Aliens!

I'm not given to conspiracy theory. But I now have conclusive proof that the Cybermen have visited Earth and spent at least some time infiltrating the Parks and Open Spaces department at the London Borough of Redbridge.



View larger map


Not convinced? Here's a chap who'll persuade you with ease.

Now that's what I call marketing!

Describing Bushey House Beaumont Care Home, owners Barchester Care Homes says: Welcome to the relaxed and happy lifestyle of Bushey House Beaumont. We provide first-class nursing and residential care.

Describing Bushey House Beaumont Care Home, the Care Quality Commission says: People who are admitted to this home cannot be sure that they will be treated in a manner that recognised their needs or cared for in a manner that promotes the dignity of the resident.

And so it goes on. Barchester: We think you'll find we're ideally suited to meet your needs now and in the future to ensure you get the most from your retirement years. Care Quality Commission: We looked at the care plans of four people and found that two people had been admitted to the home suffering from dementia. The home did not have staff trained to meet the needs of people who have dementia.

Barchester: Our team of highly-qualified and attentive staff really focuses on the individual needs of our residents with a tailored care plan for each person. Care Quality Commission: Care plans did not contain sufficient information to enable staff to meet the needs of the residents. They did not offer any guidance to staff on how needs were to be met or care carried out. An example of this was transfer papers from the hospital stated that the person suffered from depression and had attempted suicide. This information was not transferred to their care plan which could mean that they were not protected from possible self harm.

The Care Quality Commission is to be commended for its investigation and clear reporting on care homes, but who's responsible for looking at the marketing of homes which have clearly failed in their duty of care to their residents? I doubt the CQC has any role in evaluating the marketing of the homes under its inspection regime, but I also doubt it falls to trading standards, either. Who knows? Then again, who cares? It's only old people. They don't vote much, you know.

Where was I?

Oh yes. I've been:

• Creeped out by the sight of uniformed soldiers collecting for the Poppy Appeal at Euston Station. Am I unpatriotic?
• Perturbed by Nick Griffin's apparently unexamined assertion that children should receive no sex education until they reach secondary school age
• Wearied by the prospect that Tony Blair is the best available British European
• Depressed by the Churches starting to tear each other apart, as well as themselves
• Getting the hang of Twitter, and slightly unnerved by the boundarilessness of it all

and

• entertained by NewsBiscuit.

That's kept me busy. More soon?

So it's polling day

Over the last few weeks, since the Expenses Scandal (so big it get its own capital letters) broke, I've heard/read/seen a lot of concern expressed that disillusionment brought about by the abuse of the MPs' expenses system will result in low turnout or a large protest vote, either of which could favour the BNP, or other extreme parties.

Is this likely? No idea -- I'm not a political pollster.

Is not voting, or voting for a party you would otherwise ignore a sensible response to the scandal? I don't think so.

Taking them in reverse order -- who gets punished the most by electing an extremist? The ousted party? The ousted individual? Or the members of the public who are now represented by, and potentially subject to legislation drafted by, someone who should never have power. As for not voting, this doesn't really punish any individual either, although it again risks punishing the country as whole. Even were it true that "all politicians are corrupt", or "there's no difference between the parties" -- as apathists tend to say -- the fact is that someone will be elected, and we all have a vested interest in making sure that that person is someone who is going to do what we consider to be a good job.

So come on folks, get out and vote and enjoy the warm glow of knowing you did what people in many countries (say China, aptly, given the events 20 years ago today) would give their lives to be able to do. This blog was set up by the venerated Paper Ostrich, after disussions between several of us, as somewhere to let a moderate view be heard away from the loud minority of extremists. Polling stations serve a similar function.

Headline Watch: No new swine flu cases in update

The headline: "No new swine flu cases in update."

Musings: the BBC is showing a sudden awareness of the likelihood of being parodied if it had gone with the obvious temptation - "No new swine flu cases in Scotland." Instead, it has found the magic formula which makes this news: it's not the lack of new swine flu victims which is news, but the fact that somebody has reported that there are no new cases.

Even worse than this apparent discovery of a justification for non-news" (It's not "not news", it's "no-news news") is the additional rationale: that the swine flu story has become so huge that it probably is newsworthy to report that it's not happening. The default view is no longer that nothing newsworthy is happening until we are told otherwise, it's that anything which runs counter to the public expectation created by the news is itself newsworthy.

Of course, the BBC must faithfully report news without passing judgement on whether or not it ought to be newsworthy. Which neatly sidesteps questions about the role of the BBC - and, of course, all the other media outlets - in inflating this particular story in the first place, and creating that public expectation which it now falls to them to moderate.

Headline Watch: "Demons 'harmless', says Vatican

The headline: "Demons 'harmless', says Vatican.

Natural assumption: Catholic church makes surprising U-turn on controversial theological issue.

Actual story: Vatican cardinal comments on new Dan Brown movie.

Result: BBC score 4 out of 5 for misleading content, 4 out of 5 for cashing in on controversial issues, but a fortunate 0 out of 5 for needless headline puns, mercifully absent from this little bit of drivel.

Nobody's banning anything!

It may well be that local councils need their language simplified, but it seems that the news media might need to be taught how to write accurately, too.

The Local Government Association triggered a story with a press release beginning like this:

"Council leaders have today published a list of 200 words that public bodies should not use if they want to communicate effectively with local people."

and continuing in this vein - "words and phrases that all public sector bodies should avoid".

But this sensible, if relatively meek, measure has been beefed up by journalists with a fondness for a story about titanic power-struggles between huge public bodies. The BBC proclaims "Councils get banned jargon list" and proclaims "COUNCIL JARGON BAN" on its front page, while The Telegraph fails in both spirit and accuracy with "Perplexing council speak such as 'rebaselining' banned in LGA guide" (it's even described in the same sentence as just a guide!). The Aberdeen Press and Journal rather floridly calls it "a hate list". Even Computer Weekly falls for the line with "Council leaders ban business jargon".

It's perfectly possible to report accurately - like the Guardian, ITV News or even, Heaven help us, The Sun (description of an LGA "crackdown" notwithstanding), which makes the BBC's and the Telegraph's overegging of the pudding that bit more disappointing. It's not as if the LGA - which has no power to "ban" councils from doing anything - even sexed up its own press release to get attention.

It's small fry, and not the most exciting story in the world, but the principle is an important one. The media blame the politicians for widespread disengagement with public life - but who's misrepresenting the way things work here?