Monday, 11 April 2011

Disheartening Debate and a Dastard




Did you watch the Politics Show yesterday lunchtime? Were you poised, like me, for some serious debate? 

If your answer is no then consider yourself fortunate.  It was dismal; so much so that I'm not even going to suggest you watch it on iPlayer. In fact I would go as far to say it was insulting to Scotland's electorate. It was more like an informal rehearsal than a live programme. Another pathetic effort by the BBC and with ITV not faring much better with their Leaders Debate production last week, Scotland is being deprived by our national broadcasters, of intelligent and serious discussion. 

But as it's Monday morning and I've no wish to start the week negatively, what about a citizen's award for the individual who took photographs, on his mobile phone, of Charlie Kennedy having a smoke outside Glasgow Central Station on Thursday and was fined £50 for littering.



According to the onlooker, who refused to be named:

“He'd been puffing at the entrance for about half-an-hour while chatting away on his mobile phone.
“He stood in the one spot and must have smoked four fags – each time letting the dog-end fall on to the pavement beside him.
“But the council litter patrol was keeping a good eye on him to see if he was going to leave them there.
“And once he started to walk away, they pounced.
“He wasn’t happy because I was standing there taking pictures, but I said to him, ‘it’s a public place Charles, I have got the right to take pictures.
“You have got to accept your punishment. You are not above the law’


I can think of an award for this self righteous dunderheid: a weekend, equipped with a bucket, shovel and brush, cleaning up the rivers of vomit which make Glasgow city's pavements like obstacle courses on Friday and Saturday nights.  If four doups on a pavement cause him/her so much delight, they'll be ecstatic making the footpaths safe for their fellow Glaswegians.  As a gesture of goodwill I'd be prepared to be their personal photographer.

When I was young we used to call such people snitches or clipes. Why they refuse to be named is a mystery.  After all, upstanding citizens usually have nothing to hide and are pleased to have their civic duties publicly acknowledged.

Whoever they are I doubt if they'll be bragging about their 'conquest' in any Glasgow pub. 


23 comments:

JuliaM said...

"According to the onlooker, who refused to be named..."

Well, that says it all, doesn't it?

Disenfranchised of Buckingham said...

It's fair to snitch on the righteous.

So unless Kennedy has opposed the smoking ban, which is why he has to be outside, he's fair game.

The more politicians suffer the better. Maybe they'll get to understand how the rest of us feel? Well I can hope.

subrosa said...

It does indeed Julia.

subrosa said...

I'm not saying he's not fair game DoB. My point is that someone decided to spend half and hour photographing him.

I'm sure Charlie knows how we feel. At least he didn't light up inside the station.:)

subrosa said...

Oh DoB, one of us needs to invent a 'doup bag' - similar to the pooper scooper type but obviously on a smaller scale. :)

The outside could be marked 'poison'.

Clarinda said...

Was it a set-up - the Politics Show I mean. To openly promote an "interactive" debate did BBCSc really think that two parties sliding off the Scottish political horizon and one with a 'leader' no doubt pschyed up by his PR crew not to cut and run for once - that what would naturally follow would be a measured debate? Squeezing Mr Salmond between the LabraConoodles was provoking them to slaver and snap across him to each other and inevitably turn on him with bared teeth. Poor Tavish was kept yelping outside the showring again while Ms Fraser failed to wield effective discipline.
Rosettes only for those members of the watching public who tolerated the programme without switching off.

pa_broon74 said...

It was a rubbish debate, no control at all so they all just talked over each other. Tavish was being particularly boorish which is at odds with his 'quiet man' image. I get tired of Bella's staid conservative school marm act, Salmond seemed subdued but I didn't get a sense of him one way or the other. Meanwhile, Gray sounded reasonable so long as you ignored the fact that he was talking a lot of undeliverable & dishonest nonsense.

Of them all I imagine Tavish going postal at some point, with eyes and guns blazing he'd scream "IT WAS 1.5 BILLION, IT WAS, IT WAS, IT WAS, WE COULD'VE HAD IT ALL!!" As Gray shelters in a Baguette express, Salmond dives in to a Greggs. Meanwhile the bullets just ricochet off Bella's indefatigable persona while Patrick Harvie from behind his seat asks if Tavish is using fair trade ammunition.

There's my Monday morning digression.

PS: I hate littering but am genuinely torn about those odious litter warden people, on balance, I think I hate a jobsworth more so would probably drop litter if I felt it annoyed them because lets face it, goading a jobsworth is fun.

;)

Crinkly & Ragged Arsed Philosophers said...

The first principle to be understood is, there is no such thing as British - that concept is nothing more than a tool of the Establishment and its control of the State.

As such the BBC, is in fact the State Broadcasting Corporation. It's job is to edit and control the flow of information in a manner that supports the institutions which - whatever their political ideologies - act in allegiance to the State.

In Scotland, Labour, conservatives and Lb Dems all meet that criteria. The SNP by including independence in their portfolio do not.

For the State, Scotland's independence is seen as a threat to its sovereignty and the hegemonies of establishments it has created as obstacles to any foreseen or possible attack.

Accepting this as fact, underlines the bias and skewed reporting by it's media arm - the SBC - as no more than is to be expected. After all it is funded by a State who, in its hubris, passes on the costs for brainwashing as a tax on the brainwashed.

It's a formidable tool used by a formidable foe but its Achilles heel is it relies on ignorance for its version of truth to be accepted. Gradually, bit by micro bit; by the observation of spin skew and bias, its authority is being questioned and the ignorance it relies on is being decimated. To the extent that now many of its audience ask, 'that's what they want us to believe, now why would they want us too believe it?'

While it's obvious we're not going to change its establishment role within a month, if ever, we have the means at our disposal to register an immediate protest. Switch the BBC off and send the TV licence back to Bush House with a demand for a rebate due to their transmittal of State propaganda.

Most will probably find their licence is paid upfront and they can hardly take you to court on something that is already paid. But that apart, its time for a stand to be made on the issue of the only acceptable bias welcome in our homes is one of truth.

Mr. Mxyzptlk said...

That debate was 'pants' none of them were showing First Minister material.

Their performance doesnt bode well for the future Governance of Scotland
I'd have to ask do any of them really consider the 'People' of Scotland outside of whatever party the represent.........

Looking at them lot much as i hated Thatcher you have to say you can see why many(wrongly) voted for her.

Crinkly & Ragged Arsed Philosophers said...

The first principle to be understood is, there is no such thing as British - that concept is nothing more than a tool of the Establishment and its control of the State.

As such the BBC, is in fact the State Broadcasting Corporation. It's job is to edit and control the flow of information in a manner that supports the institutions which - whatever their political ideologies - act in allegiance to the State.

In Scotland, Labour, conservatives and Lb Dems all meet that criteria. The SNP by including independence in their portfolio do not.

For the State, Scotland's independence is seen as a threat to its sovereignty and the hegemonies of establishments it has created as obstacles to any foreseen or possible attack.

Accepting this as fact, underlines the bias and skewed reporting by it's media arm - the SBC - as no more than is to be expected. After all it is funded by a State who, in its hubris, passes on the costs for brainwashing as a tax on the brainwashed.

It's a formidable tool used by a formidable foe but its Achilles heel is it relies on ignorance for its version of truth to be accepted. Gradually, bit by micro bit; by the observation of spin skew and bias, its authority is being questioned and the ignorance it relies on is being decimated. To the extent that now many of its audience ask, 'that's what they want us to believe, now why would they want us too believe it?'

While it's obvious we're not going to change its establishment role within a month, if ever, we have the means at our disposal to register an immediate protest. Switch the BBC off and send the TV licence back to Bush House with a demand for a rebate due to their transmittal of State propaganda.

Most will probably find their licence is paid upfront and they can hardly take you to court on something that is already paid. But that apart, its time for a stand to be made on the issue of the only acceptable bias welcome in our homes is one of truth.

subrosa said...

Crinkly is having problems commenting so sent me the following by email:

The first principle to be understood is, there is no such thing as British - that concept is nothing more than a tool of the Establishment and its control of the State.



As such the BBC, is in fact the State Broadcasting Corporation. It's job is to edit and control the flow of information in a manner that supports the institutions which - whatever their political ideologies - act in allegiance to the State.

In Scotland, Labour, conservatives and Lb Dems all meet that criteria. The SNP by including independence in their portfolio do not.



For the State, Scotland's independence is seen as a threat to its sovereignty and the hegemonies of establishments it has created as obstacles to any foreseen or possible attack.

Accepting this as fact, underlines the bias and skewed reporting by it's media arm - the SBC - as no more than is to be expected. After all it is funded by a State who, in its hubris, passes on the costs for brainwashing as a tax on the brainwashed.

It's a formidable tool used by a formidable foe but its Achilles heel is it relies on ignorance for its version of truth to be accepted.

Gradually, bit by micro bit; by the observation of spin skew and bias, its authority is being questioned and the ignorance it relies on is being decimated.

To the extent that now many of its audience ask, 'that's what they want us to believe, now why would they want us too believe it?'

While it's obvious we're not going to change its establishment role within a month, if ever, we have the means at our disposal to register an immediate protest. Switch the BBC off and send the TV licence back to Bush House with a demand for a rebate due to their transmittal of State propaganda.

Most will probably find their licence is paid upfront and they can hardly take you to court on something that is already paid. But that apart, its time for a stand to be made on the issue of the only acceptable bias welcome in our homes is one of truth.

Jo G said...

"The first principle to be understood is, there is no such thing as British - that concept is nothing more than a tool of the Establishment and its control of the State."

There are many still alive who fought in World War 2. I think no matter what we think today about who we are, or where we think Scotland's future lies, it is respectful to remember the sacrifices made by many Scots who fought under the "British" banner and did so willingly.

subrosa said...

An excellent summary Clarinda. I doubt if many rosettes were awarded, although I did watch it all while doing some necessary needle and thread work.

subrosa said...

Another good assessment pa. Of course littering isn't pleasant but neither is one righteous individual who stands and photographs a smoker for half an hour.

Crinkly & Ragged Arsed Philosophers said...

Jo - so what value does that give to the 'British' State and they way it appreciated and rewarded them?

Jo G said...

Crinkly, that's not what we're debating. I'm just asking you to be respectful to those whose sacrifices then we are all truly thankful for. I once heard someone speaking as you did in that earlier post, in the presence of my own late father, and I will never forget the look on my father's face. My father incidentally was as proud a Scot as anyone but he was also proud that he put his life on the line for his country when asked to do so. We should never forget what his generation did for ours and those who came after ours, no matter what flag they fought under.

Paul said...

I took the pics of Charles Kennedy and at no point did I ever refuse to be named (Get your facts right). The reason I did what I did is that Charles Kennedy should have known better and he should be leading by example and follow his own policy which he wanted implemented sooner rather than later as was published in the Kirkintilloch Herald "Councillor Charles Kennedy did not want to wait the three months for this report to come through, and put forward a motion to give the council's litter warden the power to give on the spot fines immediately. The results of this action would also be included in the report". So to say I am a "Self Righteous dunderheid is a joke. Oh and as for the certain other comments I never spent half an hour photographing him FACT and yes he did light up within the station property another breach. As for DOB well said...

Paul

subrosa said...

Paul, click on the 'source' link and see what the media reported. I suggest you take up your complaint with the Press and Journal and other papers which reported the same.

You photographed him smoking four cigarettes.

Such a pity your photographic talents couldn't be used on Friday and Saturday nights when the pavements are covered in vomit. Nobody seems to charge litter fines for that.

Thanks for getting in touch though.

Paul said...

Where in any of the text does it say I photographed him smoking 4 cigarettes? Total nonesense. I photographed him with a cigarette in his hand which was never published and 1 with the doubts on the ground which was published. The litter wardens seen him drop them but they stood by and done nothing and this I thought was wrong as they had already fined 2 people prior to this but unknoqn to me they can't touch you until you move but at the end of the day he was the 1 in the wrong not me. Well done though to the 2 litter wardens for doing him as I thought they had bottled it when it dawned on them who he was.

subrosa said...

Paul, I agree nobody should be above the law.

This is what the Press and Journal said. You obviously haven't read it:

An onlooker, who did not want to be named, took photographs of the incident on his mobile phone.

“He'd been puffing at the entrance for about half-an-hour while chatting away on his mobile phone.

“He stood in the one spot and must have smoked four fags – each time letting the dog-end fall on to the pavement beside him.

“But the council litter patrol was keeping a good eye on him to see if he was going to leave them there.

“And once he started to walk away, they pounced.'

If that's untrue then you need to speak to the P & J.

Paul said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paul said...

I did speak to the P&J as they wanted a quote for there article. I told them most of what you seen printed except the part of being an onlooker and not wanting to be named lol WHY I have nothing to hide. I took 2 pics of CK standing at the gates of Central Station whilst he was being observed by the 2 litter wardens, The litter wardens knew who he was as did I. I along with others where watching the litter wardens to see if they would do anything or would they let him go but the litter wardens knew I was watching them to see what they would do. If they let him go then the litter wardens would be the ones in the news along with CK but they done their job and when the eventually stopped him I took some more pics which ended up in the Scottish Sun and the story appearing elsewhere. As it stands most papers will write about it. Someone asked me if I would do it again if another MP/MSP done the same thing my answer YOUR DAMN RIGHT I WOULD... :)

subrosa said...

Paul, I quoted exactly from the P & J article.

I reiterate, the source is at the foot of my post and it leads to the P & J article.

The rest of it is my opinion to which I am entitled to give on my own blog.

Obviously you don't like politicians or would you treat your nearest and dearest the same? Possibly.

Thanks for contributing but I can help you no more. Others will read your comments and make up their own minds.

Have a good weekend.

Related Posts with Thumbnails