Posts Tagged ‘Hypocrisy

24
Oct
11

Occupy London – Hypocrisy & detachment of the establishment

“You can't wash your hands of the consequence of your actions” - What a hypocrite!

You can’t wash your hands of the consequence of your actions - Mathew Hancock, MP

“You can’t wash your hands of the consequence of your actions” said Mathew Hancock MP this afternoon on Radio 4′s PM program. The topic was the financial crisis but Mr. Hancock was not talking about the bankers, he was talking about the protesters!

Mathew Hancock, Conservative MP for West Suffolk, was interviewed by Eddie Mair along with Richard Murphy of Tax Research UK. Mr. Murphy was sympathetic to the protesters, talked about changing the financial system and got in a plug for his book The Courageous State.

Mr. Hancock was not sympathetic and went on to say some very stupid things. He said that it was fair to ask the protesters what they’re campaigning for and how it should be achieved. He said that it was reasonable that they’ve made their point but that now it is time to look forward to the detail of achieving the world that they want to create.

Mathew Hancock was TALKING BOLLOCKS.

Firstly, the idea that the protesters have made their point and should leave him and his buddies to address the situation is self satisfied tosh! If the protesters just pack up and go home then the bankers and the politicians will merely carry on as usual. The current Conservative pre-occupation with getting out of the EU is evidence that the unfairness of the bailout has slipped right off the governments agenda.

Secondly, the idea that it is not possible to protest unless you have a solution is utter rubbish! It is like the triage nurse at a hospital telling a sick man to go away until he had developed a cure for his ailment.

It is an indication of how out of touch our politicians are that Mr. Hanock expects ordinary men and women to do a better job of running banks than those paid millions for their supposed expertise. It was not the job of ordinary tax payers to keep an eye on the banking industry and we should not expect them to set policy but it is their right to protest and make themselves heard so that those who do have the knowledge and the power can recognise their concerns and adjust policy.

However, it was another of Mr. Hancok’s statements that really angered me but first let me tell you about another Radio 4 program over the weekend. In BBC Radio 4′s, The Bottom Line on Saturday Evan Davis interviewed the chairman of a boutique merchant bank, the chief executive of a financial advisory firm and the chief executive of a savings and investment group. When these men tried to dismiss the accusations that the bankers were to blame for the financial crisis Mr. Davis got fairly miffed and stated that just prior to the credit crunch, after a boom which had run on for ten years (and was therefore due to bust), a major bank had lent £40 for every £1 it had in deposits. This meant that if the value of its investments were to fall by just 2% the bank would be insolvent. This is incompetence and complacency on a massive scale. Further, at the same time, while the economy was booming, the Chancellor, Gordon Brown, was running a deficit. (If you can’t repay debt in the good times then when can you?)

This evening on PM, Mr. Hancock said that the protesters outside St. Paul’s had caused the cathedral to close, losing the church around £20,000 a day, that actions have consequences and “You can’t wash your hands of the consequence of your actions”!

According to Wikipedia, before becoming an MP, Mr. Hanock was an economist at the Bank of England, specialising in the housing market. It is further testament to his utter hypocrisy that he can utter such statements without a hint of irony. This out of touch pillock is quite content to let the politicians and bankers destroy a whole industry then walk away with fat bonuses yet has the gall to accuse others of not taking responsibility for their actions.

Even now, the bankers do not understand that they only have jobs because they were bailed out by ordinary citizens, such as those spending their nights outside St. Paul’s.

Something’s gotta change.

About these ads
05
Mar
11

A little less conversation and a little more action

good buddies

good times

Hypocrisy seems to be high on everyone’s list since the rebellions started in the middle east. The media have been reporting that the great and the good have been fraternising with defunct Arab establishments.

First Sir Howard Davies resigned as director of the London School of Economics because of a connection with the, now out of favour, Gaddafi regime and now we discover that Prince Andrew has “entertained” a leading member of the deposed Tunisian dictatorship at Buckingham Palace

Yes, from what I can gather Muammar Gaddafi is a shit. Yes, he has been ruthless and abominable in his dealings with the Libyan people. But hold on, don’t we know some other people like that. Didn’t Tony Blair invite Chinese president Jiang Zemin on his first satte visit to a Western country? Didn’t the New Labour government arrange for three white transit vans to shield Jiang Zemin’s eyes from people in the UK protesting against the despicable treatment of the Tibetan people by the Chinese regime?

I am not saying that we should not do business with the Chinese. It’s too late for that now.

What the West needs is less grand standing on human rights and more disciplined rules on engagement with undemocratic regimes. Democracy should be understood as a great prize. Experience in democratic countries has shown that it is something which is difficult to achieve and requires constant vigilance to maintain. It is not something that we can order a nation to introduce overnight. It needs time to grow and mature.

So we should not go around the world condemning every regime which does not measure up to Western standards of democracy.  We should, however, encourage democracy and prefer democratic regimes over authoritarian regimes.

A good start would be for democracies to agree to refuse to grant Most Favoured Nation trading status to undemocratic regimes.

In the words of Elvis: A little less conversation and a little more action.

06
Feb
11

More Labour Promises

Labour Promises

More Labour Promises

I hear that Ed Miliband has warned that the young generation have been betrayed by spending cuts. Mr. Miliband is TALKING BOLLOCKS! It is right to be concerned that cuts to education could damage the potential of the next generation but it is absolute hypocrisy for Mr. Miliband to pretend that Labour policies are more friendly to the next generation than those of the coalition government.

It was on Labour’s watch that the UK ran up massive debt and Labour are now opposing every effort to bring the deficit down and repay the debt. The real betrayal of our children would be for us to escape cuts now by borrowing more money to service the debt and just pass the burden on to the next generation.

I also take issue with Mr. Miliband’s idea of a “British promise” that every generation will do better than the last. There has never been such a promise and we should not believe any politician stupid and arrogant enough to make such a promise. Indeed the driving hyper-industrialisation which lays behind this sort of thinking is unsustainable and deceitful. It is deceitful because while it pushes pointless trinkets into our hands it erodes our quality of life by depriving us of space, by driving us to work ever harder and by standardising and commercialisation our environment.

11
Jan
11

Wikileaks have opened a Pandora’s box of hypocrisy

Hypocrisy Rules

Hypocrisy Rules

Confusion reigns regarding legitimacy of Wikileaks but they may have done the world a favour by opening a Pandora’s box of hypocrisy over secrecy, privacy and information security.

Wikileaks have been dispersing information “leaked” by government or corporate employees for years now. However, what really put the cat amongst the pigeons when they released details from thousands of “cables” between United States Embassies around the world. The Americans responded by getting Paypal and Mastercard to stop processing payment transactions for Wikileaks though apparently these companies agreed without any legal intervention.

Meanwhile, the Swedish government is trying to extradite Wikileaks editor in chief Julian Assange from the United Kingdom under charges of rape. In accordance with Swedish law, the names of the alleged rape victims are confidential but Naomi Wolf in The Guardian is calling for the names to be published.

The U.S. authorities then issued a court order to get details of private Twitter messages for seven people whom they believe to be involved with Wikileaks. The original order stipulated that the court order must be kept secret so that even the people whose messages were being accessed would not be told. Wikileaks challenged this in the courts and we now know that the court order exists and that one of the people being investigated is an Icelandic Member of Parliament named Birgitta Jonsdottir.

A blogger who appeared on Channel 4 News on the 7th January complained that the U.S. authorities were spying on everyone and that nothing was really “private”. A lawyer interviewed worried that journalists were being prevented from defending the anonymity of their sources.

Then we have The Daily Telegraph sting where Business Secretary Vince Cable was prodded into a conversation where he discussed threatening to bring down the coalition. The Telegraph initially omitted to mention that Mr. Cable also claimed to have “declared war on Mr Murdoch”. This last tidbit was later leaked to the BBC.

We must not forget that the debate over information security takes place amidst a climate of fear of terrorism. Under New Labour the United Kingdom suffered more and more intrusive security measures justified by the need to confront the threat of terrorism. Police encourage this hysteria by preventing members of the public from taking photographs in public places.

The rational conclusion from this rumpus is that the concepts of privacy and freedom of information are under strain, that none of our data is secure and that all parties are behaving hypocritically.

However, Wikileaks may have done us all a favour by bringing the arguments to a head and this could be good for democracy if governments acknowledge and address the underlying issues.

The driving force behind the rise of Wikileaks and the challenges to privacy and freedom of information is modern information technology. In the past information has been stored on paper and was therefore difficult to copy and disperse. Though this may have been comparatively inefficient it meant that keeping information secure was relatively easy. Today’s technology allows vast amounts of data to be stored in devices no bigger than a postage stamp. It provides that data can be easily analysed and it facilitates easy dispersal via The Internet.

There are two aspects to the current chaos over information security. Firstly the data is obviously not adequately secured and secondly there is no agreement on what data should be freely available.

While securing information is technically possible, human factors make the process extremely difficult. Further, as data has become so concentrated, once a system is compromised the quantity of information dispersed can me enormous. All this has been known to information security professional for years yet we have not faced up to the fact that our efforts to secure information are not working.

All bureaucracies, such as governments, have a tendency toward secrecy. Rather than selecting information to be kept secret they prefer blanket regulations which keeps everything secret. Following pressure to release information the British Government responded with the Freedom Of Information Act 2000 which allows that some information can be released dependant on a public interest test. This is the wrong way around.

Rather than keeping everything secret and then allowing exceptions we should make everything freely available and only keep secret selected information.

Two things need to happen.

Firstly democratic countries need to define more clearly the information which can legitimately be categorised as secret or confidential and what information individuals can expect to keep private. All other information should then be freely available.

Secondly government and corporations should wake up to the responsibilities that is theirs because they hold vast amounts of other people’s information. This realisation should feed into some high level thinking about how to carry out effective information security and this should put a greater emphasis on professionalism together with standardisation of systems and processes. This will probably accelerate the current trend toward cloud computing.

Greater clarity over the rules on information security together with greater realisation of the challenges in securing that data can only be a good thing.

18
May
10

What now?

Since this blog started in January 2008 it has been mainly polemic. Polemic, I believe, justly targeting hypocrisy. Two commons targets have been Israel for continuing a racist policy of settlement building while branding all criticism of this policy as racist (anti-semitic) and New Labour for spending most of their energy on marketing a supposedly prudent economic policy while wasting huge amounts of money, dragging the UK into massive debt and achieving very little.

Tony Blair is now gone, Gordon Brown is out of government and, while the spectre of Peter Mandelson lingers like a fart in the House of Lords the nightmare of New Labour is finally over.

So what now? Who will I complain about now? Nothing new is happening in Palestine / Israel and I don’t see a resolution to that problem in the near future. So who can compete with the ghastly liars and frauds that comprised the upper echelons of New Labour? Who can match Blair when it comes to grinning like a crazed muppet while lying through his teeth?

It’s true that New Labour Next Generation are even as I write manoeuvring for position. The Millbands appear in public shaking hands and chirpily angling for advantage. Perhaps the Labour Party will resist being pushed into an early leadership election with just Pinky and Perky but I am not counting on it.

Probably Labour are out of power for a few years yet so the question is: Are the golden days of railing against hypocrisy and incompetence over? Will the Tory/Lib Dem coalition deliver fair and efficient government? Should I be searching for a new domain name. Talking Sense perhaps?

Somehow I don’t think I’ll need to.

28
Oct
09

Bun Fight – Question Time with Nick Griffin

Ill Informed Ranting

Ill Informed Ranting

I listened to Any Questions last week with the BNP leader Nick Griffin. I’d previously blogged about this and a friend email me to say that she thought that, contrary to my opinion, some people were too stupid to be exposed to Griffin’s sort of talk.

I’d respond that, while it’s true that stupid people are more susceptible to the ill informed rantings of racists (IIROR) they ar also more susceptible to the ill informed rantings of non-racists.

And good grief there was a lot of ill informed ranting on both sides in last week’s Question Time. It was a bun fight as I had predicted. Nobody let Nick Griffin finish a sentence. Everyone condemned him before he had a chance to condemn himself. I thought it was a missed opportunity to let the bloke show himself for what he was.

Someone asked him why he visited a Ku Klux Klan leader in America and he started to explain and said that this particular group were “almost totally non-violent” which I thought was a little gem but nobody was able to pull him up on this as no sooner had he uttered the words than the other panellists were asking him other questions and deriding his smile and they never actually picked up on this “almost totally..”.

It frustrates me that the self riotous lefties cannot bare for anyone to hear their opponents opinions. It’s as if they have no confidence in their own argument or opinions.

Bonnie Greer is a black American cultural commentator who usually appears on Newsnight reviewing films or theatre. She sat to Griffin’s left and he seemed constantly to be turning to her for approval.

Griffin made the point that everyone dismisses the idea that Britain has an “indigenous” people but they would not dare deny that Australian Aboriginals or Soux Indians are indigenous. I usually find Ms. Greer intelligent but last Thursday night she seemed determined to talk as much bollocks as everyone else. Pursuant to this she claimed that Britain does not have an indigenous population because it had an ice age! – Amazing.

I think much of the world had an ice age and if you’re going to claim that ice killed everyone off and so people had to immigrate into Britain then you could argue that for everyone in the world. There is even a respectable theory that organic compounds arrived on earth via comet debris and so you could argue that there are no indigenous people on Earth – If you want to be talking bollocks.

Chris Huhne, Sayeeda Warsi, Jack Straw, David Dimbleby, Nick Griffin and Bonnie Greer

Chris Huhne, Sayeeda Warsi, Jack Straw, David Dimbleby, Nick Griffin and Bonnie Greer

Jack Straw sat to Dimbleby’s right. I quite respect Mr Straw and he normally talks sense but he too joined in with the spirit of the evening. He said that he came from a line of immigrants of Jewish origin and during World War 2 all ethnic groups in Britain had pulled together and fought off the Hun. This is the sort of thing we British like, a mongrel breed that’s pulls together in a pinch.

However, Griffin popped his balloon quite quickly by pointing out that Straw’s dad had been a conscientious objector during the war whereas Griffin’s dad had been in the Royal Airforce.

Straw bemoaned Griffin’s anti-semitism but later, when Griffin was trying to say that he wanted to support the “indigenous” people of Britain and that colour was not important, Straw kept shouting “you mean white, you mean white”. Straw is as white as Griffin on my TV so he can’t claim to be discriminated against by Griffin just because he’s a Jew and then accuse Griffin of limiting indigenous people of Britain to whites.

People become idiots when it comes to racism and think it means hating black people. The point is that Griffin was telling the truth when he said that colour is not important. Griffin hates Poles as well as Indians. Czechs as well as Nigerians. But he was not given time to say so as the angry mob just kept yelling that he hated blacks.

One black guy from the audience said that he was born in England, it was the only country he knew and he loved this country. He then asked Griffin where he should go and Griffin said that he was quite happy for the guy to stay in England. This answer seemed to disappoint everyone present.

It was interesting that after spending 90% of the program on baiting Griffin they then turned to other questions and some black guy from the audience complained that New Labour had lost control of immigration. Straw then spouted some platitudes about implementing a points system before  Conservative MP  Sayeeda Warsi joined in the criticism of New Labour on immigration.

I guess this was encouraging in a way. That, though there was real concern about the numbers of people immigrating to the UK, nobody was drawn to be sympathetic to Griffin or to blame the immigrants themselves.

The next question was about a gay pop singer who had died in Spain and how a newspaper had written something..not sure what….I think it was supposed to be insulting to gay people. The question was about free speech in the news papers.

After not letting Griffen finnish a single sentence the hypocrites then pontificated in favour of the freedom of the press to print whatever they like.

The evening was spent trying to put words in Griffin’s mouth and then getting angry when he refused to agree with them. The whole thing was a farce.

A more evenly argued review of the program than this one was published in The Independent the next day.

16
Sep
09

Is Microsoft Racist?

A couple of weeks ago the news media carried a story covering a Microsoft advertisement which was used in Poland. The image had originally been used in The United States and showed three office workers, one of them black. The Polish version of the image had a white guy’s face superimposed on the black man. The image editor appeared to have forgotten about his hands which were the original colour giving the game away.

Microsoft Ad

Microsoft Ad

Accusations of racism ensued and Poland was branded a racist nation. However, branding a whole nation racist is itself a racist generalisation so let’s just think this through.

Microsoft ran an advert in a country with a diverse, ethically mixed population and wanted to run the same advert in another country with a predominantly white population.

When faced with these sorts of issues it is useful to alter aspects of the scenario slightly to challenge assumptions and see how this changes our reaction. So let’s say that the company was Chinese and they were selling to Kenya. Let’s say that the original image had three Chinese people. Would it be racist to change the image to one showing predominantly black people?

What if the Chinese company wanted to use the image in The United States but the U.S. marketing guys complained that the people in the image were not sufficiently ethnically diverse. The Chinese might respond that one guy was a Wega, one a Han Chinese and the other a Tibetan. Who’s the racist? The Chinese for not including a black guy or the Americans for thinking that all Orientals look the same?

Could Microsoft have run the same image showing only one black guy in an advert used in Nigeria? If they had, might this not be construed as lazy neo-imperialism?

The real question is this: Is it racist for a company to adjust the ethnic mix of characters in advertising to suit the target country? In my view it is not, it happens all the time. Advertisers design images so that the target audience will empathise with the people in the commercials and for this they try to reflect the ethnic make up of each country.

Other times advertisers might also try to project an image that people aspire to and this can mean that the people portrayed are of a different group than the target audience. An example of this was Australian TV advertising in the 1970s where English accents were used because they were considered more up market.

Nationality, race and ethnicity are all exploited to produce an image that the seller believes is attractive to the target audience. We all have prejudices and advertising executives make conscious attempts to exploit our unconscious prejudices. We believe that German cars are superior so Citroen tell us that the new C5 is “’Unmistakably German”.

We believe that Scots are prudent and so banks use Scottish accent for their commercials and who would dream of selling spaghetti source without an outrageous Italian accent?

There is an enormous block of hypocrisy on all sides of the racism debate and too many people scream

Rivers and Howe

Rivers and Howe

racism as a cover for their own prejudice. This ranges from the supposedly anti-racists liberals treating Africans like children to the automatic condemnation of all things “little England”.
Darcus Howe fell into this trap during a BBC Radio 4 discussion with Joan Rivers in 2005. He casually slandered Ms. Rivers by saying that the word “black” offended her. This absurd insult was vehemently denied by Ms. Rivers but what was interesting about this episode was that she picked up on it at all. Racists insults such as these are often ignored and the accusation of racism sticks by default.

 

Too often accusations of racism against organisations are met by an attempt to distance the organisation from the supposed perpetrators. Presumably this is done because of the fear that the organisation will be branded as racist but this distancing means implicit acceptance of racism and only serves to reinforce the public perception that the incident itself was racist. In the case of Microsoft and the Polish advert this is by no means clear.

Racism has become a taboo in modern society which probably stems from the recognition of the evil of the African slave trade and The Holocaust. The feeble minded have picked up on the necessity to be anti-racists and interpreted this as a prejudice against white people and a knee jerk accusation of racism whenever they hear the word “black”.

I enjoy BBC, Radio 4 comedy but am often surprised at the vitriol of Jeremy Hardy and Markus Brigstock when they attack some poor soul who they have deemed a racist. These two admirable comedians fall into the same trap as the racists: The automatic and prejudice vilification of an individual because of an assumed membership of a hated group. The audience appears to laughs and claps energetically but this is not from mirth but a desperate attempt to distance themselves from the target of the abuse.

I am reminded of a sinister piece of video showing Sadam Hussein when president of Iraq. He sits smoking a cigar while casually ordering individuals to be taken away by security guards. The remaining individuals become frenetic in their efforts to show their allegiance to Sadam.

She’s a witch, he’s a communist, you’re a racists! We invent groups to exclude people more than we do to include them. In the Christian bible Mathew asks: “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?”

The answer, of course, is to distract attention.

Irrespective of whether Poles as a group are racist or not the furore over the Microsoft advert is not evidence either way. It is business as usual in the advertising industry met by prejudiced people deflecting scrutiny of their own views by publicly accusing other.

As if the witch hunt of racism is not enough a new prejudice is evolving along with a new terminology of persecution. We are now called to hate all those who remain sceptical about climate change and so, as we drive our cars, we can assuage our guilt by hurling abuse at the Chelsea Tractors and the Gas Guzzlers.

Humans! – Hypocrites the lot of them.

16
Jun
09

Lord Rogers complaints over Prince Charles are hypocritical

 This morning I heard Lord Rogers on BBC Radio 4, Today program complaining that Prince Charles had overstepped his remit. Lord Rogers was tipped to build a new luxury apartment block on the site of the old Chelsea Barracks overlooking Hyde Park and Prince Charles has written to the sites owners complaining that the plan was unsympathetic.

On the Today program Lord Rogers was puffed with self riotous indignation (PUWSRI) and said that Prince Charles has broken the “constitutional understanding” governing the role of the monarchy. He also said that there could be “a dangerous political clash” unless the power of the royals is re-examined.

Home of the Future by Lord Rogers

Home of the Future by Lord Rogers

Lord Rogers is famous for controversial structures such as The Lloyds Building and The Millennium Dome and accuses Prince Charles of preferring classical designs. Lord Rogers said in the interview: “I think there’s a dangerous precedent that the Prince has entered into, which is very much about how he sees style,” and Lord Rogers said a committee of constitutional experts should be set up to examine “the powers of the Prince and his ability to change the political direction” and complains that Prince Charles is not an expert in the field of architecture. Lord Rogers makes mention of The Prince’s Trust which helps  disadvantaged young people. Presumably this also is unconstitutional and dangerous?

It seems to me (ISTM) that the construction of any public building is a matter for public debate and that one need not be an expert to express an opinion because large architectural projects affect thousands, if not millions, of people.

It’s interesting that Lord Rogers is so interested in democracy now that he is having problems getting one of his designs built. I don’t recall him arranging any referendum on The Lloyds Building or any of his previous buildings. Come to think of it, I don’t recall Lord Rogers expressing any interest in democracy when he was created Baron Rogers of Riverside in 1996.

In actuality Lord Rogers is part of an unelected establishment which feels free to, not only comment on, but make laws in The United Kingdom. The same unelected establishment which has the British monarchy at it’s head.
Lord Rogers does not care a fig for the British constitution or democracy but only about his own balance sheet. I wonder if Lord Rogers would quietly accept defeat if the criticism had come from Gordon Brown. Ah, but of course he wasn’t elected either.




Enter email address to receive notifications of new posts.

Join 135 other followers

Jonesxxx on Twitter

Images

Window

Self Portrait

Sunset

Low Tide

Low Tide

Yonge  Street

Rainy Window

Yacht

Fridge

Back Packs & Sausage Dog

More Photos
May 2013
M T W T F S S
« Apr    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 135 other followers