Had To Happen

I was sure 'No Pressure' was going to be parodied in the manner of 'Downfall' sooner or later. What I didn't expect is a 'Downfall' version.

There'll be more. This one's a bit lame, to be honest. But it's a start.





UPDATE:

H/t to The Boiling Frog for the clip. Forgot to attribute it when I posted.

Clip has been removed from YouTube and Metacafe, but it is now up on Eyetube. I'm having problems getting it to embed - clip is here.

No Pressure - MP responds

On 1 October, I wrote to my MP, Stephen Crabb, regarding the No Pressure video. This was the reply I received yesterday:

Dear Richard,

Thank you for your email of 1st October regarding the video film 'No Pressure'. I appreciate you bringing this video to my attention and I completely understand your concerns.

I was very shocked to watch the video and I agree that it is extremely tasteless. I will discuss this matter with my colleagues as it is very disappointing that such a supported and well recognised campaign has produced advertising that many people will find distressing.

I will be in touch if I receive any further information about this matter. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of any additional assistance or if you have any further concerns.

Kind regards,

Stephen

Stephen Crabb MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA

Well, at least he agrees about the nature of the film. It was a pity that he didn't address the main point of my letter, which was the amount of public money going to support this misanthropic and thoroughly nasty scam. A reply will be made in due course.

What Will You Be Doing On 10/10?

10 October 2010, a 'Global Day Of Doing', according to 1010global.org.

Leaving aside the raunchier interpretations of that phrase (how do you make it last a day?), I wonder what we will all be doing tomorrow?

I have had two excellent bonfires of fallen leaves this week, during which I created enough smoke to fill the Millennium Dome twice over. But I doubt if I will have time to do that on Sunday. Here's my plan:

1. Monster breakfast at the café at Withybush Airfield, in the company of some fellow members of TOMCC. Black pudding, bacon, eggs, sausages, toast, coffee - how many sacred cows bite the dust in just one meal? And of course by eating there we are supporting the local flying club. Flying - the worst contributor to climate change, according to 10:10 director Franny Armstrong, although she is not averse to a lot of flying herself if she feels the need, of course. It's OK when they do it.

2. Ride-out to Tan-y-groes in Ceredigion. Only 30 or so miles, but I will be sure to wind it on big-style and create as many unburnt hydrocarbons in the atmosphere as is humanly possible.

3. Visit to the Internal Fire Museum of Power, for their End-of-Season Crankup, where we will enjoy a day of looking at various stationary engines going duff-duff-duff and generally creating noise and smoke. We had this visit planned long before 10:10 was announced, but it couldn't be more appropriate, really.

4. Swift ride home, killing a few foxes and badgers if they get in the way.

5. Massive bonfire if time allows.

I'm going to a harp concert (the plinky-plonky kind, not a harmonica recital) at the village church in the evening. It's not promising from an anti-environmental point of view, as I will only be sitting and listening, but I will try to think up some way to increase my carbon footprint while I am there. Perhaps I will set fire to some of the less-tasteful kneelers, or the vicar's cassock.

Whatever you do, make it smelly and noisy. And whatever you are driving or riding - give it some. No pressure.

More Green Hypocrisy

Thanks to the excellent WattsUpWithThat, I found this interesting video clip:

Not just the stinking hypocrisy, but the method of dealing with dissenters straight from the BNP's manual.

My Reply To 10:10

This afternoon, I received a reply from 'The 10:10 Team' to my email of complaint (in the comments) of six days ago.

This is what they said:

Hello Richard,

We're really sorry for the mistake that we made with film. We accept that it was off-the-mark and off-message, and we quickly removed it from our site.

Our UK director has made a statement on the issue, if you haven't seen and wish to see it, you can find it at http://www.1010global.org/uk/2010/10/statement-1010-uk-director. As it says, we are taking the matter very seriously and will be reviewing our processes and procedures to identify how we made the mistake.

We sincerely apologise for the offence the film has caused, and hope you will stick with us.

10:10 team

I suspect that this is a generic reply that will have gone out to everyone who wrote to them. Here is my reply today:

Dear 10:10 Team

Thank you for your email, in reply to my complaint of 1 October about your 'No Pressure' video clip. I appreciate that you have taken the time to respond.

However, I feel you have slightly missed the point. I was not offended by the clip in the slightest, and even if I was I don't regard offending me as a crime. You have the right to express your viewpoint, and I wouldn't stand in the way of that. I am aware that the film was intended to be funny, and to the extent that I understand modern humour, I 'get' what you were trying to do. I laughed at Sam Peckinpah's 'Salad Days', and Mr Creosote too.

However, the film revealed a totalitarian mindset which I found profoundly disturbing. The children who were exploded, remember, were not against the idea of 10:10 - they were merely insufficiently enthusiastic. Healthy scepticism is obviously not part of the 10:10 creed - it's 'believe or be marginalised'.

Since I believe that you are all well-meaning and fundamentally decent people, I would ask you to consider seriously the following:

Look at the reaction of the children and office workers who were not exploded. They were not portrayed as cheering happily as their colleagues were disposed of - they were shocked and terrified. That - and I use this word deliberately - is a fascist method for the control of a population: go after dissenters with extreme violence, and the rest of the population will be frightened into compliance. They will say anything, and agree to anything, as long as they are not next. Hitler used it; Stalin used it; Pol Pot used it. Is that how you want us to think of the climate change movement? Seriously?

I don't think for one moment that you wish to exterminate all those who disagree with you, and it is unfair of you to characterise anyone who disagrees with you as unimaginative, or not 'getting the joke'. But the film did reveal a very nasty subtext to the climate change movement's attitude, and I suspect that you have done more harm to your movement then you realise.

We shall see.

Young Turks

In response to my recent post on the second 10:10 apology, Voyager wrote...

"10:10 is a young and creative team"

There is the problem. They may have first class degrees from top universities but they actually know nothing. The same problem exists all over 'commercial' media, politics and (to a lesser extent perhaps) commerce. They hire thrusting young turks who have little understanding of history and context.

Useless tossers.

I think he's hit the nail on the head. It used to be the case that all enterprises, whether banks or bus companies, schools or sausage factories, had a mixture of young and old on their staff. The young were vital for their energy and ideas, but perhaps lacked judgement. The older staff were wiser and more experienced, but were perhaps running low on creativity and drive. As long as each group respected the contribution of the other, things went along very well. Crucially, anything proposed by the younger employees would be checked by the older ones, who would have the final say on whether it would go ahead. Experience, and mature judgement, would temper the wilder ideas and make sure that what happened would be likely to work in the real world. It seemed to work well as a system.

But we don't do that any more. 'Youth' itself is the justification - edginess and pushing the boundaries and occasionally getting it wrong are considered to be good in themselves. "10:10 is a young and creative team" - and we are invited to see that remark as a justification for the film, not an excuse for why it went so badly wrong.

All organisations need an old git - someone with experience of the business, open-minded but steady - to act as a gatekeeper. Commercial operations tend to work like this, as getting the market badly wrong is suicidal. Organisations that work on 'other people's money' don't. When they get it wrong, they are faced with merely making an apology, rather than a visit to the Job Centre.

Another 10:10 Apology

Eugenie Harvey, the UK Director of 10:10, has issued a further apology for the catastrophic 'No Pressure' film. You can read it in full here. An extract:

We are also sorry to our corporate sponsors, delivery partners and board members, who have been implicated in this situation despite having no involvement in the film’s production or release.

I am very sorry for our mistake and want to reassure you that we will do everything in our power to ensure it does not happen again.

10:10 is a young and creative team but we will learn lessons from this. We are going to investigate what happened, review our processes and procedures, and share the results with our partners. Responsibility for this process is being taken by the 10:10 board of directors.

This media coverage for this film was not the kind of publicity we wanted for the cause of saving the climate, nor for 10:10, and we certainly didn’t mean to do anything to distract from all the efforts of those in other organisations who are working so hard to secure effective action on climate change.

If you have been in touch with us personally about the film, we will be replying to individual emails over the next few days.

To all those who are saying that the whole thing, including the outcry, the withdrawal and the first 'apology' were planned from the start, I think this puts the lid on that. It sounds genuine, and painfully embarrassed, to me.

Good. It needs to be. If I were Eugenie Harvey, I would be asking for the heads of the team that thought this would be a good idea - on a plate, with mayonnaise and a sprinkling of hundreds and thousands. In a private business, anyone who brought this amount of bad publicity on the organisation would be asked to clear their desk and get off the premises within ten minutes. And if she doesn't, the big blue-chip sponsors like Sony and O2 should be demanding it. The big guys know that brand damage is expensive.

I await my personal email from Eugenie with interest.