Monday Moan 47

Loons?  What a ridiculous idea

So, Lord Feldman (apparently, Conservative Party Chairman) is supposed to have described Conservative Party activists as ‘mad, swivel-eyed loons’. The comment is alleged to have been made to journalists and concerned the Party’s kamikaze descent into madness over Europe.

For non-Conservatives this is a wonderful time, watching them get worked up over a series of issues that have been left bubbling away beneath the surface for many years.  Europe is the best example, of course, with former Ministers lining up on either side of the debate to criticise the way the Party is going.

Of course, the idea that swivel-eyed loons are the exclusive preserve of local Conservative Associations is, clearly, nonsense – according to my research into Jeremy Hunt , Michael Gove and David Mellor.

Some people are beginning to wonder whether the flames of unrest are being fanned by sections of the media more interested in a story than any balanced reporting. For example, the BBC decided to lead its main News programmes yesterday with extensive coverage of the delivery of a letter to 10 Downing Street by a group of 34 Conservative Association chairmen and former chairmen, complaining about same-sex marriage. Rather less prominence was given to the separate letter, signed by more than 100 Conservative activists, calling on the Party’s MPs to back the same-sex legislation.

I suspect Alex Salmond is behind all this.  After all, which Scot wouldn’t vote for independence from the rest of the UK once UKIP becomes the largest party in England?

Heard on the bus ……

Sometimes, just listening to other people can be as entertaining a way of spending time as reading the newspaper or listening to music. 

For example, travelling on a bus in one of our significant seats of learning at the weekend, I had the pleasure of listening to a young lady talking to two others who appeared to be her parents.  I really wasn’t eavesdropping – it was impossible not to hear her.  A loud and, in all honesty, what can only be described as one of the most irritating voices I have ever heard, forced its way into my consciousness when it was describing how the lady in question had failed to be offered a job despite the fact that she had been told she had “interviewed well”.  Nothing to do with her voice, I am sure.

Then displaying all the intelligence that she had, no doubt, brought to bear in her interview, she explained how the interview had taken place in “Bulgaria, that posh bit of London”, and wondered whether if you rode a ‘Boris-bike’ in London you were allowed to use the pavements rather than the roads.

Can’t for the life of me think why she didn’t get the job.

Arsene Wenger – Miracle Man

‘Honest’ Harry Redknapp told the Match of the Day audience last October (see Moan 20) that Arsenal were rubbish, would finish beneath Tottenham, and that it would be a miracle if Arsenal qualified for the Champions League this year.

Well, ‘Honest’ was about as right as he always is.  His prediction that Tottenham would finish above Arsenal was one he has made every year since I can remember – and it was wrong yet again. In fact, it is now so long ago since Arsenal last finished below Tottenham that you have to begin to question whether the law of averages really does exist.  When was it?  1994-95 – the same year that Blackburn Rovers were the champions and Wimbledon finished in the top half of the Premier League.  So long ago.

The debate will continue over whether Arsene Wenger can ever again turn Arsenal into serious title challengers, but in an era when money may become less of a key to success and when Manchester United have to learn to live without Alex Ferguson, you never know.

Can you read between the lines?

One of the simple pleasures of life is to enjoy the countryside and marvel at all that nature conjures up each year.  Our annual trip to enjoy the bluebells in the Ashridge Estate yesterday delivered its usual quota of awe and sheer enjoyment at the marvellous display of colour that these small flowers bring.

However, I am slightly worried that my eyesight is deteriorating.  Some of the footpaths were closed, but try as I might to read between the lines, I could not see anything on the notices about the closures that said that this did not apply to unsupervised children, or to adults who just wanted to take a ‘nice’ photograph of their companion sitting amongst the flowers.

What is it about people that they can blithely ignore rules or requests like these?  Are these the same people who think that the ban on using your mobile phone whilst driving doesn’t apply to them,  or that prohibitions on parking in a disabled bay or on a yellow line are meant for everyone else?  

Selfish and arrogant individuals, all of them. But don’t challenge them, unless you are prepared to be subjected to abuse, verbal or perhaps worse.

Monday Moan 44

The Hodge Diary

Just a run-of-the-mill week for that consummate seeker of a headline, yes, our very own Margaret Hodge, Labour MP and Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.  See last week’s Moan for the most recent story and for links to other Moans.

Only two reports from her Committee this week – on Managing the Academies Programme and on Tax avoidance and the role of large accountancy firms.

The tax report allowed the news channels to go over again the ‘it’s not fair that they don’t pay any tax’ issues that she milked so well last year (see Moan 27) and the report itself continued with the same line, despite there being no suggestion that what those companies or their advisors are doing is illegal – they are simply reading the laws that apply and then working within them to avoid paying tax that they don’t have to pay.  In other words, doing what every individual does in regard to their own tax position.

Not content with the media opportunities that these events provided, Hodge manufactured another dose of self-publicity with her attack on Parliamentary colleagues as being lazy (that plays well with the media and voting public).

But maybe I am the one out of step with the public mood here, at least with sections of the Guardian-reading public, if the gushing article about Hodge last week by Aida Edemariam is any guide? “Every age searches, however ironically, for heroes, and in a time lacking in such old-fashioned things, Margaret Hodge, Labour MP for Barking, and, since 2010, chair of the Public Accounts Committee, has emerged as an unlikely candidate.”

 

Have I missed something?

 

 

Vanity knows no bounds

A recent study, commissioned by the Department of Health, has suggested that there is a crisis waiting to happen with procedures such as injections to plump up the skin and remove wrinkles. Part of the problem seems to be that you don’t need to be medically qualified to be able to perform such procedures.

 

A BBC report on this last week included an interview with a lady who had just had some injections in her face - “everybody where I live wants to look good” was her explanation. Hmm.   

 

And then we had the episode of Masterchef, where the contestants had to prepare a meal at the Savoy for 12 Bond girls.  The picture we have in our minds of those we have seen on screen is one we have seen preserved for all time in the films themselves.  So, one of the fascinating things in this programme was to see the differences in the ways that the ladies had aged.  Many gracefully, some resisting in subtle ways.  And then there was Britt Ekland.  The price of cosmetic surgery appears to be an unnatural look and an inability to produce much by way of facial expression.

Everybody wants to look good.

 

Is it that difficult to take your trolley back?

There appears to be an epidemic of laziness or maybe it’s just lack of consideration, when people go to the supermarket for their shopping.

You know, you pick up a trolley either from one of the many trolley collection points dotted around the car park or from the neat line of them waiting for you at the entrance to the shop.

But once you have done your shopping and emptied the contents of the trolley into your car, it seems that an increasing number of people can’t be bothered to return the trolleys to one of those collection points. Instead, they either leave them where they are or perhaps move them a short distance from their car, and then they drive off. 

Is it too much to ask that people walk a short distance to return their trolleys, so as to avoid them blocking parking spaces, or scratching the paintwork of the cars they roll into when the wind blows? 

Lazy (why should I walk that distance) or untidy (someone else can do it for me)?  You tell me.

 

Farewell to …….

… Barnet FC, as they bow out of the League following their narrow failure to beat the drop in the last game for the fourth season in a row.  Their points total of 51 is a record high for a team being relegated from this division – that’s no consolation to them at all, I am sure.  Will they return some day?  Big question for a team that has struggled to attract crowds, being in the shadow of illustrious neighbours in the shape of Arsenal, and neighbours who think they are illustrious, in the shape of Tottenham. They have also had to contend with a local Council that has been so unhelpful that next season Barnet will open their new ground in a different Borough, so a big test as to whether their supporters will stick with them.

… ‘Honest Harry’ as his QPR side are relegated from the Premiership, despite their money and the supposedly magical powers of their manager.  No doubt he’ll do his usual wheeling and dealing in the summer. Wonder how many of the highly-paid people he brought in earlier in the season will be kept on board?

… Robin van Persie who was, apparently, disappointed with the reception he received from Arsenal fans when he returned to the Emirates Stadium for the match at the weekend.  Oh really?  Did he expect the fans to overlook what they see as his disloyalty and his decision to up sticks to one of their fiercest rivals, rather than repay the club for the loyalty shown to him over countless years of personal problems and seasons where he was injured so often he barely played?  Fans don’t expect players to stay forever, but they respect class. This is why Thierry Henry will always be loved by Arsenal fans. 

Monday Moan 36

 

Latest from Sainsbury's on wasting food

I have received a response from Sainsbury's to my question about why their staff were throwing away good food rather than trying to sell it or give it away to a charity for needy people (see Moan 34).

 

“Thanks for your email.  We’re always happy to answer customer enquiries regarding our stores and services.   I can understand your concerns regarding food waste in our [XXX] store as you saw our staff in the process of clearing everything off the shelves and putting them into plastic bags marked for waste. I would therefore be happy to explain what we have in place to help reduce waste.

 

To implement our groundbreaking ground zero food waste to landfill programme we work to a clear hierarchy of reduce, reuse and recycle to divert food waste from landfill. We view waste as a valuable resource that can be treated in ways that both generate energy and reduce environmental impacts.

 

Our landfill diversion hierarchy starts with good stock control to reduce the generation of food waste. We also donate food that is within its 'use by' date to charity.

 

Our landfill diversion hierarchy then sets out the preferred options for the treatment of the remaining food waste. Our preferred choice is anaerobic digestion, which breaks down the food waste into fertiliser and methane gas, used to generate electricity. Each store or depot evaluates whether there is a suitable anaerobic digestion plant within practical distance. Our second tier of preferred waste treatment methods are In-Vessel Composting (IVC), Fluidised Bed Combustor (FBC) or Pyrolysis. Our third choice is incineration. We use 'backhauling' - using lorries on return journeys - to divert food waste to waste treatment.

 

We periodically revaluate our food waste processing choices. And as new anaerobic digestors are built we move towards this solution.

 

Now, I don’t know about you, but I think that response amounts to not much more than blowing a lot of hot air through a living waste disposal unit. It’s just a load of guff.

 

I have, of course, thanked them for it but put in a request that they actually address the issues I raised in my note to them.

 

Watch this space for any response.

 

Oscar comedy show

In a major breaking story today, the Government has announced that ‘Honest’ Harry Redknapp is to be asked to lead an inquiry into tax evasion.  It has also emerged that the Government has decided that the recent Leveson Inquiry was deeply flawed and it has appointed Rupert Murdoch to review it and come up with his own recommendations for action.

Unlikely, you might think.  But surely no more unlikely than asking a policeman facing attempted murder charges to run the investigation into the death of Reeva Steenkamp in the home she shared with Oscar Pistorius.

Yet this is exactly what happened in that case.  And it seems that every time I read about the case fresh lunacy has been uncovered.

The police case, widely leaked through the press, included such things as the victim having been beaten before being shot, of banned drugs being found at the scene and of a neighbour having heard shouting for an hour before the shooting.  In court it emerged that all three of these elements of the prosecution’s case were either wrong or dubious. The victim’s body showed no signs of any abuse apart from the gunshot wounds; the ‘banned’ drugs turned out to be herbal remedies; and the neighbour who heard “two people talking loudly at each other” appears to have been that rare person who can hear things clearly from huge distances, as their house was somewhere between 300 and 600 metres away, depending on which part of the police evidence you choose to believe.

Perhaps we ought to skip over ‘minor’ errors such as the chief investigating officer forgetting to wear protective covers on his shoes whilst trampling all over the murder scene, since he, Hilton Botha, was possibly distracted by thoughts of the charges of attempted murder that he was facing.  But is it just coincidence that the police have now said that Carl Pistorius, brother of Oscar, is to face charges of culpable homicide, relating to a road accident in 2010?  Or is this a rather pathetic case of tit-for-tat “we can drag up embarrassing things too” retaliation?

The whole thing is descending into farce, which is an insult to the victim and to thoughts of getting to the truth in the name of justice.

 

Lord Who is charged with being a bit creepy

So, Lord Rennard (who?) is accused of behaving inappropriately towards some of his female colleagues a few years ago.  Serious accusations, of course, and they should be investigated.  But, but, but …… was this really the most important news of the weekend, justifying the lead position on the BBC News and in many newspapers?  Did it really require Nick Clegg and his Liberal Democratic Party to be put in the stocks as if they were an affront to human decency?

 

Or is this perhaps related to an important by-election this week, where the Lib Dems are facing an uphill battle to retain Chris Huhne’s Eastleigh seat?  A succession of Labour politicians have called for an independent investigation rather than the internal Lib Dem investigations that have been announced.  Why?  Apart from political opportunism it is hard to think why they are getting involved in this.

 

Lord Rennard’s name sits on a different list from that of most of the famous people who have found themselves accused since the Jimmy Savile revelations first emerged - Max Clifford, Stuart Hall, Jim Davidson, Freddie Starr, Garry Glitter, Dave Lee Travis, and others.  But there appears to be an insatiable appetite for further names to be dragged through the dirt, so the list will grow.  As a non-watcher of TV soaps I had no idea who Michael Le Vell was until he was arrested recently, but I’m sure his will not be the last name in the entertainment industry to be exposed to the glare of unwelcome publicity. 

 

Then we have the case of Britain's most senior Roman Catholic cleric, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, who is to step down as Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh, following allegations, which he denies, of inappropriate behaviour towards priests dating back over 30 years. Cue inevitable jokes asking for clarification of what exactly inappropriate might mean in this case.   I'm not sure I can take much more.

 

Finally, is there an email ‘black hole’ or is it just me?

I am getting a little concerned about the number of people I know who seem to have disappeared from the face of the email earth.  And not just people I know, but people I class as friends who I have known for many years.  The first time I realised I was writing to someone and getting no response I put it down to my perhaps having the wrong email address.  But it keeps happening.  I have now resorted on a couple of occasions to that old-fashioned way of communicating – sending a handwritten letter.  But still no responses.  I am begining to get a complex about this and wonder if I have, inadvertently, so offended these people that they no longer wish to acknowledge my existence.

 

But before you jump to conclusions, I should add that none of them were on the Moan’s distribution list, so this cannot have been the cause of the problem.

 

Fingers crossed that I hear from them soon – no offence was ever intended and I miss not knowing what is happening in their lives.

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 20

‘Honest’ Harry

The producer of Match of The Day must have thought himself a very lucky man on Saturday night when he saw the dismal performance of Arsenal against Norwich.  Not only had he got himself a match that people would want to watch – small club upsets one of the big-time Charlies – but he had already booked ‘Honest’ Harry Redknapp as a guest pundit for the show.  What a stroke of luck to have 'Honest' Harry there on the day that his old foes at Arsenal gave such a feeble and embarrassing display against the mighty Norwich.

Notwithstanding the rave reviews Arsenal had received on previous MOTD programmes earlier in the season, ‘Honest’ Harry let us all know that the resentment and personal hurt are still as strong as ever they were during the period he failed miserably to move his Tottenham side above Arsenal for the first time since Noah set sail. Paraphrasing, he said that Arsenal were rubbish and a weak team and had no chance of getting into the top 4 this season. Of course, still essentially the same team that managed to rise from the floor of a 0-2 deficit against his much-hyped Tottenham side the last time they met, so much so that Arsenal ended up 5-2 victors that day.  That must have hurt.

Still, no sour grapes on ‘Honest’ Harry’s part, I’m sure.  His comments on Saturday must have been entirely objective, in the best traditions of a pundit with no axe to grind.

 

Andrew Mitchell – just a common yob?

So, after more time in the news than is often accorded to major earthquakes or similar natural disasters, Andrew Mitchell eventually succumbed to what he saw as the inevitable and resigned from the Government.  His crime?  A cynic might say it was to commit an error of judgement when there was not much else in the news to force the Opposition to concentrate on more important matters.

I am as puzzled as the next person as to where the truth lies between Andrew Mitchell’s very sketchy account of his engagement with the forces of law, order and security at the entrance to Downing Street a few weeks ago, and the apparent accounts of those forces themselves.  Mitchell denies the words attributed to him by those forces, but still felt guilty enough to apologise for whatever it was that he did say. I don’t suppose we’ll ever know the truth.

But what are we to make of the Labour Party’s pursuit of this issue as though it was a matter of the utmost importance?  Could it be that they knew if they kept on about it Mitchell would eventually have to resign – thus handing them a ‘victory’?  Even though I imagine most people groaned out loud whenever Ed Miliband returned to the theme at PM’s Questions. 

And was Ed right to suggest that Mitchell had been afforded treatment not granted to a common yob – who would have spent a night in the cells for verbally abusing a policeman?  That always seemed to me a slightly ridiculous assertion – as a quick look at any of the many documentaries currently on TV showing the police in action would demonstrate.  These fly-on-the-wall documentaries charting the forces of law and order’s everyday attempts to deal with drunken yobs on  a Friday night, or errant motorists, or groups of young people intent on making life miserable for the communities in which they live, all show that you can get away with a huge amount of abuse and foul language towards the police without being arrested.  I don’t agree with it, but it seems to be a fact. 

As with so many things, the reality of life seems to be very different from the picture painted, or imagined by our politicians.

 

 

How could this have been undetected – Part 1

I don’t wish to say much about Jimmy Savile, partly because I know no more than you, since my only sources of information are also available to you.  I might wonder whether the level of ‘evidence’ apparently available today is very different from that which was available to the various police forces who looked into allegations whilst he was still alive.  I might wonder if the standard of evidence required is now much lower since he is no longer with us, and since he can’t answer back.

But my chief worry in all this is how this could have failed to emerge whilst he was still alive, given the apparent scale of what went on?  I know all about his good works for charity and how he was regarded as beyond suspicion.  But it also seems that whilst many complaints were made, nobody made a connection between them and so a broad picture never emerged.  How could this have happened?  Surely some of those allegations came to the attention of the marauding and insatiable investigative reporters of the national media?  Why was it that they did not pursue their prey with the same vigour as they would almost anyone else?

 

How could this have been undetected – Part 2

And on the same track – although with a very different set of circumstances, how did the world of cycling fail to find out the truth of the Lance Armstrong doping allegations after so many investigations over so many years?  It’s incredible that a sport so intimately associated with drugs scandals over the years could have failed to spot the Armstrong situation, given the amount of testing done generally and, specifically, of the man himself.