dick Hamilton refute the claim

A 12-year-old girl there with her dad (we are protecting her identity) held a golly called Winston over the fire as Coombes “charged” him with “mugging, rape, drug dealing”.

He sneered: “Right Winston, you’re about to get cooked. Anything else to say?

“Says he ain’t a drug dealer. He thinks he’s not black. He’s charged with being black. Now get on there.”

Skinhead Hamilton chipped in: “If he jumps off he’s innocent.” Coombes went on: “He’s guilty, guilty as charged.

“Let’s get a real one – in the town we’ll find one or two. They’ll also be guilty of the heinous crimes I charged him with – may God forgive your horrible soul.” Coombes repeated the charges then added: “He may have appeared innocent to you lot but I’m sure he done lots of things wrong.”

or for Andrew Brons to deny ever saying…

I’m less concerned about the presence of mosques than the presence of the people that use them. Being worried about the presence of a particular mosque is almost like looking at a disease like smallpox and saying it’s a problem with spots.

It would make a fantastic spectacle. These fuckers trying to deny their racist, fascist roots and all their rhetorical acrobatics to try and show how they’ve changed.

They won’t though. Because they can’t. Because underneath their carefully chosen words, they are exactly what we see them as. Racist, fascist cunts.

[screen capture including 91 comments is here. I doubt the page will change, but you never know]

Times, they’re a-changing

August 17th, 2009 § 0 comments § permalink

Up until 1.23am 17 August 2009 this URL http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1206618/Extremist-banned-entering-UK-BNP-festival.html took you to this story [click to enlarge]….
After that time it now looks like this [again, click to enlarge]…
The pictures are the same but the words have been changed. In fact, the words have been changed so much you could say it is a completely different article.

And as such, the comments below the first draft were irrelevant to the second and so could be removed. At least I think that’s the reason. Couldn’t be anything to do with the invasion of racist fucks in the comments, could it?

The whole world entitled to free health care on the NHS

July 22nd, 2009 § 2 comments § permalink

The Daily Mail hasn’t earnt itself the nickname The Daily Fail for no reason. This one is an epic.

Apparently some failed asylum seekers are to be allowed free health care on the NHS, that is currently denied to them. Sorry, I should’ve said ‘proposed’. They’re not currently allowed, and it isn’t definately going to happen.
It’s just a proposal.

According to the Daily Mail, the headline goes…

A million failed asylum seekers will get free NHS care in human rights U-turn

A million people will get NHS treatment. That is an assertion of fact. But it’s not a fact. It’s a proposal.

Digging deeper, but not much deeper. In fact only as far as the first line of the story itself…

NHS treatment will be available for tens of thousands of failed asylum seekers to ensure their human rights are honoured, it was announced yesterday.

So it’s not a millon failed asylum seekers, after all. it’s only tens of thousands. Not quite so shocking that number, is it?

The number has dropped significantly because certain criteria would need to be fullfiled, rather than just any asylum seeker. They would need to be destitute with children and various other things. So the proposal’s not open to all.

Strolling through the article the figures get a little more specific still…

There are understood to be around 450,000 failed asylum seekers who have not left the country, although only 10 or 20,000 are directly affected by the new rules.

So there is ‘understood’ to be less then half a million failed asylum seekers in the country and only just tens of thousands at the biggest guess or estimate.
Just think a little about what is being told here.

There are 450,000 failed asylum seekers. What proportion of total applications these failures are I don’t know.
Lets take the bigger 20,000 number that would be directly affected by the proposals. Which means that approximately 4.5% of failed asylum seekers are affected (for the better, remember).

But for the headline to be correct, 50x more failed asylum seekers would need to be eligible, which if it stayed at the same rate would mean there would have to be 22,500,000 failed asylum seekers. Let that sink in for a moment.

Twentytwo and a half million. Failed. Asylum seekers. A number equivalent to a third of the population of Britain.

As I said earler I have no idea of the proportion of total asylum applications the failed ones make, but how many applications are gonna be needed to get a failure rate of 22.5 million?

And where did this original one million figure come from?

According to the Mail, MigrationWatch.


  1. I originally came to this Mail article via a post on the BNP site. That article says pretty much the same thing but with out the 10-20,000 figure and a bit more pro-BNP propaganda.
  2. I just realised that there is no time scale mentioned, either. Are these figure for a five year period? A year? Month? Half a week?
  3. I hope my maths has not let me down

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing entries tagged with old media at Sim-O.