ITN News - Destroyed by ITV.
By Garry Cook
I read a blog recently berating the dumbness of ITV News. This was a revelation to me on two counts. It was the first time I’ve read a myspace blog that was not all ‘me, me, me, me, me’. And it was also the first time I’ve read a myspace blog which actually argued sense.
ITV News is rubbish. It was a thought I had been harbouring for a while.
The dumbness of dumbned down ITV News, or ITV Network News as it is known now, or ITN as it once was once known, is something that I have watched with increasing unease over the last two years.
I have always preferred ITV news over the esteemed BBC. I found the BBC’s news broadcasts dull and overly staid. The British Broadcasting Corporation could always make even the most exciting story seem lifeless, like a Radio 4 news bulletin.
In fact, I would never watch the BBC. I’d always waiting for ITV’s news. To me, ITV always hit the right note as far as dramatic presentation was concerned.
Sadly, that feeling has gone.
It’s not been around for a while.
Watching ITV News over the past two years has become increasingly difficult.
There have been one or two decent moments. Mark Austin’s week-long stint in China was the most recent. The same reporter anchoring the news in Kuwait/Iraq also ticked the right boxes. But on the whole it’s been one long slide down to banality.
Somewhere along the line ITN bosses decided celebrity was the way forward. Serious news has been replaced by the sensationalist chronicling of the lives of celebrities. The most trivial stories given unwarranted airtime – sometimes (appallingly) at the top of the show.
And most of these ‘news’ items are hijacked from the British (tabloid) newspapers with little or no additional reporting.
Nine times out of ten overseas news now comes packaged from a reporter at ITN’s HQ on the Grey’s Inn Road. Cheap, cheap cheap.
I also started to notice how serious news stories were increasingly given little or no coverage. Some months ago I was beginning to feel short-changed.
The final straw was the blatant Americanisation of the introductions at the top of the show. Tabloid headlines followed by questions by the presenters (questions which are rarely answered in the reports).
Everything at ITN is hyped to kingdom come with no substance.
Presenting: Mark Austin excellent, Katie Derham excellent. Correspondents: John Irvine excellent, James Mates excellent, Billy Neely excellent. ITN’s production values: total crap.
What must these reporters be thinking? What must they whisper to each other down The Griffin or round the other bars in Farringdon after work?
For me personally, watching this drivel, drastic action was needed. As a viewer, this can mean only one thing. I changed channels.
What I found was a revelation.
I don’t know if it was the BBC getting better, or just the contrast against an appalling ITN, but I actually enjoyed what I was watching.
Watching BBC news made me feel informed. Serious issues covered, especially politically and internationally. I began to feel like I was in the know.
And, on future technology and consumer affairs, the BBC came across like an authority rather than the Chris Choi half-day cobbled together reactionary piece from a Which? report that ITN news is.
The BBC is bringing genuinely new news stories to the screen. It is covering real events, really well. It makes you believe that there are still standards in journalism.
And if you can put aside Natasha Kaplinsky’s dancing and addiction to men, and the fact that Kate Silverton used to appear on The Wright Stuff and once posed in just her bra for that show, what you’ve got is decent news production values.
I see David Mannion’s name at the end of the credits of ITV News. Editor in Chief, I believe he is. Or is it Deborah Turness’ fault? She’s the editor of ITV Network News. You two can fight among yourselves over who takes the glory for destroying ITN.
All I know is that one of these two – if not both – need to stop watching American news stations and have the balls to stand up for hard news values (Note: Tonight with Trevor McDonald is not hard news, it’s not even good news, it’s magazine-style bollocks).
ITN continue to follow the low-brow celebrity coverage in a CNN-style – without the depth – I can see it being dropped to ITV2, to be replaced with a twice-weekly Enterta!nment! show presented by Jenni Falconer and Ben Shepherd.
And that would be the worst insult of all. ITN news, the once great institution, unflatteringly compared to GMTV.
God help the buggers.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Whale Meet
By Garry Cook
It’s not the encounter with a whale that dreams are made of. And it will probably spark a frenzy of abuse in my direction. But I have a confession to make: I ate whale steak and it was bloody great.
Let’s get one thing straight. I have done nothing underhand or illegal. I simply sat in a delightful restaurant on a frosty night in Bergen, Norway, and was served quite frankly, the best thing I have ever eaten.
Whale killing. Never was there a subject designed to rile even the most inactive environmentalist.
There are 11 species of whales – seven of which are categorised as endangered. There is no doubt that whale hunting was responsible for this. But since the 1960s hunting has almost ceased.
Whale’s are an endangered species. Hunting them is frowned upon by almost every single nation on planet earth. Killing them for scientific research is nothing more than a smokescreen, an excuse. Eating whale is abominable, yer murdering bastards. Don’t do it
In my defence I merely state that in Great Britain the biggest complaint about the collapse of society is that the Asian/Muslim/Polish/immigrant communities (delete where appropriate) do not embrace the British/Christian way of life.
I feel that by eating whale meat in Norway, I am simply sampling their way of life. Embracing their culture. Sympathetically bowing to their ways.
Norway is a fabulous country in many ways. Aesthetically it is amazing. Its landscapes and arrowing fjord waterways are stunning. And its infrastructure leads most of the Western world, too. Hospitals, health care, standard of living – all better than we enjoy in Britain.
The only downside is the cost of a good time. Food is a costly but manageable expense for the visitor. Booze, however, is almost prohibitive in its price. A pint of lager will cost GBP6 – and that’s if you find a cheap bar.
However, the price of beer is not Norwegian culture – but fishing is. With mountainous terrain hemmed in by thousands of miles of ragged and jagged coastline, Norway could only ever have developed as a seafaring nation.
Many of its cities and towns were accessible only by sea until recent times. Obviously much of Norway’s food came from the sea – and it still does. That this food should include whale meat is not really surprising.
Norway has resisted persistent calls from the International Whaling Commission to cease its whale hunting. The IWC launched a moratorium in 1982 which Norway still refuses to adhere to. And as something which has been part of its history, can we really complain? Can we Brits, the inhumane foxhunters, criticise them?
I have little time for people who abhor whale hunting simply because they are amazing creatures. So are pigs and lambs in my opinion.
However, I accept the argument that whales are an endangered species. I worry about them, too. But there are a few facts to point out.
There are 180,000 whales (mostly minke) in central and North East Atlantic and 700,000 around Antarctica. The northern mine is ranked as lower risk/near threatened.
The Inuit in Canada, the Japanese, the Faeroese and Iceland – who recently began whale hunting again - are the other whale hunting nations. Japan is the only nation using big hale-catchers.
If every country hunted whales then, yes, we would have a Dodo situation on our hands. However, it is unlikely that Norway, which kills around 630 minke whales a year is going to threaten the species. Norway used to hunt 2,000 minke whales every 12 months. Norway is fishing for whale conscientiously.
In fact, if things stay as status quo, the whale population should steadily increase. And that, after all, is how mankind should fit into his environment, by harvesting what he needs without driving resources to exhaustion. That goes for trees, oil, cows – and whales.
Should conservative whale hunting really be banned? Or are we just victims of mass hysteria? Are the Save the Whale-style campaigns built on fashionable politics and ignorance of the facts?
And when I sit and eat my whale steak, should I really live in fear that someone will find out? And should any travel piece focusing on Norway not mention whale meat just in case they upset the environmentalists or fish-loving activists?
When in Rome, do as the Romans do. When in Norway, eat whale.
Travel is about experiences. As long as it’s legal and you’re not pushing the boundaries of basic human decency, you should have nothing to be afraid of.
I reiterate once again: eating whale steak in Norway is legal. By all means evaluate your conscience (I couldn’t eat dog in South Korea myself for purely British cultural reasons) but don’t be ashamed to taste the local delicacy. Enjoy
By Garry Cook
It’s not the encounter with a whale that dreams are made of. And it will probably spark a frenzy of abuse in my direction. But I have a confession to make: I ate whale steak and it was bloody great.
Let’s get one thing straight. I have done nothing underhand or illegal. I simply sat in a delightful restaurant on a frosty night in Bergen, Norway, and was served quite frankly, the best thing I have ever eaten.
Whale killing. Never was there a subject designed to rile even the most inactive environmentalist.
There are 11 species of whales – seven of which are categorised as endangered. There is no doubt that whale hunting was responsible for this. But since the 1960s hunting has almost ceased.
Whale’s are an endangered species. Hunting them is frowned upon by almost every single nation on planet earth. Killing them for scientific research is nothing more than a smokescreen, an excuse. Eating whale is abominable, yer murdering bastards. Don’t do it
In my defence I merely state that in Great Britain the biggest complaint about the collapse of society is that the Asian/Muslim/Polish/immigrant communities (delete where appropriate) do not embrace the British/Christian way of life.
I feel that by eating whale meat in Norway, I am simply sampling their way of life. Embracing their culture. Sympathetically bowing to their ways.
Norway is a fabulous country in many ways. Aesthetically it is amazing. Its landscapes and arrowing fjord waterways are stunning. And its infrastructure leads most of the Western world, too. Hospitals, health care, standard of living – all better than we enjoy in Britain.
The only downside is the cost of a good time. Food is a costly but manageable expense for the visitor. Booze, however, is almost prohibitive in its price. A pint of lager will cost GBP6 – and that’s if you find a cheap bar.
However, the price of beer is not Norwegian culture – but fishing is. With mountainous terrain hemmed in by thousands of miles of ragged and jagged coastline, Norway could only ever have developed as a seafaring nation.
Many of its cities and towns were accessible only by sea until recent times. Obviously much of Norway’s food came from the sea – and it still does. That this food should include whale meat is not really surprising.
Norway has resisted persistent calls from the International Whaling Commission to cease its whale hunting. The IWC launched a moratorium in 1982 which Norway still refuses to adhere to. And as something which has been part of its history, can we really complain? Can we Brits, the inhumane foxhunters, criticise them?
I have little time for people who abhor whale hunting simply because they are amazing creatures. So are pigs and lambs in my opinion.
However, I accept the argument that whales are an endangered species. I worry about them, too. But there are a few facts to point out.
There are 180,000 whales (mostly minke) in central and North East Atlantic and 700,000 around Antarctica. The northern mine is ranked as lower risk/near threatened.
The Inuit in Canada, the Japanese, the Faeroese and Iceland – who recently began whale hunting again - are the other whale hunting nations. Japan is the only nation using big hale-catchers.
If every country hunted whales then, yes, we would have a Dodo situation on our hands. However, it is unlikely that Norway, which kills around 630 minke whales a year is going to threaten the species. Norway used to hunt 2,000 minke whales every 12 months. Norway is fishing for whale conscientiously.
In fact, if things stay as status quo, the whale population should steadily increase. And that, after all, is how mankind should fit into his environment, by harvesting what he needs without driving resources to exhaustion. That goes for trees, oil, cows – and whales.
Should conservative whale hunting really be banned? Or are we just victims of mass hysteria? Are the Save the Whale-style campaigns built on fashionable politics and ignorance of the facts?
And when I sit and eat my whale steak, should I really live in fear that someone will find out? And should any travel piece focusing on Norway not mention whale meat just in case they upset the environmentalists or fish-loving activists?
When in Rome, do as the Romans do. When in Norway, eat whale.
Travel is about experiences. As long as it’s legal and you’re not pushing the boundaries of basic human decency, you should have nothing to be afraid of.
I reiterate once again: eating whale steak in Norway is legal. By all means evaluate your conscience (I couldn’t eat dog in South Korea myself for purely British cultural reasons) but don’t be ashamed to taste the local delicacy. Enjoy
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Great Britain or the United Kingdom or the British Isles.
by Garry Cook
Not content with being the most history-stewed country on planet earth, the collective of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has made a name for itself as the country with too many names.
The Europeans on our doorstep have a tough enough time knowing what to call us. Is it Great Britain, United Kingdom, British Isles or England, Scotland and the other two?
But think of the visiting Americans also, a bit backward at these sort of things at the best of times. How many Yanks have come over to Britain, done the tourist tour and vowed to visit the UK next time? Or visited Scotland and England but insist they have never set foot on the British Isles yet.
It is rather confusing for everyone, even those of us who live on this fine island.
So, here is what we are:
England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are all governed by the British Government. No passports are needed to travel between these countries. The Republic of Ireland, part of the same land mass as Northern Ireland, is a separate nation.
Great Britain.
Refers to the single island containing England, Scotland and Wales. Great Britain does not include Northern Ireland. First used in 1603 by King James I (who was also James VI of Scotland).
United Kingdom of Great Britain.
This is the official title of all four countries (including Northern Ireland), created in 1801. It is commonly abbreviated to the United Kingdom or UK.
The British Isles.
This is a general geographical term used to describe all countries and islands which has no real political reference - though some still insist it does not include the Republic of Ireland.
There are other things to note, such as the independence of the Channel Islands (Jersey and Guernsey) and the Isle of Man. Confusingly, these islands govern themselves but fall under the umbrella of the British Crown. But Jersey and Guernsey is part of the United Kingdom in the European Union, the Isle of Man is not.
The British Crown?
Well, that's a remnant of our Monarchy (The Queen) when they used to run the country and half of the rest of the world as well. It retains its status over a number of countries, though nowadays in a far more acceptable manner. The British Crown still appoints the governor of the Channel Islands and Isle of man (though in reality it is the British Government making this decision).
Hope that's cleared that up.
by Garry Cook
Not content with being the most history-stewed country on planet earth, the collective of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has made a name for itself as the country with too many names.
The Europeans on our doorstep have a tough enough time knowing what to call us. Is it Great Britain, United Kingdom, British Isles or England, Scotland and the other two?
But think of the visiting Americans also, a bit backward at these sort of things at the best of times. How many Yanks have come over to Britain, done the tourist tour and vowed to visit the UK next time? Or visited Scotland and England but insist they have never set foot on the British Isles yet.
It is rather confusing for everyone, even those of us who live on this fine island.
So, here is what we are:
England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are all governed by the British Government. No passports are needed to travel between these countries. The Republic of Ireland, part of the same land mass as Northern Ireland, is a separate nation.
Great Britain.
Refers to the single island containing England, Scotland and Wales. Great Britain does not include Northern Ireland. First used in 1603 by King James I (who was also James VI of Scotland).
United Kingdom of Great Britain.
This is the official title of all four countries (including Northern Ireland), created in 1801. It is commonly abbreviated to the United Kingdom or UK.
The British Isles.
This is a general geographical term used to describe all countries and islands which has no real political reference - though some still insist it does not include the Republic of Ireland.
There are other things to note, such as the independence of the Channel Islands (Jersey and Guernsey) and the Isle of Man. Confusingly, these islands govern themselves but fall under the umbrella of the British Crown. But Jersey and Guernsey is part of the United Kingdom in the European Union, the Isle of Man is not.
The British Crown?
Well, that's a remnant of our Monarchy (The Queen) when they used to run the country and half of the rest of the world as well. It retains its status over a number of countries, though nowadays in a far more acceptable manner. The British Crown still appoints the governor of the Channel Islands and Isle of man (though in reality it is the British Government making this decision).
Hope that's cleared that up.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Web 2.0
by Garry Cook
Need an explanation of Web 2.0? And an examination on its impact? Here we go:
Heard the one about the technophobe who, when asked what he wanted for his birthday, said ‘Web 2.0’. If you don’t know what Web 2.0 is, the joke isn’t funny. It’s not even that funny if you do know what Web 2.0 is.
The point is, Web 2.0 is not something that exists, either in a box, on a disk or in cyberspace.
Web 2.0 is as baffling to those of us with a decent understanding of computers as a mobile phone is to a pensioner. I think it’s time for an explanation.
For what follows, I’m assuming that you know what the internet, the world-wide web and the information super highway is. The fact that you’re reading this says that you do.
Right, now that’s out of the way, the nitty-gritty.
Without knowing it, you are probably part of Web 2.0 now. If you use Wikipedia or have a Myspace account you’re already there. Perhaps you’re a blogger. All these things are the essence of Web 2.0.
Sites like Myspace, YouTube and photographic site flickr are the driving force behind Web 2.0 – where the internet has morphed from a surfing experience to an oven-ready publishable world for everyone.
Web 2.0 has enabled internet inadequates to have an online presence. Don’t know how to design a website - don’t worry, it’s all done for you.
These new web pages, each with a community of millions (if not billions), have been like a second wind for the internet which, up until now, has been primarily a tool to research information and occasionally to earn money (visit a porn site).
Now, powered by broadband’s speed, the internet has reinvented itself as a social network. It’s people joining the party on a massive scale.
Picture Web 2.0 like this: Everyone’ has moved into a brand new apartment block. Each apartments size is identical, but the user can dress it up however they like.
What I’ve noticed about the internet, however, is how it eventually costs us. Take Microsoft, the only real choice for consumer computers. They charge a fortune for their operating system, then keep updating it s you have to pay for it all over again.
Same goes for virus software. Also Microsoft’s email - Outlook Express and Hotmail - was once free but now requires a subscription. More money slipping out of our bank accounts.
With media mogul Rupert Murdoch buying Myspace for USD580million earlier this year, YouTube being bought by Google for USD1.6bn (and the Murdoch agreeing a USD900m deal for advertising with Google), and Yahoo buying flickr’s creator Ludicorp Research and Development in 2005 for an undisclosed fee, you have to worry about the independence of Web 2.0.
After all, the brilliance of Web 2.0 has been how independent revolutionary sites have caught on and spread like wildfire. Without advertising, it has been world of mouth – the consumers – which has made these sites a success.
But with these huge corporations now in charge – and Google now looking all too powerful and making some strange decisions (like publishing entire books online without, apparently, paying the authors) – you have to wonder how our freedom of choice is affected.
As consumers, if our search engines become increasingly exclusive to those sites or shops who pay to be on them, how do we know that the internet is still helping us get the best deal?
As seekers of the truth, can we trust these mega-corporations not to feed us their own biased take on events and politics. Or will these sites become as blatantly biased as the British newspapers and television stations which the same company owns?
Yahoo recently supplied the Chinese government information on the identity of one of its people who had dared to criticise their politics. They should not have done. It was grassing at a hideous level. This is both an abuse of power and a worrying indication of the things to come.
Then there were personal details of Google users published online by accident. If information is power, somebody somewhere is getting very strong.
And the danger is not just to our pockets. Socially we could suffer, too.
Sometimes we run out of milk in our house at night. On my walk to the local petrol station I walk past a house where the curtains are always open. Inside, no matter what time of night it is, there is always a women in her thirties sitting on her couch tapping away on a laptop. She’ll be on some chatroom, no doubt
The danger is, while online lives will never become as real as real live (no matter what soundbites your are fed by the media), they could easily take up as much time.
Sad b******s - and I use the term loosely to describe chatroom addicts, text message maniacs and online gamers – who spend every waking moment conducting relationships through brief broken English sentences are not the kind of people I’ve got any respect for whatsoever.
I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with meeting someone online, or using an internet dating agency, but there are people who are slowly retreating into sub-standard personalities in the real world while developing obsessive attachments to their return key.
Marvel at the internet, enjoy watching 24 hours after it’s been broadcast in America, have a hurrah for Web 2.0, but don’t become a mute human. And keep an eye out. You are being watched from inside your own home.
by Garry Cook
Need an explanation of Web 2.0? And an examination on its impact? Here we go:
Heard the one about the technophobe who, when asked what he wanted for his birthday, said ‘Web 2.0’. If you don’t know what Web 2.0 is, the joke isn’t funny. It’s not even that funny if you do know what Web 2.0 is.
The point is, Web 2.0 is not something that exists, either in a box, on a disk or in cyberspace.
Web 2.0 is as baffling to those of us with a decent understanding of computers as a mobile phone is to a pensioner. I think it’s time for an explanation.
For what follows, I’m assuming that you know what the internet, the world-wide web and the information super highway is. The fact that you’re reading this says that you do.
Right, now that’s out of the way, the nitty-gritty.
Without knowing it, you are probably part of Web 2.0 now. If you use Wikipedia or have a Myspace account you’re already there. Perhaps you’re a blogger. All these things are the essence of Web 2.0.
Sites like Myspace, YouTube and photographic site flickr are the driving force behind Web 2.0 – where the internet has morphed from a surfing experience to an oven-ready publishable world for everyone.
Web 2.0 has enabled internet inadequates to have an online presence. Don’t know how to design a website - don’t worry, it’s all done for you.
These new web pages, each with a community of millions (if not billions), have been like a second wind for the internet which, up until now, has been primarily a tool to research information and occasionally to earn money (visit a porn site).
Now, powered by broadband’s speed, the internet has reinvented itself as a social network. It’s people joining the party on a massive scale.
Picture Web 2.0 like this: Everyone’ has moved into a brand new apartment block. Each apartments size is identical, but the user can dress it up however they like.
What I’ve noticed about the internet, however, is how it eventually costs us. Take Microsoft, the only real choice for consumer computers. They charge a fortune for their operating system, then keep updating it s you have to pay for it all over again.
Same goes for virus software. Also Microsoft’s email - Outlook Express and Hotmail - was once free but now requires a subscription. More money slipping out of our bank accounts.
With media mogul Rupert Murdoch buying Myspace for USD580million earlier this year, YouTube being bought by Google for USD1.6bn (and the Murdoch agreeing a USD900m deal for advertising with Google), and Yahoo buying flickr’s creator Ludicorp Research and Development in 2005 for an undisclosed fee, you have to worry about the independence of Web 2.0.
After all, the brilliance of Web 2.0 has been how independent revolutionary sites have caught on and spread like wildfire. Without advertising, it has been world of mouth – the consumers – which has made these sites a success.
But with these huge corporations now in charge – and Google now looking all too powerful and making some strange decisions (like publishing entire books online without, apparently, paying the authors) – you have to wonder how our freedom of choice is affected.
As consumers, if our search engines become increasingly exclusive to those sites or shops who pay to be on them, how do we know that the internet is still helping us get the best deal?
As seekers of the truth, can we trust these mega-corporations not to feed us their own biased take on events and politics. Or will these sites become as blatantly biased as the British newspapers and television stations which the same company owns?
Yahoo recently supplied the Chinese government information on the identity of one of its people who had dared to criticise their politics. They should not have done. It was grassing at a hideous level. This is both an abuse of power and a worrying indication of the things to come.
Then there were personal details of Google users published online by accident. If information is power, somebody somewhere is getting very strong.
And the danger is not just to our pockets. Socially we could suffer, too.
Sometimes we run out of milk in our house at night. On my walk to the local petrol station I walk past a house where the curtains are always open. Inside, no matter what time of night it is, there is always a women in her thirties sitting on her couch tapping away on a laptop. She’ll be on some chatroom, no doubt
The danger is, while online lives will never become as real as real live (no matter what soundbites your are fed by the media), they could easily take up as much time.
Sad b******s - and I use the term loosely to describe chatroom addicts, text message maniacs and online gamers – who spend every waking moment conducting relationships through brief broken English sentences are not the kind of people I’ve got any respect for whatsoever.
I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with meeting someone online, or using an internet dating agency, but there are people who are slowly retreating into sub-standard personalities in the real world while developing obsessive attachments to their return key.
Marvel at the internet, enjoy watching 24 hours after it’s been broadcast in America, have a hurrah for Web 2.0, but don’t become a mute human. And keep an eye out. You are being watched from inside your own home.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
The global warming lie.
by Garry Cook
The British Government has gone environment crazy.
The news, the radio, every national newspaper (apart from the Daily Star and Daily Sport) have been buzzing with the story. Prime Minister Tony Blair and Chancellor Gordon Brown must be loving it. Attention for the right reasons.
The pair want to cut carbon emitions worldwide. Good. They want action to stop deforestation. Good. They want to charge us higher taxes. Not good.
The Stern report, published at the end of October 2006, says we are entering ‘dangerous territory’ unless carbon emissions are cut sharpish.
Like everybody else I’d like to see carbon emissions reduced. I’d also like to the end of all wars and a stop to the destruction of beautiful green spaces. None of these things are going to happen.
While I accept that everyone needs to pull in the right direction, what I can’t stomach is the quite unfounded threat that we are all doomed if global warming gets out of hand.
Blair and his ‘mate’ Brown’s unification behind the Green Issue and green taxes wreaks of self-interest – opportunism to raise a bit more cash. What we need, especially from a British media which seemingly can’t help itself every time it is handed en environmental scare story, is a bit of truth and honesty.
Put down your Daily Mails and listen.
Let’s get this straight – global warming is happening.
But let’s get another thing straight – global warming is NOT due to carbon emissions.
Long before man roamed the earth, this planet was forever heating up, cooling down, freezing and then burning. Do you remember being taught about the Ice Age at school? Did you know that before that Britain was once a desert?
The extreme changes in climate of this planet – hot to cold too hot too cold - probably goes far beyond anything we will ever know. Only thing is, millions and billions of years ago there were no carbon emissions to blame.
No, this climate change business is purely natural. The reason for it is complicated. The position of the earth’s axis – its wobble – and how far away it is from the sun on its natural orbit (which can vary greatly over millions of years).
Presently, we are midway through a ‘hot’ period.’ In fact, the planet is slowly getting warmer. In northern England, I remember winters twenty years ago much colder than they are now. We used to get much more snow then. My mam and dad used to experience months of snow, often six feet deep in the 1950s. Not now.
It is wrong to blame this gradual warming on carbon emissions, greenhouse emissions or whatever you want to call it.
So is it right that the government threaten us with stories of oblivion, and use it as an excuse to introduce ‘green’ taxes? Is it bollocks.
What governments around the world should be doing is gathering together, looking long term and trying to work out how we will cope with increased temperatures, higher sea levels and other consequences.
Blaming consumers and taxing them is both false profiteering.
In a way George W Bush and his thoughtless Yanks were right not to sign the Kyoto Agreement, though they probably refused to conform for the wrong reasons (i.e. greed and profits for domineering American companies).
Even if every consumer in this country (or any country) recycled to the hilt, saved the maximum energy possible and reduced gas emissions from central heating, cookers and cars, it would only make a fraction of difference as heavy industry uses up the bulk of energy in any country.
Heavy industry also emits far more pollution than consumers. Ditto wasting energy.
It is heavy industry which governments need to take target if emission reduction targets are to be met.
And even then, if the impossible is achieved and heavy industry does cut emissions, the world will still be warming up afterwards.
We need to stand up against the excuse of taxes behind green issues. But this is a battle which won’t be won lightly. The media are not on our side, the government is our enemies. The people need to speak. Common sense needs to prevail. Pick up your recycling boxes’ lids and prepare for battle.
by Garry Cook
The British Government has gone environment crazy.
The news, the radio, every national newspaper (apart from the Daily Star and Daily Sport) have been buzzing with the story. Prime Minister Tony Blair and Chancellor Gordon Brown must be loving it. Attention for the right reasons.
The pair want to cut carbon emitions worldwide. Good. They want action to stop deforestation. Good. They want to charge us higher taxes. Not good.
The Stern report, published at the end of October 2006, says we are entering ‘dangerous territory’ unless carbon emissions are cut sharpish.
Like everybody else I’d like to see carbon emissions reduced. I’d also like to the end of all wars and a stop to the destruction of beautiful green spaces. None of these things are going to happen.
While I accept that everyone needs to pull in the right direction, what I can’t stomach is the quite unfounded threat that we are all doomed if global warming gets out of hand.
Blair and his ‘mate’ Brown’s unification behind the Green Issue and green taxes wreaks of self-interest – opportunism to raise a bit more cash. What we need, especially from a British media which seemingly can’t help itself every time it is handed en environmental scare story, is a bit of truth and honesty.
Put down your Daily Mails and listen.
Let’s get this straight – global warming is happening.
But let’s get another thing straight – global warming is NOT due to carbon emissions.
Long before man roamed the earth, this planet was forever heating up, cooling down, freezing and then burning. Do you remember being taught about the Ice Age at school? Did you know that before that Britain was once a desert?
The extreme changes in climate of this planet – hot to cold too hot too cold - probably goes far beyond anything we will ever know. Only thing is, millions and billions of years ago there were no carbon emissions to blame.
No, this climate change business is purely natural. The reason for it is complicated. The position of the earth’s axis – its wobble – and how far away it is from the sun on its natural orbit (which can vary greatly over millions of years).
Presently, we are midway through a ‘hot’ period.’ In fact, the planet is slowly getting warmer. In northern England, I remember winters twenty years ago much colder than they are now. We used to get much more snow then. My mam and dad used to experience months of snow, often six feet deep in the 1950s. Not now.
It is wrong to blame this gradual warming on carbon emissions, greenhouse emissions or whatever you want to call it.
So is it right that the government threaten us with stories of oblivion, and use it as an excuse to introduce ‘green’ taxes? Is it bollocks.
What governments around the world should be doing is gathering together, looking long term and trying to work out how we will cope with increased temperatures, higher sea levels and other consequences.
Blaming consumers and taxing them is both false profiteering.
In a way George W Bush and his thoughtless Yanks were right not to sign the Kyoto Agreement, though they probably refused to conform for the wrong reasons (i.e. greed and profits for domineering American companies).
Even if every consumer in this country (or any country) recycled to the hilt, saved the maximum energy possible and reduced gas emissions from central heating, cookers and cars, it would only make a fraction of difference as heavy industry uses up the bulk of energy in any country.
Heavy industry also emits far more pollution than consumers. Ditto wasting energy.
It is heavy industry which governments need to take target if emission reduction targets are to be met.
And even then, if the impossible is achieved and heavy industry does cut emissions, the world will still be warming up afterwards.
We need to stand up against the excuse of taxes behind green issues. But this is a battle which won’t be won lightly. The media are not on our side, the government is our enemies. The people need to speak. Common sense needs to prevail. Pick up your recycling boxes’ lids and prepare for battle.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Where eagles dare. The Highlands of Scotland.
by Garry Cook
You want eagles? He’s got them. It’s a brave man who promises you a sighting of one of the rarest and most graceful of birds in the world. But Jim Michie delivers at his word.
Signposted by the stunning Glenfinnan tower, Loch Shiel is one of the most outstanding stretches of water in Scotland, situated along the Road To The Isles in Inverness-shire.
This long and twisting road takes you some 50-odd miles from Fort William to Mallaig, the port which acts as a gateway to Skye, Rum, Eigg, Canna and Muck.
And halfway along is Glenfinnan, the historical meeting place of Bonnie Prince Charlie’s Jacobite rebellion in 1745. Now it is home to Sileas, Jim’s 66-year-old boat which is able to take the traveller on a magical journey in search of the Golden Eagle.
Sileas was a rusting wreck when Jim got his hands on it a decade ago. A painstaking restoration has transformed the vessel into a delightful cruiser.
Despite the stunning panorama of Shiel, Jim soon realised that visitors were more interested in the Golden Eagles nesting high on the loch’s mountainside.
I thought I had enjoyed my quota of wildlife for the day as I had lunch in the nearby Glenfinnan House Hotel. While devouring my delicious butter beans on toast I gazed out of the huge bay window only to have my view blocked by two wandering deer who had decided to use the hotel grounds as a snack stop.
But it was the eagles I’d come for and as I was handed a pair of binoculars I was nervous. I expected the law of averages to leave me eagle-eyed-less.
The weather was warm during my Scottish saute, but on the loch it was freezing. Jim warned me that the cloud, which was clinging to the top of the mountains, would make a sighting more difficult. But he had seen three eagles the day before.
I held my breath as we approached Eagle Cliff. Jim slowed the boat. There, he said, was an eagle sitting on the rock. "I think I can see it," I said. I re-focused the binoculars. Turns out I was looking at a rock. I was the only one who didn’t see the eagle. I was gutted.
We carried on down the loch. Jim pointed out areas of interest as we motored along. Over an hour and a coffee later we were heading back towards Glenfinnan. Second time lucky? You bet.
My first sighting was of a pair of huge soaring feathered wings gliding out over the moutainside, slowly floating out of view within seconds. It was a heart-stopping moment.
Then, to my joy, the majestic creature came back for more. It swirled above us and then settled on craggy rock edge. As we drifted to a halt, the eagle looked down as if waiting for us to move on. But we weren’t going to budge, not for an opportunity like this. It was a five-minute stand-off. It was amazing.
Then, effortlessly, away he flew. Soaring again, curving off over the mountain. Jim was as delighted as we were. We floated back to Glenfinnan. Literally.
Nature can be stunning, but just 24 hours later I was reminded that the work of humans can be equally breathtaking.
At the end of the Road To The Isles is the fishing port of Mallaig, gateway to the Small Isles. And it is to remote Rum, via the CalMac ferry, that my interest has been drawn.
Rum is a sizeable, largely unspoiled island, a walkers paradise and a wildlife haven of puffins, deer, otters and seals. There is no tarmac on the island, just some bumpy tracks and a handful of houses – only one a Bed and Breakfast. Rum’s population is 20.
However there is a very good reason to visit Rum – Kinloch Castle. The story behind this 100-year-old marvel is surpassed only by its splendour.
I have never seen a castle so complete, so extravagant and so perfect.
Built by playboy George Burrough in 1901, the castle’s interior remains almost entirely unchanged since its 1920s heyday.
Burrough, who’s father made his money in the Lancashire cotton mills, built the castle from scratch, sparing no expense. He would hold parties – some say orgies – on the island. The ‘wow’ factor you get upon entering the main hall is exactly how past guests would have seen it in the 20th century.
The working Imhof & Mukle Orchestrion organ was built for Queen Victoria. Burrough bought it instead. He had electricity via hydro-electric machinery installed at a time when just one city in the world - Glasgow - had electricity. The decoration is stunning, the huge ornaments collected from around the world, many from Japan are jaw-dropping.
It is the best castle I have ever visited, the Golden Eagle of castles.
by Garry Cook
You want eagles? He’s got them. It’s a brave man who promises you a sighting of one of the rarest and most graceful of birds in the world. But Jim Michie delivers at his word.
Signposted by the stunning Glenfinnan tower, Loch Shiel is one of the most outstanding stretches of water in Scotland, situated along the Road To The Isles in Inverness-shire.
This long and twisting road takes you some 50-odd miles from Fort William to Mallaig, the port which acts as a gateway to Skye, Rum, Eigg, Canna and Muck.
And halfway along is Glenfinnan, the historical meeting place of Bonnie Prince Charlie’s Jacobite rebellion in 1745. Now it is home to Sileas, Jim’s 66-year-old boat which is able to take the traveller on a magical journey in search of the Golden Eagle.
Sileas was a rusting wreck when Jim got his hands on it a decade ago. A painstaking restoration has transformed the vessel into a delightful cruiser.
Despite the stunning panorama of Shiel, Jim soon realised that visitors were more interested in the Golden Eagles nesting high on the loch’s mountainside.
I thought I had enjoyed my quota of wildlife for the day as I had lunch in the nearby Glenfinnan House Hotel. While devouring my delicious butter beans on toast I gazed out of the huge bay window only to have my view blocked by two wandering deer who had decided to use the hotel grounds as a snack stop.
But it was the eagles I’d come for and as I was handed a pair of binoculars I was nervous. I expected the law of averages to leave me eagle-eyed-less.
The weather was warm during my Scottish saute, but on the loch it was freezing. Jim warned me that the cloud, which was clinging to the top of the mountains, would make a sighting more difficult. But he had seen three eagles the day before.
I held my breath as we approached Eagle Cliff. Jim slowed the boat. There, he said, was an eagle sitting on the rock. "I think I can see it," I said. I re-focused the binoculars. Turns out I was looking at a rock. I was the only one who didn’t see the eagle. I was gutted.
We carried on down the loch. Jim pointed out areas of interest as we motored along. Over an hour and a coffee later we were heading back towards Glenfinnan. Second time lucky? You bet.
My first sighting was of a pair of huge soaring feathered wings gliding out over the moutainside, slowly floating out of view within seconds. It was a heart-stopping moment.
Then, to my joy, the majestic creature came back for more. It swirled above us and then settled on craggy rock edge. As we drifted to a halt, the eagle looked down as if waiting for us to move on. But we weren’t going to budge, not for an opportunity like this. It was a five-minute stand-off. It was amazing.
Then, effortlessly, away he flew. Soaring again, curving off over the mountain. Jim was as delighted as we were. We floated back to Glenfinnan. Literally.
Nature can be stunning, but just 24 hours later I was reminded that the work of humans can be equally breathtaking.
At the end of the Road To The Isles is the fishing port of Mallaig, gateway to the Small Isles. And it is to remote Rum, via the CalMac ferry, that my interest has been drawn.
Rum is a sizeable, largely unspoiled island, a walkers paradise and a wildlife haven of puffins, deer, otters and seals. There is no tarmac on the island, just some bumpy tracks and a handful of houses – only one a Bed and Breakfast. Rum’s population is 20.
However there is a very good reason to visit Rum – Kinloch Castle. The story behind this 100-year-old marvel is surpassed only by its splendour.
I have never seen a castle so complete, so extravagant and so perfect.
Built by playboy George Burrough in 1901, the castle’s interior remains almost entirely unchanged since its 1920s heyday.
Burrough, who’s father made his money in the Lancashire cotton mills, built the castle from scratch, sparing no expense. He would hold parties – some say orgies – on the island. The ‘wow’ factor you get upon entering the main hall is exactly how past guests would have seen it in the 20th century.
The working Imhof & Mukle Orchestrion organ was built for Queen Victoria. Burrough bought it instead. He had electricity via hydro-electric machinery installed at a time when just one city in the world - Glasgow - had electricity. The decoration is stunning, the huge ornaments collected from around the world, many from Japan are jaw-dropping.
It is the best castle I have ever visited, the Golden Eagle of castles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)