Monday Moan 25

Christmas noise

It’s started – Christmas noise is all around us.  I am no Scrooge or Grumpy Old Man (honestly) but my patience and good nature are being sorely tested at the moment.

 

Can’t a person step out to do some shopping without their eyes and ears being assaulted by flashing lights and deafening noise from a PA system?  Twice last week I ventured out to local shopping areas.  On a late afternoon,  I chanced upon the build-up to the switching on of the festive lights.  Every child within a radius of 10 miles appeared to be there, mostly in their buggies, which made walking around for the rest of us such a pleasure, and almost without exception crying or shouting or making some other noise at high volume.  Within a few minutes of finding the relative tranquillity of a shop I then heard loud music from a PA system outside.  At least, I assumed it was just outside since it was so loud, but when I left the shop there was nothing to be seen, apart from a phalanx of buggies rushing along the road obviously on a mission to get somewhere important.  Swept along by the tide, I turned the corner to see a makeshift stage on which a young lady, apparently from a local radio station, was addressing the crowd in what can only be described as Radio DJ Estuary English, babbling along about nothing in particular and desperate for some interaction with the massed force of buggies assembled in front of her. 

 

What with that and the fairground rides and light-sabre sellers and tacky merchandise on hastily erected stalls and I was soon beating a retreat, saving my cash for another day.

 

I thought that other day might be last Saturday.  This time, partly because of the atrocious weather, the venue was a shopping centre.  It was crowded, but then it was raining and shopping centres are where people go in such circumstances.  It was noisy, but then that’s the nature of indoor shopping centres. It was full of what seemed suspiciously like the same buggies as I had encountered a couple of days earlier, but there was more room for manoeuvring round them so things didn’t seems so bad. There was a band of carol singers at one end of the mall, so I moved away fairly quickly. But once down the other end the loud music started and then I spotted another makeshift stage.  Surely lightning couldn’t strike twice?  Oh yes it could! Admittedly it was a different young lady and a different local radio station, but the approach and effect were the same – too much noise, too little enjoyment, and I was out of there as quickly as I could.

 

I still have money to spend at Christmas, but I think I will do most of my shopping online in the peace and quiet of my own home.

  

 

What’s the point, and what’s the cost?

The EU summit last week to discuss the budget for 2014-2020 was as predictable as it was disheartening.  Get the EU’s 27 leaders together to agree a budget?  More chance of winning the lottery than that they will agree anything at the first such meeting.  It’s all a rather weary charade isn’t it?  We all know what the respective positions of the member countries are and we all know they will not be able to agree. But we still have to go through the nonsense of these important people drawing up outside the building in their limousines, getting out, walking over to state their prepared positions to the waiting press, and then disappearing inside for the summit.  Two days later they will all emerge to give press conferences to say they are determined to stick to their positions, that the others are inflexible, that the European Commission has not worked hard enough to come up with an acceptable package, and then they will all disperse to their respective countries to play out the next round of the charade for their domestic audiences. 

 

They will be back.  And so will the circus that surrounds such events, including hordes of journalists and camera teams from every broadcaster in the EU, eager to catch the utterances of these god-like leaders and then play them back to us during the evening news bulletins as if there was something happening that was really newsworthy.

 

I’m fed-up with it all.  And I want to know how much all this costs – not just the costs of the summits themselves, but the preparations beforehand, the travelling and accommodation. And I want to know the cost involved in the assembling of the world’s press at such events.  How much do the BBC, ITV and Sky spend on sending their own teams to relay back to us the news that there is no news, only what we all knew already?

 

Someone ought to call a halt to it all.  Make a stand. Save some money. Demand that we all stop pretending that the meetings are anything more than a charade along the way towards eventual agreement.

 

 

Spot the difference

Now that I am a man of leisure I get time to look at things in more detail.  Some might say this results in me finding things to moan about that really aren’t worth getting bothered about.  They may be right, but isn’t that the attitude that allows people to get away with things that ought not to be allowed? 

 

For example, now that I shop more than I used to I have noticed how confusing everything is when you are trying to assess the value of what you buy.  Picking just one thing at random, I decided to buy some biscuits for Christmas last week – buy early and then avoid the hassle later, I thought.  I spotted a box of Crawford’s biscuits that appeared to be the same as the one I bought last year – yes, that would be an easy option, so into the basket it went.

 

But when I got home and put it side by side with last year’s, all seemed slightly different.  Instead of 12 varieties of biscuits we now had only 10.  It took some forensic examination to discover that the ‘missing’ biscuits included jammy dodgers – how could they!  Further close examination revealed that the weight of biscuits included in the box was actually more this year than last.  Curious. My initial instinct was that since the price was unchanged from last year this must mean the box was better value this time.  Fortunately, my wife was on hand to add the appropriate note of caution, suggesting that removing the jammy dodgers and one other ‘exotic’ biscuit meant that the weight gain could only have been achieved by increasing the proportion of plain, boring biscuits, so the overall value was diminished.

 

Far too complicated for me – just what the manufacturer’s intended, no doubt.

 

 

Didn’t he used to be good?

Watching Match of the Day last night we had the now familiar discussion after any match involving Chelsea of what was wrong with Fernando Torres and when was he going to rediscover his form.

 

The experts flap around looking for reasons why Torres no longer looks like he knows how to score goals. They remember him as he used to be and wonder who or what can spark him back to life.  It’s all very repetitive and pointless.

 

My wife interjected – “why are they bothering with this, he was rubbish at Liverpool and he’s rubbish at Chelsea”.  She was right, of course.  Although I should add that he was only rubbish at Liverpool after his two knee operations in 2010.  Might be a bit of a clue there, perhaps? Prior to that he had been a real goalscorer, but he never recovered this form.

 

Liverpool made one of the most astute transfer deals in recent years when they sold this crocked Torres to cash-rich Chelsea in January 2011 for £50m.  Laughing all the way to the bank?  Not quite, because the gloss of this clever deal was almost rubbed out by their decision to blow £35m of it on Andy Carroll – so Newcastle were actually the astute dealers in this little exchange.

 

Anyway, the point is that Torres might one day discover the form that once made him a great striker, but don’t bet too much of your money on it – the English game is full of ex-Liverpool strikers who lost their touch but were still purchased by a succession of clubs dazzled by their former prowess – think Robbie Fowler and Michael Owen, for example.

 

 

Monday Moan 24

Olympic Stadium - Get on with it!

The Olympic Stadium was a wonderful venue.  80,000 spectators accommodated with ease, good sightlines for all, plenty of catering and toilet facilities, good access to the venue and to the area.

So what’s the delay over deciding what it should be used for in the future?  Interminable wrangles over whether it should be used for football and, if so, who is to pay for the ‘conversion’ work required, seem nonsensical to me.  There is no reason I can see for it to be used for football, especially if huge amounts of money have to be spent to make it ‘adequate’ for the task.  The stadium was fit to hold the Olympic Games and drew approval from everyone who used it.   Why does it need to be converted into anything else? 

 

According to David Bond, the BBC’s Sports Editor, some of the arguments currently being put forward include the following:-

‘Premier League Football is the only way of filling the stadium on a regular basis’ – well, no, that’s just an assertion.  There is a long list of other uses that could bring in huge crowds on a regular basis, from concerts to other sporting events.

‘The roof needs to be extended so that all the seats are covered’ – why? Have we all become so cossetted that we cannot now be expected to get a little wet on occasions?

‘Retractable seating needs to be installed so that fans can be nearer to the action’ – why?  Even if the stadium was to be used for football there is nothing inherently wrong with watching from a little further away, especially given the huge cost involved in installing such seating.

‘The toilets need to be refurbished’ – excuse me?  Were the toilets good enough for 80,000 spectators every day during the Olympics, but not up to standard for football fans?  Or maybe it is that the toilets were too good, too clean, too plentiful, and they need to be trashed a little before football fans would feel comfortable?

As far as I’m concerned the stadium is ready right now to be used for other events, subject only to the Olympic site being cleared of the other renovation work taking place. Stop this endless debating about its future, give it to a proper management company to run, let them offer themselves and the venue in the same way as happens with the O2 and Wembley.  Above all, keep football out, unless they choose to hire it in the same way as anybody else.

 

Nothing to do with us ……..

Do you ever read the small print, or the disclaimers attached to virtually all communications from corporates these days?  Thought not.  Nor do I make a habit of doing so, but I took the time to look at the disclaimer provided by E.ON when they emailed me recently to let me know their meter-reader would be calling round soon.

“This email has been sent by E.ON Energy Solutions Limited, while we have checked this e-mail and any attachments for viruses, we can not guarantee that they are virus-free. You must therefore take full responsibility for virus checking.”

 

OK, I accept that as a responsible internet user I ought to have some kind of virus protection.

“Internet communications are not always secure and therefore E.ON does not accept legal responsibility for this message. The recipient is responsible for verifying its authenticity before acting on the contents.”

This one is a bit harder to swallow.  E.ON accepts no responsibility for its own message and asks its customers to ‘verify its authenticity’.  So we are supposed to do what, call them to check that they really did send the email?

 

“Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of E.ON.”

 So this means that an official email from E.ON, which I have checked for viruses, the authenticity of which I have checked to my satisfaction, is then considered to contain the views of the author and not those of E.ON?  Come on E.ON, you have to take some responsibility here don’t you?  If it comes from you and is written either by one of your employee’s or, most likely in this case, is a standard communication generated automatically by your system, then I think I’m entitled to hold you responsible for what it says.

p.s. The views expressed in this article are not necessarily my own and it is the responsibility of the reader to verify their authenticity and to take steps to ensure that no damage is caused to their mental faculties as a result of having taken the time to read this message.

 

Give us a smile

The Moan has an editorial policy of not gloating about football results, so let’s be clear that the following piece is actually about ‘Honest’ Harry Redknapp and not his beloved Tottenham’s abysmal showing against Arsenal at the weekend.

A few weeks ago ‘Honest’ Harry was positively revelling in Arsenal’s predicament (as he saw it) after they had lost to Norwich, a team he cast (by implication) as the sort of no-hopers that the top teams should beat with their eyes closed.  Incidentally, I wonder whether pundits like ‘Honest’ Harry might care to revise their condescending attitude towards Norwich now that they have also beaten Manchester United?

Anyway, leaving that aside, it was hard to believe that the chirpy, wide-eyed ‘Honest’ Harry we saw that day was the same person who appeared this week on Match of the Day after Tottenham had, again, lost 5-2 to Arsenal.  This time his body language was rather different. He sat on his chair with his body turned slightly away from the other two pundits, with the most miserable of looks on his face that you could imagine.  Just like a sullen teenager who has been forced to accompany his parents on a visit to his relatives – he was not going to smile.  He was determined to be grumpy whatever they said, and although he was full of praise for Santi Cazorla he refused to join in anything that resembled praise for Arsenal, even insisting that Tottenham, would still finish above Arsenal and that they had a stronger squad.  Sat next to him was Vincent Kompany, captain of Manchester City, who was invited to agree with ‘Honest’ Harry’s assessment.  Instead, Kompany said that Arsenal were the best team Manchester City had played this year, he had nothing but good to say about them, and he wouldn’t be surprised to see them finish a lot higher than now – and above Tottenham. 

Of course, it is possible that Tottenham will finish higher than Arsenal, but the likelihood of this happening is about on a par with the proverbial pig being able to fly – it might happen but don’t bet on it.

Monday Moan 23

Overblown sense of importance

The BBC makes headline news – on the BBC.  The BBC is ‘in crisis’ – according to the BBC.  The BBC ‘has not faced a greater challenge than this for, oh, at least 10 years’, according to the BBC.

I know the rest of the media has jumped on the various stories about the BBC – never being slow to hammer what is, for many of them, their chief rival.  So it is now, officially, a ‘really big story’.  We know this because the resignation of the Director General on Saturday evening, inconveniently after the main evening news programme had already been broadcast, was considered so important that a special News Report was slotted into the schedule to cover the event.

The UK media is not known either for its modesty about its own importance or for having a sense of proportion that relates in any way to the sense of proportion that might be accorded by the population at large.  But hang on a minute, please.  This frenzy of angst about the BBC stems from a couple of decisions made by the Newsnight programme – you know, the one that goes out at 10.30pm every evening, when its audience (apart from media and political people) consists of a man and his dog.  I wonder whether it was the man or his dog that complained?

The vast majority of the British public probably don’t care one way or the other what  Newsnight reports or does not report.  They certainly wouldn’t have thought the BBC was in crisis, at least until this was headline news on the BBC itself and then in the rest of the media.

Call me old-fashioned, but I much preferred it when the BBC concentrated on reporting the news rather than creating it.

Festival of Remembrance – what is it for?

The Royal British Legion Festival of Remembrance in the Royal Albert Hall is a fixture in the annual calendar – always happens, always on BBC1, always the evening before Remembrance Sunday.  According to the Royal British Legion, the Festival commemorates and honours all those who have lost their lives in conflicts, and is both a moving and enjoyable evening.

Saturday’s Festival contained all the usual elements of marching bands, sombre presenter (Huw Edwards) and moving filmed clips of servicemen and others talking about their experiences.  It ended with what amounted to a short service of remembrance and the sight of thousands of poppies falling like snow from the ceiling of the Albert Hall onto the heads of the people below. The audience appeared to be mainly ex-servicemen and women and I am sure they found these elements to be very traditional and moving.

What I’m not sure about is whether they really thought that for the evening to be both moving and enjoyable they needed to be entertained by the likes of Rod Stewart, Amore, Laura Wright and The Overtones.  Obviously good publicity for that list of stars and wannabe stars, but what, in truth, did they add to the occasion?  Rod Stewart is one of many performers today who seem particularly reluctant to get out of the spotlight, despite advancing years making their inability to sing even more apparent than ever.  As for the rest, well let’s just say they are in a long, long line of ‘the most exciting new young stars’ who are thrust before us, shine brightly for a moment and then fizzle out like so many spent fireworks.  Fame, for most of them, will be fleeting.

 

Too close to call?

A big round of applause for the pundits the world over who bought into the expert view from American analysts that last week’s USA election was ‘too close to call’.

 

There was so much discussion about how Mitt Romney had closed the gap and the election was now on a knife edge that people actually believed it.  Only it wasn’t true – it wasn’t too close to call.  Obama won 332 electoral college votes against 206 for Romney.  In the popular vote (which itself counts for nothing) he won by 2.7%.  The 2012 results were closer than those in 2008, but given all the factors involved (see Moan 21) that is hardly surprising.

If this was ‘too close to call’ then maybe opinion polls shouldn’t be taken too seriously?  And maybe the pundits, the ‘experts’ who are wheeled out to give us the benefit of their experience and wisdom on such matters are all being paid just a little more attention and money than they merit?

 

Protecting families and businesses – or making political capital?

Rachel Reeves, the Labour Party’s Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, has complained about the 3p per litre tax rise on fuel planned for January next year.  She says that with the UK economy "so fragile and prices still rising faster than wages", it would be "wrong to go ahead with another tax rise on families and businesses".

Amazingly, it seems that most people in the UK don’t want to pay more for fuel either – with a recent survey revealing that 85% of people had concerns about rising fuel prices.

 

OK, so let’s take stock:-

·        the automatic fuel tax rises which should apply in January were introduced by …….er, the Labour Party;

·       is anybody surprised that 85% of people have concerns about rising fuel prices?  I am.  I can’t believe it’s not 100% - but that demonstrates nothing more than that people don’t like tax or price rises;

·       will a 3p price rise really be a major issue?  Petrol prices have been up and down over the last couple of years, with 3p changes not uncommon in either direction.  So why would another change in January be any more damaging or noticeable?

Can’t help thinking that this is just another example of making political capital, no matter whether the issue merits it or not.  If the Labour Party was serious then surely it would be questioning the fact that over 60% of the cost of a litre of petrol or diesel goes to the Treasury – the highest figure in Europe.  Or is that one a little too tricky?

Monday Moan 22

Too much for the mornings

Can’t get out of the habit of listening to the Today programme in the mornings, but it’s beginning to challenge my concentration and interest levels at that time of the day, now that I don’t actually need to be up that early.

To add to the frustrations of the irritating presenters (see Moan 8) we also have to contend with so many either simply uninteresting or impenetrable pieces.  When an item hits both of those buttons then I find myself stretching for the ‘off’ switch.

Last Friday we had the joy of listening to a ‘debate’ on the topic of ‘what does the City of London have to fear from Europe?’  On one side we had Sharon Bowles, MEP for South East England and Chair of the European Parliament's Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee.  On the other we had Bob Lyddon, a management consultant specialising in European Banking and author of the Bruges Group report  ‘The UK’s risks and exposure to the European Investment Bank and other financial European mechanisms’ – my heart was not fluttering with excitement.

When Sharon Bowles started talking about CRD4 and OTC Derivatives I had a sinking feeling in my stomach. Justin Webb, the presenter, had the good sense to ask her to explain what they were, but Bob Lyddon failed to take the hint when answering a question about what, specifically, he thought the City needed to be concerned about, when he said “Basle 3, which is what we call CRD4, given that Basle 1 and Basle 2 caused the financial crisis…”

He was asked again “What are the Europeans going to do that the City should be worried about?” to which he responded with something about the Financial Transactions tax. Sharon Bowles jumped in to say “it’s not going to be introduced in a way that the UK is having to introduce it” – thanks for that clarification Sharon, but how would the EU stop it? “they have to make sure it doesn’t distort the single market and if it does then they can stop it and indeed if it does then so can those that are not going to join it.” Ah, I see.

Sharon was not one to hide her achievements either – “On OTC Derivatives it was me that blazed a trail in Europe to exempt foreign exchange, it was me that blazed a trail to exempt corporate end users and pension funds, it was me where I stopped retroactive clearing requirements.”  Well, thank goodness for Sharon is all I can say.

Justin Webb then gave Bob Lyddon a chance to get a word in and said “so, you can do it [stop EU regulation] and it would have been worse if we had been left on our own?”  To which the rather lame response from Bob was “well I don’t know, two lots of medicine, one is supposedly worse than the other, we’d prefer to have no medicine”

Time to hit the snooze button.

 

That's a bit of luck

Not sure if it’s a good thing to realise that all those celebrities who you used to think of as weird and slightly odd are now seemingly caught up in the Jimmy Savile scandal. Apart from the late Jimmy Savile himself, I am thinking here of Gary Glitter and now Freddie Starr.

There was something rather uncomfortable about listening to Freddie Starr being interviewed on TV  last week expressing his distaste for the despicable things Jimmy Savile has been alleged to have been doing – not that Freddie knew about them, of course. 

I couldn’t quite put my finger on it (perhaps not the best choice of words in relation to this story), but wasn’t it lucky for Freddie that schools were closed last week for half term, thus allowing his newest fiancé to be sat there at his side whilst he was being interviewed?

 

It must be important because the News teams are there

You can always tell when a news story is important because the News channels ship their anchor men and women over to wherever it might be in the world, so that they can report ‘live’ from the scene.  Superstorm Sandy merited the ITV news team going over and they are still there now to report on the American Presidential election.  No doubt the BBC team is on its way even now.

Does it add to our understanding or enjoyment?  Why can’t they just trust it to their relevant correspondents already stationed out there?  How do they feel about having to answer the questions posed by the incoming UK-based people rather than themselves being seen as the top person doing the interviewing?

  

Downton Abbey – life is quite simple really

Downton Abbey may be over for another season (although it is coming back for a Christmas Special, apparently) but I am still not supposed to say anything comical or questioning or disparaging about it (see Moan 16).

So, working within those guidelines, I think I can say that yesterday’s final episode managed to gallop through a huge number of issues with barely a pause either for breath or to apologise for the many significant changes in the way the characters were 'developed'.

And at the end, the key message appeared to be that the world would be a better place if everyone would just take up cricket. Even if the English themselves were not very good at it.