... you were either a Mod or a Rocker? Wearing a helmet was voluntary?
Feast your eyes on this:
Monday, 5 April 2010
Sunday, 4 April 2010
A Question of Balance
Senior journalists at the BBC are 'spitting feathers' today, after being told that they must interview and give airtime to various leaders of minority parties after the debates with the leaders of the three main parties have taken place.
A new directive issued by corporation executives forces the editors of flagship news programmes to give airtime to minority parties, including the BNP, immediately after the live debate between Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg.
It's not just the BNP, although that is the headline-grabber. It also includes UKIP, the Green Party, the SNP and Plaid Cymru.
One source said: "We're all spitting feathers here. This is further proof that the BBC's obsession with 'compliance' is destroying its news coverage and journalism.
Or perhaps Mark Rylance is coming rather belatedly to the idea of balance and fairness?
One comment deserves to rank up there alongside the champagne bottles in BBC corridors on 2 May 1997:
One source said ... "The idea of having to interview the Ukip leader Nigel Farage – let alone Nick Griffin – is turning people's stomachs."
They just don't get it, do they? They are a nationally-funded news organisation, paid for by you and me on pain of criminal charges, and yet they think they have the right to pick and choose which viewpoints (all held by legal political parties) they are prepared to allow to be heard.
If you need evidence that the BBC is out of control, this is it. We already hear more from their 'correspondents' about what politicians said (and 'meant') than we hear from the politicians themselves. Now they want to decide what viewpoints we are to be permitted to hear.
Sorting out the BBC - and radically - must be Cameron's first priority.
A new directive issued by corporation executives forces the editors of flagship news programmes to give airtime to minority parties, including the BNP, immediately after the live debate between Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg.
It's not just the BNP, although that is the headline-grabber. It also includes UKIP, the Green Party, the SNP and Plaid Cymru.
One source said: "We're all spitting feathers here. This is further proof that the BBC's obsession with 'compliance' is destroying its news coverage and journalism.
Or perhaps Mark Rylance is coming rather belatedly to the idea of balance and fairness?
One comment deserves to rank up there alongside the champagne bottles in BBC corridors on 2 May 1997:
One source said ... "The idea of having to interview the Ukip leader Nigel Farage – let alone Nick Griffin – is turning people's stomachs."
They just don't get it, do they? They are a nationally-funded news organisation, paid for by you and me on pain of criminal charges, and yet they think they have the right to pick and choose which viewpoints (all held by legal political parties) they are prepared to allow to be heard.
If you need evidence that the BBC is out of control, this is it. We already hear more from their 'correspondents' about what politicians said (and 'meant') than we hear from the politicians themselves. Now they want to decide what viewpoints we are to be permitted to hear.
Sorting out the BBC - and radically - must be Cameron's first priority.
The rights of B&B owners
So the Observer have a secret recording of Chris Grayling saying that B&B owners should be allowed to bar gay people from their establishments if they so choose, and the BBC are predictably wetting their knickers over it. So far, so much phoney war.
Let me state at the outset that i) We used to run a small B&B here is rural West Wales, and ii) I have no problem with gays whatsoever. If we had had a gay couple (of either sex) turn up at the door when we were running the B&B, I would not have had the slightest problem with welcoming them in. I have gay friends and even a gay ex-partner (no prizes for guessing why that one didn't work out), and I am on good terms with them all.
But the law is utterly hypocritical. Compare these two hotels:
---------
Stagz Hotel has been run as a straight hotel for the past 24 years, and is one of the most popular and longest established straight hotels in Blackpool, catering for straight couples, singles and groups who want a straight environment with quality accommodation.
Previously voted 3rd best straight hotel in UK!!
Stagz is a GENUINE Straight Hotel. That means it is a hotel owned and run BY straight people FOR straight people, but beware there are some gay owned ‘Stag Pound’ friendly Hotels locally that display the Playboy Bunny sign trying to cash in on straight money, and it isn’t until you check in that you discover they may be gay, or even have homosexual parties staying.!!!
If you are specifically looking for a Straight Hotel be sure to ask if it is exclusively straight when booking to avoid possible disappointment.
--------
Guyz Hotel has been run as a gay hotel for the past 24 years, and is one of the most popular and longest established gay hotels in Blackpool, catering for gay couples, singles and groups who want a gay environment with quality accommodation.
Previously voted 3rd best gay hotel in UK!!
Guyz is a GENUINE Gay Hotel. That means it is a hotel owned and run BY gay people FOR gay people, but beware there are some straight owned ‘Pink Pound’ friendly Hotels locally that display the pride flag trying to cash in on gay money, and it isn’t until you check in that you discover they may be mixed, or even have STAG & HEN parties staying.!!!
If you are specifically looking for a Gay Hotel be sure to ask if it is exclusively gay when booking to avoid possible disappointment.
-----------
One of these websites is likely to be discriminatory and highly illegal. The other is apparently quite OK. I'll leave you to guess which one. If anyone can explain this anomaly, and specifically why both the underlined sentences are not equally illegal, I would be very grateful.
Let me state at the outset that i) We used to run a small B&B here is rural West Wales, and ii) I have no problem with gays whatsoever. If we had had a gay couple (of either sex) turn up at the door when we were running the B&B, I would not have had the slightest problem with welcoming them in. I have gay friends and even a gay ex-partner (no prizes for guessing why that one didn't work out), and I am on good terms with them all.
But the law is utterly hypocritical. Compare these two hotels:
---------
Stagz Hotel has been run as a straight hotel for the past 24 years, and is one of the most popular and longest established straight hotels in Blackpool, catering for straight couples, singles and groups who want a straight environment with quality accommodation.
Previously voted 3rd best straight hotel in UK!!
Stagz is a GENUINE Straight Hotel. That means it is a hotel owned and run BY straight people FOR straight people, but beware there are some gay owned ‘Stag Pound’ friendly Hotels locally that display the Playboy Bunny sign trying to cash in on straight money, and it isn’t until you check in that you discover they may be gay, or even have homosexual parties staying.!!!
If you are specifically looking for a Straight Hotel be sure to ask if it is exclusively straight when booking to avoid possible disappointment.
--------
Guyz Hotel has been run as a gay hotel for the past 24 years, and is one of the most popular and longest established gay hotels in Blackpool, catering for gay couples, singles and groups who want a gay environment with quality accommodation.
Previously voted 3rd best gay hotel in UK!!
Guyz is a GENUINE Gay Hotel. That means it is a hotel owned and run BY gay people FOR gay people, but beware there are some straight owned ‘Pink Pound’ friendly Hotels locally that display the pride flag trying to cash in on gay money, and it isn’t until you check in that you discover they may be mixed, or even have STAG & HEN parties staying.!!!
If you are specifically looking for a Gay Hotel be sure to ask if it is exclusively gay when booking to avoid possible disappointment.
-----------
One of these websites is likely to be discriminatory and highly illegal. The other is apparently quite OK. I'll leave you to guess which one. If anyone can explain this anomaly, and specifically why both the underlined sentences are not equally illegal, I would be very grateful.
Saturday, 3 April 2010
First ride
I think taking that test ride a few nights ago in the pouring rain (and leather jacket and jeans) has given me what my mother used to call a 'proper chill'. I am running like a tap and full of aches and pains. I was minded to go back to bed today, but then the sun came out and I thought a run on the Bonnie would be a better option. By the time I was ready to go it was pouring with rain again, but what are waterproofs for, eh?
I filled it up with petrol and then did my customary circuit. It's the one I always use for a quick blast - Haverfordwest, Fishguard and St David's in a triangle, 46 miles and nicely under an hour. Today I did it anti-clockwise for a change.
First impressions - all good. It has enough power, although only about half that of the Pan (but there again, it's only just over half the weight), but delivers it in a useable way. Bimble along and smell the flowers? That will be fine by me, Sir. Rag it and take a line of cars in one go? I'm sure that can be arranged, Sir. I used to have a bike (a Yamaha RD350 YPVS) which wasn't like this. It begged to be thrashed. There's something psychosexual about this, I am sure, but there is something very appealing about a machine that says, in so many words, "take me, cane me, I love it, thrash me to within an inch of my life, the faster the better, and I promise not to tell." I sold the bike after I found myself ragging round the lanes of Lincolnshire waaaaaay too fast, because the bike didn't know how to go slowly. The Pan was a bit guilty of this, in that it was so capable that it was almost rude not to use the power it had. The Triumph is altogether more biddable. Slow, fast, up to you. In its seating position and its road manners it reminds me most strongly of my all-time most-loved bike, a small-block Guzzi of the late 70s, which was friendly but nimble, and utterly well-mannered.
Ths suspension is firm, not to say a bit stiff, but there's nothing wrong with that. I did hit a couple of potholes with a crash that the Pan would have glided over, but firmness in suspension is no bad thing. At least you know what the wheels are doing. It has a proper fuel tap with a reserve, not an unreliable fuel light that comes on at 80 miles from full and keep you guessing for the next 60 (I hated that on the Ducati), and a proper choke button, because it has carbs and not fuel injection. Comfort was reasonable. I was ready to get off and have a walk about after an hour but, again, that is no bad thing. Frequent breaks are the key to keeping fatigue at bay.
Two things I am less than pleased about. One is that the headlight is permanently on, and the only choice is main beam or dip. Nearly all new bikes are like this now (I think it's an EU commandment) and I don't like it. I'll use the headlight in poor visibility or rain, but I prefer to be able to ride without it. But that choice has been taken away, unless I can study the wiring diagram and find a way to include an on/off switch. The other is that it lacks a 'pass' button. This is the one that fits neatly under the left index finger and flashes the headlight - very useful when saying hello to passing bikers, or when overtaking dozy Sunday drivers. For no good reason, the racer-styled model, the Thruxton, gets one of these, but the plain Bonnie doesn't. I think that's cheap of Triumph.
Other than this, all is good.
I wore my proper bike boots, and the gear change was still not right, so after the ride I spent an hour adjusting all the controls to suit me. I've got other plans too. The previous owner had fitted an automatic chain-oiler, but has butchered the wiring loom to do so. Inside the side covers, there are wires and insulating tape everywhere. That is coming out. I like chain-oilers, and have fitted them to the Bandit and the Ducati, but the Scottoiler is the only one I have dealt with so far. It doesn't use any wiring, just a small tube tapped into the inlet manifold so that engine vacuum lets the oiler do its thing. Looking at the chain after the ride, I don't think this one is working in any case. Plus it's strapped to the outside of a frame tube and looks ugly. (Update: I've done a bit of internetting, and it's a PD Oiler. Lots of people seem to rate them better than the Scottoiler, so I may try to get this one working properly instead of binning it.)
And the bike needs a wash. After 50 miles in the rain and the Pembrokeshire roads, it's looking very manky indeed.
I filled it up with petrol and then did my customary circuit. It's the one I always use for a quick blast - Haverfordwest, Fishguard and St David's in a triangle, 46 miles and nicely under an hour. Today I did it anti-clockwise for a change.
First impressions - all good. It has enough power, although only about half that of the Pan (but there again, it's only just over half the weight), but delivers it in a useable way. Bimble along and smell the flowers? That will be fine by me, Sir. Rag it and take a line of cars in one go? I'm sure that can be arranged, Sir. I used to have a bike (a Yamaha RD350 YPVS) which wasn't like this. It begged to be thrashed. There's something psychosexual about this, I am sure, but there is something very appealing about a machine that says, in so many words, "take me, cane me, I love it, thrash me to within an inch of my life, the faster the better, and I promise not to tell." I sold the bike after I found myself ragging round the lanes of Lincolnshire waaaaaay too fast, because the bike didn't know how to go slowly. The Pan was a bit guilty of this, in that it was so capable that it was almost rude not to use the power it had. The Triumph is altogether more biddable. Slow, fast, up to you. In its seating position and its road manners it reminds me most strongly of my all-time most-loved bike, a small-block Guzzi of the late 70s, which was friendly but nimble, and utterly well-mannered.
Ths suspension is firm, not to say a bit stiff, but there's nothing wrong with that. I did hit a couple of potholes with a crash that the Pan would have glided over, but firmness in suspension is no bad thing. At least you know what the wheels are doing. It has a proper fuel tap with a reserve, not an unreliable fuel light that comes on at 80 miles from full and keep you guessing for the next 60 (I hated that on the Ducati), and a proper choke button, because it has carbs and not fuel injection. Comfort was reasonable. I was ready to get off and have a walk about after an hour but, again, that is no bad thing. Frequent breaks are the key to keeping fatigue at bay.
Two things I am less than pleased about. One is that the headlight is permanently on, and the only choice is main beam or dip. Nearly all new bikes are like this now (I think it's an EU commandment) and I don't like it. I'll use the headlight in poor visibility or rain, but I prefer to be able to ride without it. But that choice has been taken away, unless I can study the wiring diagram and find a way to include an on/off switch. The other is that it lacks a 'pass' button. This is the one that fits neatly under the left index finger and flashes the headlight - very useful when saying hello to passing bikers, or when overtaking dozy Sunday drivers. For no good reason, the racer-styled model, the Thruxton, gets one of these, but the plain Bonnie doesn't. I think that's cheap of Triumph.
Other than this, all is good.
I wore my proper bike boots, and the gear change was still not right, so after the ride I spent an hour adjusting all the controls to suit me. I've got other plans too. The previous owner had fitted an automatic chain-oiler, but has butchered the wiring loom to do so. Inside the side covers, there are wires and insulating tape everywhere. That is coming out. I like chain-oilers, and have fitted them to the Bandit and the Ducati, but the Scottoiler is the only one I have dealt with so far. It doesn't use any wiring, just a small tube tapped into the inlet manifold so that engine vacuum lets the oiler do its thing. Looking at the chain after the ride, I don't think this one is working in any case. Plus it's strapped to the outside of a frame tube and looks ugly. (Update: I've done a bit of internetting, and it's a PD Oiler. Lots of people seem to rate them better than the Scottoiler, so I may try to get this one working properly instead of binning it.)
And the bike needs a wash. After 50 miles in the rain and the Pembrokeshire roads, it's looking very manky indeed.
Classic Geldof
Saint Bob has been tearing into the BBC for a documetary it plans to show next week, which casts doubt on the effectiveness of Saint Bob and Saint Bono's efforts in abolishing world poverty. Naturally, he is furious, as this criticism pulls away the rug from under someone who had a couple of chart hits in the 70s and has traded on a reputation for 'caring' and 'not putting up with your establishment bullshit' ever since. If the Live Aid campaigns were shown to have made things worse rather than better, to have caused people to be killed rather than saved, then what was the point?
His Bobness has an annoying habit of larding his observations with recondite and abstruse vocabulary, in order to show he is not a scruffy, unwashed pop has-been, but is in fact an educated and literate individual. I know exactly what he is doing: I used to do exactly the same when I was 18 and learned about words like 'abstruse' and 'recondite'. By 21, I had learned to stop being such an arse and just to be myself. Bob hasn't got this far yet. The same is true of his habit of swearing in virtually every speech he makes - he thinks it makes him seem more anti-establishment and 'down with the kids', but in fact he just comes across as foul-mouthed and immature.
I really loved this comment:
The decision to try to mobilise world opinion through concerts was justified, he said, because "the lingua franca of the planet is not English – it's pop music".
Question:
Bob made this statement in -
a. English
b. Na-na-na, doo-wop, baby baby, tssss tssss tssss bumpa bumpa bumpa takakaka, yeah yeah, imagine no possessions, except my millionaire mansion of course, moon/june/spoon, love/dove/above, be-bop-a-lula, she's my baby and I don't mean maybe, not in the slightest, na-na-na baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaby.
Starsuckers, More4, Tuesday 6 April, 10pm.
His Bobness has an annoying habit of larding his observations with recondite and abstruse vocabulary, in order to show he is not a scruffy, unwashed pop has-been, but is in fact an educated and literate individual. I know exactly what he is doing: I used to do exactly the same when I was 18 and learned about words like 'abstruse' and 'recondite'. By 21, I had learned to stop being such an arse and just to be myself. Bob hasn't got this far yet. The same is true of his habit of swearing in virtually every speech he makes - he thinks it makes him seem more anti-establishment and 'down with the kids', but in fact he just comes across as foul-mouthed and immature.
I really loved this comment:
The decision to try to mobilise world opinion through concerts was justified, he said, because "the lingua franca of the planet is not English – it's pop music".
Question:
Bob made this statement in -
a. English
b. Na-na-na, doo-wop, baby baby, tssss tssss tssss bumpa bumpa bumpa takakaka, yeah yeah, imagine no possessions, except my millionaire mansion of course, moon/june/spoon, love/dove/above, be-bop-a-lula, she's my baby and I don't mean maybe, not in the slightest, na-na-na baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaby.
Starsuckers, More4, Tuesday 6 April, 10pm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
