I don't wish to spread any gossip, but...

Fairtrade Fortnight in Keighley

noreply@blogger.com (Rankersbo) — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:47:00 +0000

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.

Being a Doctor Who fan...

noreply@blogger.com (Rankersbo) — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:43:00 +0000

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 remainants 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.

Spot the human?

noreply@blogger.com (Rankersbo) — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:45:00 +0000

I have proof that David Cameron is in league with...

OK, let's look at the facts.

The image on the left was taken from a campaign poster. The image on the right, just a regular photograph. Spot the difference?

The one on the left, so smooth, almost plasticy. It's an auton replica!!

David Cameron is in league with the autons and is using at least one of them to help him out with his campaigning. Must be.

Or it's the result of over done make-up, or even a photoshop job.

Nah.

It's the end, but the moment had been prepared for.

noreply@blogger.com (Rankersbo) — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 15:06:00 +0000

I had most of the end of 2009 off work, and happily spent it with my lovely wife and son. And we did have a nice time.

Things I have not been doing included:

Blogging

Decorating

Reading discussion forums

So... anything happen over Christmas? The main thing, according to the BBC was the finalé of the Russell T Davies era of Doctor Who. I don't think the climax to a TV series had ever had so much build up. The two-parter over christmas seemed to be the now traditional series finale and the Christmas episode.

I enjoyed it. I thought the end was overblown and self-indulgent, but I enjoyed that too. Russel and David had certainly earned that self indulgence.

So, for Doctor Who, it's the end of an era. Wonder what the new one will be like?

New year's resolutions

noreply@blogger.com (Rankersbo) — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 12:30:00 +0000

I'm still deciding what they are.

I have several options.

One is to avoid spending too much money in the vending machine at work. Easier said than done, but a lot easier than other options.

Another is to get a grip of my reaction to stressful situations. Also a toughie.

A third is to develop a more relaxed attitude to ignorance and cynicism. Knee jerk cynicism is not the same as intelligent scepticism. It's a corrosive attitude. We need more sceptics and fewer cynics in my view.

Happy Boxing Day!

noreply@blogger.com (Rankersbo) — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:24:00 +0000

Yes, the Radio Times is wrong. In 2009 Boxing day is today!

Boxing day falls on the first weekday after Christmas day. Which isn't necessarily the 26th of December.

So... now you know!

End of an era

noreply@blogger.com (Rankersbo) — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:00:00 +0000

Back in September, new regulations meant old fashioned incandescent (OFI) light bulbs can only now be sold in clear types.

In our house we were down to one light fitting with an old fashioned bulb in it. The R63 spots in the kitchen were replaced this time last year, following an assignment for an OU course on sustainable living. I've not regretted it either. The bulbs light the room just as well as the ones they replace, and they have outlasted enough of the old type to be saving me money.

Which left one solitary light fitting in the bathroom unable to accommodate the now standard compact florescent bulb. Which, to be honest, needs a bulb equivalent to 100w to provide sufficient light. We've all known for some time that the end of the 100w bulb was due, but we just didn't get round to getting that light replaced.

Fortunately there was a solution. It has to be noted that compact florescent bulbs come in a variety of different shapes and wattages. But I'd already tried and failed to squeeze one into the space available. CF bulbs are not the only type of bulb out there, Philips and GE produce a halogen bulb that is the same shape and size as the OFI 100w bulb. I bought the 100w equivalent and it is a brilliant stop-gap measure. It lights the room just as well as the bulb it replaces, and fits in the same amount of space.

It's a shame that it's come to this to be honest. It would be nice if we could all have gradually moved ourselves onto the new technology, and restricted our purchases of 100w OFI bulbs for those few remaining fittings where a standard CF bulb of the required brightness won't fit. But too many of us were sticking with old fashioned bulbs for reasons other than the merely practical. The ignorant "Wah shud ah"s have basically spoilt it for the rest of us.

I'm certainly nice enough to be embarrassed by my intransigence, rather than incandescent (ha ha) at the inconvenience.

Local news

noreply@blogger.com (Rankersbo) — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 13:46:00 +0000

This pilbox is in the field behind both where I work and the cemetary at the end of my street.

Funny to see something so close to home in the paper.

This. Has got. To Stop.

noreply@blogger.com (Rankersbo) — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 12:30:00 +0000

We seem to be becoming increasingly paranoid about photographers. People taking photographs are being frequently challenged by police. We have increasingly weird ideas of image rights and what permission is needed to take photographs in public spaces.

This is just the latest case.

It is often argued that people taking photographs of things some people don't think are interesting should expect to have to justify themselves. This is a bad and small minded argument, however it doesn't even apply here. He was photographing a church. An actual architectural landmark. Surely that point could be appreciated by even the most unimaginative of idiots?

Apparently not.

Austin Mitchell MP raised an early day motion about police intimidation of photographers. It hasn't seemed to work so follwing this case he has submitted a new one.

Petitions about photography on the Number 10 website have been met with the response that photography in public places is not illegal. This misses the point- it needs to be made clear to the police that it's not illegal and a greater degree of suspision is required before challenging people who photograph in public places. ACPO have in the past issued guidance on what the legal position of Police Officers challenging photographers is. The message appeared not to be getting through to the officers on the ground. Now worried by reports of misconduct in the press, ACPO are issuing their members with a warning. I hope it gets through to beat officers this time.

I'm wondering whether the mistrust of photographers is a problem with police culture, or one in society as a whole which is affecting some individual officers conduct. Either way- the paranoia must stop.

Being watchful and careful in public will make us safer as a nation. But this must be done calmly and intelligently. Fear, paranoia and mistrust do not make us safer.

Further reading:

LibDem Voice:

Tis the Season to be Wary - Lib Dem Voice

Warning: Do not take this picture - The Independent

Police U-turn on photographers and anti-terror laws - The Independent

Is Photography the new Crime? - Andrew Reeves

Bits and pieces

noreply@blogger.com (Rankersbo) — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 08:53:00 +0000

Gosh it's cold out!

It's only ten minutes to work, I've been in the office ten minutes and I'm still freezing.

I'm reading Bad Science at the moment. It's a great book, and everyone should read and understand it.

Behind the Headlines 7

noreply@blogger.com (Rankersbo) — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:00:00 +0000

There's a bit of a rumble about a man who was Fined £550 - for leaving wheelie bins out. The story has made its way into the Daily Mail as an example of little bureaucrats pushing people about.

Now there are two reactions to this. A knee-jerk "But that's outrageous" and a sensible "That's really weird, there must be more to it."

There is.

Gareth Robinson has been fined £350, plus £200 court costs. But not for simply leaving a bit out for a week or so. He claims they were left outside for "two days at the most".

It does seem a bit unreasonable that the council swooped down on someone for leaving their bins out for a couple of days. Turns out- they didn't.

Reading beyond the headline shows this was not a one off occurrence. Neighbours apparently find the Robinsons' bins problematic, as there have been many complaints to the council. Mr Robinson had numerous warnings and notices about his bins before being given a fixed penalty of £60. Like the many warnings, he ignored this too.

Then he was summoned to court. He failed to appear to challenge council's actions, and was fined in his absence.

There's no mention in the news as to whether his neighbours had a quiet word, but if he's the sort of man you can approach like that, it's unreasonable to assume they didn't.

The headline seems to imply that he left his bin out one day, and had a £550 fine land on his doormat soon after. This is not the case.

Parent or child?

noreply@blogger.com (Rankersbo) — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:10:00 +0000

I'm going to write about something incredibly trivial that winds a lot of people up. Many justifiably.

In recent years supermarkets have come up with an innovation, parent and child parking spaces. As a parent with a baby I have found these spaces incredibly useful. Sure I could cope without them, but they do make life a whole lot easier.

However there is a tendency for people to use these spaces when they don't have a child of any sort with them. Lets be clear we're not talking about disabled people unable to get a disabled space, or people parking at 10pm at night, in a storm when most of the car park lighting has inexplicably failed and half the spaces are empty anyway. We are talking about peak times during the day when the car park is busy, and perfectly able-bodied people. So now, I've set the scene.

Anyway however much detail I've gone into describing the abusers of P&C spaces, this post isn't really about them. Or is it?

Sorry, this is going to get horribly meta.

What I've noticed is that on occasion, parents put out by the selfish minority will have a moan, and rightly so. Trouble is that these moans often attract the weirdest of people. Nasty, unpleasant, and antisocial people who seem actively put out by the very existence of car parking spaces reserved for parents of small children.

Now I can quite understand that some people don't see the point. Yes my mother coped without these spaces when I was a baby, but the thing was she coped without a car full stop. What I don't understand is the people who are vehemently and angrily opposed to parent and child spaces, to the extent they feel the need to put down anyone who raises the slightest objection to the abuse of them.

Maybe these commenters are just the perpetually angry nutters that David Mitchell writes about here. But they do seem numerous. Often they raise spurious examples of the sorts of people who would be put out by the spaces.

It is true that there is no law protecting these spaces. But a petulant cry of "there's no law against it" isn't a valid justification for a stroppy teenager's actions, and is just silly coming from anyone over the age of 21. Yes stores extend these spaces merely as a courtesy in order to attract custom, but that does nothing to the legitimacy of these spaces. Supermarkets are entitled to set terms and conditions for the use of their land, providing it is prominently advertised. Sure they rely largely on goodwill and good manners to police these spaces. But does that mean able bodied people who use the spaces to avoid a slightly longer walk or scratches on their expensive car aren't being anti-social and selfish? No. Not one but. The opposite in fact.

Do I buy the argument that these commentators are merely outraged on behalf of the elderly or disabled and are not personally put out by the existence of parent and child spaces? No. In fact I think it terrible that they use others as a proxy in order to create a fig leaf for the childishness of their own views. It often seems to be a case of being annoyed by someone getting a perk that is not available to them, and then scrabbling around for reasons to justify their petulance.

When not traveling with Matthew it always amuses me to see, perfectly able bodied people, jostling around for the spaces in the quarter of the car park closest to the store entrance. I giggle as I drive into a space in the quieter end, collect my trolley from the park nearest the car, and walk into the store while they are still searching for the elusive close space.

There are stores with covered walkways that enable parent and child spaces to be sited further away and leave some prime, non-disabled spaces for others. This is a good implementation of the idea and I have no problem with it: where it's the most practical solution. If it's just being done solely to mollify the sort of nasty, selfish, aggressive individuals who have their noses put out of joint by the mere fact stores show a bit of consideration to those of us with small children, then I really object.

These vile aggressive people do not deserve appeasement.

I could bore you for hours.

noreply@blogger.com (Rankersbo) — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 12:10:00 +0000

I think the friends and aquaintances who read this will fall into two groups. Those that have already experienced what I'm talking about, and those who will glaze over when parents start talking about their little ones.

Our son is just about 10 months old. He was 7 weeks early, and spent his first four weeks in a special care unit. He is reportedly doing well, even though he is small. At his 8 months check he was said to as well developed as any 8 month old, sitting up and smiling and reacting as the nursery nurse expected.

He's just reached 18 pounds. That's 8.18kg in today's money. That's between the 9th and the 25th percentile on the graph, relative to his due date), so nothing to worry about. We rarely now get comments about how small he is, indeed we often get people saying things like, "he doesn't look like he was premature."

He's just started crawling, but is not racing around as many predicted. Everyone who sees him comments on his smile and how happy he seems.

He loves his toys and indeed any object can provide endless fascination. He's really good with stacking cups, preferring to try and dismantle a tower of cups, rather than knock it over. He also has a shape sorter and seems to, more often than not, chose the right shapes for the side uppermost. This may be his loving parents over interpreting, or skewing things unconsciously by the way we place the shapes on the floor. He learned how to use a toy where you feed a giraffe plastic blocks in a couple of minutes.

And this is the thing. He seems a bright boy, who is happy much of the time, but is this just his proud parents seeing what they want to see?

Merry Winterval

noreply@blogger.com (Rankersbo) — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:00:00 +0000

Oh it's that time again. There are stories in the press as to how Christmas (and by extension Christianity) is under attack from Political Correctness, local authorities and multiculturalism.

As usual this is 99.9999% hogwash.

It's not even new hogwash as this old entry explains.

Financial fishing

noreply@blogger.com (Rankersbo) — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 12:06:00 +0000

I'm reminded of those "scam" warning emails that do the rounds. They are 99.999% of the time hoaxes. But it's the motivation of people who pass them on. You can't, in my mind, learn every single scam in the book. You have to learn general skills in awareness and reason to avoid scams, because for every scam you learn, there are 1000 different ways dishonest people (in conjunction with your own stupidity) can catch you out. Even if these scare stories are true, they are unlikely to help as fraudsters have probably moved on to a new trick by now, general life skils not awareness of specifics are in order.

I think financial awareness is a similar thing. It is just an application of the sort of skills you learn in science, english and maths. Science teaches you to view the world systematically and through that teaches reasoning skills, English teaches literacy and the ability to take in information and understand it, maths, well basic numeracy.

You know the addage of "give a man a fish... teach a man to fish".I think getting the basics of literacy, numeracy and reasoning are "teach a man to fish" whereas teaching financial tips.

Another of those myths punctured

noreply@blogger.com (Rankersbo) — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:10:00 +0000

I remember watching one of those mildly entertaining, but cheap, clip shows about errors on TV.
One featured Dexy's Midnight Runners on Top of the Pops, singing "Jackie Wilson says". Behind them on huge video screen was a picture of... larger than life darts player Jocky Wilson. The implication being it was a mistake made by the production team.

Only it wasn't, it was all a joke. Kevin Rowland, Dexy's front man, had asked for that slide deliberately. Funny thing is he said that in an interview in 2002, and the clip show wasn't that long ago I'm sure.

How urban myth lingers.

Oh and yeah, while we're at it. Bob Holness did not play saxaphone on Baker Street.

News in Links

noreply@blogger.com (Rankersbo) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:01:00 +0000

A couple of weeks back Professor David Nutt, an advisor on the subject of drugs, was in the media because some things he said contradicted the government's position on the reclassification of cannabis.

Soon after Alan Johnson sacked Professor Nutt claiming that he had campaigned against government policy.

I thought there was something fishy about this, it didn't seem to me like the statements were campaigning, even with the media leaping on them in the way they did. But with work and family I didn't have time to look beyond the headlines. Turns out my feeling was right. Dr Evan Harris, (the Lib Dem MP for Oxford West) covers this in his blog, systematically taking apart the sacking and then Alan Johnson's response to criticism.

I'm not sure whether the campaigning line, that Johnson is still sticking to is his own misunderstanding of the situation, or whether it is an interpretation that he keeps restating in the hope people believe it.

I think one of the funniest lines on this was spoken by Danielle Ward on the news quiz. The moral of the story being if you want people to go along with your ill-thought out policy, you need to pay them, or at least give them a peerage.

Around the world

noreply@blogger.com (Rankersbo) — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:03:00 +0000

We are really enjoying the current BBC series of "Around the World in 80 days." Not least for the bits we travelled ourselves.

We have travelled across Europe, by taking the Eurostar and changing trains in Paris, although while Skinner and Mack headed south

We've also travelled from Moscow to Ulaan Bataar via the Trans Mongolian- on our Honeymoon no less! Our experience of the trans siberian from Moscow to Ulaan Bataar was closest to the crumby 4th train Julia Bradbury and Matt Baker took from Lake Baikal, it was Mongolian run train number 4. I remember sitting in the amazing Mongolian restaurant Louise Minchin sat in on the train back to Russia- it was on our train from Mongolia to Beijing. We were pretty glad they glossed over the Russia-Mongola border as the crossings was quite nervy even when we did have the correct papers! The first class compartment enjoyed by Bill Turnbull and Louise Minchin was almost a world away from the 4 birth standard class compartment we enjoyed for most of the journey.

In Mongolia we stayed in a ger camp, a hotel made round gers. Although the furniture an construction was authentic, it was in better condition than in regular gers. However we did meet nomads during our stay. Their ger had one luxury ours didn't- satellite TV! There was no mobile signal in the valley of the ger camp- we had to climb the hill to one side. And from the top of that hill for miles around was- nothing! Nothing except the massive statue seen at the end of episode 3 which at the time was under construction.

A contrast with the original was the number of detours due to visa problems. For our own trip the visas were organised in advance by a tour operator. I wondered what happened for Michael Palin- were things more planned or less fraught then?

One thing the series has done has been to get us to get out our atlas out and plan future adventures. They may well be dreams, family, finance and the environment may derail them, but dreaming them is an enjoyable passtime.

A blast from above

noreply@blogger.com (Rankersbo) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:00:00 +0000

Had to smile today. We were out in Shipley visiting a Will aid solicitor and popped into Asda. There was an announcement on the tannoy about the driver of a VW golf. Who as it turned out was parked in a parent and child space.

Well the tannoy announcer went ballistic about how selfish it was to use parent and child spaces if you don't have babies or toddlers with you. It was a rightful rant. Only hope that the owner of the golf didn't have a child in a removable baby seat, and that they had got what they truly deserved.

Travelling today? That'll be £1002 please!

noreply@blogger.com (Rankersbo) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:05:00 +0000

Yesterday a story broke about the first UK train fare of over £1000.

The lib dem candidate for my local parliamentary constituency, Nader Fekri has already commented on this. I find myself agreeing with Nader on many things, but I disagree on one point.

He says:

It is obvious that ridiculously high fares are encouraging people to abandon the trains in favour of their cars.

I disagree. I think people are abandoning the train and their cars in favour of staying at home and not spending money. The recession has made many people worse off, and many more aware of the limitations of their pockets. This is what is driving people away from the trains.

£1002 is a walk up first class fare. You can fly to the continent for £25, if you book in advance for economy class, and make great savings on the trains if you plan ahead too. Some people say it is ridiculous that you can get such cheap train fares by booking in advance, or by playing the system by split ticketing or other methods. I don't agree, I think it's a good thing that organised and savvy people are rewarded by the system. No-one is going to pay £1002 for a train ticket because no-one will journey from Newquay to Kyle of Lochalsh at the drop of a hat on a first class ticket.

People know that there are savings to be made. The ways of getting them are complex, but not unfathomable to the average man in the street.

That's not to say there isn't a problem. While I believe it's fair that walk up fares are higher than those obtained with a little planning, I also think the levels of standard class walk-up fares are ridiculous. Yes it is right that someone can be rewarded for their nous with cheaper fares, but it is wrong that walk up fares are ridiculously high! So while it's OK for people to make savings, walk up fares should still be reasonable.

Anyway, this story in conjunction with last night's TV reminded me of when Sarah and I paid over £1000 on a train fare. Not just the news, but the programme before it too! Our train journey was not in the UK, however but a once in a lifetime experience travelling from Moscow to Beijing.

Brilliant spoof!

noreply@blogger.com (Rankersbo) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:15:00 +0000

I must congratulate whoever mocked up this spoof of a loony anti-EU front page response to the Lisbon treaty being signed. Brilliant send up!

Um... hang on... I can see todays Express on someone's desk across the way. It's... real? Someone thinks this is a reasonable response?

Oh dear.

Behind the Headlines 6?

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:30:00 +0000

Yesterday I caught a front page headline "EU to ban all shop refunds"

It sounds like the usual swivel-eyed anti-EU rubbish that the tabloid press like to use to wind up their readership. But is it?

Anyone any idea what this was about?

Behind the Headlines 5

noreply@blogger.com (Simon) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:21:00 +0000

Actually not so much behind the headlines as behind the whole story!

The Daily Mail ran a piece on how in Watford barmy councillors had banned parents from parks and playgrounds, and had put special trained supervisors in their place. No longer can a family take their toddlers to enjoy time on the swings, they must watch from a distance.

Except- it wasn't true. Not one word.

Well maybe one or two words. Parents have been told not to hang around after dropping their kids off at supervised adventurous play facility. The facility is not an open playground for the under 5s as you may find in a park, but has always been an enclosed area run by trained supervisors. The facility had become a bit lenient with the rule over letting parents stay for the session, but one or two had begun to get in the way of activities. So they put their foot down and began to enforce the policy.

Cue one disgruntled parent, and you've got a classic case of flat earth news!

Who's platform

noreply@blogger.com (Rankersbo) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:15:00 +0000

I agree that it achieves nothing to censor Nick Griffin and the BNP. Banning his party from question time would have been counter productive, making them cause celebres. I don't believe that anyone watching will get the idea that the BNP have any ideas worth voting for unless they already had racist views.

I keep hearing though that the way to defeat the BNP is to engage with them. Must I? I want to see fewer people voting BNP sure, but I don't want to have to listen to Griffin's bilge. Sorry that's how I feel. I'm not boycotting Question Time in disgust at the BBC, I just don't want to hear that idiot speak.

It may seem undemocratic, or prejudiced, but freedom of speach does not mean people have to listen.

Yours truely, angry mob

noreply@blogger.com (Rankersbo) — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:28:00 +0000

The big story recently has been the reaction to a piece in the Daily Mail by columnist Jan Moir about the death of Steven Gateley. To date the press complaints commission have received 21,000 complaints about the piece.

I found the original piece mildly offensive, but that's nothing compared to what happened next. Instead of being chastened Moir hit back at her critics, calling the complaints the results of a mischievous and orchestrated twitter campaign.

I am amused by this. I think back to the last campaign orchestrated against someone who has offended people in society. What was it, oh yes, the campaign against the BBC over a couple of lines in a radio broadcast . Orchestrated by- The Daily Mail. That campaign was mischievous- as many had not heard the broadcast but just wanted to stick it to. Compared to this campaign where I feel people are genuinely aggrieved by what was written.

Moir's column was a written piece, not an off the cuff comment like that made on Radio 2, and what's more she has not accepted she did anything wrong. Ross and Brand both apologized for what they did. Ross was punished, while Brand resigned.

If the Daily Mail are consistent they should take on board that this column was far worse than the Ross_brand prank call incident and act as they feel appropriately.