Skip to main content

Should we boycott the Telegraph?

I have to confess I never read the Daily Telegraph - but if I did, I would stop immediately. At the best I'd suggest what they did in entrapment of Lib Dem ministers was tacky, at worst it was treasonous.

Let me draw a parallel. Imagine that you were on a ship that was going through very dangerous waters. The captain and the first officer are married, but there marriage is very fragile. Hands up all those who think it would be a sensible thing for a passenger to send attractive members of the opposite sex to record the first officer voicing his doubts about his partner, then broadcasting said doubts on the ship's tannoy? Hands up those who think it was sheer idiocy, and the person doing it should be thrown over the side?

What did the Telegraph editor think he was doing by using sleazy tactics to get comments out of Vince Cable and others that had the potential to damage this country? In what sense is this in the public interest? All too often the news media seem to have a suicidal urge to bring the country down, but never more so than with these silly stunts.

There has been far too much fuss in the media about what Vince and friends said, and far too little about what the Telegraph goons did. Whose side are these mediaistas on again? Obviously not this country's. So if you do buy the Telegraph please stop it. Now. Don't do it again. Ever. If I were Jeremy Clarkson I would suggest keelhauling the 'journalists', but it's better to hit them where it hurts.

You might think this is all very well, but Cable et al. shouldn't have said what they said. Of course they shouldn't. But I am fed up of the media trying to ruin the country. I'm not upset out of any sense of jingoism or patriotism. I just want to be able to get on with life without things being messed up, and having a stable government and country kind of helps. Is it too much to ask?


  1. You should when it prints nonsense like this

    and this

    on following days

    I sometimes blog on science themes and wrote this, from an avowedly sceptical viewpoint in response. Your readers may find it of interest

    its about exploding stars, alien life and their strange connection to african pidgin english. Its called "Me O Rin"



  2. Thanks, it's an interesting post.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope