CoffeeHousers' Wall, 10 November - 16 November

NorthernJohn

I'm delighted that Obama won, but did anyone notice that little insidious BBC bias? Their election ident, USO8, used a large letter O (for Obama), rather than a figure 0.

Call me paranoid, but it cannot have been accidental.

Trumpeter Lanfried

Northern John: I too hate the BBC, but yes, on this occasion you are being paranoid.

jon dee

The race for a special relationship with Barack Obama intensifies,with Blair now joining Brown in offering friendly advice.
The most popular word after "I" is now Barack.
Hero-worship is heartwarming isnt it.

Augustus

What intrigues me is President-elect Obama's choice of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. I understand that Mr Emanuel and his family are devout orthodox Jews. So he's not likely to be supporting any Arab sympathizers lurking amongst Obama's supporters. If Obama wants to offer too much to Arab interests, or try to persuade Israel into making concessions, the chances are that he won't be Chief of Staff for very long.
But he is also very much a partisan Democrat. Will that mean that, given that all the power is with one party, a tax and spend policy, which would push America into a deeper recession, can only be avoided due to the current economic situation? Does this also mean that the scary left-wing 'progressive' policies will also be tempered by circumstances and lack of money? Policies that otherwise would be given free rein by a party now drunk with power.

Isabella

The Guardian boasts it now has the busiest newspaper website in the land.

Hmmn.

And how is such traffic generated?

Often by people who Google certain words.

One of the most popularly Googled words is “Madeleine McCann”.

If you pay Google to ‘own’ that word on its searches, your website heads to the top of the search pile.

Can you guess which newspaper bought “Madeleine McCann” as a Google search term?

Yes.

Pollyanna’s Guardian.

'The Guardian had bought the Google search term “Madeleine McCann” to boost its ABCe figures, despite being critical of the tabloids’ saturation coverage of the story.'

http://www.thejournalist.org.uk/SepOct08/feat_PG.html

mac

@ Isabella:
Ha! Revealing. And I bet the Scott Trust are being briefed that it's all down to the quality writing of Shameless Milne, Bindel, Bunting, Younge, peerless Polly and chums!

TrevorsDen

Brown is I believe currently giving a speech about how he wants a New World Order to emerge.

Its not for the first time.

Only last year Brown was saying that his previous policies would presage a new world order. In his 2007 Mansion House speech he said
"... it will be said of this age, the first decades of the 21st century, that out of the greatest restructuring of the global economy, perhaps even greater than the industrial revolution, a new world order was created."
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/2014.htm

In this same speech - a year ago he also boasted the city was
"a world leader in stability, and we will entrench that stability, by ensuring Britain's macroeconomic framework remains a world benchmark,"
That he would be "vigilant against complacency"
and he would be
"enhancing a risk based regulatory approach, as we did in resisting pressure ... after Enron and Worldcom"
and
"in the new world order, as the City bears witness, Britain's great natural resource are our people"

Brown talks about a global recession as if Britain is not part of the globe, but he has been at the heart of cheer-leading and banging the drum for globalisation
"It is investment in education that when combined with free trade, open markets and flexibility makes for the virtuous circle of an inclusive globalisation:"

Sadly for him and the rest of us his 'light touch' regulation led to disaster. He boasted in his 'Better regulation' address ...
"We will look to apply on a wider basis the principle of risk based regulation to financial services legislation and the work of the FSA ... I welcome the thinking it is doing about how it can further reduce the burden of financial regulation."
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/press_50_05.htm

Now Brown has invented a new reality, a new paradigm, where all his previous cock ups never existed and where he still thinks he talks sense.

Reading this useless pompous speech is quite instructive (its similar to all the other useless pompous speeches Brown makes) Brown thinks he is good at painting the big grand picture - in fact he is only painting by numbers.

The real 'reality' is quite simple. He thinks we are all as thick as two short planks with the attention span of a goldfish.

Verity

Does anyone know any way of checking these people's (British politicians and quango passengers) for membership in Common Purpose?

mart

A very interesting set of quotes from Ken Clarke at the Telegraph here.

It would be good if the Spectator could probe those remarks a bit, or even get an interview with the guy.

He and John Redwood, in their different ways, are worth hearing on all matters, and particularly the current economic matters.

Martin Cox

The Party is very lucky to have such a big political beast as Kenneth Clarke, and it is regrettable that he is not in a more influential position.
He should be first choice to replace Osborne.
He has gravitas with a popular manner, vast cabinet and Treasury experience, is an excellent interviewee and an articulate speaker.
We need at least one older member of the top rank, and he did not go to Eton (it shouldn,t matter, but it seems to).
We can't afford to waste his talent.

Tiberius

With a lot of talk about Redwood recently, I'd ask if anyone saw his debate with Geoffrey Robinson on Newsnight a couple of weeks ago. With eyes wide open, nostrils flared, and voice tone raised, he told Robinson not to tell lies.

Now I can't even remember what the subject matter was, but I do know that a public persona like that will have many of our precocious voters rushing to put their next "X" in the Labour box.

Verity

Just announced: "Prince Charles to be known as Defender of Faith".

My rejoinder: "Prince Charles to be known as insignificant and irritating member of the former Royal Family of Great Britain and the Commonwealth".

If they cannot defend the Christian faith that spurred our country to greatness and is the rock of our law, they're not worth retaining.

Charles, William, Harry, the Queen, down the shutes of history. I lost respect for the Queen years ago when she didn't oppose Tony Blair.

As a former royalist, they're finished and it was the ghastly, posturing, self-worshipping Charles who did it.

He does love posing in those Islamic robes, though.

Anyway, when he's deposed, the Church of England may be destroyed or not.

Meanwhile, we have the staunch Bishop of Rochester and we will see where he takes us.

British royal family: history. As a former defender, actually, given that the Queen has failed to safeguard us and Charles wants to be a destructive multiculti moron,I'll be glad to see the back of them.

Paul B

As someone asked on one of the blogs,-apologies to said person, I cannot remember your name-why are we not being told Baby P`s name. Surely the child deserves better treatment in his afterlife than that being given dehumanizing tag. For pity's sake, the child was treated with utterly depraved inhumanity whilst alive, surely we can afford him some dignity in death.

Why as well are not being told the names of those guilty of the offense? . To preserve what exactly? Their right to anonymity, their safety? They gave the right to anonymity up the moment they started torturing the child and their right to safety,well, I'm not advocating lynch mobs, but I for one would not shed a tear if they were to fall down a set of stairs whilst in the `Scrubs & Holloway. I can read the names of persons who haven`t paid the TV licenses in my local rag, surely the public have a right to know the names of those involved in this most heinous crime and via the media their history and how they arrived at the point where could act with inhuman barbarity.

The public are angry, I`m angry with the incompetent social workers in this rotten borough, in whom we placed our trust to prevent these events happening, why are they still in a job? My 15 year old daughter, rightly gets the sack from her Saturday job for poor attitude towards customers-shes a waitress and was rather surely/abrupt, as are many girls of her age. My point being, she get the fired for that, so why aren't these people who have cocked up to a far greater extent still in public employ- in the heads` case at a salary in excess of hundred grand. I hope the Sun & the rest of the rest media make their lives so uncomfortable that they are left with no option but to resign, if the council cannot bring itself to sack them. How can they be trusted not to make the same mistakes again for God sakes!!!!

Frank P has written with commendable anger on the pages of this blog about these events, commentating upon on how we -the public-do need to be angry about this. I agree with him, anger is the correct emotion and I will remain angry , until at least I start to see some heads rolling and naming of names, and some acceptance of blame and a show of remorse but those who messed up big time. It must not happen again .

Austin Barry

Have seen the TV homage to the befuddled bore, it became quite clear that, after a lifetime spent in a cocoon of braying deference and sycophantic laughter, Prince Charles is a self-regarding, pompous buffoon. The Defender of Faith gambit is a just a hedge to retain some role for his heirs in the coming Caliphate.

Verity

I don't think so, Austin Barry, although it's a thought. I think he genuinely feels he's a great soul who can embrace all peoples and all religions. I'd be sorry to see him become King, because that would open the door to the equally cringe-worthy William.

If he's not going to defend the faith on which our country was built, I cannot see any reason for him.

ballofchalk

I saw the disgusting Head of social Services for Haringay on TV last night saying how very, truly, truly sorry she was about Baby P, and can she please keep her truly, truly big salary and pension. God it was stomach turning to see just what these creeps will do to protect their position. So no thought of resignation then?

Archbishop Cranmer

When two over-paid ‘comedians’ at the BBC phoned an elderly man and pestered him with expletives and abuse, the Prime Minister demanded that the BBC take action.

And so the Director General Mark Thompson did take action. There were suspensions, public reprimands, and the high-profile resignations of senior staff.

And Gordon Brown was content that justice had been done, and public confidence at least partially restored.

Then a woman and her partner murder their 17-month old baby after an appallingly brutal series of attacks upon the infant, which included a broken back, fractured ribs and extensive bruising.

No-one at Haringey Council has been suspended, and no-one has resigned, for it is asserted that ‘proper procedures’ were followed.

But now it transpires that Government ministers were warned of the failings in child protection procedures in Haringey as long ago as February 2007. And they did nothing but pass the buck.

Come on, Prime Minister.

Let us hear of suspensions and sackings, reprimands and resignations.

How else will public confidence be restored in the Government’s ability to protect the nation’s children?

Or is the Ross/Brand affair somehow more morally repugnant and politically unpalatable than the murder of Baby P?

The Dandiprat

Precisely, Your Grace.

As the news broke earlier in the week, during a R4 interview, one Sharon Shoesmith, a spokeswoman for one of the agencies which should have been handling this situation, defended the position of those involved, with the insistence that nothing can be done when faced with 'a mother who tells lies'.

If I ever want to sell a dodgy car, I'm going to advertise it in the Haringey social department newsletter.

As for the paediatrician who failed to spot a child with a broken back? How does that person carry on doing the job I wonder.

Paul B

In the Baby P case, its now transpires that the Police of the social care departments- the Commission for Social Care (very Orwellian`84ish title)- were incompetent as well. Allied to which Patricia Hewitt (never thought much of her anyway) & team seemed to ignore a very reasonable whistle blowing letter sent to her- at least they didn`t instigate a follow up to check that the aforementioned commission were looking into the accusations made within the letter. Rather than look into the ladies allegations, she was ultimately served with a gagging order, I don`t why they just didn`t send a her to a gulag in Siberia instead! My gods, this baby didn`t stand a chance did he!!!

Now we have the sight of 60 head teachers in the same rotten borough, sending a letter in support of Ms Shoesmith the head of the rotten borough child care department.It maybe cheap, but one wonders, exactly where on the league table of school performance their-the head teachers-respective schools are. I don`t know for a fact, but I`m pretty sure that not many of them are setting the tables alight, rather, like the football team situated within the same rotten borough, they are nestling at the bottom of the tables.

liz Brown

Labour and their grovelling acolytes (the meeja) must be really worried about George Osborne. On the Today programme this am arund 7.20am, it was mentioned that Osborne had issued a critical warning abut the state of the economy. Aprox one sentence was dedicated to this and the rest was driven by gossip about getting rid of Osborne. The public deserves an honest debate abut the economy and not the Labour driven agenda of ousting Osborne. Why does the meeja persist in falling into Campbell's trap?

Joe Camel

This is a month old now but it has only just been pointed out to me. My apologies if the Speccie has dealt with this before.

Q. When is graffiti not graffiti?

A. When it consists of words spray painted on a wall, according to an unusually obtuse local official in Wadebridge, Cornwall.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3202767/3000-graffiti-wall-vandalised-by-disgruntled-taxpayer.html

Augustus

NorthernJohn, the BBC, like so much of the world's media has misunderstood Obama's triumph. They see in it a yearning for truth and a stretch for progress. It is nothing of the sort. The last thing voters want is the truth; they will reject it even if it is put in front of them. Instead, what they want is diversion from the real world - in short, a fantasy. Something to entertain them. Something to buoy them up. And they want it most earnestly when the weight of reality threatens to drown them.

Verity

Augustus - thanks for that acute insight. The Obama supporters aren't looking for truth or real solutions. For them, it's a fantasy.

JimBob

In the sunday times today is the marvellous news that the BBC will not be prosecuting 'license fee rebels'-thats 140 quid saved for everyone here.

Nick Harrington

Sticking with the theme of very real BBC bias, what should be the Tory strategy to manage and counter their appalling lack of impartiality? Absolutely fine with DC, GO et al being rigorously interviewed provided the same robust interview is done with Dr. Gordon, Mr Brown, Badger etc. This simply is not the case. You could almost pity (almost I said) Nick Robinson being required to pedal the Brown as the Worlds' Saviour Line if it wasn't so blatently untrue. No mention in the NYT for GB at the G20!

Whle I disagree with DC only suggesting a slight slice from the license fee - I want radical change or closure - what choice do the Tories have? If they propose wholesale restructure of the BBC to provide genuine unbiased reporting, will we get any better treatment? To deliver this fair and unbiased national broadcast we know that Naughtie, Marr, Dimbleby, Paxman and Pesto must go, and soon.

Should the Tory rank and file refuse to pay the TV tax until our viewer get a lookin?

Whether we face a Spring '09 election or May '10, the BBC are not providing a fair & level broadcasting service. That's what we're supposed to be getting in return for the License Fee.