This is why ISPs blocking of websites is pointless
This is what happens when I try to visit the website referred to in this story:
This is what happens why I use a well known proxy site
The people who run this country are technologically illiterate. That should worry them more than us.
A register of interests for journalists?
I've previously written three proposals to improve the standard of journalism:1) The NUJ code of conduct, presumably acceptable to journalists, should be enforced.
2) Journalists should challenge colleagues they suspect of wrongdoing.
3) If an article has not been fact checked this should be acknowledged. As these suggestions have been more or less ignored I'm sure nobody will mind if I offer a fourth.Journalists should declare conflicts of interest.Conflicts of interest can strongly influence an individuals reasoning, this is why many professions, from legal to healthcare, have strong regulatory rules in place to ensure that the ability to practice isn't impaired by potential conflicts of interest, or that, in the case of science, that potential underlying biases that may impact important conclusions are evident. We demand the same transparency too of our politicians; local Councillors, MPs and Lords, all are expected to maintain a register of interests.So why not journalists?Many of us rely on journalism to inform us of events. We all know that individual papers have their political outlooks, none ever claims to be impartial, and that individual columnists have their foibles and bug bears. But we don't know the extent to which these may be driven by conflicts of interest.We don't know who editors and reporters dine with relevant to their journalistic interests, we don't know any secondary incomes they may have, we don't know many aspects of their social and business interests that potentially compromise their reporting.If a right wing columnist is bashing the teaching unions, and praising Michael Gove, we should know if they run a Free School. If a left wing columnist is ranting against inequality we should know if they privately educate their children. If a financial journalist supports a tax cut for the rich, we should know if they will personally benefit from it. If a health journalist defends the NHS reorganisation we should know if they have a private healthcare scheme. If a contrarian columnist defends China, we should know if their online magazine has benefited from a donation from an organisation representing the Chinese.Without this information we may take the arguments as they stand, without any appreciation for the vested interests and the possible manipulation of the news.Is there any reason not to insist that journalists declare their conflicts of interest?
2) Journalists should challenge colleagues they suspect of wrongdoing.
3) If an article has not been fact checked this should be acknowledged. As these suggestions have been more or less ignored I'm sure nobody will mind if I offer a fourth.Journalists should declare conflicts of interest.Conflicts of interest can strongly influence an individuals reasoning, this is why many professions, from legal to healthcare, have strong regulatory rules in place to ensure that the ability to practice isn't impaired by potential conflicts of interest, or that, in the case of science, that potential underlying biases that may impact important conclusions are evident. We demand the same transparency too of our politicians; local Councillors, MPs and Lords, all are expected to maintain a register of interests.So why not journalists?Many of us rely on journalism to inform us of events. We all know that individual papers have their political outlooks, none ever claims to be impartial, and that individual columnists have their foibles and bug bears. But we don't know the extent to which these may be driven by conflicts of interest.We don't know who editors and reporters dine with relevant to their journalistic interests, we don't know any secondary incomes they may have, we don't know many aspects of their social and business interests that potentially compromise their reporting.If a right wing columnist is bashing the teaching unions, and praising Michael Gove, we should know if they run a Free School. If a left wing columnist is ranting against inequality we should know if they privately educate their children. If a financial journalist supports a tax cut for the rich, we should know if they will personally benefit from it. If a health journalist defends the NHS reorganisation we should know if they have a private healthcare scheme. If a contrarian columnist defends China, we should know if their online magazine has benefited from a donation from an organisation representing the Chinese.Without this information we may take the arguments as they stand, without any appreciation for the vested interests and the possible manipulation of the news.Is there any reason not to insist that journalists declare their conflicts of interest?
Sunday Papers and online comments
Today I bought a Sunday paper to read on the train. My first since the last, which was, as it happens, the final edition of the News of the World, yet to achieve a resale value greater than my initial outlay (mint condition, unopened, credible offers considered).
It was a waste of money, I didn't read most of it.
I don't want to read smug prose about things I have no interest in.
I don't want to read humorous columns that aren't funny.
I don't want to read opinions which will wind me up.
The latter concern is the most serious. I actually do want to read opinions with which I disagree. I think it is a healthy thing to do. It broadens the mind, opens up new ways of thinking, and, most importantly, deprives me of the confidence that my worldview is correct.
Realising that I may be ignorant, uninformed and, quite possibly, stupid makes me cross. I would like to vent, to rant, to shake my fists in anger and declaim - the writer is an imbecile, a child, a moron, a half wit and a dunce.
Such behaviour is generally frowned upon in First Class and loudly condemned in Standard.
However, if I read an article online I can do this, there is often a comment section. I can rage, sneer, posture and mock to my bitter hearts content. I can have my intellect challenged and robustly reply. Better yet I can dig the shallow tranches of scorn left by others. I can vicariously surf a seething roil of stupidity, cynically measured though it may be in click through ad revenue, but exhilarating nonetheless.
Yet long after my fingertips, clammy with a furious but now forgotten intensity, have left my keyboard I am forced to think. My brain has processed the day's information, thoughts are beginning to be thought, arguments deconstructed, reconstruction, and opinions have begun to change.
I like to think that this is a process of necessary improvement, but it is one that needs the safety valve of online comments, otherwise it is too difficult to consider.
That is why I read online.
A label for fact checked journalism?
In the past I've suggested that the NUJ code of conduct should be enforced and that journalists should challenge misconduct in their colleagues as a means of solving some of the current problems regarding truth, accuracy and phone hacking from members of the press.As these previous thoughts on how to fix the problems with modern day journalism have met with little response so I've been emboldened to offer some more.It has become increasingly apparent that many articles published in the blog sections of newspapers contain statements that are wrong, obviously so as they are typically picked apart by below the line commentators within half an hour or so. One hopes that these articles have not been fact checked, as no newspaper would publish something it knew was not true. However, Guardian editor, Alan Rusbridger, is "not sure "fact-checking" by editors possible in daily journalism", perhaps because the resources to adequately screen all the content that a web savvy outlet like The Guardian produces in one day is not there.Now, some Guardian journalism is fact checked, it's hard to think that articles from an investigative journalist like Nick Davies are not scrutinised carefully before publication to avoid errors that may undermine the piece.However, as far as the public is concerned, they cannot distinguish between writing that has been examined for inaccuracies, and that which has not.This creates a parity of credibility between the respected Nick Davies, and his less accurate colleagues, such as Simon Jenkins.Perhaps newspapers should introduce labels to append to articles to indicate whether or not the article has undergone editorial oversight in the form of fact checking? This would allow the casual reader to make a judgement on the seriousness with which they should consider reportage or opinion.Further to this, I would suggest that newspapers invite readers to comment on the accuracies of articles that have not been fact checked, and, in the interests of truth and accuracy, agree to remove articles that contain serious errors of fact lest they become part of the record.These measures should drive up standards in journalism. Having the credibility that comes from being fact checked, and thus an employer having confidence in truth and accuracy, is surely something that every journalist aspires to?
What happened to the Independent profile of Nick Clegg where he called for the breakup of the NHS?
You may have noticed that the government are in a spot of bother over their planned NHS reforms, which have met considerable professional and public opposition drive by a fear that this represents the breakup of the health service.
Back in 2005, a young Liberal Democrat called Nick Clegg, not yet party leader, gave an interview to the Independent in which he offered his thoughts on the NHS
"One very, very important point - I think breaking up the NHS is exactly what you do need to do to make it a more responsive service."
This article used to be archived here
It has now vanished, and there is not trace to be found on the Independent's website.
How odd.
*update*
The relevant quote can be stiched together from here
But talk of coalition now may be premature. The task for the Liberal Democrats after an election, he believes, is to find a fresh and distinctive political narrative. He is critical of the "Lib Dem pitch to voters" since 1990 and says the policy on public services has been "paralysed" by taboos about discussing reform of public services. The party cannot "just trundle along on the same tramlines as before", he says, adding that "defending the status quo" with the NHS is no longer an option.
Clegg said:
When his colleague David Laws MP, in an article in the now notorious Orange Book broached the question of reforming the NHS, he was almost lynched by his colleagues. But Nick Clegg isn't content to hide behind the safe prosaic rhetoric that surrounds most health service debates. He rejects old platitudes and, in a refreshingly honest and outspoken intervention, declares bluntly the NHS should be "broken up"."One very, very important point - I think breaking up the NHS is exactly what you do need to do to make it a more responsive service." Then he goes further, even refusing to rule out the insurance-based models used in mainland Europe and Canada.
Clegg said:
As he sets out his ideas on how to improve the NHS, Mr Clegg is temporarily distracted by rows of bare-breasted Pirelli calendar models staring from the wall of the restaurant. But his mind swiftly turns back to the health of the nation and he declares: "I am absolutely clear that the status quo is utterly unacceptable and will have to change. We will have to provide alternatives about what a different NHS looks like."He says the NHS now is "run in effect according to an accountancy handbook instead of what is most responsive to the needs of local patients".Local people must be given more control, even if this means breaking up the NHS. "We do want to break up the NHS. We don't want to privatise it we want to break it up," he says. "There is quite a big difference. Should the debate be taboo? Of course not, ab
A question for economists...
Tonight on Channel 4 news I watched Chris Grayling, a Minister at the Department of Work and Pensions, give an abject performance trying to explain the woeful economic situation the country is in, and the huge rise in youth unemployment.
http://www.channel4.com/news/unemployment-hits-17-year-highGrayling made a bizarre comment, if I remember correctly, that even though youth unemployment was at a high at least interest rates were low.So, economists, was Grayling trying to hide a massive pile of shit with a sprinkling of tinsel, or is keeping interest rates low a priority over keeping unemployment down?If so, why?
http://www.channel4.com/news/unemployment-hits-17-year-highGrayling made a bizarre comment, if I remember correctly, that even though youth unemployment was at a high at least interest rates were low.So, economists, was Grayling trying to hide a massive pile of shit with a sprinkling of tinsel, or is keeping interest rates low a priority over keeping unemployment down?If so, why?
You are all Johann Hari
Following the closure of the News of the World as a result of its involvement in the phone hacking scandal and Johann Hari's plagiarism I posted this suggestion, to little acclaim.
Now the Independent have reported on Hari and stated that he has plagiarised, embellished and conducted a pseudonymous smearing campaign against his critics as well as an embiggening project aimed at boosting himself.
For this he was allowed to publish a self-serving apology and was punished with a short suspension, despite being stripped of his Orwell Prize.
Frankly, I find this bemusing. There are few professions where such behaviour, at absolute odds with the minimum expectations of acceptable conduct, would go punished so leniently.
However, I am not surprised.
Newspapers, for the most part, do not seem to take particular care in reporting accurately, scrutinising the behaviour of their employees nor do they care when their wrongdoing is exposed, unless it has a financial cost.
Those on the right of the political spectrum will publish smears against climate scientists, wilful misinterpret their data and give a platform to intolerant rants from Libertarians angry at a world that does not see virtue in selfishness.
Those on the left will push an anti-GM and anti-nuclear argument beyond the points of legitimate concern the data permits, into the realm of fabrication and fantasy, while publishing opinions that place the blame for all the world's ills at the feet of democratic and mostly law abiding nations.
Journalism is corrupt from top to bottom and utterly amoral as an industry. There are, of course, many decent and moral people who are journalists, but there is no movement within the trade to ensure that standards are kept, that responsibilities are accepted and that misbehaviour is driven out.
Its recruiting practices are also suspect, it is no secret that almost all senior staff, even at ostensibly leftish publications, come from private education and Oxbridge - a narrow and unrepresentative section of society, a demographic whose opinions, and the experiences that form them, are alien to almost all their readers. Even the rise of the web and blogging has not changed things. You get into journalism, not by the quality of your prose or your investigative ability, but who you know and what you tell them about yourself, even if it is not true.
There seems to be little formal recruitment process, and no means of weeding out those who would share some of the traits that ultimately undid Johann Hari. I know of people in journalism who have plagiarised, lied about their qualifications, appropriated private discussions for public consumption, confused fantasy and reality and built their reputation on the hard work of others. There is little it seems can be done about this, complaints are seen as vindictive or petty, notes of concerns are politely acknowledged but no action is taken.
There will always be Johann Haris, but the question that should concern journalists is whether or not they want to be associated with them. Until there is some form of strict regulation within media organisations then they are collectively responsible for the failings of those who would call themselves journalists.
Ignoring a problem is to become complicit in it.
Privatising public services?
In an inexplicable mix up I seem to have found myself on an emailing list where I receive the following marketing bollocks. Anyway, I think events such as this belie Coalition claims that they are not privatising the public sector.
===========================================Public Sector Income Generation
Seizing Opportunities
12 October 2011
The Barbican, London At the very heart of the Localism Bill measures, a general power of competence has given local councils new freedoms to run services 'free from Whitehall diktat'. The legislation gives local authorities the opportunity to innovate. Not only in service provision and driving down costs, but to own assets, develop property and generate revenue.At Public Sector Income Generation you can learn how to raise funds, provide a return of surplus or help to offset service charges. Income can be generated by providing chargeable services, advertising space, cash-collecting services, utilising renewable energy and delivering back office functions for other organisations. You've heard how to save money, now hear how to make money!Read more...At Public Sector Income Generation delegates will learn how to utilise the public sector estate, make the most of intellectual property and collaborate with commercial partners to create revenue. Those who will attend will share best practise with trailblazing organisations that are experienced in raising millions of pounds and have developed services and business models that can boost council coffers. Income can be used to support service development, offset subsidy shortfalls and help to redistribute overheads. Given the strident public spending cuts facing the public sector every local authority has a duty to explore new opportunities to raise capital and utilise public sector resourcesRegister to attend here using Marketing Code SYS5Speakers include:Alison Scott - Assistant Director, Local Government Finance and Policy, CIPFA
Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP - Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (invited)
Paul O'Brien - Chief Executive, Association for Public Service Excellence
Cllr Peter Fleming - Leader, Sevenoaks District Council; Chairman of the Local Government Group Improvement Programme Board
Peter Cosmetatos - Director of Policy, British Property Federation
Colin Cram - Former Chief Executive, North West Centre of Excellence and Director, Marc1 Ltd
David Lee - Council Leader, Wokingham Borough CouncilFurther details of the programme can be found onlinePlaces are limited to 250 and are awarded on a first come, first served basisIf you are unable to attend, please feel free to forward details of this event to a colleague.If the links in this email are inactive please paste the URL below into your web browser: http://www.publicserviceevents.co.uk/192/public-sector-income-generationIf you wish to register your interest in exhibiting or delivering a workshop, you can submit your contact details online and one of our advisors will be in touch shortly.If you have any further queries, please don't hesitate to contact me directly.
===========================================Public Sector Income Generation
Seizing Opportunities
12 October 2011
The Barbican, London At the very heart of the Localism Bill measures, a general power of competence has given local councils new freedoms to run services 'free from Whitehall diktat'. The legislation gives local authorities the opportunity to innovate. Not only in service provision and driving down costs, but to own assets, develop property and generate revenue.At Public Sector Income Generation you can learn how to raise funds, provide a return of surplus or help to offset service charges. Income can be generated by providing chargeable services, advertising space, cash-collecting services, utilising renewable energy and delivering back office functions for other organisations. You've heard how to save money, now hear how to make money!Read more...At Public Sector Income Generation delegates will learn how to utilise the public sector estate, make the most of intellectual property and collaborate with commercial partners to create revenue. Those who will attend will share best practise with trailblazing organisations that are experienced in raising millions of pounds and have developed services and business models that can boost council coffers. Income can be used to support service development, offset subsidy shortfalls and help to redistribute overheads. Given the strident public spending cuts facing the public sector every local authority has a duty to explore new opportunities to raise capital and utilise public sector resourcesRegister to attend here using Marketing Code SYS5Speakers include:Alison Scott - Assistant Director, Local Government Finance and Policy, CIPFA
Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP - Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (invited)
Paul O'Brien - Chief Executive, Association for Public Service Excellence
Cllr Peter Fleming - Leader, Sevenoaks District Council; Chairman of the Local Government Group Improvement Programme Board
Peter Cosmetatos - Director of Policy, British Property Federation
Colin Cram - Former Chief Executive, North West Centre of Excellence and Director, Marc1 Ltd
David Lee - Council Leader, Wokingham Borough CouncilFurther details of the programme can be found onlinePlaces are limited to 250 and are awarded on a first come, first served basisIf you are unable to attend, please feel free to forward details of this event to a colleague.If the links in this email are inactive please paste the URL below into your web browser: http://www.publicserviceevents.co.uk/192/public-sector-income-generationIf you wish to register your interest in exhibiting or delivering a workshop, you can submit your contact details online and one of our advisors will be in touch shortly.If you have any further queries, please don't hesitate to contact me directly.
Faculty of Homeopaths fundraising for dangerous quack charity
The Faculty of Homeopathy (FoH) are the medical wing of the UK homeopaths. in the past they have chosen to keep some distance between themselves and the lay homeopaths, perhaps because of the breadth and depth of the eccentricities of the latter. Via @rbhinkley (no link as this is not a public channel) I have learnt that they are holding a fundraising dinner for the Homeopathic Action Trust, who you may remember from their funding of the dangerously deranged Jeremy Sherr. This is quite a remarkable turn of events, not least because the FoH are on record as opposing the use of treatments that HAT fund.
I have sent the following letter to the FoH and will keep you updated with any replies.
======================
i note with alarm your fundraising dinner for the Homeopathic Action Trust (HAT) [1]. HAT are on record as funding trials on the use of homeopathy for malaria and HIV/AIDS without going through the appropriate Ethics Committee or other assessments [2].The Faculty of Homeopaths (FoH) are on record as opposing the use of homeopathy for malaria treatment [3]
"“Malaria is a serious and life-threatening disease and there is no published evidence to support the use of homeopathy in the prevention of malaria,” comments Dr Peter Fisher, a member of the Faculty of Homeopathy and Clinical Director of the Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine. “The Faculty of Homeopathy recommends following the HPA guidelines.”"Could you explain why you are holding a fundraising dinner for an organisation that advocates treatments the FoH condemn?Yours Faithfully[1] http://www.facultyofhomeopathy.org/events/data/homeopathy_action_trust.html
[2] http://gimpyblog.wordpress.com/2010/06/11/homeopathic-action-trust-still-fund...
[3] http://www.facultyofhomeopathy.org/media/position_statements/malaria.html
Are banks restricting the use of their cards to their own cash machines?
I received an email from the Royal Bank of Scotland this morning informing me that one of my accounts was changing to a new Basic Account from October, which comes with the following restrictions on the use of the associated card.
What is changing? The main change to your account relates to withdrawing cash. Once your account has changed, you will only be able to withdraw cash from:
 |
|
 |
RBS, NatWest or Ulster Bank branded cash machines within the UK or Gibraltar |
|
|
|
any RBS or Post Office® branch counter |
|
|
|
any cash machine outside the UK and Gibraltar which displays the Visa logo (but the owners of these cash machines may charge a fee) and |
|
|
|
retailers that offer cashback to their customers. |
Has anyone else received similar from their bank?
*update*
Just to clarify, this new measure doesn't seem to apply to my other accounts. Without going into too much detail about my financial arrangements I maintain separate accounts to cover different outgoings I have, the account mentioned above is a simple account that I deposit money into each month for everyday spending. It has no associated credit or debit card.
