I don’t mean to be the asshole even though I am probably being that person. I have been super impressed with the scientific breakthroughs and vaccines that have been made for the SARS-Cov-2 virus. The whole effort by governments and private enterprise to secure a hopeful future for the world is certainly worth celebrating. I also do not mean to slag off the NHS. I have never cared more abut the state of this country’s health service than now but I have always been a defender of the public health system we have in the UK. I don’t mean to have a moan at the BBC and while there are many communications in these pages which moan about news and headlines from the BBC I chose to moan about them because they hold the highest standards of journalism in this country [just look at how shit the print media are].
But What Does This Really Mean?
This was the headline yesterday. The NHS is delivering 140 part one vaccines a minute which sounds very fucking impressive. As a mild aside, who the fuck calls these things “jabs”? They are inoculations or at least the first part of it, can’t we use grown up language to describe the things that matter? FFS. Back to the numbers because that’s what we should be looking at and bear in mind that I will defend the NHS and science – I am not having a moan about them.
140 Vaccinations [part 1] per minute.
Assuming there are twenty million people who really need to have vaccinations before we can get back to something that resembles normal and feel safe again that is going to require:
2,380 hours of constant vaccinations or just about 100 days -that’s THREE months – assuming twenty four hour access and every appointment filled.
Even if we manage to keep the centres open for 18 hours a day it will require 132 days to vaccinate twenty million people.
This headline from the BBC is amazing. I don’t even know what sort of spin they are trying to place on the news. I’ve been trying to spend less time BBC bashing when there is plenty more shit out there but this one needs a bit more explaining and it covers one of my favourite topics: the survival of the planet. It’s easy to go to the Daily Bullshit Mail and rip it apart. It’s easy to look at so many news articles and explain why they are wrong but it’s depressing when it’s the BBc that do it. As I’ve said many times within these communications the BBC is the best news gathering we have in this country and it’s going to be destroyed by the tories.
The use of quotations in headlines is terrible. It allows news organisations to drag you in with a juicy quote from a story without actually telling you anything about the story. Or, as in this case, it is misleading. The real news headline should have been:
Climate Change Report by Think Tank Released.
IP
What happened was a report was released. The headline the BBC used misses an important part of the report which said that the UK can’t go carbon neutral without changes to behaviour. That last bit swaps the whole style of the narrative around and makes the report more positive. It explains the headline. But most grumpy fuckers will read the headline, nod wisely as it agrees with their preconceptions, and then move on without actually learning anything. This headline gives the excuse that there’s no point changing behaviour because we can’t be carbon neutral by 2050. It’s an excuse to let people do what they are currently doing. It’s dangerous.
The UK cannot go climate neutral much before 2050 unless people stop flying and eating red meat almost completely, a report says. But it warns that the British public do not look ready to take such steps and substantially change their lifestyle.
From the BBC article
No one wants to change their behaviour because we don’t like change. But we MUST change and change soon. It is obvious we have destroyed this planet for the next ten generations and massive changes are required NOW to make sure that we minimise the terror. Currently we are breaking every possible system the planet has and we are going to make this place a horror movie in one hundred years or maybe even earlier. I guess we have to thank short-termism politics and the general selfishness of those who seek power and then want to maintain that power. It’s hard to imagine people who push their way to power actually wanting to help people. They do exist but are rare and seen as the odd ones.
I do sometimes think that maybe the best thing to happen to this planet is the extinction of our species. The planet will take a while to recover but it will eventually be a glorious place of life and death and the struggle to survive without our influence.
The weight of this world should be on all our shoulders. But I fear it is held by a few.
The BBC is still the best news site this country has and unfortunately it’s going to be destroyed by the current government because they report on news and are independent. Oh it’s not a glorious future for our country. Mind you, there are still times when the BBC News section falls into the populist click-bait type of “news” which isn’t news but more magazine. Perhaps I should expect it and be forgiving but I can’t. Some of us have to talk about what we see.
Not a “news” story
Money.
There, that’s a simple, easy, quick, and honest answer.
There are all these people out there around my age with money to burn and they will go and see this because they remember Back To The Future being a good film and they will want wholesome entertainment for the rest of their family. Just to be clear BTTF is a good film.
These juke-box musicals or film translations are easy money and rely on the original ideas being burned into the brains of the middle-aged. Have a look around and see all the shows and shit with their origins in the 80s.
The royal family is ALLOWING some SCUM (public) to attend a shindig within the GROUNDS of a shitting castle.
The language in this news article and the way it has been reported on the radio implies that WE SHOULD BE GRATEFUL. Fuck them. I am not grateful. I don’t care that two people are getting married. I don’t want to live in this bullshit hierarchical society.
Oh, the NORMAL people are being chosen by the Lord Lieutenants. Woopee-fucking-do. At least we now know whose cock you’ll have to suck to get an invite.
All of this royal family OBN reporting is an utter waste of energies. All it does is fuel the social beliefs that those people are better than everyone else. It reinforces that this society exists and class exists for a reason: that the public can’t be trusted. These nobs are born into their place in the world and so the rest of us had better get used to it.
Apparently before this particular interview Tim Farron had said that he firmly believes “we are all sinners”.
I’m a sinner, apparently. I have sinned against god. I was innocent before I was born but after that moment the gates of hell opened and are waiting for me to die. Well I don’t fucking care. I don’t know the theological definition of sin but as far as I’m concerned god can fuck the fuck off. I don’t believe in god. Therefore I can’t sin against him. The idea of original sin is a bullshit-illness that the church invented to make sure you buy the cure, the church.
As for gay sex being a sin. The argument is pretty similar. Fuck the fuck off. If two or more people want to do consensual private stuff then who cares what that is. It’s up to them as responsible adults to make their own choices about these things. There are some caveats, you can’t cause harm. The extreme case of harm is the German case of a man being killed and eaten, but he consented to those actions, this was not acceptable in the laws that society has consensually agreed. This is against the law.
Now, by mentioning law there’s the issue of countries where homosexuality is illegal. Well, they should fuck the fuck off too. If it’s consensual and non harming then it should be within the law. It’s quite easy to figure out what’s right and wrong by using the following principle:
Do no harm
Yes, these things get complicated. But, by and large, consensual activities are just that.
Apparently political leaders, according to Tim Farron, should not:
“pontificate on theological matters”
I’d go one step further and say that no-one should pontificate on theological matters. Theology is bullshit. The interesting bit is the sociology that comes from religion. Everything else sucks and should fuck the fuck off to the iron age stories and writings whence it came.
Don’t take moral advice from a shitty book written by misogynistic, un-scientific fuckwits from over 1000 years ago [I chose 1000 because I can lump the Koran into that as well].
My current distress stems from the fact that I am a member of the Liberal Democrat Party. I decided to part with money to fund a party that will work against the Brexit thing. I do not think the referendum was fair, well-argued or gave a majority result. There was too much misinformation before the vote. I have pretty much always voted Lib Dem and so it was logical to use some of my money to fight for the causes I believe in. The fact that their leader is a religious twonk shouldn’t sway me from membership because their policies are still the same. I have argued against personality politics for a long time.
My general distress stems from the idea that a LEADER, someone who wants the responsibility to lead the country, relies on knowledge of and the actions of a god who doesn’t exist. The idea of praying to the invisible sky fairy to solve a problem and then you believing it has helped you worries the hell out of me. Have the balls and accept your position, don’t rely on fairy tales.
Let’s look at the current Prime Minister. Completely religious and believes she is doing god’s work. Probably believes she will be judged by god for her actions. Not that she will be judged by the people or by history but by god. It’s an escape clause, it’s a way of removing responsibility for your actions if you think the sky fairy approves.
Let’s look at a previous Prime Minister, Tony Blair. He arguably took this country into an illegal war where hundreds of thousands died. But that’s OK in his head because he prayed and god will still accept him. Well fuck that shit.
I want a leader who is willing to take the responsibility them-self. Someone who will hold their hand up and be judged by their own actions and what the people and society as a whole thinks of them. I don’t want someone who invests so heavily in cognitive dissonance to justify what they do.
I will continue to be a member of the Lib Dems. I will continue to give them money. Someone has to support the only party that could achieve an amount of power and actually gives a fuck about this country.
I know they are the best we have but sometimes there needs to be some serious editorial control from the BBC because they publish utter rubbish like this:
Bad Headline
This is the first article in the Health News section for today. Click on the story and you get this:
Terrible Article
First up, a warning. The word CHIROPRACTIC already flags this up as a terrible article. The only responsible news item that mentions CHIROPRACTIC is one where there is a decent discussion of why it is rubbish and doesn’t work.
Rather than get enraged at the poor reporting lets look at the data and quotations included in the article.
First the BCA is quoted as saying that clothes can be bad for us. Then in the next paragraph:
However, the research has been rejected by the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy and other back experts.
They say we shouldn’t be afraid of our clothes.
Real doctors and scientists say this is bollocks. Then there follows plenty of gumpf from the BCA about what items can be damaging. While the BBC do “balance” this with more quotations from proper scientists they have already done the damage by publishing this shit.
In a section called “What’s the reality?” [it’s not reality, it’s written by the BCA] the BBC write:
The BCA’s poll of 1,062 people found 73% had suffered back pain and 33% were not aware that clothing could affect their back, neck or posture. They warn that any item of clothing that restricts movement, or that leads people to stand or walk unnaturally, can have a negative impact on the posture, back or neck.
There are major problems here. First they say a survey found that people have suffered back pain. So fucking what? I’ve suffered back pain. Most people have. Then, apparently, one third of people aren’t aware that clothing can affect your back, neck or posture. Well, given it’s not a thing they can’t know about it can they? This article relies on people being unable to understand a causation-correlation problem. Surveys are the worst of scientific evidence, but slightly better than anecdote.
At the base of the BBC article there is a quotation from the head of practice at the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy who says that disseminating this false information could lead to real problems. The BBC need to get an editor who understands a load of bollocks when it is written and when to pull it. I am not going to look but I bet there are loads of news articles online and in print running this bollocks too.
Steve Tolan, head of practice at the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, says “reading scare stories about skinny jeans is probably more harmful than actually wearing them.
“People should wear whatever is comfortable and they feel good in – skinny jeans and hoodies included. They certainly shouldn’t fear that their clothes are going to do them harm as there is no evidence for that.
“What is probably more relevant is whether a woman thinks that they are wearing something that is damaging their back, says Dr O’Keeffe.
“The beliefs about the jeans and bags may not only be incorrect, but detrimental if they cause worry about the spine being fragile and discourage women from moving normally and wearing what they want.
“Misconceptions regarding the causes and treatments of low back pain are widespread. This story about skinny jeans and heavy bags is just another myth in the long list of myths about back pain.
“It fits with the misconception that load and movement are bad and that the spine is a vulnerable structure that is easily damaged. Strong evidence shows that this is not true.”
I thought I ought to look at the BCA article or press release to see what it said. So I went to their website.
The “research” was probably a telephone or internet based survey. The BCA don’t link to the actual results. There is so much wrong with this article it infuriates me. As my tweet earlier said:
Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh!
Research from the BCA! Grrrrrrrrrrrr.
This “news” article is an advert masquerading as serious science. It’s bullshit. It’s designed to make people think “oh, I feel like that”, then they visit the BCA website and try to find a local chiropractor. This will cause proper injuries as chiropractic DOESN’T work.
The chaos of the Trump press conference yesterday scared the shit out of me. I watched some of it on C-Span and it’s obvious the man is crazy.
He called on Jon Sopel of the BBC to ask a question. Trump then accused the BBC of bias and lies and Jon Sopel replied:
Impartial, free and fair.
Damn right. BBC News might not be the best in the world and it might be annoying to me as I have written about it plenty of times before but it is the BEST that we have in this country. What was worrying about Trump’s comments was that shortly after that I saw tweets where people were backing him up and claiming that the BBC are bad.
Trump launches stinging attack on media. Couldn’t be stinging enough in my view https://t.co/zk6qh1DKT3
These people don’t get it. The BBC News isn’t perfect but it is the best we have in this country. It saddens me intensely that there are those who are wrong and blast the BBC at all opportunities.
The BBC are arseholes. The headline and photo ALL imply that plucking makes hair grow in humans. Here’s the first few paragraphs. With my emphasis.
Plucking hairs in a precise pattern can make even more pop up in their place, a US study suggests. Playing with the density of hair removed altered how serious an injury the body recognised and in turn how much hair regrew. The team managed to regenerate 1,300 hairs by plucking 200, in the study using mice reported in Cell journal. Experts said it was “really nice science” but were uncertain if it could lead to a cure for human baldness. Half of men have male-pattern baldness by the age of 50. The team at the University of Southern California were investigating how hair follicles communicate with each other to decide on the scale of repair job needed.
So, with only a single reference to the fact that the study was in MICE and lots of human type text and a picture this article screams that plucking in humans will cause hair growth.
Ok, so it happens in mice. So fucking what. When they can show it works in humans I may interested in knowing about it. Not for myself although I am mostly bald, I’d rather have less hair.
This is extremely poor reporting. There is no need for this article. It is a waste of time.
OK, I’ll admit it. I have a nasty habit. I really should try and quit. I managed to stop writing about driving on this site, but, if I’m being honest, someone needs to be addicted to this stuff. I am slightly worried about my metaphorical blood pressure though.
Once again, it’s the BBC News that is being, quite frankly, shit.
Holy mother of god. This is breaking news worth tweeting about? Not only that but the headline is about the crazy randomness that a young child is awake as his parents take him off the plane. This is shit. So, a baby who was possibly asleep or awake on a plane then becomes (or stays) awake as his parents lift him up and take him outside the plane. What utter shit.
Quotation in Headline
As said before, you can write anything you want in a headline if someone has said it! Just ask a chiropractor about curing colic!
Wrong Story Implied
When you go and read the story you find that it’s actually a quotation from a shadow minister attacking his leadership about their stance on attacking the government (which is the job of the opposition). The real story is probably about the breaking ranks of the shadow cabinet and that a senior member of the Labour Party has spoken “off message”.
This headline is poor in the following categories:
Quotation in Headline
No Shit Sherlock
Secondary Source
Quotation in Headline You can write anything in a headline if you put it in quotes. Just ask any old nutter or naturopath what they think about something.
No Shit Sherlock
Is this really news? Are we to assume that the USA does not spy on other world powers? The only interesting thing is the existence of a super-spy-plane, but given rumour and speculation on the web this isn’t a surprise either. The USA have always had secret stuff. Are they going to some out and deny it? No, because that would mean guilt in many people’s eyes. Are they going to confirm it? No!
Using a Secondary Source
The text below the headline shows the article is essentially lifted from another publication which means the BBC can print anything in the original article as it counts as a source. Have they independently confirmed any of this? I doubt it.
