![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
glenatronWe have just watched the new Dr Who. Absolutely great. Exactly what I pay my licence fee for. I'm sure a bunch of people will find something to whinge about, but anyone who does is a compulsive whinger and should dedicate five minutes to thinking about something positive instead. I loved it.
It is a good day for something quirky, entertaining and uniquely british to begin, seeing as we are a year to the day since the last radio performance of messrs Riley and Radcliffe, which can broadly be thought of as the day that Radio 1 died. They still have Jo Whiley (and surely she's too good to last) but Colin Murray, who is half of the afternoon team since Mark and Lard quit is such a smug, self-aggrandising, irritating twat that even thinking about him fills me with intense rage. For anyone who enjoyed their Graveyard Shift many years ago, you may find that Mark Radcliffe's radio 2 show is much the same, although more likely to feature Noddy Holder...
On a totally different subject (but appropriate to
life_of_tom's theme of LJ for ranting) anyone who is thinking about voting in the next election should bear in mind that the Conservative leader, in addition to being a repugnant, opportunistic, point-scoring, immoral rat of a man has a proven track record of deliberately lying to the british people. The mechanism by which he did this (or a mechanism - I'm sure he used many others ) is that when he was Home Secretary he refused to allow any changes to the systems by which crime is recorded. He knew perfectly well that if much-needed changes were made to the recording systems, the number of crimes that were recorded would increase and that people would think crime was on the increase. This is because journalists don't know the difference between a number and something real. Instead, when Labour instituted the necessary changes he immediately jumped on the changes in the figures to claim that society was collapsing under labour. This is not the case- crime levels have hardly changed at all in the last 30 years - but if all the reported crimes are recorded when previously only the ones the police could be bothered to take a note of were recorded then it will look as though crime levels are higher. Similar is his incredibly irritating claim that the British Crime Survey is flawed because it doesn't include murder. To keep it separate from police statistics the BCS is a survey of victims of crime. To get murder victims to participate you would have to be some kind of vile creature of necromancy. Come to think of it, maybe that is somewhere that Howard could make a difference.
It is a good day for something quirky, entertaining and uniquely british to begin, seeing as we are a year to the day since the last radio performance of messrs Riley and Radcliffe, which can broadly be thought of as the day that Radio 1 died. They still have Jo Whiley (and surely she's too good to last) but Colin Murray, who is half of the afternoon team since Mark and Lard quit is such a smug, self-aggrandising, irritating twat that even thinking about him fills me with intense rage. For anyone who enjoyed their Graveyard Shift many years ago, you may find that Mark Radcliffe's radio 2 show is much the same, although more likely to feature Noddy Holder...
On a totally different subject (but appropriate to
life_of_tom's theme of LJ for ranting) anyone who is thinking about voting in the next election should bear in mind that the Conservative leader, in addition to being a repugnant, opportunistic, point-scoring, immoral rat of a man has a proven track record of deliberately lying to the british people. The mechanism by which he did this (or a mechanism - I'm sure he used many others ) is that when he was Home Secretary he refused to allow any changes to the systems by which crime is recorded. He knew perfectly well that if much-needed changes were made to the recording systems, the number of crimes that were recorded would increase and that people would think crime was on the increase. This is because journalists don't know the difference between a number and something real. Instead, when Labour instituted the necessary changes he immediately jumped on the changes in the figures to claim that society was collapsing under labour. This is not the case- crime levels have hardly changed at all in the last 30 years - but if all the reported crimes are recorded when previously only the ones the police could be bothered to take a note of were recorded then it will look as though crime levels are higher. Similar is his incredibly irritating claim that the British Crime Survey is flawed because it doesn't include murder. To keep it separate from police statistics the BCS is a survey of victims of crime. To get murder victims to participate you would have to be some kind of vile creature of necromancy. Come to think of it, maybe that is somewhere that Howard could make a difference.![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
re. Dr Who
Date: 27 Mar 2005 07:25 (UTC)