BBC film crews

Having been somewhat involved with the workings of a BBC film crew yesterday, for a programme that will be hosted by Richard Hammond, I am left with a few observations about BBC film crews.

The staff all seemed to be polite, pleasant and reasonable people.  They even gave the impression of understanding what our technical staff were talking about - at least when they took the time to listen.  I was surprised to hear the producer asking one of his interviewees not to dumb it down so much - and this was for a science programme on the BBC.  Yes really!

I suppose this is not a proper science programme like Horizon.  Perhaps Sunday evening specials are allowed to present real science instead?

Another surprise was that they preferred to film in very low light, to the extent that most of the people who were trying to do a real job, operating a complex fusion machine, were complaining that they couldn't see what they were doing.  Most film crews from other TV stations including the independents can cope with the normal lighting conditions, but it will be interesting to see the difference when the programme comes out.  Perhaps it will be spectacularly better than average.

And yes - it is true that Hammond is not a tall man.

But the biggest surprise is that the film crew must have numbered at least a dozen people.  Like the last time I saw a BBC crew for a high profile programme in action, I wondered what most of them were supposed to be doing.  Not much, from all appearances!  Funded by the tax payer, it seems that they can afford to employ four or five times more staff than most other companies.

After all, these are times of austerity.

Test your grammar

Just a quick post tonight.

If you think you are good at grammar, try this test.  (Sorry if it doesn't work outside UK, but I think it will.)

I'm embarrassed to say that I only scored eight out of ten, but then again it is obvious that a devious mind produced two of the questions!

Thatcher was right after all

You might know me as a radical anti-Tory who regrets voting for Margaret Thatcher's Tory government in my first general election.  I don't feel proud of her legacy, but I should acknowledge that she got some things right.  Not many - but I acknowledge them.

She got a lot more wrong.  She sold off the country's assets for less than half their value - gas, water, and telephone networks and social housing were worth much more than her government accepted.  I can tell you for sure that she sold 'council houses' too cheaply.  I live in one of them to this day.  I bought it for £49,500 from the former tenant who had purchased it the previous year for £19,500.  Thatcher effectively empowered the owner of this house to make a profit of £30,000 at the expense of the tax payer.  That was fair wasn't it!

Her real downfall was the 'poll tax'.  It wasn't a stupid idea.  Of course households where more adults live should pay more than households with fewer adults.  It was just implemented in the most crass and ignorant way.  A couple with children suddenly found themselves paying nearly twice as much as they had paid in 'rates' - the previous local taxation system in UK.  Single pensioners who ought to have had a financial gain found that they were still paying the same as before.  Naturally that was going to get a reaction - and indeed it got an excessive reaction.  People died because of this.

I could go on, but you will be glad to hear that I won't.

What did she get right?

• As the first ever British female prime minister I have to offer respect.
• She stood up to Northern Irish terrorists (many of whom are now in the government in that province) and resisted their violence bravely.
• I had forgotten this, but it turns out that she opposed apartheid in South Africa and yet maintained that Nelson Mandela had rightly been imprisoned as a terrorist.  I'm not prepared to change my view of this just because Thatcher agreed with me.

So I do not mourn her.  However the Tory Witch was not wrong on every subject.  I wish the same could be said for David Cameron - the current barely-elected prime minister.

Annoyed by BBC Christianity

Listening to the morning service on BBC Radio 4 last Sunday, recorded in nearby Oxford, I found myself reminded about the reason for finding church irritating.

That isn't the same as the reason for failing to believe in god - as I think that happened a bit earlier.

The Anglican Church's friendly and pious nonsense is both familiar and annoying.  I got a horrible reminder of the many hours that I wasted sitting in church on a Sunday morning.

I even found myself annoyed (and subsequently amused - as I had been in my school years) by the tone of voice of Canon whateverhisnamewas.  His undulating notes were almost enough to induce sea-sickness.  The content of his talk was typically vacuous and hopeful, and bears little connection to biblical christianity as opposed to another 'nice' religion, if there are any other 'nice' religions.

At least it was traditional, and vaguely lovely, and English.

I prefer my English traditions in other forms these days.

Science personality of the year!

Don't laugh.  I recently had to tolerate the oxymoronic 'Sports personality of the year' nonsense from the BBC - albeit in the next room.

And were there any personalities?  I don't wish to disparage the great sports people of the world, but being good at sport no more makes you a 'personality' than being a good newsreader, or indeed a good scientist. 

I'm bored by sport, and just standing in front of a crowd and thanking the rest of the team for their support doesn't make any difference to me.  I'm still bored.  Just jumping a little higher or longer, running a little faster, or diving a little more elegantly is not enough to make you into a personality.

Interestingly, I think the winner of the competition is a true personality.  Bradley Wiggins is actually interesting to listen to.  His interviews have been impressive.  But when I have observed this to friends they have questioned whether he had won it because of his personality.  Given that the person who came in third place was Andy Murray I have to admit that they have a point, but still it is worth celebrating a success for the BBC, even if it was accidental.

There are real personalities in the world.  Yes, we have to include some sports people in that category, but they have to compete with other real personalities, like Stephen Fry, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett etc.  (Maybe I'm showing a little bias towards atheists here? Sorry.  Therefore I will include Jonathan Edwards who used to be a Christian and used to be a sportsman.)

Lots of people have heard of these famous sportsmen and women, and they all take their 'hobbies' very seriously, but that hardly excuses the BBC's implication that there are no personalities in science. They don't make programmes about science personalities, but only about their discoveries.  I personally feel that the other serious professions have been betrayed by the media.

Breaking a sporting record is indeed a great feat, but finding a treatment for a specific disease and having the stamina to get it through clinical trials is a greater feat.  Hundreds of other scientific projects are equally worthy, and any scientist will tell you that they know some real personalities.  The same will apply to economists, philosophers and even politicians!

Those who truly deserve our respect are the ones who do more than their own current profession.  To excel at their chosen sport and excel at their profession is rare indeed.

But why don't our (merely) rising scientists get as much public acclaim as our declining sportists?  Sportists are always young and by the time they are famous they are probably close to their peak.

Accomplished scientists should get even more credit! 

Science sings new songs

Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks was speaking on BBC Radio 4's 'Thought for the Day' spot this morning.  Predictably he didn't fail to be patronising and . . . to be blunt . . . wrong!

Being one of those people who has reached his position by being a master of rhetoric you might expect his metaphors to be more reliable than these.

Science is prose, religion is poetry.

Science speaks, religion sings.

These are the words of someone who is clearly scientifically illiterate - a technological luddite or philistine who seems to be constantly looking for ways to show how much his particular religion is supported by scientific discovery.  Let's take his metaphors at face value and work from there. 

Firstly, it is no insult to say that science is analogous to prose.  Prose tends to be more objective and accurate than poetry (admittedly not exclusively).  Prose is more easily modified and corrected, as its factual content is more important than than how nice it sounds.  Prose is not as constrained by rhyme or rhythm.  Prose is not necessarily less beautiful than poetry.

On the other hand, while poetry might also be aesthetically pleasing, I would suggest that it is more subjective, emotional and unreliable.  So I agree that his first metaphor has some value, but certainly not in the way that he meant.  It demonstrates very clearly that he does not understand the value and beauty of science.  I think it shows him up as having the sort of intellectual deficiency that the religious often accuse scientists of portraying.

The second metaphor is much more risible.  It is clear that the symphonies of science do not work for this man.  Although he is tone-deaf in this context he makes out that he stands on the aesthetic high ground.  I don't think this metaphor has much value for a few reasons.

Science sings wonderful new songs every day, striving for greater harmony all the time, while retaining the best and most successful melodies which then become well loved classics.  Many of the songs of science have greater beauty than the age-old unchanging dirges that religion chants to itself over the centuries.

Platitude of the Day, the parody site for Thought for the Day responded typically well to Sacks on this outpouring of nonsense.

It is worth a quick read! 

Satire must do everything it can

There is a German saying which translates roughly as "Satire must do everything it can", and today as France closes 20 embassies around the world because of a cartoon, that saying ought to be our motto.  Standing up for freedom of speech is THAT important.

This morning I actually heard a Muslim speaker, Fatima Malik saying that violent reactions to the publications of images of Mohamed were unjustified.   Now don't get too excited.   She didn't condemn the criminals outright, or mention what an outrageous concept it is to go wrecking property just because someone somewhere drew a picture.  She didn't even call for the perpetrators to be publicly ostracised or imprisoned . . . or even stoned to death as is the penalty for really serious crimes like damaging a copy of the qu'ran.

What is all the fuss about?  You won't find a copy of this cartoon on the politically correct pages of the BBC.  There is no doubt that the picture is designed to be inflammatory but it does need to be seen, not censored.

Charlie Hebdo magazine's controversial cover,
featuring the latest Mohamed cartoon to hit the news.

Whether you think it is funny or not, one thing is certain in my mind.  Radical and violent Islamism needs to be mocked.  We must not stand for censorship in our own countries because some other culture doesn't like what we say.  What do you do when a three year old child has a temper tantrum?  Certainly you shouldn't change your actions because  of their irrational actions, so what is the difference here?

I'll be in Paris for a few days of the next week.  I might try to buy a copy of the magazine, because I do believe that satire must do everything that it can and that it is time for the Islamists just to grow up.

Meeting faith halfway - yeah right!

This week the BBC screened a programme called "Rosh Hashanah", in which the UK's Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, interviewed three prominent scientists to discuss whether there really has to be antagonism between science and faith.  By the end he claimed that his three victims had met him more than half way.

The views of the scientists on this conclusion were not revealed.  Let's examine why I felt that Sacks was being more than usually - or should I say "much more than usually" - disingenuous.

The whole setting the the 30 minute programme was polished and carefully crafted to show Sacks as a reasonable man who was calm and rational, at peace with his view of the world.  It was equally well crafted to make the three scientists look just slightly uneasy, somewhat flushed and perhaps a little shifty.  That in itself was enough to convince me that the odds were stacked in favour of the rabbi.

Jonathan Sacks, acting like a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Then there was a suggestion of cherry picking from the answers that his interviewees must have given.  I haven't seen any responses from Susan Greenfield, Jim Al-Khalili or Richard Dawkins to claim that they were specifically misrepresented, but somehow I can't imagine that what we saw was exactly what they must have meant.

Taking one example, Sacks asked Dawkins about the 'philosophy of Darwinism' and we heard what appeared to be Dawkins agreeing that it was possible that this could actually lead to Nazism.  Two things were surprising here.  First I know I have heard Dawkins arguing that the two are not causally linked.

Second - what exactly is 'the philosophy of Darwinism'?  Is it implied that scientists or Nazis might be adherents of such a philosophy, even if it existed? Surely it is not a philosophy at all.  Darwin's work has led to a scientific theory and that is all.  There is no way that this implies the requirement for any further human actions.

It seemed to me that Sacks tended to use his language of faith to dress up both sides of the story to make them seem compatible, when we all know that faith only claims that because it recognises the threat from science.  He also used his great rhetorical skill to sidestep the difficult questions like "Do you believe that Abraham literally had Isaac trussed up on an alter?".  Sacks just resorted to typical allegorical answers to avoid answering.  He seemed to claim that the story of Isaac showed that Jewish people care much more for their children much more than anyone else. [Besides that, Jewish parents care so much that they need to cut bits off their precious babies.]  He could only get away with this in any small way by comparing his race with the surrounding races during the bronze age.  I would say that this argument has passed its sell-by date.

Then whenever he admitted that religion had been the cause of suffering in the world he would also point out that science had also caused great problems. 

NO!  This is not the same at all.  Faith has actually CAUSED great evil, very often in its own name.  Science, on the other hand, has only enabled greater evils than previously possible to be committed by people of any faith or none.  His apparently reasonable argument of equality is palpably fallacious.

This programme is just another case of BBC accommodationalism for the usual reasons.

It would be interesting to hear the views of a few people of faith, if they managed to see it. 

One good thing came out of it though.  A Muslim colleague told me today that until he watched this programme he hadn't realised what a reasonable man Richard Dawkins appears to be.

 That's something, at least!

BBC propaganda again - The Queen!

This morning the BBC radio news, and web site included a story that immediately raised my skeptical hackles.

Almost 80% of people in England support a religious role for the Queen, a BBC poll suggests.  In a poll by Comres to coincide with the Queen's Diamond Jubilee, 79% of respondents said she still had an important faith role.

Obviously this would be surprising!  The Queen herself is not unpopular in England, but on the whole I would say that religion is.  Given the results of the RDFRS-funded poll earlier in the year, it would be amazing if these figures were true.

So I spent a few minutes looking for the data, and for the actual questions that had been asked and I found this on the Comres web site:

Christians reveal soft spot for The Queen

"Five out of six Christians are proud of The Queen

With preparations well underway for The Queen’s Diamond Jubilee this year, Premier Christian Radio asked UK Christians about their feeling toward the Monarchy.

The ComRes poll commissioned by Premier Christian Radio reveals that five in every six (85%) UK Christians are proud of The Queen."

The survey went on to say something less complimentary about the heir to the throne.  For some reason the BBC completely neglected to mention this aspect.

"However, just two fifths (41%) of those polled are proud of Prince Charles.  Respondents favour the ever popular Prince William, with 77% saying that they are proud of him."

So . . . we see that the only people surveyed were those who listened to a Christian radio station.  The ones who responded were a self-selecting group.  It appears that these particular Christians like the Queen.  They haven't mentioned yet whether they want her to defend their faith (and let's face it - it needs defending).  They don't like her heir (who does?), and the next in line to the throne is still young enough that he hasn't made as many mistakes as his father, (so they still like him).  None of this seems at all surprising, but we note that the actual percentage changes with the wind.  (That is three versions so far!)  Now the figures look a bit more believable, but are they true?.

Let's look at some actual data, which you can find here.  In fact we find that:

Q1 - Do you think there is such a thing as a 'British' identity, or not?
81% Yes.  12% No.

Q2 - How proud, or otherwise, are you of the Queen? 
85% Proud.  13% Not proud.
Q2 includes other sub-questions which you can see if you follow the link above.

Q3 - Do you think that the monarchy should be head of the Church of England, or not? 
31% Yes.  55% No   -   Wow - the opposite of the report!

Q4 Do you think the Church of England should be disestablished, or not?
43% Yes.  45% No   -   Still wow!


And then you might find that there is another poll by Comres on a similar topic.  You can find it here, and can see the word 're-run' in the file name  The results are not exactly in agreement!  Which is to be believed?  It is true that there is a subsidiary statement "The Queen still has an important faith role", and the answer is that 79% agree, but how meaningful is that?

It is pretty difficult to square their report with the actual published data in any way.  The big question is this.  "Is the BBC deliberately misrepresenting the data in order to support the powerful at the time of the Jubilee, or is it simple incompetence?"  Or am I doing it?

Which of those options would be the better outcome anyway?

You just can't trust the BBC!

St Valentine's massacre in religion wars

A somewhat desperate article entitled "St Valentine's massacre in religion wars as Dawkins forgets full name of seminal Darwin book" can be found at this link.  Just glance at the original to get the context before you read this parody.

Originally written by someone called Tim Edwards, it was full of irrelevant claims.  A new corrected version is featured here on Something Surprising.

..............

In a typical act of clutching at straws, Christian apologists today claimed that RICHARD DAWKINS suffered 'a rare skewering' at the hands of the clergy after taking to the airwaves to argue that people who call themselves Christians are often using the term in an unexpected way.  At one point the so-called 'high priest of atheism' even cursed under his breath as he struggled to remember the exact title of Charles Darwin's monumental treatise on evolution.

Dawkins - the facts of the UK census, 2011

Dawkins went on BBC Radio 4's Today programme yesterday morning to explain a survey he had published, showing that half of the people who described themselves as Christian on the 2011 census do not consider themselves religious.

The object of the poll, carried out by Ipsos Mori for the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, was to show that census data could not, in all honesty, be used to justify the UK's habitual favoritism for Christian practices such as government funding for faith schools and bishops having seats in the House of Lords.

Struggling to get a word in edgeways, against a 'gish gallop' from Rev Giles Fraser, the former canon of St Paul's Cathedral who was forced to resign last year, Dawkins was  able to squeeze in the fact that 64 per cent of people who said they were Christians in the census were not able to identify Matthew as the first book of the New Testament.

For some surprising reason Fraser asked him if he could tell him the full title of On the Origin of Species, the book by Charles Darwin.  Why this might be relevant to the actual facts of the survey were not exactly clear.  Perhaps Fraser was indulging in the common Christian tactic of rhetorical distraction to avoid admitting the unpleasant facts.  Dawkins, was able to provide "On the Origin of Species, er, with... oh god [N.B - small g!] ... On the Origin of Species, um... There is a subtitle... er, um, with respect to the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life."

Not bad, under pressure, with an audience numbered in the millions, to give almost exactly the full title of a text book written a century and a half ago.  On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life is of course the proper answer, as I'm sure you know.

It has to be said that it is a bit easier to recite the complete title of "The Holy Bible".  It was not revealed whether Fraser was able to remember the sub-title.

A jubilant Fraser then claimed - as if it actually mattered: "You are the High Pope of Darwinism. If you asked people who believe in evolution that question and only two per cent got it right it would be terribly easy for me to say they don't really believe it after all."

I suppose that shows the difference between discredited clerics and respected scientists.  Clerics think that everything comes down to belief and scientists think that the evidence is more important.  Someone should remind Fraser that the official doctrines of both the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches accept evolution.

Meanwhile evolutionary biologists tend not to refer to themselves as Darwinists, as the term is often used pejoratively.  They rarely find any need for a pope - neither ordinary nor high.

'Sheriff of Nottingham Tax'

UK will possibly descend into a day of chaos on 30th November as up to 2 million public sector workers go on strike over planned changes to their pension schemes.  The level of that chaos will, no doubt, be the subject of considerable spin from both government and union propaganda.

We are told that the government cannot afford to pay the pensions that it has promised to its employees.   That sounds plausible.

We are told that the pensions are 'gold plated' but they neglect to mention that over the last 10 or 20 years the annual pay settlements have been slightly reduced year on year in recognition of the value of a public sector pension and that it would be typical of this barely elected administration to steal from the poor to pay the rich.  Its a sort of Sheriff of Nottingham Tax, not the usually discussed Robin Hood Tax that many would like to see implemented.

We are also told that public sector workers are paid more highly than their private sector equivalents, but they neglect to mention that these overpaid workers are generally more highly qualified too.  In contrast, MPs are much more 'highly paid', are allowed to have second (third and nth) jobs while they are being paid handsomely to be public servants, and their qualification is often merely rhetorical.

We also note that the freeze in pay is resulting in a steady brain drain.  I know one young, well-qualified engineer who is leaving his public-sector organisation for a 30% pay rise.  (Yes yes, its anecdotal evidence, but I guarantee that it is not surprising to any of his colleagues.)  It has also achieved the aim of reducing headcount and is seen t be seeding private sector companies with highly qualified people, so the government wins anyway.  It is just that the work will not be done, but who will care?

But for now . . .  just in the spirit of fairness, let's assume that the crisis that was CREATED by bankers and regulators really has made it impossible to afford the commitments that the government had made to its loyal (and less loyal) employees.  If we can't afford everything I wonder whether there are any other areas that might offer cuts - perhaps before the pension cuts.

I guarantee that you will not agree with all of the following list of items that we seem to have no trouble affording.  I have heard negative comments from several treasured friends who disapprove of the strike.  However, I would be very surprised if there aren't several that you could happily disapprove of:

• MPs truly gold plated pensions - a full pension for MPs who have put in service of only 5 years (and who will no-doubt be directors of companies until their dying day in addition to their income from the public purse).  There is no suggestion of savings on this exorbitant spending.
• Second houses for MPs, (which of course are justified), but the problem is that when these houses are sold for a profit the tax payer sees none of the proceeds.
• Replacing Trident - which we would never use (or would we?)
• 'Adventures' in Iraq, Afghanistan (and wherever is next - possibly Iran?), pretending that the UK is somehow the world's policeman, and a bigger target for terrorism.
• Bombing Libya - a sovereign country, admittedly ruled by a despot but why does the UK taxpayer have to pay for the ordnance to undermine it?  And what right do 'we' have to depose that particular government and risk whatever is coming next?
• Spurious benefits (including free further-education, free prescriptions etc) to the people of 'remote parts' of UK but not to the people of England.
• Increasing overseas aid - including nearly £1 billion in aid to two nuclear powers for some incomprehensible reason.
• Bonuses paid to the bankers who caused the problems in the first place.
• Allowing tax avoidance by the highest paid people in the country who hide behind the veil of tax havens where their wives are citizens etc.  You and I couldn't get away with that, but for Osborne and his cronies it appears to be mandatory.  This could bring in a tidy £25 billion per year according to the best estimates.
• Sale of the 'profitable' part of a nationalised bank, Northern Rock, for a price that is unbelievably low.  Meanwhile the tax payer remains burdened by £20 billion of debt from the rest of the same organisation.
• Tax benefits to the churches, including to the Roman Catholic Church which is one of the wealthiest organisations in the world.  Many argue that it causes some of the greatest harm in the world (e.g. by its teachings about AIDS).
• The 2012 Olympics - for which private funding has not been forthcoming to the extent that the government expected.  Well isn't that a surprise?

Meanwhile - by the end of 30th November, the government propaganda wing (including the BBC) will be busy spinning tales of the loss to the economy and putting the blame on the public sector workers.

I know that most people who do not work in the public sector are not in favour of the strike and many are in favour of the cuts.  But I just ask you to consider whether this is fair in the light of the outrageous list above? 

Your comments are awaited.  When you do comment perhaps you could just say how many of the 12 points above you could live without.

In my case it is probably 10.

National Secular Society takes BBC to task

Terry Sanderson of the UK's National Secular Society has been examining the spending of the BBC and found that the cuts to its budget apply in almost all areas of activity.  But for some reason, the religious activities are ring-fenced.

He writes:

In all the reports I saw, there was no mention of the religious propaganda department, which is based in Manchester and produces such wildly popular programmes as Thought for the Day, Pause for Thought, Songs of Praise and endless church services on BBC Radio 4. The last time we checked, using a Freedom of Information request, this department was gobbling up £10 million of licence-payers’ money each year.
Read on 

Similarly, it has often been suggested that the UK's National Health Service wastes a lot of valuable funds on hospital chaplains.

The armed forces have now been found to be doing the same.

So . . . it seems that it is swingeing cuts for everyone - unless related to religions!

Wall Street needs our support

No - not the parasites who work in Wall St and the other commercial centres around the world - I mean that the people who have been protesting in Wall St for several weeks need our support!

Worldwide, the bankers have created a financial crisis which affects all of us and still the richest bankers have walked away with bonuses measured in millions (whatever your currency might be).

Who pays?

We do.  You and I, the ordinary but brilliant, intelligent, hard-working people of the worlds democracies contribute the profits of the banks and subsidise the losses of the banks.  Our governments have spent hundreds of billions rescuing failed banks - and we still pay the bastards who made the banks fail!

Whether the banks made profits or losses, the bankers still received contractual bonuses.  Would you get a bonus if the company you work for performed badly?  No.  But you (I speculate) are not a director.

I've been aware of the Wall Street riots for a few weeks and I have been wondering why they have not been reported by the media.  I think the answer is that the media are being advised by governments that they should keep it quiet.  Civil unrest is very unsettling to fragile, barely elected, democratic governments. Certainly the BBC has not made a point of publicising the protest.

Here is your chance to make your views heard worldwide via internationally famous campaigning site Avaaz.  They say:

Thousands of Americans have non-violently occupied Wall St -- an epicentre of global financial power and corruption. They are the latest ray of light in a new movement for social justice that is spreading like wildfire from Madrid to Jerusalem to 146 other cities and counting, but they need our help to succeed. 

As working families pay the bill for a financial crisis caused by corrupt elites, the protesters are calling for real democracy, social justice and anti-corruption. But they are under severe pressure from authorities, and some media are dismissing them as fringe groups. If millions of us from across the world stand with them, we'll boost their resolve and show the media and leaders that the protests are part of a massive mainstream movement for change.  

Read on at this site, and make your vote - ACT NOW!


Small note:  I have been registered with Avaaz for a few months.  Their campaigning e-mails are not intrusive.  I trust them and recommend that you do too.

Smaller note: I can hardly believe I said "the parasites who work in Wall St".  'Work' is not the right word.  Should it be 'gamble'?

BBC's surprising views on copyright!

Following the topic of the performance of the BBC, as mentioned yesterday, you can see that I am not alone in my criticisms.

IPKat, on her blog, has brought an interesting item to our attention.  This is another case of double standards, courtesy of the official purveyor of propaganda for the UK Government (and by proxy for the Church of England).  Speaking on the topic of copyright she says:

The issue has become topical recently owing to an official complaint made by Mr Andy Mabbett to the BBC, claiming that in its coverage of rioting in Tottenham on 6 August 2011 the BBC may have infringed copyright by using photographs from Twitter without permission of the authors and without properly attributing them. The first response by the BBC was a rather surprising statement that:

'Twitter is a social network platform which is available to most people who have a computer and therefore any content on it is not subject to the same copyright laws as it is already in the public domain. The BBC is aware of copyright issues and is careful to abide by these laws'.

The parts of this post that are in italics are - I regret - used without permission.  However, I think IPKat will appreciate the link and the expression of solidarity, and I trust that this taster will lead you to go to her site to read more.

Read more of the wisdom of IPKat.

I particularly liked her interpretation of the copyright laws to the copying of BBC TV programmes.  Some of those programmes are actually quite good and it might be nice to keep a copy!

For a secular Europe (London 17th Sept)

If you live in England and read this blog I hope you will seriously consider joining this event in London on 17th September 2011.  (I'm giving you nearly three weeks advance notice!) 

Last September, the Protest the Pope March was a great day out for a great cause, and I expect that this one will be just as good.  These points come from the web site for the Secular Europe Campaign:

We promote:

• freedom of religion, freedom of conscience and freedom of speech
• women’s equality and reproductive rights
• equal rights for LGBT people in all the European Union
• a secular Europe – democratic, peaceful, open and just, immune to the clandestine influence of privileged religious (or other) organisations
• one law for all, no religious exemptions from the law
• state neutrality in matters of religion and belief

We oppose:

• the privileged status of the churches under Article 17 of the TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union)
• the special status of the Vatican in the United Nations
• state-funded faith schools
• the economic privilege and political influence of the Vatican

The reporting of last year's event did betray the bias of the UK media in a typical way.  On the same day the pope was holding mass in Hyde Park and the organisers said that 80,000 people had attended.  The biased BBC of course reported this as fact, in an evening news programme, devoting about 15 minutes of air time to the event.

Meanwhile the peaceful protest march was attended by quite a few people as well, including a good many Roman Catholics who disagreed with the doctrines of their church.  At the end of the march it filled Whitehall for several hundred metres blocking all the traffic and limiting access to Downing Street.

The BBC reported this in a subtly different way.  For a start they generously devoted a whole 20 or 30 second slot to it, and they said:

"The organisers claim that about 20,000 people attended, but the police were unable to confirm this".  

That is what passes for balanced reporting from the UK Government's official purveyor of propaganda.  The police probably knew exactly how many were there (and maybe could have given the BBC the mobile phone numbers, e-mail and postal addresses of most of us).  No doubt was shed about the number of pilgrims attending mass, but the BBC indulged in the age old trick of 'poisoning the well' when reporting the march.

I'm looking forward to being there on September 17th.  Maybe I will have chance to meet you!

p.s.  Did you notice that in the background of the first photograph you can see the Athenaeum Hotel, with one of Patrick Blanc's famous and beautiful 'Living Walls'.  Maybe I will do another post about these soon.