There are those who support John Terry and say that he is not a
racist. There are those who feel that he did racially abuse QPR's Anton
Ferdinand. I have heard that he was good friends with Ferdinand and he
would not verbally abuse him Well he doesn't appear to be good friends
with him now. If you have the money for the best lawyers then an element
of doubt can lead to a verdict of not guilty but that is not the same
as innocence,
I can't read lips and I have never read
the actual words that were spoken. Most reports shy away from mentioning
the actual words but I have almost seen the words in print except that
many letters were shown as an asterisk. I would say that the expletives
were deleted but you could tell what was said and it wasn't nice.
Regardless of the words used, all you have to do is see the manner in
which they were said. This was not banter between friends and if there
are people who think that these words could be friendly banter then it
is time to change their attitude.
It is also time to
change the way that reports claim John Terry was cleared of racial
abuse. He was found not guilty and even non-lip-readers know that racial
abuse did take place. Football is competitive and aggression is needed
but lines have been crossed and the wrong messages are going out. If
this sort of abuse had happened in most other workplaces then
suspensions and probable sacking would have followed.
Change the world
Sunday, 30 September 2012
Monday, 24 September 2012
David Cameron supporting the wrong person
My summary from Welease Woger (see blog below) was that I had to agree with the Police Federation Chairman that the Andrew Mitchell outburst has raised doubts about the Government's relationship with the police service. Since then David Cameron has told us that Mr Mitchell took the right action by apologising. Well that's right but what about the more important aspect, the reasons behind the outburst that caused the need for the apology.
The chief whip told reporters he was sorry for not showing enough respect to the police, but also said that he "did not use the words attributed to me". If that is the case then he has insulted the police and then called at least one officer a liar. The words insult and injury come to mind.
It is good that an apology has been offered and accepted, but the accepted part is purely down to the good nature of a particular officer. It tells us nothing about whether Government ministers have any respect for the police service. In this particular case we can be fairly sure that the word "plebs" was used as Mr Mitchell did not directly say that he didn't say it. He only said that he had not used the words that had been reported. So maybe the notes made by the officer had one word that was not remembered by the minister.
Many will feel that the outburst was simply a sign of frustration and has been blown out of all proportion. Well David Cameron now gives his full support to Andrew Mitchell which means things have escalated. We have a minister who looks down on the police and a prime minister supporting him.
Change the world
The chief whip told reporters he was sorry for not showing enough respect to the police, but also said that he "did not use the words attributed to me". If that is the case then he has insulted the police and then called at least one officer a liar. The words insult and injury come to mind.
It is good that an apology has been offered and accepted, but the accepted part is purely down to the good nature of a particular officer. It tells us nothing about whether Government ministers have any respect for the police service. In this particular case we can be fairly sure that the word "plebs" was used as Mr Mitchell did not directly say that he didn't say it. He only said that he had not used the words that had been reported. So maybe the notes made by the officer had one word that was not remembered by the minister.
Many will feel that the outburst was simply a sign of frustration and has been blown out of all proportion. Well David Cameron now gives his full support to Andrew Mitchell which means things have escalated. We have a minister who looks down on the police and a prime minister supporting him.
Change the world
Welease Woger
There is a scene in the Life of Brian in which those at the back of the crowd can't hear what Jesus is saying. Somebody hears the words blessed are the cheesemakers but this doesn't make sense and another member of the crowd tells us that it's not meant to be taken literally but refers to any manufacturer of dairy products. In another scene Brian becomes Bwian and Roger becomes Woger and this causes misunderstanding.
Andrew Mitchell, the Chief Whip has caused misunderstanding too. He denied that he swore at a police officer but has apologised for not showing the police enough respect. Ken Clarke thinks Mr Mitchell is a "perfectly reasonable man" even though he had a "flare of bad temper". However it doesn't really matter what you think about a stranger who is insulting you. What matters is what has happened and Mr Mitchell has apologised.
What has he apologised for? He is said to have sworn and told officers to "learn your place" and "you don't run this government". Mr Mitchell actually apologised for not showing the police enough respect as he swore in frustration at not being able to cycle through the main gates of Downing Street,
Mr Tully, the Police Federation Chairman believes this shows that "there is an inbuilt dislike of the police service in general from the government". I hope the chairman is wrong and all it will take is for Mr Mitchell to tell us how the words that he uttered could be misinterpreted in such a profound way. I just can't think of any slight changes that would make Mr Mitchell's remarks sound reasonable and for that reason I have to agree with Mr Tully.
Change the world
Andrew Mitchell, the Chief Whip has caused misunderstanding too. He denied that he swore at a police officer but has apologised for not showing the police enough respect. Ken Clarke thinks Mr Mitchell is a "perfectly reasonable man" even though he had a "flare of bad temper". However it doesn't really matter what you think about a stranger who is insulting you. What matters is what has happened and Mr Mitchell has apologised.
What has he apologised for? He is said to have sworn and told officers to "learn your place" and "you don't run this government". Mr Mitchell actually apologised for not showing the police enough respect as he swore in frustration at not being able to cycle through the main gates of Downing Street,
Mr Tully, the Police Federation Chairman believes this shows that "there is an inbuilt dislike of the police service in general from the government". I hope the chairman is wrong and all it will take is for Mr Mitchell to tell us how the words that he uttered could be misinterpreted in such a profound way. I just can't think of any slight changes that would make Mr Mitchell's remarks sound reasonable and for that reason I have to agree with Mr Tully.
Change the world
Saturday, 22 September 2012
BT Fiasco Continues
I prefer to write about things that are important to many people.
Well this is important to me and maybe to others but it is good for me
to have this record of how many things can go wrong when changing my
internet provider. I received a bill this week telling me that I was no
longer a BT customer. 'Sorry you're leaving BT' was their headline. I
was not aware of this as readers will know already that I have fought
long and hard to gain a service from BT.
I phoned yesterday and I was assured that I was still a customer. It is a long story made longer by the system of speaking to someone on BT's phone. I had to input my account number twice so that their service could be an efficient service, then I had to tell the person my account number twice. At the end of this conversation I was reassured a little and I was asked if I found that person helpful. I said yes but the letter causing the phone call was the complete opposite.
I will look again for my online bill and broadband usage in a couple of weeks and see if it can be found. I may be phoning them again to find out how I can see my bill but when I phone up now I am getting automatic responses telling me that I have already phoned a number of times, How can automated responses sound sarcastic?
Change the world
P.S. It is now eight days later and I can log on to my account. That's good. Unfortunately I still can't access my broadband usage. as the connection was reset. I think that is another language for 'you can't see how much broadband you are using so we may charge you more at the end of the month'.
I did try to check on how much I had used broadband yesterday but maybe in another week or two I will have access. After all, I only asked for BT's service in July.
P.P.S. It is now the 4th October. I still cannot see my broadband usage so I phoned BT again and after the usual options I spoke to someone at once! They were also very helpful and passed me onto the technical department and after only 27 minute I can now see that........the 'usage monitor is currently undergoing maintenance. Please try again later'.
I have had emails linking me to my bills. Unfortunately the links were broken. I now find out that I have a bill that should have been paid a week ago - it is now paid. I thought I had set up a direct debit but it is now. The good news is that there was no sarcastic automated message telling me that I have phoned for help again. I was told that I had gone over my broadband allowance and been charged £5 extra. I can't see this on my bill. Dare I phone again?
I phoned yesterday and I was assured that I was still a customer. It is a long story made longer by the system of speaking to someone on BT's phone. I had to input my account number twice so that their service could be an efficient service, then I had to tell the person my account number twice. At the end of this conversation I was reassured a little and I was asked if I found that person helpful. I said yes but the letter causing the phone call was the complete opposite.
I will look again for my online bill and broadband usage in a couple of weeks and see if it can be found. I may be phoning them again to find out how I can see my bill but when I phone up now I am getting automatic responses telling me that I have already phoned a number of times, How can automated responses sound sarcastic?
Change the world
P.S. It is now eight days later and I can log on to my account. That's good. Unfortunately I still can't access my broadband usage. as the connection was reset. I think that is another language for 'you can't see how much broadband you are using so we may charge you more at the end of the month'.
I did try to check on how much I had used broadband yesterday but maybe in another week or two I will have access. After all, I only asked for BT's service in July.
P.P.S. It is now the 4th October. I still cannot see my broadband usage so I phoned BT again and after the usual options I spoke to someone at once! They were also very helpful and passed me onto the technical department and after only 27 minute I can now see that........the 'usage monitor is currently undergoing maintenance. Please try again later'.
I have had emails linking me to my bills. Unfortunately the links were broken. I now find out that I have a bill that should have been paid a week ago - it is now paid. I thought I had set up a direct debit but it is now. The good news is that there was no sarcastic automated message telling me that I have phoned for help again. I was told that I had gone over my broadband allowance and been charged £5 extra. I can't see this on my bill. Dare I phone again?
Help for the Duchess of Cambridge
There is no doubt that the Duchess of Cambridge has had her privacy
invaded when a photographer took the topless photographs. He was staked
out for days with a long lens and the kindest words for him would be
that he was a peeping Tom. Privacy should be protected for the Duchess
and also for the Z list celebrity but how do you do this when there are
newspapers and magazines that publish this sort of photo every day?
We get the media we deserve but regulation is so much better on television than it is in the papers than it is on the internet. On one hand you can turn the television off or not buy the paper or change the internet security settings but this isn't good enough because privacy is still invaded and many will still want to see those topless photos. Can we allow our media to hurt the feelings of others without punishment? Some will feel that it is the Duchess' fault because she knew that she could be seen from a public area. Some will say it is the magazine's fault for employing a Peeping Tom.
Although page three employs models there is still the problem of how we treat women. At best they should not be seen simply as an object of desire. At worst these photos inculcate misogyny. If you can't follow this argument then reverse roles and see how you would feel if you were only valued for your looks. I do not think of The Sun as a newspaper even if there is some news in it. The newspaper is not bought because it contains 'the truth'. More likely it is bought because of page three. We get the papers we deserve but that doesn't mean that The Sun should be banned. However we should be leading people away from thinking that it is a newspaper. There are arguments that page three should be banned and I can understand these arguments, but then do you ban top shelf magazines? If The Sun were reclassified and sale was restricted to adults then sales would probably go up.
You don't change hearts and minds by banning things, but it is wrong to be a peeping Tom. It is wrong to have a 'newspaper' that thinks page three photos will keep up its circulation but injunctions won't help, reclassification of newspapers won't help. Specifically for the Duchess, a private area would definitely help. She has won a victory in court which still gives a profit to the media so stalking will continue. I am not a lawyer but it may help to go after the photographer with anti-stalking laws.
Change the world
We get the media we deserve but regulation is so much better on television than it is in the papers than it is on the internet. On one hand you can turn the television off or not buy the paper or change the internet security settings but this isn't good enough because privacy is still invaded and many will still want to see those topless photos. Can we allow our media to hurt the feelings of others without punishment? Some will feel that it is the Duchess' fault because she knew that she could be seen from a public area. Some will say it is the magazine's fault for employing a Peeping Tom.
Although page three employs models there is still the problem of how we treat women. At best they should not be seen simply as an object of desire. At worst these photos inculcate misogyny. If you can't follow this argument then reverse roles and see how you would feel if you were only valued for your looks. I do not think of The Sun as a newspaper even if there is some news in it. The newspaper is not bought because it contains 'the truth'. More likely it is bought because of page three. We get the papers we deserve but that doesn't mean that The Sun should be banned. However we should be leading people away from thinking that it is a newspaper. There are arguments that page three should be banned and I can understand these arguments, but then do you ban top shelf magazines? If The Sun were reclassified and sale was restricted to adults then sales would probably go up.
You don't change hearts and minds by banning things, but it is wrong to be a peeping Tom. It is wrong to have a 'newspaper' that thinks page three photos will keep up its circulation but injunctions won't help, reclassification of newspapers won't help. Specifically for the Duchess, a private area would definitely help. She has won a victory in court which still gives a profit to the media so stalking will continue. I am not a lawyer but it may help to go after the photographer with anti-stalking laws.
Change the world
Saturday, 15 September 2012
Job Cuts in the NHS?
My local hospital trust needs to save money. In fact it needs to save "£1 for every £5" spent to balance its budget within five years. So what is it going to do? What would you do if you had to cut back your budget by 20%? Well if most of my expenditure was on staffing then that would be the first thing I would look at but that's not an easy answer.
There is a five-year plan to balance the books but they aren't sure yet what that plan is, but it is good to know that they have decided on five years. It is also good to know that they are going to ask the public because these financial difficulties have been caused by making services safe and the public aren't to blame for that. Well I can find those savings.
In recent years the biggest developments in the NHS have been with information technology along with huge costs. What are the benefits? Well doctors and nurses still use pens but additional records are placed on the computer. Appointments are made by computer. The additional records and appointments are available to others not on site. Management can be at a distance because of collective staff records. Diagnostic records may be shared with professionals throughout the trust and elsewhere. All sorts of information may be accessed at the press of a button.
Now think of the downside. It takes a second to give an appointment with a pen and paper. Computer training alone must be expensive but add on the costs of the soft and hardware. Have you ever walked into a computer room. It is hot. Add on the heating bill. We don't need instantaneous access for appointments. We just want to know our next appointment. We don't want professionals duplicating information expensively for the sake of the latest technology.
This view is not popular. It is opposed by the technology industry. It is opposed by all whose professional status is raised by association with the latest technology. However I don't want to walk into a casualty miles away and have all my details accessed immediately (with all the consequent risks to data protection).
I love computers. I'm using one now. What I don't like is the way they have added extra burdens. There are some aspects of technology that really make a service more efficient. When I go to a checkout and the stock levels are measured as quickly as I can pack my goods into bags. There are great improvements to the way lectures may be delivered, to access of information, and some information sharing is really useful. However there is too much vested interest in saying that record keeping improves with the latest technology. Reception and appointment services deteriorated greatly in proportion to technological advances.
I have more ideas to help my trust but it will take a radical view to appreciate that the techniques of the 80s are valid today, like ticking someone's name when they arrive in a building. I heard how management supported change with arguments like doctors in any part of the country will have instant access to everyone's detailed medical records. Arguments like every professional can have instant access to every diagnostic test. These arguments are specious if we are to save 20%. Why is it that I think we are heading for job cuts?
Change the world
There is a five-year plan to balance the books but they aren't sure yet what that plan is, but it is good to know that they have decided on five years. It is also good to know that they are going to ask the public because these financial difficulties have been caused by making services safe and the public aren't to blame for that. Well I can find those savings.
In recent years the biggest developments in the NHS have been with information technology along with huge costs. What are the benefits? Well doctors and nurses still use pens but additional records are placed on the computer. Appointments are made by computer. The additional records and appointments are available to others not on site. Management can be at a distance because of collective staff records. Diagnostic records may be shared with professionals throughout the trust and elsewhere. All sorts of information may be accessed at the press of a button.
Now think of the downside. It takes a second to give an appointment with a pen and paper. Computer training alone must be expensive but add on the costs of the soft and hardware. Have you ever walked into a computer room. It is hot. Add on the heating bill. We don't need instantaneous access for appointments. We just want to know our next appointment. We don't want professionals duplicating information expensively for the sake of the latest technology.
This view is not popular. It is opposed by the technology industry. It is opposed by all whose professional status is raised by association with the latest technology. However I don't want to walk into a casualty miles away and have all my details accessed immediately (with all the consequent risks to data protection).
I love computers. I'm using one now. What I don't like is the way they have added extra burdens. There are some aspects of technology that really make a service more efficient. When I go to a checkout and the stock levels are measured as quickly as I can pack my goods into bags. There are great improvements to the way lectures may be delivered, to access of information, and some information sharing is really useful. However there is too much vested interest in saying that record keeping improves with the latest technology. Reception and appointment services deteriorated greatly in proportion to technological advances.
I have more ideas to help my trust but it will take a radical view to appreciate that the techniques of the 80s are valid today, like ticking someone's name when they arrive in a building. I heard how management supported change with arguments like doctors in any part of the country will have instant access to everyone's detailed medical records. Arguments like every professional can have instant access to every diagnostic test. These arguments are specious if we are to save 20%. Why is it that I think we are heading for job cuts?
Change the world
Wednesday, 12 September 2012
A Sorry Lot
I recently wrote about Hillsborough and asked the reporter to look at
his own culpability for his article in the Sun. The reporter was
blaming the editor, Kelvin McKenzie. Well today everyone is saying sorry
including Kelvin. I have heard that his apology is seen as too little
too late but at least he has apologised. He could have stuck with the
line that this is what he had been told was the truth. We have known for
a long time that his 'truth' was lies.
Everyone is apologising. The police, David Cameron, Sheffield Wednesday, as well as Kelvin. Apart from apologies today's news highlighted the shortcomings and failings in the emergency services. There was no evidence of any government trying to conceal the truth but how I wish I had been writing blogs in 1989 as I remember politicians confirming the failings, I remember them telling us how the fans were drunk and how they forced the gates. This may not be the same thing as concealing the truth but there can't be that much difference.
There is also the matter of how the coroner got away with telling us that all the deaths had occurred by 3.15pm and this in turn led to the verdicts of accidental death. Relatives were not allowed to see their loved ones but were asked about how much they had been drinking. Is there an apology from the person responsible?
There are many more questions to be answered but today has been satisfying for those in search of justice. I was starting to feel a little sorry for Kelvin because he is in the public eye as compared with the police officers who were responsible or the coroner or the reporter or many others. Then I thought what would Kelvin write about another editor who had been exposed in this way? I don't think he would be reticent in condemning his actions.
Change the world
Everyone is apologising. The police, David Cameron, Sheffield Wednesday, as well as Kelvin. Apart from apologies today's news highlighted the shortcomings and failings in the emergency services. There was no evidence of any government trying to conceal the truth but how I wish I had been writing blogs in 1989 as I remember politicians confirming the failings, I remember them telling us how the fans were drunk and how they forced the gates. This may not be the same thing as concealing the truth but there can't be that much difference.
There is also the matter of how the coroner got away with telling us that all the deaths had occurred by 3.15pm and this in turn led to the verdicts of accidental death. Relatives were not allowed to see their loved ones but were asked about how much they had been drinking. Is there an apology from the person responsible?
There are many more questions to be answered but today has been satisfying for those in search of justice. I was starting to feel a little sorry for Kelvin because he is in the public eye as compared with the police officers who were responsible or the coroner or the reporter or many others. Then I thought what would Kelvin write about another editor who had been exposed in this way? I don't think he would be reticent in condemning his actions.
Change the world
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
