Hard of Understanding

We've all heard about Calendar Girls. The story based on the WI (i think) who made risqué calendars to help keep their branch afloat.

Some of you may know it as a film. Well it's become a play in the West End as well. With Kelly Brook being the face of the show in the posters advertising it.

At least she was until the people who run trains under London's streets decided to censor them. See here for story

"Leaves too little for the imagination." was the charge levelled at the producers. Not exactly objective to begin with then. I mean, how exactly do you decide on how much of her breasts are on view say, compared with a shower gel or bikini advert?

In that context does that then mean that there's too much on show?

Er, gimme a few more minutes whilst I examine it!

The People's Republic (China, not the Isle of Wight) have eased a drought in Beijing in a way that they hadn't expected.

Concerned about the lack of rain affecting a wheat crop, they sent out chemists to "seed" clouds with silver iodide to induce precipitation.

Which it did.

Unfortunately a cold weather front came along and swiftly turned this precipitation into snow which caused havoc with transport etc. I'd be over the moon if it snowed though (I'm a kid at heart.)

I just hope with all the good intentions that the snow hasn't damaged the wheat crop as it could conversely have more negative effects for those on the bread line (I'm sorry I couldn't think of a better phrase!)

So, Prof. Nutt, the guy who spoke out about how drugs should be classified, has been sacked.

Do I agree? Not sure. Whilst on one hand I can see why he said what he said, I can also understand the Home Secretary's response. Put it this way, if you employed a mechanic to fix your car and they messed with your insurance cover you'd quickly get rid.

Whilst the good professor's intentions may well have been honourable, we still elect our representatives to make such decisions as those that he has been attempting to influence through popular media.

If he were just a professor (I'm not getting into the details here) his comments would not have been received in the same way that they have as "advisor to the government." Fact. So, he has crossed a line and used his position (intentionally or not) to influence the debate.

What's got me though is the way that other members of the committee have reacted. It has taken nearly a full weekend AFTER his sacking for one resign, and then nearly a day later another has decided to resign. There are still more "considering their positions."

Aw bless, the science guys are making a stand! Right, enough of the patronising and onto the bollocking. And this is for the other advisors.

You've spent so long faffing trying to decide your allegiance and where you stand that your resignations, IF they come, are now far too late and limp wristed. If you wanted an "all out" then Friday afternoon was the time (as a union man I know this), and that boat has now sailed.

The apathy that you have shown in the meantime speaks volumes to me and many thousands of others. And as you are supposed to advise the government on drugs policy, surely that cannot be a positive thing?

So, if you are still agonising over where you stand, then do us all a favour and disappear. In a role like your's we need people with the courage of their convictions to stand up and speak out sooner rather than later about the facts to hand. In UK drugs policy there is no middle ground or room for faffing.

They're supposed to (although we've already seen just how capable the BNP are of sticking to political party laws) all political parties need a bank account.

I want to know which bank it is so that I can make sure that none of my money also heads in that direction.

Who said democracy begins at the ballot box?

Right now, if I were a public sector worker I'd be a little paranoid about just how long I could expect to keep my job.

And if I were an employee of the Land Registry, then I'd be convinced that my employers not only had it in for me, but that they were trying to get rid of me on the quiet.

As you know, there is a minor tiff (!) at Royal Mail - R.I.P. btw - which looks to be 6 of one and half a dozen of the other, with the common or garden postie most likely to get shafted hardest whatever the outcome.

So can you imagine my surprise (and sarcasm) that the Land Registry has chosen today to announce that up to 1000 jobs face the axe.

If you are planning to play with people's livelihoods then you don't try to do it when you think that nobody will notice.

Unethical, unprofessional, out of order!

As a union man (different industry, different union) I have only this to say.

R.I.P. Royal Mail

nb. that dick in charge of the union has just played straight into management's hands. If I were a postie, I'd be wanting his head on a pointy stick.

According to the paper, scientists are working on stopping the aging process so that there could technically be 100 year olds with the body of someone half their age.

Now I'm going to leave the ethical arguments out of this here and go straight for the bleeding obvious.

Does that then mean that there'll be MILFS with the body of teens as well?

I've just been mooching around the internet - like you do - and come across the "Landscape Photographer of the Year" awards site. And I was breathtaken by what I saw. Stunning views, great angles, vibrant colours etc etc. Basically great works by people who had a lot of time and patience to wait for those "just right" shots to show off to the rest of us.

And those who took away awards for them were truly deserving of them.

So, from the article showcasing these works, were the comments those of hearty congratulations? HA, you wish!

These images look more like Hollywood computer graphics than anything you would see on this planet. A+ for using photoshop, but F for actually making and inspiring image of the natural world.

and

HDR or not, they're all (with the possible exception of the fell runners) a bit rubbish. There should be more to landscape photography than a pretty hill and a sunrise.

For those who don't know (and are maybe curious) this is HDR.

To be fair, there were complimentary comments, some direct, some gloved but in general I was appalled at the attitudes of these Armchair Experts who had plenty to say and very little to back it up with.

I'm now heading fast into dangerous territory as I'm not exactly known for holding my tongue, but my approach to matters is:

1. Could I do it better?
2. Have I properly researched it?
3. Is there a point, or is it a plain rant?
4. Would I actually say it face to face with those who I'm upsetting?

If the answer is "no" to any of the above, then I'm keeping schtum, ESPECIALLY point 4!

On occasion I'm wrong, or should have thought harder before I started typing (and always acknowledge when pulled up for it) but in general work by the principle that unless you can back up what you're saying, or at very least be constructive then what the hell have you put your boot in for?

Many (not all) of these comments following articles are the work of a bitter, ignorant, self-righteous band of cowards hiding behind their keyboards using anonymity as their shield. They spread their poison then move on to the next article like a virus.

So, a quick shout out to the sub-species determined to bring down another person's achievement. Unless you actually know something about the comments you are making and would have the guts to stand up in front of the rest of the world, identity stripped bare wiiling to be humiliated if incorrect, then keep the bile and vitriol to yourself.

You're just drowning out the comments that really mean something. Y'know, like "Well Done."

A wise businessman (I'm guessing that they are wise as they're still in business) told me that the best tine to pick up a bargain - such as a new company - is during a recession as the value plummets.

Right now I bet they're wetting themselves with delight as our Prime Minister has today announced that he intends to sell £16,000 million of public assets to raise short term capital.

During the biggest global downturn in living memory. Brilliant.

Well, it's official, as a country we are the chavs that appear on Ocean Finance ads when they've got too far out of their depth and start pawning the family silver.

I'm not usually a huge fan of my local authority, especially when it comes to selling off land / buildings that are surplus to requirements as they simply get the highest price possible, citing "Value for Money." which usually means that land which could be better served as a park will become a car park. But in this case, if our central govt. are insistent on selling off public assets, they had better bloody get the best possible price!

Just one request. If this is his idea of financial management when in charge, would it be too much to ask an auditor go in and assess what he must have been upto when he had control of the country's bank balance?

Can there be such a thing as open-source current affairs?

My gut is telling me on quality and accuracy the answer is no (but please feel free to correct me.) Currently, journalists go through a lot of training and education (at great expense) and then once they've qualified and begun work they still need folding stuff to be able to live.

We talk about "citizen reporting," non-qualified reporters with rudimentary pictures from camera phones, video pieces from camera phones and articles in locations such as, well, here. And the Five's "Gadget Show" even devoted a section to equipment suitable for such reporting. But what faith and reliance can we put in it in a world of demand for facts and reliability? And could the Press Complaints Commission, the gatekeepers of decency in our media police the non-professionals in the same way that it does the established media institutions?

And are we at risk of a two tier information society where there are those who pay for professional news articles, and those who have to rely on citizen reporting? With our society turning more to television on demand and even away from the television altogether, the internet is becoming the primary source of information of a generation.

There is a reason behind my mentality of this entry - one R. Murdoch.

At the World Media Summit in China he's turned his focus from the BBC to rattling the sabre at the likes of Google and Yahoo who re-publish news articles currently for free. He wants them to start paying for it, just like he wants everyone who accesses news sites directly to begin paying.

And a spokesman from AP (of whom I should imagine Murdoch is a very good customer) we had this little soundbite: We will no longer tolerate the disconnect between people who devote themselves - at great human and economic cost - to gathering news of public interest and those who profit from it without supporting it

Seems reasonable, but every cynical bone in my body is telling me that the timing - halfway through a recession with newspaper sales dwindling - is a little convenient. Also, it should be pointed out that if the article is accessed on a search engines "news" section then the provider can't put their ads up so there is potentially lost revenue there as well.

If you believe that open source news can work then please put your ideas here I'd love to hear them.

In the mean time, a warning to the media outlets.

The music industry completely underestimated the effect that the internet would have on sales and copyright. You need to make sure that whatever you do to carry on generating revenue that - it is accepted - you need to carry on news gathering, it needs to be properly thought out and implement otherwise it will fail and simply make matters worse.

10 years on the music industry still hasn't figured out the internet, don't become another casualty of it.