With an inner groan, I heard the news on the radio this morning. Steve Wright is returning to the afternoon show on Radio 2 tomorrow.
He has been off for the last few weeks; Dale Winton and latterly Chris Tarrant have presented (jockeyed?) instead. Both of them were far more entertaining than Wrighty (Love the show, Steve!). Truth be told, they were a lot less irritating.
Don't get me wrong, "Love-the-show-Steve" seems a nice enough guy, and I used to enjoy his show in his Radio 1 days. His characters Gervais the hairdresser and Sid the manager were fresh and funny. That was 25 years ago, though.
For me, disillusionment set in with his dreary co-presenter, Janey-Lee Grace. This holier-than-Thou vegetarian, green eco-mother is insufferable. Her arrogant assertion that her way of life, with its locally grown veggie boxes, and environmentally friendly this and that, is so boring that it quickly became irritating, then annoying. She doesn't have the personality needed to maintain interest on a radio show.
Gradually, the alienation I felt towards this awful woman started to transfer to the whole show, and everything about it. The unoriginal factoids, the tired, oft repeated 'oldies', horoscopes, celeb interviews, the whole show is worn-out.
Sorry to the affable Wrighty and his sidekick Tim Smiff, but the show needs to be replaced. This becomes obvious every time they are off, when the replacement show is always better.
If the controller of Radio 2 should read this - please act now!
Sunday 8 August 2010
Tuesday 10 March 2009
YouTube versus the Performing Right Society
Most people in the UK have, I think, heard the stories of the PRS demanding money with menaces from small businesses. Garages, hairdressers and workshops for example.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this particular spat, many people's perception of the PRS is of a vicious, thuggish bully of an organisation, ruthlessly pursuing the small guy for protection money. PR wise, they have shot themselves in the foot.
Even if they have right on their side, I am pre-inclined to side against them versus almost anybody else. A poor state of affairs they have created for themselves and the innocent workers they are paid to represent.
Well done to the management, have a bonus lads.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this particular spat, many people's perception of the PRS is of a vicious, thuggish bully of an organisation, ruthlessly pursuing the small guy for protection money. PR wise, they have shot themselves in the foot.
Even if they have right on their side, I am pre-inclined to side against them versus almost anybody else. A poor state of affairs they have created for themselves and the innocent workers they are paid to represent.
Well done to the management, have a bonus lads.
Saturday 24 January 2009
Why am I sceptical about man made global warming?
Does it strike you that many of the most evangelical environmentalists are also anti-capitalist, anti-western, anti-nuclear types? The type who would wish to curb our freedoms, regardless of any climate problems? Who appear to despise our way of life, while simeoultaneously benefitting from it?
Not the sort of people from whom I would choose to take advice, let alone orders. And yet, and yet, something has elevated them to the position where their whims have become our orders.
Of course, that something is the man-made (anthropomorphic) global warming theory, or AGW. Its official acceptance has been a God-send to every NIMBY, every hippy, every would-be bossy boots and town hall bully in the west. They welcome "green taxes" as ways of forcing us to change our behaviour, to bend to their will.
Many regimes have used mass participation as a method of drumming up support, resigning the masses to their circumstances and brainwashing. Think of the massed rallies beloved of totalitarian states, the Hitler youth, even the Home Guard in the UK. Force/ persuade people to participate and they will eventually accept the situation they are in.
Greens love to see fuel prices increase: we will be forced to drive less and live colder. They love landfill tax: we will be forced to spend our free time participating - sorting through our rubbish. They want councils to collect less often (rubbish that is, not money!), because that forces us to live with our sins for longer. We participate longer in the garbage cycle. They want our bins made smaller, and even weighed, to make us think, worry and then buy into their philosophy, or at least feel too helpless to resist.
That is their motivation, as it seems to me, but what was the motivation to make this accepted as the official theory?
To be continued...
Not the sort of people from whom I would choose to take advice, let alone orders. And yet, and yet, something has elevated them to the position where their whims have become our orders.
Of course, that something is the man-made (anthropomorphic) global warming theory, or AGW. Its official acceptance has been a God-send to every NIMBY, every hippy, every would-be bossy boots and town hall bully in the west. They welcome "green taxes" as ways of forcing us to change our behaviour, to bend to their will.
Many regimes have used mass participation as a method of drumming up support, resigning the masses to their circumstances and brainwashing. Think of the massed rallies beloved of totalitarian states, the Hitler youth, even the Home Guard in the UK. Force/ persuade people to participate and they will eventually accept the situation they are in.
Greens love to see fuel prices increase: we will be forced to drive less and live colder. They love landfill tax: we will be forced to spend our free time participating - sorting through our rubbish. They want councils to collect less often (rubbish that is, not money!), because that forces us to live with our sins for longer. We participate longer in the garbage cycle. They want our bins made smaller, and even weighed, to make us think, worry and then buy into their philosophy, or at least feel too helpless to resist.
That is their motivation, as it seems to me, but what was the motivation to make this accepted as the official theory?
To be continued...
Wednesday 7 January 2009
Well, is this one me?
Now I'm a fairly technically minded person. I served my apprenticeship studying aircraft systems, which rely absolutely on the predictable actions of scientific and atmospheric forces.
I earn my living through the practical application of physics, doing electrical and engineering fault diagnosis.
"Good for you!" I hear you shout, "but that doesn't make you an Einstein, does it?" Indeed it doesn't, by a long chalk.
It does though, give me an insight into the complexities involved. Unproven theories will not make it into a production aeroplane design, nor into a life-support machine.
But they do make it into government, E.U. and U.N. policy. I'm talking about global warming, of course, or climate change as we must now call it.
I am sceptical about this, as you may have guessed. Not because I know it is wrong (I don't), but because of the way it has come about, and the way it is presented. Nobody can really know whether it is fact or not, there is insufficient evidence.
It is almost the opposite of what I think of, when I think of science. It has more in common with religeon, really. It relies on blind faith and extrapolations based on scraps of facts, and woe betide any unbeliever!
I shall elaborate in a future post.
I earn my living through the practical application of physics, doing electrical and engineering fault diagnosis.
"Good for you!" I hear you shout, "but that doesn't make you an Einstein, does it?" Indeed it doesn't, by a long chalk.
It does though, give me an insight into the complexities involved. Unproven theories will not make it into a production aeroplane design, nor into a life-support machine.
But they do make it into government, E.U. and U.N. policy. I'm talking about global warming, of course, or climate change as we must now call it.
I am sceptical about this, as you may have guessed. Not because I know it is wrong (I don't), but because of the way it has come about, and the way it is presented. Nobody can really know whether it is fact or not, there is insufficient evidence.
It is almost the opposite of what I think of, when I think of science. It has more in common with religeon, really. It relies on blind faith and extrapolations based on scraps of facts, and woe betide any unbeliever!
I shall elaborate in a future post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)