Fairtrade Fortnight in Keighley
Fairtrade fortnight is in full swing. Sarah and Matthew are out now as I speak with the Bradford FairTrade camper van, giving out quizzes and free samples. Matthew was having fun, but has only got the idea of handing out the teabags- not letting people take them!
They will be out again in the Keighley area on Tuesday, at Silsden co-op in the morning, and Sainsburys in the afternoon.
Read MoreBeing a Doctor Who Fan
Someone told me that the BBC Doctor Who website has a trailer for the new series starting at Easter. It puts me in the mood to see this new series. Which is a shame as I probably won’t be able to see much of it this year due to the move… but more about that in another post.
Thinking back six years to when the Russell T Davies revival was first announced, I felt ambivalent about the revival. Russell was a good writer and loved the series. I’d seen his Channel 4 series, and heard good stuff about the serials he did for children’s TV.
I was prepared not to like it. As a thirty-something male fan of the original series I realised that I had no right to like it- it would have to primarily grab the attention of the younger audience. If us old school fans liked it too, that would be a bonus, if not then we still had the tapes of the old series, and the CDs made by Big Finish.
But the younger audience liked it. And I got my bonus- I thought it was great too. It was better than anyone had any right to expect. What’s more to cap it all it all, lots of other people liked it and it became incredibly popular.
It doesn’t always hit the mark. But, by and large, it has a better hit rate than the old series, and you need your rose tinted glasses to pretty deeply coloured to think otherwise.
Doctor Who has just come to the end of a golden age, and is entering a new one, with a new chief writer, and lead actors. It may not repeat the success of the Davies-Tennant era, but five years of top-notch TV was more than any fan had any right to expect.
Anyway- talking of Doctor Who nostalgia: Prior to the move I’m trying to flog as much of my stuff that gathers dust in attics as possible. I don’t think it’s fair to ask my parents to store more stuff while not doing anything with all the boxes that have remained untouched for five or more years.
My old New Adventures seem to have gone like hot cakes on Amazon marketplace, and the few ten to twenty year old copies of Doctor Who Magazine that were still intact have found new homes courtesy of eBay. Who would have thought it.
I’m having more difficulty getting rid of the remanants of my collection of video tapes. Who fans are typically quicker to adopt new technology than people in general, so have no desire to pick up episodes on an old format. I got rid of a few tapes at work to people wanting to show their kids what they used to watch back in the day, but I think I’m going to have to take drastic action with the rest.
The life laundry is therapeutic. It feels better to know this stuff is with people who will appreciate it, rather than just taking up room or being pulped to become part of next weeks Daily Mail.
Read MoreLazy Blogging
Home secretary Jacqui Smith is a bit embarrassed because someone has leaked an expenses claim for her home broadband.
The main embarrassment, and source of the outrage, being two “additional features” which is apparently a euphemism for adult films.
MPs are entitled to claim for cable TV and broadband packages, if they are of benefit to the carrying out of their duties. While the basic package, including news channels, could be argued to be within this remit, pay-per-view films are not. Ocean’s 13 is no more relevant to Mrs Smith’s duties than the two controversial features. The claim for the two “additional features” are in my mind no more controversial than the other 3 films on that claim.
Yes, I can understand that to Jacqui, her husband’s choice of viewing may be, to put it mildly, deeply unpopular. But that should be a matter for them.
Sadly, I find it all too plausible that this claim was as a result of Jacqui Smith bungling her expenses paperwork, rather than an attempt to cynically cream money through expenses. And to be honest that lack of attention to detail in a home secretary is much more worrying than getting someone to pay for your PPV films.
Read MoreBad Wolf Speculation
And so the rollercoaster of a ride that’s been Doctor Who 2005 reaches its conclusion. On Saturday we found out what the whole “Bad Wolf” mystery was about.
Well we did and we didn’t. We found out that the Bad Wolf Corporation was the media in 2002nd century Earth, when the Doctor, Rose and Jack are drawn into three of the corporation’s deadly game shows. But the corporation is a front for something darker, hiding out on the edge of the universe. It turns out that the terrific trio were kidnapped by the controller of the station herself, in a last desperate attempt to defy her masters and save humanity from the plight it is blind to.
Why am I bothering summarizing this? Odds are you’ve either seen the episode yourself, or that you’re not in any way interested. Anyway Bad Wolf was the first of two parts, so I’m probably best waiting until the weekend to say how brilliant it was. If you want a review now, read Nick, but I warn you he’s a tad enthusiastic.
In my opinion we’re just coming to the end of 13 weeks of excellent Saturday night TV. It certainly seems to have captured the imagination of most of my friends, and has spread its tendrils halfway across the internet. Ditching the technobabble and padding for adventure, wild concepts and silly names. Say after me, “The Mighty Jagrafess”, “Blaidd Drwg”, “Raxacoricofallapatorius.” Brings something back to me, although I’m not sure what.
People who know me know I’m a Doctor Who fan. My name, Biscit, first appeared in a Doctor Who novel way before I started using it on the internet myself. But my interest has waned over recent months, I don’t buy the books any more (save of course those written by my friends), have stopped purchasing DWM, and like my Doctor Who friends had become jaundiced towards the group of people mysanthropically referred to as the “Big Finish Mafia”.
But then out of the blue, in late 2003, it was announced that it was coming back. Not only that, but the show would be shaped by TV god, Russell T Davies. Perked my interest, but only slightly. But then my friends started to get excited, and I couldn’t work out why, having almost forgotten why we were friends.
As it got closer and closer to 26th March, and the anticipation grew. I told myself, I can take it or leave it, I’m too old to care too much. If I didn’t like it, Doctor Who would be there for a new generation, and I could revisit the classic series whenever I could be bothered. I didn’t expect, aged 32, to get this excited about a TV programme. I certainly didn’t expect it to become must see TV.
So now 12 weeks in of some of the best TV in ages reaches its climax on Saturday. It’s been fantastic. I’m going to have horrible withdrawal symptoms.
Read MoreID Cards
I think in posting the link to the No to Id cards pledge I fell into a trap that many do, in that I was assuming it was obvious why ID cards are a Bad Thing(TM). ID cards are back with avengence, give the ID card bill is back taking into account few of the concerns raised on its initial form.
I’m not particularly against having a small piece of plastic with which you can identify yourself. I myself have a new-style driving license, and while I’m not required to do so, I keep it in my wallet which is rarely far from my person. So I have no objection to having a card with which I can identify myself.
Now many of my readers will be confused, and bewildered, and perhaps a little bored. If I have no objection to having a card with which I can prove my identity, what’s my problem with ID cards? And this is the problem anti-ID card campaigners have; the issues aren’t as obvious as they seem to interested parties. The arguments against ID cards can be broadly put into two categories; civil liberties, and practical issues.
The civil liberties arguments surrounding ID Cards are immensely important and far reaching, but unfortunately to many people they are dog whistle politics. Most people can’t see the difference between the proposed ID card scheme and owning a passport or photo card driving licence. Go to any depth into the civil liberties debate and their eyes glaze over. Mine do, and I’m politically active.
But (at Amy’s insistence) I’ll have a go. We are assured that these ID cards won’t hold much more data than your typical supermarket loyalty card. Well that’s an inaccuracy for a start. My supermarket loyalty card just holds my ID number in the loyalty scheme. The woman at the checkout at Tesco in Ilkley needs know nothing about me other that I’ve shopped at Tesco before. And she knows that anyway, because she served me last week. If I want there to be no record of any purchase I wish to make I either withhold my loyalty card, or shop elsewhere. What’s more Tesco don’t have any evidence that I also shop at Asda and Morrisons (but not Sainsburys, Waitrose or Safeway because I’m not stuck up, like).
The proposed ID cards will hold a lot more information on you than a supermarket loyalty card. Just how much will the person who just needs to know you are who you say you are? We are assured “not much” but such assurances are pretty hollow. Some may say, “You can’t really object unless you have something to hide” with the unspoken implication that anyone that has anything to hide must be a bit dodgy. I’m afraid I have to point out, some people are just utter utter morons. Are all the people with ex-directory telephone numbers dodgy people? Most people have some things they’d rather keep private, that they’d rather other people not knowing. I doubt that the scheme as proposed will be sophisticated enough to hold a plot of your DNA as part of the biometrics, and if it does I doubt we will have the ability to decode physical characteristics from it, but it is probable that through an ID card scheme all and sundry may know Amy dyes her hair. OK all and sundry do know that, but that was her choice.
Then there’s the centralised database. For ID cards to work there will need to be a centralised database. Yes government departments do already have information on us. The DVLA have records on me, but all they know is where I live, what I can drive, and what vehicles I own. Well a bit more than that, but not much. The Inland Revenue know how much I earn, and what benefits I get from my company, but little more than that. Each department knows as much as it needs to and no more, with a centralised database your privacy is decreased. And going back to the supermarket loyalty card analogy so thoughtfully handed to the no2ID crowd, it will be possible for a government to build up a profile on it’s electorate, through the monitoring of who checks your ID card.
A better bet are the practical concerns. The proposed ID cards are going to be expensive. It is amazing how overwhelming the opposition to ID cards becomes when surveys are up-front about the potential cost to the individual on £80-£100 a throw. On top of the individual costs are the expense of setting up the underlying infrastructure.
Yes we’re back to the centralised database. This is going to be an IT project so massive it’s going to put all others into the shade. The partnership of industry and government really don’t have a good record of delivering big national IT projects on time, on budget and to an acceptable standard.
My main objection to ID cards are more fundamental: they won’t do what they say on the tin. They won’t make this country more secure. They won’t prevent terrorism. They will do little to help prevent identity theft. The costs, in both the erosion of civil liberties and monetary terms, far outweigh the benefits.
This is not solely an issue which excites liberals. Rabid right-winger Peter Hitchens is pretty scathing about ID cards in his book The Abolition of Liberty. And recently the official line from the Conservative party has flip-flopped back to being against them, albeit mainly for the pragmatic economic reasons of “they’re a huge waste of tax-payers money”.
As during the run up to the Iraq war, the most convincing arguments against are the arguments for. All the arguments presented come across as lame excuses, tacked on after the fact. We were told we needed them to prevent terrorism, but the Madrid train bombers all had valid ID. The latest bogyman that ID cards are going to combat is identity fraud, however the figures we are being quoted with which to convince us are dubious to say the least. The way the excuse shifts from week to week is evidence of how little substance there is to it.
We are assured there will be limits to this scheme, but a system as proposed ought to be easily scalable if it is any good. The scheme may be initially voluntary, but how difficult will it become to avoid it how quickly.
An old uni friend Murky, Welsh Assembly member Peter Black and all round bright guy Jonathan Calder are amongst those who have also bloged about ID cards recently.
Read More