Category: Media

Vinyl

Vinyl records gave us a whole langauage.

When I think about playing music a couple of sketches come to mind. One is the Not The Nine O’clock News sketch about a HiFi Shop[1]. It’s jargon loaded customer service that’s now moved on-line whereas then it was a face-to-face experience. The term Audiophile doesn’t seem to have become Digitalphile. No not Digital File. Maybe it should for those who impatiently mock anyone wrestling with a poorly designed App.

The other is Flanders and Swann and their Song of Reproduction (1957)[2]. Again, the joke is a superb mockery of the non-technically minded when faced with the modern fashion of the time. This obsession with getting better and better sound reproduction hasn’t gone away. My tinkering with amps and speakers in the 1970s may have led to my interest in electronics.

The above are comic stories of the era of Polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Better known simply as Vinyl when talking about to the way we played music for several decades. Collecting vinyl records is making a big resurgence. I’ve been hit by the bug. 

Pick it up for £1 in a charity shop. Play it. It’s perfect. Well, not in every case but there are some surprises when playing 50-year-old disks. Some former owners cherished and cared for their collections. 45 RPM may not mean a lot to the streaming generation. That said, there are not so many popular objects that are a half a century old that you can simply play as if they were new.

I’m playing the 1972 hit “Stuck in the Middle with You” by Stealers Wheel.

Vinyl records gave us a whole langauage. The phonograph, disk jockey, jukebox and hit parade are becoming as unfamiliar as a conversation in a Victorian salon. The inconvenience of having to get-up and place a disk on a turntable is part of the experience. It’s a task that isn’t matched by swiping a small glass screen.

Yes, vinyl disks get scratched, warped, and cracked. That makes them ephemeral and more akin to a living artifact. A stream of digital “1” and “0” never ages. There’s something sterile about that.

Strangely the 6-inch disk shaped the way popular music was made as much as how it was played. Having to fit everything into a 2- or 3-minutes slot focused song writers, musicians, and producers to go the extra mile.

I’m now in 1967 and playing “Autumn Almanac” by The Kinks[3].

A number of these plastic artifacts may end up being one of the rare items playable in a 1000 years’ time. I wonder what those in 3023 will make of these primitive tactile objects. They may value them greatly.

[1] https://youtu.be/HoPXQ9fotZM

[2] https://youtu.be/EL5SzTSMxLU?list=RDEL5SzTSMxLU

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autumn_Almanac

digital probing

It’s the Japanese knotweed of the digital world.

Advertising, marketing, promotion, selling, I expect some of those cave paintings of ancient men and women were showing-off to the rest of their society. They’d be saying, extra tasty bison if you head on down to this big watering hole. Throw your spear this way for the best results. The communication medium, a rock face isn’t so different from billboards, hoardings and signage that line busy roads. Catching your eye is the aim. Doing it on a busy throughfare is a proven method.

Too much of this can be annoying, distracting and ultimately defeating. Wall-to-wall advertising that’s pushy, gaudy and litters the highway is a nightmare no one wants to see. It’s not just the urban planners that get riled-up when they see streets plastered with garish advertising.

What of the digital worlds we inhabit? It’s clear they’re no exception. A great deal of the money to be made digitally comes from advertising. My beef here is with the saturation questioning that this industry uses to accumulate data. The bombarding of people with questionnaire after questionnaire is as annoying as any gaudy poster. Survey after survey pops-up as soon as you give away your e-mail address in any purchase. “We’d love to know more about the experience you recently had……………” 

It’s one reason why I always refuse any request made at a till in a shop. Occasionally, shop assistants will look offended. It’s as if you have slighted them, is some incomprehensible way. It’s no good them saying they can reassure you that your data will be “protected”. Such reassurances are meaningless.

There are so many examples of data held securely and in line with data protection rules being hacked[1][2][3][4] and spread around like confetti. Compensation after the event is not compensation for the aggravation.

Making purchases it’s inevitable that we will give away data. Few of us read the terms and conditions under which we give away our data. There’s an expectation of “protection”. The conveniences of digital transactions are traded against the risks of losing vital personal data.

When it comes to advertising there’s no necessity. Unless there’s some form of inducement. One came into my in-box saying, “win a £10,000 holiday”. I did what I normally do – deleted it. I find such hooks like “This survey will only take a few minutes to complete” as annoying as improbable competitions and insincere thanks.

I don’t suppose I’m eccentric in disliking all this unrelenting digital probing. It’s clutter. It’s invasive. It’s the Japanese knotweed of the digital world.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45446529

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52722626

[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-57210118

[4] https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/american-airlines-says-data-breach-affected-small-number-customers-employees-2022-09-20/

Charm

It’s a curious question. What part does “charm” play in life? Does the charming man or woman get the job and the dull or grumpy but competent person fail? Do charming people get more done, or are they more inclined to laziness?

Like most assertions or questions, it’s as well to start with some definitions. If we put aside nuclear physics and jewellery the definition of “charm” could be said to be the power or value of delighting, attracting, or fascinating other people. It’s an intrinsic human characteristic but I’m sure it can be learned by those who start of with basic abilities.

One of my favour fictional characters, from the 1960s has this in bucket loads. Personified in the TV series The Saint[1], Simon Templar played by Roger Moore exuded charm. In this exhibition of charm, it’s more than an external attractiveness. It’s also a moral and ethical code.

Perhaps it’s not just charm that I’m discussing. When I asked the question of a supporter, what do you see in Boris Johnson? The answer came back – charisma. It’s a power to stand above the crowd and exert influence over people. Here’s another fuzzy characteristic. Everyone recognises charisma exists but may choose to describe it differently in different people.

The reality seems to be that charm and charisma may be combined but they have little to do with moral and ethical behaviour. However, the general perception is that there’s “good” in these characteristics. Is this obvious, and thus not warranting much further thought? Or is it, that because this seems obvious, that in the hands of the “ungodly,” as The Saint would say, these characteristics can feed unfairness, injustice, or corruption?

What I mean is that “bad” charming or charismatic people are allowed to get away with misdemeans and occasionally down right criminality without the accountability that would punish others. We can add to the equation the current social media explosion. Most platforms are a gift to the self-publicist. They can be a shop window and a soap box for the adoration of charming or charismatic people, good or bad.

Maybe instead of Twitter’s blue tick there ought to be an emoji of the devil or an angel. No – that would be worse than nothing at all. In the end we do depend on authors, journalists and investigators looking behind the masks that prominent personalities keep up. What I can say is that, if there are contemporary Robin Hoods that prevents the “ungodly” from succeeding, they may need help. It’s not so easy to stay one step ahead.

[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055701/

Eurovision

Eccentricity, excess and exuberance. That’s entertainment. Eurovision is a big mark on the calendar. Each year it’s getting bigger. It has songs and it has a contest and much more besides.

This year’s coverage is a bit OTT. Now, I like the occasional bacon and eggs for breakfast, but I don’t want it for lunch and dinner too. And for supper I’d like anything but bacon and eggs. Media’s May menu is a video age version of Monty Python’s Spam sketch. That’s how I’m getting to feel about the wall-to-wall coverage. Yes, you can have too much of a good thing.

That’s what’s special about Eurovision. It comes but once a year in a blaze of musical colour and preposterous lyrics. Then it’s gone only to rise like a phoenix in the year to come.

This scribbling is no criticism of the massive stage set and inventive use of every form of graphical illusion. Even some music. Liverpool is proving to be a number one venue for this extravaganza. The stage set and the mastery of its technical complexities are outstanding.

Please, no more Beatles illusions. We get it.

Earlier this evening, BBC Radio 4 gave us proof that Artificial intelligence (AI) has a way to go. It’s attempts at writing funny jokes are beyond a joke. With that in mind, maybe the writers of the hosts scripts for the semi-finals were using AI. I’d cringe even if I didn’t hide behind the sofa. I know British humour doesn’t always translate well but it’s better if it’s aimed at real humans.

Musicality is all well and good, it’s the weirdness that makes an act stand out. Staging a whole song around Edgar Allan Poe[1] is mind bending. Well, you might say, why not? I wish Austria well with their catchy use of Poe, Poe, and more Poe.

Australia is not in Europe. Who said that? It doesn’t matter. They are 100% welcome. Especially when they bring a regular rock rampage to the stage. Their efforts are not going to win. That much doesn’t matter. Their stadium rock show number is still going to do well.

I not sure why but my soft spot goes to Belgium. That guy has got a star quality that shines bright. Is he a contemporary version of Boy George? Not sure. Then there’s Cyprus. At the other end of the scale, he’s auditioning to be a Greek God. Thunder and lightning. Very Very Exciting (to quote Queen).

Sweden has the drama. It’s a mega blast that dominates the arena. She could be the winner.

Saturday evening should be a memorable triumph. Let’s hope it is for the sake of unity and good fun.

POST: Liverpool is twinned with Cologne in Germany. I’ve always found that a good match. Two major cities with a strong sense of their identity and place in the world.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Allan_Poe

Deregulation

There’s nothing wrong with making an argument for deregulation. What’s absurd is to make that argument as an unchallengeable dogma. It’s the irrationality of saying that deregulation is good, and regulation is bad, de-facto. This kind of unintelligent nonsense does permeate a particular type of right-wing political thinking. It pops it’s head up in a lot of Brexiters utterances. For advocates of Brexit their great goal is to throw away rules and lower standards. Mostly, this is for financial gain.

Let’s take some simple examples. The reasons for rules and regulations can often be found in recent history. Hazards are recognised and action is taken.

There’s still lead paint to be found in many older houses. There was a time when such paint was used on children’s toys. Toy safety has been a confusing area of law, and there have been several sets of regulations since the 1960. From our current perspective this past laxness seems insane, but such lead paint mixtures were commonplace. In fact, all sorts of toxic chemicals have been used in widely used paints.

I remember working in one factory building where a survey was done of the surrounding grounds. Outside certain windows there were small fluorescent flags placed at in the grass verges. They marked places where minor amounts of radiation had been detected. This came from discarded paint brushes and tins that had accumulated in the war years. At that time radioactive luminescent paint was used to paint aircraft instrument dials.

Any arguments for the deregulation of toxic chemicals in commonly used paints should be one that is quashed instantly. However, some deregulation fanatics are only to happy to endorse a loosening of the rules that protect the public from toxic chemicals.

One result of the loosening of public protection is often to put greater profits in the hands of unscrupulous industrialist. Across the globe there are numerous cases studies of this sad folly. Newspapers and political parties that push the line that rules, regulations and regulators, by their very nature are crushing our freedoms are as bad as those unscrupulous industrialists.

Yes, there’s a case to be made for pushing back over-regulation. There’s risks we are prepared to take where the risks are low, and the benefits are large. This is a matter for intelligent debate and not throwing around mindless slogans. We should not be cowed by loud voices from small corners of society intent on tearing down decades of learning and sound practical laws. I could come up with an encyclopaedic list of examples. Opponents rarely, if ever want to address a particular case since it’s much easier for them to thunder off sweeping assertions. Beware these siren voices.

NOTE: The Toys (Safety) Regulations 2011 implemented the requirements of Directive 2009/48/EC, whose purpose is to ensure a high level of toy safety.

Oath

Oh dear. What do they say: the road to hell as being paved with good intentions. Maybe that’s a bit extreme. It’s not necessarily “hell” that I’m talking about here but something that does the opposite of what’s intended. I can image the planning meeting where someone pipes up – I’ve got an idea.

Swearing allegiance to the King[1] might sit well in a Hollywood movie of knights in armour and English castles standing proud against the green, green countryside. In the 21st century it sounds quaint and patronising to say the least. Strange vestiges of the historic riddle of our constitution.

The public is being asked to swear allegiance at the King’s coronation. These words are proposed: “I swear that I will pay true allegiance to Your Majesty, and to your heirs and successors according to law…….”

Now, I know that Members of Parliament (MPs) must swear a similar allegiance before taking their seat in Parliament. MPs cannot take their seat, speak in debates, vote, or receive a salary until taking an oath or affirmation[2]. For them it’s more about being elected lawmakers than allegiance to a single person. It would make much more sense if they swore an oath to the British Constitution but there lies the problem.

Such quintessentially British activities hark back to a day when everyone knew the rules of cricket, knew their place and, as John Major once put it in his failed Back to Basics[3] campaign, old values. In 1953, the time of the last crowning, Britain was a deferential society, now it’s not.

The question is – should a “modern” constitutional monarchy be asking for allegiance in this public way whilst knowing that most the population will ignore the whole exercise? Not only that but a considerable number of people will think the exercise utterly ridiculous.

There’s not so many large counties in the world where subjects are asked to swear an oath to an unelected head of state and his dysfunctional family. That’s a family that has filled the media with unhappy stories for years. It gets stranger and stranger depending on how you look at it.

It’s not what you might call democracy or meritocracy in the normal sense, it’s more of a ritual of imperial legacy. In this green and pleasant land some people think this is a fantastic advertisement for our great nation across the world. I disagree.

British Citizens have a proud allegiance to their country, but this is to one man and his whole family. Now, that is peculiar. It’s feudal. Sadly, to point out the obvious just gets branded as anti-monarchist.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65435426

[2] https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections-and-voting/swearingin/

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_Basics_(campaign)

Crown

It’s a difficult time to be a British republican. A couple of reactions to mention of an alternative to having a monarchy is – don’t be a spoil sport or the alternative would be worse.

The national celebrations coming up are not the problem in my mind. Nothing at all wrong with having a big nationwide event in May. Especially given the grim time the hospitality industry has just been through and the natural inclination to celebrate springtime.

Sadly, I have to say that the British republican movement, such as it is, is throwing away the opportunity to pose the questions on the good and bad of having a prominent monarchy in a modern country. “Not My King” is a ridiculous campaign slogan[1]. I believe we’d be better off as a republic but that belief lives with the pragmatic acceptance that there will be a King and he will be the Head of State. Pretending that is not so doesn’t help win the case for change.

Generally, I think there’s an ambivalence[2] about the whole subject amongst the British public. That is however much the BBC talks-up the whole coronation. Nobody much is complaining about having an extra Bank Holiday. Nevertheless, a widely held view is that Charles III will be on probation as a King. If the British monarchy continues to be embroiled in controversy and exist primarily as source of a tabloid headlines, then it will continue to decline as a symbol of the national and last no longer than a decade. The feeling that a monarchy interested in survival should have skipped a generation is a strong one. Their past survival has been mostly because of relative modernisation and not wallowing in ancient rituals.

According to polls, public support for the monarchy is age dependent. This maybe because of the claimed propensity for people to become more conservative, with a small “c”, with age. On the other hand, this is a new age. We have never had the global information revolution that is shaking the foundations of society in the way it is now.

I’m a supporter of British republicanism because we are citizens and not subjects. Although, I do recognise that the different status of people can be of dreadful intricacy given our history.

In Britain, some aspects of our unwritten constitution are “too easy” to change because of a passive Head of State. Conversely, some aspects of our unwritten constitution are “too hard” to change because of being constrained by custom, tradition, and the power of veto by those with inherited influence.

Ironically, post-Brexit, British republicanism is more allied to maintaining sovereignty than our crumbling[3] existing system of governance. That is as much about the sovereignty of the individual citizen as it is of our society or the State. Republicanism has always been about liberty. A few passages from Tom Paine (1737–1809) are enough evidence in that respect.

Good luck to His Majesty King Charles III. He’ll need it.

POST: Not me or, no relation in so far as I know: John Vincent (historian) is a British historian and professor emeritus of modern history at the University of Bristol. He is known for his works on political history, especially the 19th and 20th centuries, and for his controversial views on democracy and monarchy.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/27/notmyking-billboard-campaign-launched-by-anti-monarchy-activists

[2] https://natcen.ac.uk/news/british-social-attitudes-monarchy

[3] The last six years have illustrated the weakness of the current settlement.  

Head in Sand

Well, it’s happened. A debate. Are we any wiser? Well, not much. So many good points are raised but so many good points are dismissed by current Government Ministers. So deep are they in a mess of their own making.

On Monday, 24 April at 16:30, a UK Parliamentary debate[1] took place on the impact of the UK’s exit from the European Union (EU). This was consideration of e-petition[2] 628-226 relating to the impact of the UK’s exit from the EU. On the day of this debate this petition had attracted over 178 000 signatures. Petition debates are “general” debates which allow UK Members of Parliament (MPs) from all political parties to discuss important issues raised by the public.

The petition reasons that the benefits that were promised, if the UK exited the EU have not been delivered. Not at all. Although this fact might be self-evident it never-the-less warranted a timely debate. Public support for Brexit is falling as every day that goes by.

The petitioners called upon the UK Government to hold a public inquiry to assess the impact that Brexit has had on this country and its people. Given that other less impactful events have been subject to a public inquiry it seems only right that Brexit be investigated.

The call for an independent public inquiry, free from ideology and the opinions of vested interests is only fair, right, and proper in an accountable democratic 21st Century country. Transparency is a mark of good governance.

Today’s, Brexit is damaging the UK’s economy, opportunities for young people and rights of individuals. It’s well past the time that the people of the UK were told the full story. There needs to be a way out of this mess.

In the debate the point was made that the two biggest Westminster political parties continue to be committed to Brexit despite the harm that it’s doing to the UK. A long list of disbenefits were rattled off as speakers paced through the evidence. A long list that is growing.

The Government’s current approach is to ask UK Parliamentarians to stop talking about Brexit. It’s the ultimate ostrich with its head in the sand[3]. Brexit is a gigantic strategic mistake. Unfortunately, there remains a significant number of English politicians so entrenched in the mythology of Brexit that change is slow in coming. The public are way ahead of the politicians.

Stereotyping people as being in one camp or another, with the aim of continuing to divide the public is the unscrupulous tool of those people without a rational or coherent argument to make. It’s clear, progress will not be made until Ministers recognise that Brexit was a mistake. We may have to wait until after the next UK General Election before a real change is possible. Let’s hope that day comes soon.

POST 1: UK Press reports on the debate MPs debate consequences of Brexit for first time | The Independent MPs debate Brexit impact ‘for the first time since leaving the EU’ | The National Brexit: MPs call for public inquiry into impact of leaving EU – BBC News

POST 2: Brexit is a drag on the UK Sunak Grins And Bears It As Boss Hits Out At Brexit’s ‘Drag On Growth’ | HuffPost UK Politics (huffingtonpost.co.uk)

[1] https://youtu.be/iHzf1BQFXq8

[2] https://petition.parliament.uk/

[3] It’s a myth ostriches bury their head in the sand. Though this isn’t true, Ostrich Syndrome is a popular belief. It’s avoidance coping that people use to manage uncomfortable feelings or rather, not deal with them.

Light touch folly

Light touch regulation. Now, there’s a senseless folly. It’s a green light to bad actors wherever they operate. It’s like building a medieval castle’s walls half as thick as planned to save money in the belief that enemies are too stupid to work it out. Saying that the public good far less important than the speed of developments is unwise to say the least.

The INTERNET arrived in the UK in the late 1980s. Now, it seems strange to recount. Clunky Personal Commuters (PCs) and basic e-mail were the hight of sophistication as we moved from an office of typewriters and Tipp-Ex to the simple word processor[1]. Generations will marvel at the primitive nature of our former working lives. Getting scissors and cutting out paper text and pasting it into a better place in a draft document. Tippexing out errors and scribbling notes in the spaces between sentences. Yet, that’s what we did when first certifying many of the commercial airliners in regular use across the globe (Boeing 777. Airbus A320). Desktop computers took centre stage early in the 1990s, but administrations were amid a transition. Clickable icons hit screens in 1990. Gradually and progressively new ways of working evolved.

Microsoft Windows 95 and the INTERNET were heralded as the dawn of a new age. Not much thought was given to PCs being used for criminal or malicious purposes. No more thought than the use of a typewriter to commit crime. That doesn’t mean such considerations were ignored it just means that they were deemed a lower-level importance.

In 2023, everyday there’s a new warning about scammers. Even fake warnings about scammers coming from scammers with the aim of scamming. Identifying whose real and whose a fake is becoming ever more difficult. Being asked to update subscriptions that were never opened in the first places is a good indicator that there’s some dirty work afoot. Notices that accounts are about to be blocked referring to accounts that don’t exist is another.

In 30-years the INTERNET has taken on the good and bad of the greater world. It hasn’t become a safer place. In fact, it’s become a bit like the Wild West[2].

Our digital space continues to evolve but has nowhere near reached its potential. It’s like those great western plains where waggons headed out looking for rich new lands. In any towns on the way the shop fronts are gleaming and inviting but if you look around the back there’s a desperate attempt to keep bad actors at bay.

Only a fraction of the suspicious, emails, texts, and messages get reported. People unconsciously pile up a digital legacy and rarely clean out the trash that accumulates. A rich messiness of personal information can lie hidden to the eyes but just bellow the digital surface.

When politicians and technocrats talk of “light touch regulation” it’s as if none of this matters. In the race to be first in technology, public protection is given a light touch. This can’t be a good way to go.

[1] Still available – Tipp-Ex Rapid, Correction Fluid Bottle, High Quality Correction Fluid, Excellent Coverage, 20ml, Pack of 3, white.

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_frontier

Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson

There’s a good argument for boring politics. Yes, it’s reasonable to get aerated about big choices and fundamental differences in belief. However, a lot of politics is implementing policy and taking corrective action when something goes wrong. For the bigger part of practical politics, the qualities of attention to detail and diplomacy are of paramount importance. One thing we know for certain is that we got the exact opposite from former British Prime Minister (PM) Boris Johnson[1]. Gesticulation and flowery language took the place of thoughtfulness, care, and compassion.

Johnson denies lying to the UK Parliament. He once revelled in his performances at the dispatch box in the House of Commons (HoC). His period as UK PM was turbulent and full to the brim with bullish rhetoric. There’s no doubt that there’s an audience who laps up those political theatrics.

In the promotion world, adverts are supposed to be “legal, decent, honest and truthful.” In the political world, it would be asking a lot for all four of those to be observed all the time.

One place where there’s an extremely high expectation that a PM will be honest and truthful is while they are standing at the dispatch box[2] in the HoC. Now, that doesn’t preclude them from failing to say all there is to say about a given subject but what they do say should be correct. Better said; must be correct. In a lot of ways this is one of the primary responsibilities of a UK PM.

A PM, or Government Minister found lying to Parliament is committing a significant offence and carries the likelihood of suspension. It’s not a trivial matter, neither should it be.

In public, as a campaigning conservative politician there are lots of cases where Boris Johnson has been casual with the truth. Britain’s exit from the European Union (EU) was driven by a cacophony of factual falsifications and gross distortions of the truth. Boris and Brexit are synonymous.

A HoC committee will decide on the facts surrounding the downfall of former British PM Boris Johnson. His peers, as members of a privileges committee will make a statement on his behaviour in coming weeks. With all the evidence in the public domain now, it seems probable that the committee will find that Johnson was at least reckless, if not that he intentionally lied in the HoC chamber, fellow Members of Parliament and the country.

Although, it would be unwise to discount Johnson’s political comeback, one day, there may be a chance that his style of politics will be shown to be as damaging as we know it to be. This should be a turning point where accountability wins out over bluster and fibs. Let’s hope it is.

[1] Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson is the politician, writer and journalist who was Prime Minister of the UK and Leader of the Conservative Party from 2019 to 2022.

[2] https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/building/cultural-collections/historic-furniture/the-collection/scott/despatch-boxes-/