Among yesterday’s front pages was a data visualisation which, at first glance, was one of the most effective I’ve ever seen: the Independent had made an infographic showing yesterday’s £6bn budget cuts in context - as a fraction of a debt mountain.
Then I looked closer - and something’s very, very wrong.
Can you tell what it […]
Just back from Stephen Fry’s version of Cinderella at the Old Vic. Rollicking good fun, but I’m glad I didn’t have kids with me - awkward questions abound on the journey home, without a doubt. Which, I suspect, is probably his aim.
Dear oh dear. David Cameron’s constituency party has accepted illegal donations.
A pundit (one D. Cameron) recently said of funding scandals: “People will be asking themselves … if he can’t run his party properly, can he really run the country properly?” Good point, well made.
Political funding is going to carry on raising these kind of scandals until it’s reformed. Even where donations are fully legal, opponents can often accuse donors of breaking the “spirit” of law - think about Labour’s attacks on Ashcroft’s undisclosed tax status, or the general suspicion around any large gift.
It seems really stupid, then, for the parties to go too far trying to get political capital out of this one (glass houses and all that). Disturbingly, I don’t think much of the electorate cares any more. The more these stories run, the more people will turn off politics all together.
I suspect all the major parties have researchers going over one another’s donors with a toothcomb. If this keeps everyone honest, it’s a good thing. But it might be wiser on the whole for the parties to actually get together and make the reforms they keep nervously mentioning, before they alienate yet more voters
Radio 1 has censored “Fairy Tale of New York”, muting “faggot” (OK, OK, and “old slut on junk”). However, as they haven’t banned the following, it’s officially okay to call someone a “bum”, “punk”, “scumbag” or “maggot”. Awesome. But whats so bad about bundles of sticks anyway?
With apologies to Blur, and credit to Mushroom for the idea. In the interest of balance, I’ll consider doing one on Dave and whoever the ‘Dems elect sometime soon.
I met him in a crowded room
During New Labour’s spending boom
He sat me down and so began
The story of a charmless man
Headed over from the treasury
Told me all his fiscal policy
But then all his macroeconomic stability
Ran into Northern Rock’s fragility
He went… (blah, blah, etc)
He thinks as heir to Tony Blair
Labour wouldn’t dare
Brief against him
Won’t reject him
He’s the man for five-year plans
He makes demands
But then his circle of advisers
Never criticises
And when you put it all together
Theres the model of a charmless man
He was a new broom with a moral plan
Which was scuppered by David Abrahams
But when my ID went missing from the van
I was getting sick of this charmless man
He’s late to sign the dotted line
Says it’s fine
To sign a “treaty”
Hopes it will be
He’s just so keen to keep the keys
To number ten
But yet again
The polls don’t look good for him
And when you put it all together
There’s the model of a charmless man
He thinks as heir to Tony Blair
Labour wouldn’t dare
Brief against him
Won’t reject him
He’s just so keen to keep the keys
To number ten
The polls just don’t look good for him
Could he be heading for the bin?
And when you put it all together
There’s the model of a charmless man
BBC News24: “One thing seems certain: offshore wind farms may be a big part of the UK’s energy future”. It’s certain that something might happen, eh? Decisive.
A comment on Robert Peston’s blog accused him of breaking the Northern Rock story “via greased-up contacts rather than actual investigative journalism”. I’m not too sure there’s a difference, really….
There’s a facebook group calling for “biased” BBC political editor Nick Robinson to be kicked out, as he’s “nothing” compared to Andrew Marr (his predecessor), and “Thatcher in disguise”. I disagree - and I think the group’s members are on rather shaky ground.
Firstly, I actually think Nick’s fantastic at his job (okay, maybe I just like his blog. And glasses.). Despite having to act as political correspondent across dozens (worryingly, that’s literal) of broadcast outlets daily, he keeps up a regular blog of consistently high quality. Personally, I’m a fan of the relaxed tone - while it might undermine the “gravitas” of the reporter, it illuminates where stories come from, why they’re covered in certain ways, and often where the correspondent is coming from in relation to it. Nick has been known to justify the questions he asks on there - if that’s not accountability, what is?
Much of his coverage isn’t exceptionally highbrow. At the risk of being coarse: no shit sherlock. TV political coverage, on a “mass appeal” channel like the BBC has to aim to be lively and inclusive. Those of us who like more extensive coverage are not short of outlets on the Beeb: Today remains excellent, Newsnight has its merits, and BBC Parliament is always there for the ardent fans. The dreaded two-up interview works because it keeps people engaged. The issue might be “dumbing down”, but I don’t really think Nick R’s to blame.
Leaving his merits or otherwise aside, the real charge is one of “bias”, and good gosh are those accusers on shaky ground. The usual suspects (let’s start, with, oooh, Guido and his charming Andrew Marr cartoon?) are all too keen to accuse the BBC of left-wing bias - the Mail even uses facebook data to back this up. Eleven times more BBC facebookers give their political allegiance as “liberal” than do “conservative”. It could be that Nick Robinson stands out because his (slight) bias is in the opposite direction to the corporation’s usual.
I don’t think the BBC is biased, or at least not intentionally so. You have people who naturally have partisan beliefs working towards a brief to be “impartial”. I believe they make their best effort to do this, and are generally successful. The problem is that those of a right-wing disposition are less likely to *want* to join a state broadcaster in the first place, so the population of the organisation will always be skewed. If compensating for one’s own bias is going to be imperfect (and it is), then a skewed population may lead to some slight overall bias - though this can be minimised through effective safeguards and scrutiny.
If your solution to this dilemma is to exclude anyone who’s ever publicly declared a political allegiance from the corporation, so be it, but expect the quality of journalists at the corporation to fall sharply. As a large proportion of the facebook group are members of the Labour Party (or student labour groups), I would expect them to uphold that principle themselves, naturally.
Finally, it worries me how political student union representatives allow themselves to be. Martin McCluskey’s (Oxford University Student Union president) membership of the odd facebook group matters little - his labour club past is a matter of public note. But Gemma Tumelty’s decision to sign a Guardian letter calling for the UK to support the outcome of Venezuela’s referendum was frankly outrageous.
The NUS (and its local student union branches) has an important role representing students, but also providing welfare services. Unlike other unions, many students are “automatically” NUS members. This means they have a duty to represent all students, not just those who share their political views. Leaping into such partisan issues, with such little relevance to students, is not an appropriate part of that role.
Gosh, the folks over at the Telegraph are daring: using “information technology experts” they’ve found over “20 key pieces of information” about Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner, for only 35p.
The article mentions warnings about “too much information” being posted to social networking sites, and criminals allegedly selling bank details online.
So, what have our intrepid Telegraph experts been getting involved in? Are they irrevocably steeped in criminality? Are they heck.
My hunch is that the main source for their info is that hotbed of vice, 192.com. In addition to the usual directory enquiry services, they offer searches of the electoral rolls, register of birth marriages and deaths, and some basic director info (think Companies House-lite)
What’s the evidence? I have none but the price paid. 35p (plus VAT) is the price for a “credit” on the site. With what you can get for free elsewhere, some regular directory enquiry searches, and sparing use of the paid for facilities, you could get “20 key pieces” of information on ANYONE.
That may well worry you – as, I’m sure, would the knowledge that anyone can order a copy of your birth or marriage certificate, wholly legally. They can also look up details of your mortgage and house price, company directorships, and with some work, shareholdings. Makes you wonder why you shred your data so carefully, really, doesn’t it?
So yes, less scaremongering over all this ID theft malarkey. It’s not so much that people wouldn’t go through your bins to steal, if necessary. It’s more that they just really don’t need to.
Okay, this probably qualifies as cheeky, but since this is the first solid “investigative” news story I’ve worked on for a national paper, I thought I’d at least mention it here. The results of a FoI investigation Heather Brooke carried out on police forces across the UK were published today. The story’s reprinted below, but linked here. Heather Brooke has an “analysis” piece in the Times, too, linked here.
I believe she’s also planning to publish the full data set on her blog (www.yrtk.org). If you’re interested, a few interesting bonus snippets to look for therein are litigation rates, which vary right between 0-100% of court claims making it to trial, and also the weird level of national variation between England, Northern Ireland, Wales, and Scotland - suggestions on why the latter two have lower payout rates despite higher levels of poverty (and in some areas, crime) gratefully received. The Times story follows:
Police forces have paid out more than £44 million in compensation and damages in the past five years, mostly to victims of alleged police misconduct, The Times has learnt.
The bulk was paid out for wrongful arrests, assaults, malicious prosecutions and abuses of human rights, according to data obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FoI).
The figures show that between 2002 and 2007 the 55 police forces received more than 31,000 claims.
The Police Service of Northern Ireland, the successor to the Royal Ulster Constabulary, received 150 claims for every 100,000 people in the Province and paid out £9.5 million in court judgments, settlements and compensation.
The survey also exposed defects in the way in which forces keep their records. More than half did not keep accessible records of claims, complaints or court cases. Others kept no separate record of damages awarded to victims of police misconduct, recording only total damages – including sums paid to settle employment tribunal claims and vehicle damage.
In all, 31,829 claims were lodged over five years, resulting in 1,825 court actions. But only 467, or 24 per cent, of those claims reached court. Most were settled or paid off.
The survey was conducted by Heather Brooke, an FoI expert and author of Your Right to Know. She asked police forces how many claims had been threatened or brought, defining “claim” as any written demand for financial compensation or other relief arising from alleged unlawful acts or omissions in the course of police operations.
They included alleged misconduct, assault, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and misfeasance or private law claims under the Human Rights Act.
Top of the payout league table (omitting the City of London because of its transient population) is the Police Service of Northern Ireland, with £597,801 paid per 100,000 population. Next is Cleveland Police, which paid out £597,169 per 100,000. These figures took all compensation claims into account, not just those made by people complaining of mistreatment.
Greater Manchester paid £394,703 per 100,000 population. This figure covered only public liability payouts arising from alleged misconduct or mistakes during police operations. Police forces say that part of the problem is the “compensation culture” and that most payments are made after discussion with their police authorities and often on the basis of legal advice.
John Feavyour, Assistant Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire, and spokesman on complaints for the Association of Chief Police Officers, said: “Policing often requires the use of force, which can incur damages to people and property. However, it is important that these figures are put into perspective, given the vast number of incidents that the police attend and the positive effect that these invariably have on public confidence.
“Public accountability is an essential pillar of modern policing and when the police service is at fault it is essential that it remains accountable to the public by ensuring appropriate compensation. Each force is subject to its own audit mechanisms to ensure that where and when required, due compensation is paid.”
A spokesman for PSNI said: “Over the years the PSNI had to face a high number of incidents of public disorder and we are also still dealing with cases relating to the legacy of the Troubles.”
Of the total, more than a quarter, nearly £12 million, was awarded after a court judgment or paid out after an agreed settlement. Of those awards, the mean settlement was £6,552 and the mean compensation payout £1,386. A spokesman for Cleveland Police said that its figure of the total paid out in compensation was wrongly inflated because it included legal costs paid out to claimants as well as the police’s costs in defending claims. The true figure of damages and compensation paid out in 2006-07 was £461,889, it said.
But Ms Brooke said that the question encompassed all money paid out, whether directly in compensation or to lawyers in legal fees.
(Frances Gibb, Sean O’Neill and James Ball)
“We realise that the headline we printed might have given the impression that Swindon and the rest of the country were in the process of being consumed in a maelstrom of superheated doom.”
Best. Apology. Ever. The Swindon Advertiser ran a story titled “Houses damaged as parts of the UK struck by volcanoes”. Alas this was slightly untrue. How did the error creep in? “We would like to clarify that the headline above Tuesday’s story was the result of a headline-writer having the word “volcanoes” pop into their mind when they meant to write “tornadoes”.”
In fact, the apology’s so good I’m printing it in full. Read the original here:
ON Tuesday, the Swindon Advertiser carried a story on page six under the headline: “Houses damaged as parts of UK struck by volcanoes.”
As we are well known as an excellent source of accurate and unbiased local and national news, this headline caused a degree of bemusement among many readers.
Looking from their windows, they were surprised (although not unpleasantly) to see the same landscape as ever, rather than plumes of molten rock and deadly poisonous gas being blasted dozens of miles into the sky.
It was also with some relief that they noted the roads to be free of glowing lava flows that melted cars and instantly vaporized any life forms unfortunate enough to cross their path.
Such lava flows would have prolonged commuting times considerably, even without the added inconvenience of having the entire community and everything in it entombed by a yards-deep blanket of red hot pumice.
Some readers, such as Roger Hern, wondered whether our headline was an early April Fool’s joke. He emailed to ask: “Exactly where did these volcanoes hit the UK?”
advertisement
We would like to clarify that the headline above Tuesday’s story was the result of a headline-writer having the word “volcanoes” pop into their mind when they meant to write “tornadoes”.
We realise that the headline we printed might have given the impression that Swindon and the rest of the country were in the process of being consumed in a maelstrom of superheated doom.
We apologise for any distress or confusion this may have caused.
(hat-tip: holdthefrontpage)
