Quote of the Week ...

As I've blogged before about the silly things that are said in rail announcements, I enjoyed reading an article recently by David Marsh, on "why Railspeak should be terminated".

Having given some examples, he says,
The result of all this is not effective communication but the creation of a gulf between the language used by its speakers and those on the receiving end... Hyper-correct, hyper-polite language may be well intended but comes across as patronising and insincere.

I must admit to thinking on a number of occasions, when listening to an announcement, "Why doesn't he forget the script and just talk in normal language?" Of course, the answer probably is, if he did so, it would be a disciplinary offence and he'd receive a verbal warning - if he could understand it.

Read the full article at

www.guardian.co.uk/media/mind-your-language/2011/jun/26/railspeak-terminated-train-station-language?INTCMP=SRCH

Newspapers

I read an article in the paper today about the threatened demise of the newspaper, as people are using the web and so on for news. I mean, all you need to know is on Twitter! It doesn't matter if it's true or not, the gossip's the thing!

But on second thoughts, can you believe what you read in the newspaper? Apparently most people think not. In a recent Ipsos Mori survey asking people whom they trusted to tell the truth, journalists obtained only 19%. But they weren't bottom! Politicians scored 14%. Most trusted were doctors with 88% of people generally believing they told the truth.

It was a bit of a shock, though, that clergy only got 68%. Maybe I need to stop telling funny stories in my sermons. Perhaps people take them seriously.

I saw an advert in a local Southend paper for a 'mobility' shop. It said it was also "continence specialists". I know that we have to be politically correct and positive about things. For instance someone isn't deaf, he or she is hearing impaired. But I think the shop meant they were "incontinence specialists". After all someone who is continent doesn't need specialist help.

But the thing that really caught my eye was an "all terrain mobility scooter". What?? Do they want to go down the Olympic bike track (near Hadleigh castle)? Or do some people in Southend have such really dodgy pavements between their houses and Tesco's?

Sorry to go on ...

I'm sorry to go on about this, but the latest in our abuse of the vulnerable is that many elderly people who are "cared for" at home are having their human rights ignored. Problems include visits far too short, with the client having to decide whether to be washed OR have a meal prepared for them; being left in bed for 17 hours; being left in filthy nightwear and bedding after a visit; and so on.

Unfortunately, this is not news for people in my profession. We see it far too often. It's another case of the "private sector" not doing the work it's paid to do. It follows on the Panorama expose of Winterbourne View where vulnerable people were being shockingly abused by staff. and that place cost the taxpayer £4 million a year!

So, are we learning from all this? Of course not! The NHS must have more private sector involvement, we are told by the Government. It will save money. Yes, it might, but at what human cost? Winterbourne View and home care for the elderly give us a clue as to that cost.

New Life!

In the garden at our church an acorn has managed to germinate in the stump of an old tree. New life growing out of dead wood!

That must be a sermon illustration for something. Except that I'm not convinced it will survive, and that wouldn't bode well for the sermon!

So just enjoy the picture.

More batteries required!

A week ago I blogged about how so many things that used to just work, now need power. For instance, watches and clocks that we quite happily used to wind up, now require batteries.

And so it continues. I heard on the radio a brief mention of electronic gear changing on a bicycle. Mind you it costs over £1,000!

And one of the best yet - an electric salt and pepper mill! Yes, you don't have to do the grinding, just press a button and it's done for you. Wow! I'd heard of this some time back, but on the front of a catalogue for a well-known office stationers, I see they are giving away one free when you place your next order. And alongside the advert it tells you not to forget the batteries! You can get two packs (you need six batteries) from them from only £9.16 (plus VAT, of course).

So that's it - £10 to get a free gift to actually work. I'll stick to the old manual grind, I think!

Quote of the Week ...

My quote of the week goes to Simon Hoggart from his 'week', in The Guardian on Saturday.

More and more this is a country run by the rich and well-placed on behalf of the rich and well-placed. Which is how they organised things in Soviet Russia, until the people realised they were being conned.

Charity Bags

Do you get as many bags to fill for 'charity' as we do, I wonder? With about two a week coming through our letterbox, how much spare clothing do they think we have??

Today's is "Do not delay!" and is to help prevent breast cancer in Lithuania. It does not appear to be a charity, so there's no way of knowing how much money is raised and how much of it goes to breast cancer screening.

Kidney Research UK, whose bag arrived recently is a charity, and according to its most recent published accounts, just over 50% of its expenditure was on its charitable activities. I'll leave you to decide whether or not that's a reasonable amount. Just for comparison, the Baptist Missionary Society spent around 94% of its income on its charitable activities, according to their latest accounts.

A few days ago it was "The Hand of Help", who admit they are a commercial company "who helped the disabled children and will do so in the future." Good for them! But their bag, like the rest will be turned inside out and used for putting out our rubbish, as our council is no longer supplying us with plastic sacks.

If we have clothing, etc., we want to throw out, we it take to a local charity shop, so we know where the money is going to.

Private sector make millions at our expense - again

So let me get this right. Southern Cross are running of lots of care homes for the elderly. Then they thought it a great idea to sell off the properties and lease them back. But now they can't afford the rents and have asked the landlords to accept a 30% reduction of the rent (just for the time being, of course!).

In fact I heard that's what happened to Woolworths. It wasn't that trade was that terrible - they just could no longer afford the rent on the properties they had previously sold.

When are our political masters going to "get it"? Public services are services for the public - the clue is in the title! It's not that difficult! But when you put public services into the hands of the private sector, they are in it to make money, not to serve the community. So the shareholders get their whack and the bosses get ridiculously high salaries and the elderly, vulnerable people suddenly find their future very uncertain.

Of course, we could go back to Railtrack. You remember them, the private firm that ran the railway track and made wonderful profits, until surveys after a fatal crash showed that they were not, actually, doing the job they were supposed to. Then for months on end rail travellers were burdened with longer journey times because of speed restrictions, and massive engineering works at weekends.

But back to the sale of care homes. The question I haven't got the answer to is this - where did the £1 billion they got from the sale of the homes actually go to??

Electricity and Climate Change

I read last week that carbon emissions are up again and we are well on the way to a two degree rise in global temperatures, which is not good news for our grandchildren, although I'm sure I will be well gone before it happens.

It started me thinking on how much more we use electricity these days - either mains or batteries. To start with, we used to just have a telephone which was plugged into the landline, and didn't need a mains cable. Now we have a cordless handset so we don't have to jump up to answer it - it's there by our side - but, of course, we CAN walk around the house whilst speaking on it! Also we need to regularly charge up our mobile phones.

Then there are simple things that used to be mechanical, but now have to be electronic for some reason; like bathroom scales and kitchen scales that worked quite well with a spring. And do you recall when we used to wind up our watches and clocks?

My old 35 mm camera didn't need a battery to work - I adjusted it myself, but now one can't even zoom on digital cameras manually (yes, I know on the expensive DSLR ones you can, but they're not the most popular models!).

Do you remember the old days when you switched off things like TV's? Now you switch to standby and a little red light reassures you it's still using up power.

And of course, what's the latest gadget? An electronic book! Those old paper things you could borrow free from a library - now they really are old fashioned!

About time too!

A report damning the sexual commercialisation of children is due out on Monday, but 'leaks' are in the papers today. Thank God someone has spoken up! It is, in fact, the CE of the Mothers' Union (which, interestingly is a man!) who has written the report, which makes a number of recommendations, including:

- banning advertising hoardings with "sexualised imagery" near schools and nurseries (why can't they be banned everywhere? After all, children are everywhere);
- a clampdown on sexual & violent stuff on TV before 9 pm;
- music videos to have age ratings, like films do;
- stopping the sale of inappropriate clothing for children which exploits their sexuality.

Mumsnet is also involved in this, and more power to both organisations! But it's also up to you concerned parents to speak up; don't think you are the only person who is worried about these things.

It is outrageous how commercial organisations are taking away our children's childhood. May this new report, entitled Let Children be Children begin a sea change in what is acceptable and unacceptable in society today concerning our children.

Detectives on TV

We watched the first episode of Scott & Bailey, the new ITV female detective duo. It began with one of them breaking up with her boyfriend and the 'angst' got worse as the story went on.

Why can't they do drama where there's a crime, which they solve, without the all calamatous personal life that seems to be compulsory these days?

Why can't they go back to the good old days with programmes like Dixon of Dock Green? Good clean police drama and no disfunctional families. I mean George Dixon used to live happily with Andy, his son-in-law, who was a detective. It was all so much simpler then.

Although, wait a minute, I hear Jack Warner has been accused of corruption ...

Those who rule ...

I noticed in the paper this week (and it was mentioned in passing on Have I got news for you?) that whereas 0.14% of the UK's population are in prison, 0.62% of MP's at the last parliament are in prison. That's over four times the national average.

I'll say no more.

Back in business!

My sincere apologies to my loyal blog followers. But now I'm back! It's 4th June and I'm blogging again.

But what about superinjunctions? Maybe I'll unwittingly let a cat out of a bag! And then what?

Superinjunctions seem to me to be a bit like working for the secret service. They used to say (and maybe they still do) that not only could you not tell anyone what you did, but also you couldn't tell them you couldn't tell them. So you had to say something vague about being a civil servant when asked by anyone what you did.

Superinjunctions work the same way. Not only can you not report a story, but also you can't say you can't report on it. And there, as far as I can see, is a big problem. Say I'm down the pub and someone mentions something about somebody famous (say, a footballer, to take a random example). If that's the subject of a superinjunction, how do I know? How can I possible know NOT to say something when no-one is allowed to tell me I'm not allowed to say it?

Or maybe there's a list somewhere. But that would rather defeat the purpose! And THAT reminds me something I heard of many years ago. A publisher had brought out a new edition of the works of Shakespeare, but with all the naughty bits cut out. Thus it was suitable for schoolchildren. But they put all those bits in an appendix! So now, little schoolboys didn't have to read through page after page to find the best bits, they were all conveniently listed at the back!

But I've gone off the original subject.... Suffice it to say that if I stop blogging again, it just MAY be I've violated someone's very expensive superinjunction.