Saturday, July 30, 2011

Apparent idiocy from the Royal Mail: and how journalism works.

A friend pointed a story out to me on the BBC news website that I had missed. It appears Royal Mail wish to change the rules to allow them to leave a lot of mail at your neighbours if they are unable to deliver it.
This story has gone into the wider media now, and seems to be based on a press release from Consumer Focus in response to a press release by Royal Mail. Well hidden the Royal Mail one, being on the Royal Mail Group web site, and not the Royal Mail one itself.

The Royal Mail statement doesn't make it clear if there is would be an opt in service, but Consumer Focus assert it wouldn't even be opt-out.

That idea if true is daft: whilst for many people this isn't a problem for some it obviously will be.  I have wonderful next door neighbours, I'd be happy for the postal service to leave any signed for mail or packages with them.  Indeed despite the fact that Royal Mail apparently aren't allowed to do so (whispers) they have. However it doesn't need much knowledge of the outside world to see that some neighbours don't get on!

It looks from the quotes on the BBC page that the journo has spoken to someone at the Royal Mail to confirm this plan. But...

A challenge: find any quote that isn't just in the original two press releases.

Give up? Yup that is because there aren't any.

The Journo has combined two press releases quite nicely to make a story.  The Scotsman and Guardian have done the same as the BBC.  The Telegraph just condenses the Royal Mail release.  The Daily Mail article rehashes the same quotes as the BBC, but adds a bit about privatisation too, presumably a third press release.

Now if this story is true, and it could be that there is no opt out, it is daft and time to get the campaigning hat on.  If on the other hand it means Royal Mail are asking for permission to follow a note left in a window to "if out, deliver to number 72", it just seems like successful publicity seeking for a pressure group.

I've emailed the contact address at the Royal Mail to see which it is. We'll see what response I get.

Sunday, July 24, 2011

Football: writing history

I saw a post on another blog about the sale of Sheffield FC's manuscript rules of the game and comparing it with the price raised by the Jane Austen manuscript.
The BBC report of the auction of an old set of rules by Sheffield FC appears to be contradicted by other sources of information.
It is not disputed that modern association football is descended from rules drawn up by Cambridge University Football club. The 1848 original is lost, but a copy from 1856 is, it appears, in the library at Shrewsbury School. 
The 1848 Cambridge rules evolved into the 1863 edition, that were pretty close to the first official Football Association rules. The Sheffield Rules were another contributing stream, but not the only one.

The version auctioned is from 1857. So it is not, as claimed, the oldest surviving rules.

(This is to ignore that the rules have changed significantly since then anyway.)

The fact that FIFA and the FA still insist that Sheffield is older than Cambridge University Football Club has more to do with wanting a narrative for the sport than any historical accuracy: it is better for an industrial northern town to be the oldest team than an elite educational establishment.

(I will admit as Cambridge resident to a certain bias.)

Monday, July 18, 2011

Two down from the Met

Events continued to surprise me yesterday and today in the hacking scandal. I didn't expect Met Commissioner Stephenson to stand down, but he did.  After that I shouldn't have been surprised when Yates went, but I was.

Two people have gone for hiring Neil Wallis: a man who hasn't yet even been charged let alone convicted of any wrong doing.  As such I am unsure I will be celebrating: two senior police officers were in charge of an organisation facing serious allegations over corruption and they resign not over that but over who they hired to handle Public Relations.  Something seems wrong here to me.

More interestingly, two people have stood down for hiring someone considered toxic due to their association with the News of the World, but someone who hired his boss remains in post.

For the first time since the start of the scandal I am seriously wondering if Cameron can survive this.

On balance I come to the conclusion that he can. There are several reasons:
  1. No Tory will wield the knife. I don't think all the Conservative party are even sure there is a problem with Cameron having hired Coulson.
  2. Following on from that there isn't an obvious successor. A piece by Henry G Manson on political betting examined the possible successors. When the best bet looks like Hague I'd imagine most Tories would like to sit and wait for bit. See my PS for an example.
  3. It isn't a confidence issue, and the Liberal Democrats are quite enjoying Cameron being a bit inconvenienced.  I can't see how Labour can drive a wedge between the coalition here: the crude attempt to last week was undermined by sensible reactions from the government in agreeing to the motion.
  4. Cameron hasn't broken the law or been caught doing anything wrong personally. Spin doctors are dodgy: don't forget that Malcolm Tucker rang true to the Labour spin machine. I would question his judgement in appointing Coulson but that is hardly a resignation issue for the PM.
  5. The scandal includes Labour too, and no amount of whitewash can remove that fact.
  6. Least significantly the scandal is blowing itself out: given the failure of Gordon Brown's accusations to stick to the Sun it appears that it hasn't spread to other papers.  The flip side of this claim is that we haven't gone even two days without something significant happening if you include the resignations. (I also ought to add that although the obtaining medical information part has been rejected, I don't recall the blagging of financial details being dealt with: did I miss this or has this been (tacitly) accepted by the Sun?)
What might change this? If Coulson is charged or convicted then it might be a different matter. At that point number 3 and 4 begin to look shaky.

However I am now actually thinking about it which I wasn't on Friday.

Post Script: If you need to cheer yourself up try saying "The Prime Minsister, Michael Gove"...

Saturday, July 16, 2011

Preseason footy: Greentown v Arsenal

Watching the second half of Arsenal's game in China against Hangzhou Greentown it seems a case of more of the same. I am grateful, from the comments made on the video stream by the Arsenal commentators, that I missed the first half.  I shall remain from commenting further on the fact that I am writing about a live football game in July.

Arsenal battered poor Greentown for nearly all of the second half. The game was pretty much Arsenal camping outside their penalty area.

This is, of course, familiar from last season.

Despite that Arsenal didn't score.

This is, of course, familiar from last season.

And on the rare ocassions that Greentown could break they managed to get behind our centre backs.

This is, of course, familiar from last season.

What is different is that the defenders covered for each other better, and Greentown didn't score against the run of play. Whether this is because Arsenal defended better or that Greentown weren't good enough to stretch Arsenal is open to question.

We created plenty of chances, but couldn't convert. Praise must go to the opposition goalie, who made several very good saves after what I felt was a shaky start. But questions about ruthlessness already suggest themselves.

This is, of course, familiar from last season.

There are positives from this:
  • The midfield trio of Ramsey-Wilshire-Song looks pretty good. Given the Cesc situation that is important.
  • This was my first chance to see Miyaichi: he looked pretty lively and involved.
  • New signing Jenkinson looked to have good feet (apart from one embarassing slip right at the start.)
Another thing to comment on is the use of the 4-3-3 formation.
This is, of course, familiar from last season.

Looking at the very brief highlight showing Arsenal's first half goal it appears this came when Vela drifted in to the middle from his wing position, allowing him to bundle in the rebound from Van Persie's shot: we looked a bit more like 4-4-2.  Both Theo and Miyaichi did well to get into the middle, and Ramsey and Wilshire supported Chamakh well in the second half, but I would like to see more flexibility in formation: could we have a plan b earlier, and mix it up more.  No sign of that here.

This is, of course, familiar from last season.

Overall an enjoyable half, but no end product.

This is, of course, familiar from last season.

Friday, July 15, 2011

Celebrities and newspapers

This video of Steve Coogan slamming Paul McMullen on Newsnight has been doing the rounds for a bit.



Apart from the fact that I don't think Steve Coogan did as well as he is generally credited I think this is worthy of comment.

Mr McMullen seems to think it is acceptable to illegally violate people's privacy to sell newspapers if either
1) They are well paid celebrities who earn a lot of money, or
2) They have "used" the tabloids to publicise or promote their work.

Now it strikes me that both of these are clearly irrelevant.

If people have a public life then that is public. As a (say) taxi driver how I behave when driving a taxi is relevant, how I behave in my bed room is not. As a shelf stacker at Tesco you have no right to know that I am having marital difficulties or not.

If we accept the right to a private life then neither 1 nor 2 are relevant.

The argument of 2 is especially nasty and hasn't been challenged widely. If I write a book that doesn't mean I have no right to privacy. If I stand for public office that doesn't mean you have any right to explore my sex life.

If I give an interview to try and promote a film or book I can not see why that allows the interviewer to invade my privacy. The interview is a two way process: a benefit to both the paper and the person plugging. To pretend that papers are in some way exploited, and that gives them the right to make a claim back by phone hacking is garbage.

The exception is when I make a claim for moral virtue, and especially make claims that are untrue: at that point it would be legitimate to check.

As for number 1: I despair.

Can anyone construct a valid argument that might defend this line of enquiry? The best I can come up with is to say that by agreeing to the interview you know the result, but this is to blame people for being burgled ("by having a home and stuff you knew the risk!")