The BBC's weird business 'journalist' (mouthpiece of the elite more like) Robert Peston kicked off the bonus story by telling us that there were only a few people who could run Royal Bank of Scotland.
He told us that Hester and the board could easily quit en masse and put millions of account holders at risk.
Before long, a sideshow was once again happily distracting us from the structural economic disaster that slowly envelopes us.
Hester played a great game. He let things get to a crescendo to take the maximum credit for not taking a measly few quid which will barely make a dent in his £5m package.
In future, payments will be restructured and turned into something as incomprehensible as the financial instruments which crippled our economy.
In this pantomime, the politicians were happy too. They look liked they are taking action when it is radical reform that is needed.
In fact, forget radical reform how about at least some radical debate.
Are there really only a handful of people in the world that can run High Street banks. If this is true, they will always be paid fortunes like footballers or actors.
It probably isn't true though. They did not understand what was happening much better than the accounts clerk...at Clarks.
We've 'expermented' with bank de-regulation. Time to 'experiment' with regulation and a chief executive salary cap of 250k.
Sunday, 19 February 2012
Monday, 30 January 2012
Wacky racists? Liberals celebrate Stephen Lawrence
No-one can be unhappy to see what would appear to be two deeply unpleasant individuals being convicted of a heinous crime.
But liberals yet again strolled into an authoritarian trap by expressing their glee following the Stephen Lawrence murder retrial.
The disappearance of double jeopardy will not encourage the police to get things right first time and may see people being effectively persecuted by the law.
And there is every chance some of those being persecuted might in fact be ethnic minorities.
Little was also said about the police officers who messed up the original investigation. Given how well known the suspects were, there remains mystery about why so little action was taken against those officers.
McPherson talks about institutional racism - a phrase which remains conveniently enigmatic, a term which screams out process adjustment rather than radical rethink.
Given that black police officers are known to mistreat blacks in the US, I wonder if this whole mess was about the police not caring about crime in poor areas. Race has been the decoy all along.
Nothing has been done to address the issue either.
The final odious occurrence was the Daily Mail claiming this as their victory.
This was the newspaper who recently had to admit their winterval story was false. Why make up claims that Xmas was being abolished?
You might think it was harmless tabloid fun. In fact, this was about stoking racial fear, about exploiting that dormant sensibility in Britons, of all colours, that the foreigners represent a threat to things as dear as Xmas.
It is the backbone of the Mail's coverage to continually, in the face of all evidence, suggest that foreigners are a threat and ethnic minorities continue to suffer - mostly in silence.
But liberals yet again strolled into an authoritarian trap by expressing their glee following the Stephen Lawrence murder retrial.
The disappearance of double jeopardy will not encourage the police to get things right first time and may see people being effectively persecuted by the law.
And there is every chance some of those being persecuted might in fact be ethnic minorities.
Little was also said about the police officers who messed up the original investigation. Given how well known the suspects were, there remains mystery about why so little action was taken against those officers.
McPherson talks about institutional racism - a phrase which remains conveniently enigmatic, a term which screams out process adjustment rather than radical rethink.
Given that black police officers are known to mistreat blacks in the US, I wonder if this whole mess was about the police not caring about crime in poor areas. Race has been the decoy all along.
Nothing has been done to address the issue either.
The final odious occurrence was the Daily Mail claiming this as their victory.
This was the newspaper who recently had to admit their winterval story was false. Why make up claims that Xmas was being abolished?
You might think it was harmless tabloid fun. In fact, this was about stoking racial fear, about exploiting that dormant sensibility in Britons, of all colours, that the foreigners represent a threat to things as dear as Xmas.
It is the backbone of the Mail's coverage to continually, in the face of all evidence, suggest that foreigners are a threat and ethnic minorities continue to suffer - mostly in silence.
Sunday, 25 December 2011
Luis Suarez case shows racial hatred is merely supressed
I was always told sweeping things under my bed was not the same as cleaning my room.
The fight against racism is in a similar state. Liberals have focussed their energies on using the penal system to 'eradicate' racism.
This is oddly illiberal as anyone of such a political bent knows that the penal system is probably the worst way to improve society.
Liverpool footballer Luis Suarez is an unlikely case in point. He was given an eight match ban for racially insulting another player. It was a ban of unprecedented length.
This is what the liberals want - punishment for racist behaviour.
This punishment has martyred Suarez in the eyes of racists and similar. The Liverpool team all wore T shirts in his support.
Suarez tried to blame a cultural misunderstanding. But he has played in Europe for years and was clearly engaged in an aggressive conversation with his opponent. They were insulting each other vigourously, as is the norm for football.
The word which he used - negro or negrito - found itself being hurled around Twitter by racists or miscreants targeting black footballers who use the social media site.
Of course Suarez deserved some punishment. And it is good to see that some in football criticised Liverpool's attempt to dismiss - and ignore - the incident (motivated because Suarez is their star player).
But all that we are doing is simply banning language which then drags in the immature, idiotic and furious into a huge legal dragnet.
None of the causes of racial hatred are being addressed. Eventually, these tendencies will simply become to large to bury and will be represented in far worse terms than a fight between two rich, ignorant athletes.
This is also a further example of using methods that they have previously disowned to achieve policy goal, thus further highlighting how liberalism is rendered paralysed by knotting itself in profound hypocrisy.
And finally, excessive punishment creates martyrs of the victims and the dangerously false perception that those prosecuted under racism laws are the 'real' victims.
The fight against racism is in a similar state. Liberals have focussed their energies on using the penal system to 'eradicate' racism.
This is oddly illiberal as anyone of such a political bent knows that the penal system is probably the worst way to improve society.
Liverpool footballer Luis Suarez is an unlikely case in point. He was given an eight match ban for racially insulting another player. It was a ban of unprecedented length.
This is what the liberals want - punishment for racist behaviour.
This punishment has martyred Suarez in the eyes of racists and similar. The Liverpool team all wore T shirts in his support.
Suarez tried to blame a cultural misunderstanding. But he has played in Europe for years and was clearly engaged in an aggressive conversation with his opponent. They were insulting each other vigourously, as is the norm for football.
The word which he used - negro or negrito - found itself being hurled around Twitter by racists or miscreants targeting black footballers who use the social media site.
Of course Suarez deserved some punishment. And it is good to see that some in football criticised Liverpool's attempt to dismiss - and ignore - the incident (motivated because Suarez is their star player).
But all that we are doing is simply banning language which then drags in the immature, idiotic and furious into a huge legal dragnet.
None of the causes of racial hatred are being addressed. Eventually, these tendencies will simply become to large to bury and will be represented in far worse terms than a fight between two rich, ignorant athletes.
This is also a further example of using methods that they have previously disowned to achieve policy goal, thus further highlighting how liberalism is rendered paralysed by knotting itself in profound hypocrisy.
And finally, excessive punishment creates martyrs of the victims and the dangerously false perception that those prosecuted under racism laws are the 'real' victims.
Saturday, 5 November 2011
Word banning is another misplaced micro-cause
Ricky Gervais nearly became a hero for free speech until protecting his movie career suddenly became more important.
Gervais was defending the use of the word 'mong' He claimed the word had changed meaning and was now all right to use as a jokey insult.
Then up popped a disability rights campaigner whose two children had suffered verbal abuse. She broke down on the radio and Gervais quickly caved in and said sorry.
There was a very easy riposte to the campaigner though. While the word may be unpleasant, the major issue is the behaviour of those saying.
Following this logic, you might want to also ban words like idiot, thicko fatty - all verbal tools of any playground bully worth his salt.
Racial words have been effectively banned too and it seems this has created a 'word banning' fetish among social justice campaigners.
Yet this seems to cause terrible confusion when ethnic groups themselves re-appropriate these words in a bizarre attempt to emancipate from subjugation.
Here again, liberals can be seen fighting the symptoms rather than the cause.
Gervais was defending the use of the word 'mong' He claimed the word had changed meaning and was now all right to use as a jokey insult.
Then up popped a disability rights campaigner whose two children had suffered verbal abuse. She broke down on the radio and Gervais quickly caved in and said sorry.
There was a very easy riposte to the campaigner though. While the word may be unpleasant, the major issue is the behaviour of those saying.
Following this logic, you might want to also ban words like idiot, thicko fatty - all verbal tools of any playground bully worth his salt.
Racial words have been effectively banned too and it seems this has created a 'word banning' fetish among social justice campaigners.
Yet this seems to cause terrible confusion when ethnic groups themselves re-appropriate these words in a bizarre attempt to emancipate from subjugation.
Here again, liberals can be seen fighting the symptoms rather than the cause.
Friday, 23 September 2011
Michael Haneke's White Ribbon
Michael Haneke's new film is a dour but powerful meditation on the abuse of power in an isolated German community.
At the outset of World War One, a quiet village is hit by an increasingly worrying set of mysteries which leave a doctor injured and a handicapped boy mutilated.
As this drama unfurls in typically taut Haneke fashion, we begin to see a community where the respected institutions and moral arbiters are wilfully abusing power.
Peasants work in unsafe environs or are sexually abused (by the doctor in one instance).
Meanwhile, the local pastor rages at his children over what seem trivial matters, insisting that they wear white ribbons until they can behave.
In an attempt to stifle this bleak portrait, Haneke creates a rather unconvincing romance between the film's narrator, who is a schoolteacher in the village, and a nanny.
The film attempts to hint at the deep sickness in German (and perhaps European) society in the years leading up to the first of the 20th century's great bloodbaths.
The abuses of power we see are ultimately linked to the dreadful incidents which take place in the village. It is a place without innocence.
Whilst the performances are suffocating and excruciatingly exact, this is ultimately a heavy handed piece (notwithstanding some beautifully shot, atmospheric scenes).
There is something mediaeval about the society portrayed in the film. For a director who prides himself on denying the audience easy answers, it is surprising that his film is filled with such unremitting contempt for its subjects.
At the outset of World War One, a quiet village is hit by an increasingly worrying set of mysteries which leave a doctor injured and a handicapped boy mutilated.
As this drama unfurls in typically taut Haneke fashion, we begin to see a community where the respected institutions and moral arbiters are wilfully abusing power.
Peasants work in unsafe environs or are sexually abused (by the doctor in one instance).
Meanwhile, the local pastor rages at his children over what seem trivial matters, insisting that they wear white ribbons until they can behave.
In an attempt to stifle this bleak portrait, Haneke creates a rather unconvincing romance between the film's narrator, who is a schoolteacher in the village, and a nanny.
The film attempts to hint at the deep sickness in German (and perhaps European) society in the years leading up to the first of the 20th century's great bloodbaths.
The abuses of power we see are ultimately linked to the dreadful incidents which take place in the village. It is a place without innocence.
Whilst the performances are suffocating and excruciatingly exact, this is ultimately a heavy handed piece (notwithstanding some beautifully shot, atmospheric scenes).
There is something mediaeval about the society portrayed in the film. For a director who prides himself on denying the audience easy answers, it is surprising that his film is filled with such unremitting contempt for its subjects.
Sunday, 21 August 2011
NewsBrain Film: Never Let Me Go
Kazuo Ishiguro's disappointing novel Never Let Me Go fares little better with an Alex Garland screenplay and the obligatory drama-school-by-numbers Britflick cast.
Even though Ruth (Keira Knightley), Kathy (Carey Mulligan) and Tommy (Andrew Garfield) appear to be in the bosom of a privileged boarding school, they are in fact doomed to a dreadful fate due to the dystopic central idea which defines their society.
Ishiguro, a darling of the literary establishment, clearly found the idea of taking on a science fiction theme rather daring.
But his dystopia is cliched and not fully formed. True to form of such an author, the story quickly rampages toward the literati's favourite topic, 'unrequited love'.
Garland's script sticks to the heavy seriousness of Ishiguro's prose. We see the characters slowly come to realise their fates while, at the same time, a love triangle between them develops.
Never Let Me Go wants us to believe, for most of the film, that these individuals live in a bubble despite the dreadfulness of a future which they are fully aware of.
It is as if Ishiguro got bored of his dystopia and quickly rushed back to the safety of pained expressions and the melancholic eyes of wistful idealism.
Even this film's ideas about love seem twee, lost as they are in one of Wordsworth's perfect summer days.
The three stars are drama school automatons and overplay each 'stolen' look as it becomes clear that Tommy's initial choice of girlfriend will not make him happy. They are also ludicrously overstyled.
As the film concludes, suddenly the consequences of their fate sparks a flash of protest. But ultimately this is a tame film of half-ideas.
At its most interesting, it seeks to show how the worst treated seem to cling most to the purest of ideals.
But relations between the three protagonists feel rather tedious and the film chooses to offer little in the way of meditation on its main theme, man's insatiable quest to live forever.
Even though Ruth (Keira Knightley), Kathy (Carey Mulligan) and Tommy (Andrew Garfield) appear to be in the bosom of a privileged boarding school, they are in fact doomed to a dreadful fate due to the dystopic central idea which defines their society.
Ishiguro, a darling of the literary establishment, clearly found the idea of taking on a science fiction theme rather daring.
But his dystopia is cliched and not fully formed. True to form of such an author, the story quickly rampages toward the literati's favourite topic, 'unrequited love'.
Garland's script sticks to the heavy seriousness of Ishiguro's prose. We see the characters slowly come to realise their fates while, at the same time, a love triangle between them develops.
Never Let Me Go wants us to believe, for most of the film, that these individuals live in a bubble despite the dreadfulness of a future which they are fully aware of.
It is as if Ishiguro got bored of his dystopia and quickly rushed back to the safety of pained expressions and the melancholic eyes of wistful idealism.
Even this film's ideas about love seem twee, lost as they are in one of Wordsworth's perfect summer days.
The three stars are drama school automatons and overplay each 'stolen' look as it becomes clear that Tommy's initial choice of girlfriend will not make him happy. They are also ludicrously overstyled.
As the film concludes, suddenly the consequences of their fate sparks a flash of protest. But ultimately this is a tame film of half-ideas.
At its most interesting, it seeks to show how the worst treated seem to cling most to the purest of ideals.
But relations between the three protagonists feel rather tedious and the film chooses to offer little in the way of meditation on its main theme, man's insatiable quest to live forever.
Sunday, 14 August 2011
Andrew Gilligan's incredibly stupid journalism
The Right is tub thumping. Lock 'em all up is the cry.
One thing they have been keen to peddle, is the idea that none of these rioters were poor or jobless. They were just BASTARDS.
Andrew Gilligan's piece in the Telegraph heavily implied that the rioters were not poor or alienated.
It began:
They were, some told us, the alienated poor, those without hope, lashing out in rage and despair. But as the accused London rioters started appearing in court they included university students, a rich businessman’s daughter and a boy of 11.
Yet later it said:
Most defendants conformed more closely to Mr Cameron’s “sick society” template.
So even the right wing Telegraph admits the obvious and logical supposition that there would a strong demographic link between those that caused trouble.
Yet Toby Young had not read the piece fully and decided to quote:
The eye-opening revelation of the Court hearings today and yesterday is that there’s no such thing as a typical rioter
What I am intrigued is the psycho-political motivation in such a futile point. Is it just lazy pseudo intellects once again proving standards have terminally slipped at Oxbridge? (Young is an alumni).
I suspect it is simply a kneejerk protectiveness of a society which is 'theirs', which they fanatically believe to have been a success. Are they not in denial about the banks too?
Imagine if they were right? If rioters were not definable by social factors and had simply 'chosen' to riot, quite simply to 'get stuff' this would then suggest that ordinary citizens have no respect for the law or fear for the consequences of transgressing it.
No free society would be sustainable with such nihilism in its mainstream! The right had better pray those rioters are poor.
They are also seeking to simplify the debate. To reassure a panicked public, simply create a 'good and bad' narrative, then posit yourselves as on the side of 'good'. Job done.
One thing they have been keen to peddle, is the idea that none of these rioters were poor or jobless. They were just BASTARDS.
Andrew Gilligan's piece in the Telegraph heavily implied that the rioters were not poor or alienated.
It began:
They were, some told us, the alienated poor, those without hope, lashing out in rage and despair. But as the accused London rioters started appearing in court they included university students, a rich businessman’s daughter and a boy of 11.
Yet later it said:
Most defendants conformed more closely to Mr Cameron’s “sick society” template.
So even the right wing Telegraph admits the obvious and logical supposition that there would a strong demographic link between those that caused trouble.
Yet Toby Young had not read the piece fully and decided to quote:
The eye-opening revelation of the Court hearings today and yesterday is that there’s no such thing as a typical rioter
What I am intrigued is the psycho-political motivation in such a futile point. Is it just lazy pseudo intellects once again proving standards have terminally slipped at Oxbridge? (Young is an alumni).
I suspect it is simply a kneejerk protectiveness of a society which is 'theirs', which they fanatically believe to have been a success. Are they not in denial about the banks too?
Imagine if they were right? If rioters were not definable by social factors and had simply 'chosen' to riot, quite simply to 'get stuff' this would then suggest that ordinary citizens have no respect for the law or fear for the consequences of transgressing it.
No free society would be sustainable with such nihilism in its mainstream! The right had better pray those rioters are poor.
They are also seeking to simplify the debate. To reassure a panicked public, simply create a 'good and bad' narrative, then posit yourselves as on the side of 'good'. Job done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
