Measure the Thickness...

Where a lot of effort seems to be concentrated...


Via Ambush Pusscat, this excellant post detailing the fallout from NooLaybah's wholesale sodomisation of the education system.

STUDENTS who failed to understand the words “despotic tyranny” have been complaining about their history A-level exam.

It is claimed the question “How far do you agree that Hitler’s role 1933-45 was one of despotic tyranny?” was too confusing for some students to understand.

A protest group called Despotic Tyranny Ruined My Life has been set up on Facebook.

So far 1,151 people have joined the group, leaving comments such as “My life is DESTROYED because of this exam. Seriously” and “This exam made me sad”.

The essay question featured on an Edexcel A Level exam paper sat last week.

A number of teachers have also posted comments on an online history teachers’ discussion forum, claiming that their students would not know what the words “despotic” and “tyranny” meant.

My sympathies lie entirely with the students in this. Yes, they sound like whining ninnies, and yes it looks as though the application of simple context is beyond them; but how were they brought to this?

People are not born knowing how to think. By thinking, I don't mean the inchoate stream-of-consciousness mental muzak that bounces aimlessly around the cranial vault like an endless game of 'pong'; I mean critical, logical, analytical thought.

This is a discipline that must be imparted through education. The political class doesn't like that stuff however, as it leads to their words and deeds being deconstructed by a literate and intelligent electorate, and that would never do.

Every effort of this double and thrice damned pack of boob-jobs has been concentrated on converting young people into docile, malleable sheep. Bulk stock churned out as fodder for the service industries, incapable of cogently questioning the predigested toss spewed by the government and the MSM. Just ask anyone under the age of twenty-five about any issue, from global warming to passive smoke and listen to the soundbites and clichés spill forth. Neatly programmed all.

Nice one Tony, Ed and the rest of you fuckwits. You've created a generation of young people who can't find their own arseholes with both hands and a searchlight.

I feel sorry for them, and for the rest of us.

Retribution Revisited

Must try harder...

Two comments in an earlier post:

Great Big Billygoat Gruff said...

Wouldn't argue against ritual beheading for mendacious politicians but, we would need to turn it into a spectator sport, pour encourager les autres.

The Dome would do just nicely and has recently just become available.

We could franchise to Ticketmaster and al Jazeera as appropriate.

Who will be Mme Tricoteuse?

2:49 PM

Faux Cu said...

I second

They reminded me that I've been here before. My own (admittedly over engineered) solution to garbage disposal was floated here.

A Palpable Hit...

Polly Toynbee, earlier today.

I can't off hand remember who linked to a thoroughly excellent piece of Toynbee fisting yesterday, so apologies for no HT. It led to Juliette who skipped nimbly into my daily reads list at first sight. Deliciously acute, enjoy.

In the Blue Corner...

Do you like scary FoIA requests?

I've dropped a line to the Information Commissioner this evening, now to twiddle my bone-white skeletal thumbs...

ADDENDUM

Anonymous in the comments quite rightly asks what this relates to. Answer here.

Is it Really Just Me?

Why?

Does anyone, anywhere actually find Alan Carr funny?

My, That Was Quick...

Not strictly relevant, but I've been dying to use it.

No sooner had I posted than:

FOI Enquiries
British Broadcasting Corporation

4 June 2009

Dear Mac the Knife

The Information Commissioner's Office has agreed that the BBC is not
required to offer an internal review under the Act when the Act does not
apply to the information requested, as in this case.

You may appeal directly to the Information Commissioner's Office; the
details of how to do so are set out in the Appeal Rights section of the
letter. As noted in the letter, the Information Commissioner's Office
has already considered similar requests and decided that information
about the resources allocated to a particular story is not covered by
the Act.

Yours sincerely
Rachel Hallett

BBC Information Policy and Compliance
Room 2252, 2nd Floor, White City
201 Wood Lane
London W12 7TS, UK

Website: www.bbc.co.uk/foi
Email: mailto:[BBC request email]
Tel: 020 8008 2883
Fax: 020 8008 2398

Do I detect a slight hint of world weary impatience at my obtuseness? Perhaps I'm just getting a little sensitive in my old age.

No matter. Off to the Information Commissioner I think.

Tune in again, same Mac time, same Mac channel.

THE WORST IS YET TO COME!*


*Reference for readers old enough to remember when Batman aired on Saturday and Sunday nights consecutively...

So, Farewell...

Squirrel Nutkin, earlier today.

So it ends, as Hazel falls on her acorn. No doubt she'll give the reason that it will enable her to spend more time raiding bird-tables.

Seconds Away, Round Two...

Here I come again.

I know I'm pissing in the wind, but here we go...

To: British Broadcasting Corporation
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - Total costs incurred in television coverage of the United States Democratic Party Electoral Primaries, 2008

Dear Sir or Madam,

Thank you for your reply to FoI Act request ref: RFI20090631.

I am not satisfied that your grounds for invoking the Corporation's
derogation under the Act are either relevant or valid, and on that
basis request that you instigate an internal review of your
decision.

Yours sincerely,

Mac the Knife.

How I do wonder what the outcome will be...

Oh, I am SO Fucking Surprised...

A BBC FoI Act info request response, earlier today.

A few weeks ago, I asked Auntie this.

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please submit the accurate total cost figure incurred by the BBC in securing, broadcasting and staffing television coverage of the United States Democratic Electoral Primary Contest in 2008.

You may, if you wish, break down the figures into individual areas of disbursement if you desire, but this is at your own option.



Yours faithfully,

Mac the Knife

The reply popped up in my inbox today, and guess what?

The BBC will not be providing you with the information you requested as we believe it is not
covered by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the Act”).

You don't say? Why not?

The BBC has chosen not to volunteer information relating to the costs of coverage of particular
news stories for several reasons, chief amongst them being the need to maintain our
independence and impartiality.

Sorry? Don't quite see how you got there...

I’m sure you will be disappointed that we are not releasing this information to you and even when
we explain that we believe the Act doesn’t apply people often say that they believe that we should
release it anyway. That as licence fee payers they feel they are entitled to it. I would like to explain
why we are not doing so.

Disappointed? Oh no. Not at all. I'm experiencing a completely different emotion. Can you guess what it is yet?

You may not be aware that one of the main policy drivers behind the limited application of the Act
to public service broadcasters was to protect freedom of expression and the rights of the media
under Article 10 European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”). The BBC, as a media
organisation, is under a duty to impart information and ideas on all matters of public interest and
the importance of this function has been recognised by the European Court of Human Rights.
Maintaining our editorial independence is a crucial factor in enabling the media to fulfil this
function.

The Information Commissioner’s Office has recognised the importance of Schedule 1 of the Act in
protecting the independence of the media, stating that:

“It is the Commissioner’s view that the ultimate purpose of the derogation (Schedule 1) is
to protect journalistic, artistic and literary integrity by carving out a creative and
journalistic space for programme makers to produce programmes free from the
interference and scrutiny of the public.”1

The BBC agrees with this interpretation and believes that we have a need to protect our
journalistic and editorial independence by maintaining just such a private space in which to
produce our content. .

The decision as to which reporters or correspondents, and indeed how many of such staff to send
on a particular story, is one of the most fundamental editorial decisions that Newsgathering
undertakes. Despite the BBC’s obligation to be independent and impartial, many bodies, groups
and individuals attempt to influence our output and programme makers across the BBC must be
able to resist pressure directed at the editorial decisions made on resource allocation.

So, you won't tell me how much you spunked burying the coverage of the Lisbon Treaty, in order to ensure that you remain 'independent and impartial' and ensure your 'journalistic, artistic and literary integrity'.

Sorry folks, the boat sailed on all that bollocks some time ago.

Call me a scabby old cynic, but I see this as a pathetically transparent attempt to hide a specious, politically motivated mega-junket behind some very badly withered fig leaves. Not fucking good enough.

Appeal Rights

If you are not satisfied with this response you have the right to appeal to the Information
Commissioner. The contact details are: Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House,
Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF, telephone 01625 545 700 or see
www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk

Yours sincerely



Stephanie Harris
Head of Accountability, BBC News

Way, way ahead of you Stephanie.

Watch this space.