Pity poor PhotoBof. The BOF is sending him out on the street today, in the cold and the snow, to find images of the revolting students.
Last time PhotoBof did this was at the G20. He was kettled, but found the safety valve (see 3 April 2009). Despite the fact that this safety valve was quietly giving those involved a way out, it was never reported. Even the police never acknowledged it, though they had clearly sanctioned it.
PhotoBof is under instructions from BOF to see if he can find the safety valve today. Or perhaps modern kettles don't need them...
Tuesday 30 November 2010
bum apples
So the English Bid team's response to Panorama's allegations is that "If you hurt one of them of course it has an impact on others, that's just inevitable" or "the others feel it, that's just life". Apparently "the BBC should hang its head in shame."
Translation:"If you have one rotten apple in a barrel it turns the whole barrel bad." So, shouldn't they be applauding the BBC?
There is new evidence, so the programme is justified. The over-riding concern should be that the system is cleaned out and rebuilt, not that England should hold one world cup final, with all the implied corruption.
The extra icing is the side of the story that tells us about the deals FIFA strikes with Governments.
It will be a happy moment when Blatter is finally disgraced; to hope for a foul jail is pie in the sky. Let's have some pie...
Translation:"If you have one rotten apple in a barrel it turns the whole barrel bad." So, shouldn't they be applauding the BBC?
There is new evidence, so the programme is justified. The over-riding concern should be that the system is cleaned out and rebuilt, not that England should hold one world cup final, with all the implied corruption.
The extra icing is the side of the story that tells us about the deals FIFA strikes with Governments.
It will be a happy moment when Blatter is finally disgraced; to hope for a foul jail is pie in the sky. Let's have some pie...
Sunday 28 November 2010
bumbling
The BOF woke at around 4.30 this morning. He's been nurturing his jet-lag since returning from China so that it can keep his body's rhythms in tune with the cricket in Australia.
He turned on just in time to see the captain-opener's dismissal for 110, and then to watch his partner go on past his own century, the first time an English side's Ashes openers have both made centuries in the same innings for 72 years.
Stats like that warm the BOF's cockles. But the event which convinced him that this was going to be good day was the Professor Bumble show. Taking his turn in the Third Man seat (the pontificating position) David "Bumble" Lloyd became frenetic with calculator and pad, attempting to predict a possible English win. The camera cut away from him for no more than a minute. When it returned he was asleep in his chair, mouth open. Cut to a smirking Gower and Warne, who managed to keep talking straight. Cut back to Bumble, slumped on the floor. As the camera lingers an eye pops open, and, as realisation strikes, widens. He leaps back to the chair, pulls the cans on, and busies himself with the calculator once more.
The BOF is even now searching it out on YouTube and will post the link here when it's found. It's worth a look even if it is a prank...
He turned on just in time to see the captain-opener's dismissal for 110, and then to watch his partner go on past his own century, the first time an English side's Ashes openers have both made centuries in the same innings for 72 years.
Stats like that warm the BOF's cockles. But the event which convinced him that this was going to be good day was the Professor Bumble show. Taking his turn in the Third Man seat (the pontificating position) David "Bumble" Lloyd became frenetic with calculator and pad, attempting to predict a possible English win. The camera cut away from him for no more than a minute. When it returned he was asleep in his chair, mouth open. Cut to a smirking Gower and Warne, who managed to keep talking straight. Cut back to Bumble, slumped on the floor. As the camera lingers an eye pops open, and, as realisation strikes, widens. He leaps back to the chair, pulls the cans on, and busies himself with the calculator once more.
The BOF is even now searching it out on YouTube and will post the link here when it's found. It's worth a look even if it is a prank...
Saturday 27 November 2010
gowerism (1)
deeper innit:
a coloquial description of England's traditional position at the start of their second innings in the first match of an Ashes series, a position which can be avoided by the captain and opener not completing his pair.
a coloquial description of England's traditional position at the start of their second innings in the first match of an Ashes series, a position which can be avoided by the captain and opener not completing his pair.
Saturday 20 November 2010
swiss turd
What, precisely, is "not fair" (Herr Blatter's words) about being banged to rights? It would seem that the slimy Swiss objects to the concept of horses for courses. If you've got a dodgy crew that needs investigating, you offer them some dodgy bait and see if they take it in a clearly dodgy way.
His use of statistics is criminal misrepresentation. He talks about six people out of three hundred million, or six "personalities". The BOF would like to point out to Blather that this is a meaningless fraction; the important numbers are two out of twenty four, two members of the all-powerful voting executive committee of twenty four members.
The "not fair" can only be taken to refer to the methods used, not the results obtained. If he'd like to get get into an ethical discussion on whether ends justify means, perhaps he'd like to open up the history of his own route to power. How were votes obtained and cajoled in that particular progress? Was that fair?
From time to time,there is a suggestion in what Septic says that there is bound to be corruption within an organisation like this. The unstated next sentence goes something like this: "I therefore absolve myself of all guilt by association, of all previous wrongdoing, and all responsibility for my own actions. I am now above the law."
The BOF would like to reserve front row tickets for his fall, when it comes. Perhaps a double bill with Signor Burlesqueoni is in order, a new bonfire of the vanities.
His use of statistics is criminal misrepresentation. He talks about six people out of three hundred million, or six "personalities". The BOF would like to point out to Blather that this is a meaningless fraction; the important numbers are two out of twenty four, two members of the all-powerful voting executive committee of twenty four members.
The "not fair" can only be taken to refer to the methods used, not the results obtained. If he'd like to get get into an ethical discussion on whether ends justify means, perhaps he'd like to open up the history of his own route to power. How were votes obtained and cajoled in that particular progress? Was that fair?
From time to time,there is a suggestion in what Septic says that there is bound to be corruption within an organisation like this. The unstated next sentence goes something like this: "I therefore absolve myself of all guilt by association, of all previous wrongdoing, and all responsibility for my own actions. I am now above the law."
The BOF would like to reserve front row tickets for his fall, when it comes. Perhaps a double bill with Signor Burlesqueoni is in order, a new bonfire of the vanities.
Friday 19 November 2010
shanghaied
PhotoBof tells the BOF amazing stories of the Mysterious Orient.
"Blog it!" says BOF.
So he has.
Blogged it.
Or will, at any rate. Meanwhile, this:
"Blog it!" says BOF.
So he has.
Blogged it.
Or will, at any rate. Meanwhile, this:
chartering classes
Poor old BBC! They're in a pickle again, but this latest accusation of un-patriotic programming is just one in a long line of attacks on the institution's independence.
The BOF remembers a close relation of his coming into the house one evening during the Falklands war. The dude had just come back from facing the full wrath of the 1922 committee. An unusually civilized member said afterwards "There was blood all over the floor". Who's was never stated. The dude looked in rude health that evening.
And the dude was happy. He'd managed to defend the wonderful anomaly of the BBC. The uber-conservatives had fallen into the trap of thinking that because it is funded by instrument of government, the BBC is an instrument of government.
It's a witty trick but the BOF is worried. It's starting to seem as if some Beebs think that it might have a tiny bit of what the Monday Club likes in it, that the BBC is on the same benches as government. How else to explain the lightning capitulation to politically biassed cuts demanded by government?
It has none of that in it. It either is or isn't an instrument of government. It's a binary choice, black or white. How has government managed to get into a position where it can dictate the BBC's budget and arbitrarily redefine foreign services?
The funding of what is heard over the airwaves has always been a filter on the perception of its output. The Voice of America is a sinister phrase.
The BBC is not the voice of the British government, although some parts of its overseas output are precisely that, the etherial voice of Her Brittanic's.
The BOF hopes that the forthcoming Panorama show on FIFA does have something new in it. If it doesn't, the Swiss Shit has already won this little skirmish. Of course, that doesn't make Septic any the less guilty, but if the BBC has chosen to air a programme in such a provocative slot, it should only be doing so if it has something new to say. It would be enough to air new supporting evidence for the old allegations which orbit Blatter like a solar system of bad pennies; but without new material it is the shoddiest form of TV, utterly unfocussed opportunism. If they can't say with a straight face that they've been deliberately provocative because they've got something important to say, then they are devaluing the BBC brand, and that's blasphemy in mod mangmt spk.
The fun really would begin if the programme has some new substantiation of a Warner story; there are, after all, a good many to work with. Why is Cameron being so public about lunching such an out-and-out Korruption King? If just one of the ripening stories about him matures now, hindsight will give the arrangement a look of extremely poor judgement. Or is this the new face of patriotism, the pragmatic lunching of crooks?
The BOF remembers a close relation of his coming into the house one evening during the Falklands war. The dude had just come back from facing the full wrath of the 1922 committee. An unusually civilized member said afterwards "There was blood all over the floor". Who's was never stated. The dude looked in rude health that evening.
And the dude was happy. He'd managed to defend the wonderful anomaly of the BBC. The uber-conservatives had fallen into the trap of thinking that because it is funded by instrument of government, the BBC is an instrument of government.
It's a witty trick but the BOF is worried. It's starting to seem as if some Beebs think that it might have a tiny bit of what the Monday Club likes in it, that the BBC is on the same benches as government. How else to explain the lightning capitulation to politically biassed cuts demanded by government?
It has none of that in it. It either is or isn't an instrument of government. It's a binary choice, black or white. How has government managed to get into a position where it can dictate the BBC's budget and arbitrarily redefine foreign services?
The funding of what is heard over the airwaves has always been a filter on the perception of its output. The Voice of America is a sinister phrase.
The BBC is not the voice of the British government, although some parts of its overseas output are precisely that, the etherial voice of Her Brittanic's.
The BOF hopes that the forthcoming Panorama show on FIFA does have something new in it. If it doesn't, the Swiss Shit has already won this little skirmish. Of course, that doesn't make Septic any the less guilty, but if the BBC has chosen to air a programme in such a provocative slot, it should only be doing so if it has something new to say. It would be enough to air new supporting evidence for the old allegations which orbit Blatter like a solar system of bad pennies; but without new material it is the shoddiest form of TV, utterly unfocussed opportunism. If they can't say with a straight face that they've been deliberately provocative because they've got something important to say, then they are devaluing the BBC brand, and that's blasphemy in mod mangmt spk.
The fun really would begin if the programme has some new substantiation of a Warner story; there are, after all, a good many to work with. Why is Cameron being so public about lunching such an out-and-out Korruption King? If just one of the ripening stories about him matures now, hindsight will give the arrangement a look of extremely poor judgement. Or is this the new face of patriotism, the pragmatic lunching of crooks?
Friday 5 November 2010
wiki...what?
The BOF would happily admit that this is not the best time of day to be blogging.
However...
Looking up a person on google got him to wikipedia and a message from its founder, asking for subscriber funds in order to keep the wikipedia thing independent of nasty commerce.
The BOF had his hand on his card when he wondered whether there was, er, any more detail.
There wasn't.
It's a Bob G moment: "Give us your fuckin' money!" (No, he didn't say that, but it's what he meant.)
The BOF would love to support a great resource. He's watched it develop from from an utterly unreliable wankdom into a major source of fact-ishness which can be clearly read by those who've used it a few times; that's most of us. Money should pour in to its public-spirited cause.
So why no breakdown of where the money will go? It's just "Gimme dollars!" without any explanation of where it might be used. Perhaps we'd be investing...is there a profit incentive or is it only moral investment?
Hhhhmmmmmmmm...
However...
Looking up a person on google got him to wikipedia and a message from its founder, asking for subscriber funds in order to keep the wikipedia thing independent of nasty commerce.
The BOF had his hand on his card when he wondered whether there was, er, any more detail.
There wasn't.
It's a Bob G moment: "Give us your fuckin' money!" (No, he didn't say that, but it's what he meant.)
The BOF would love to support a great resource. He's watched it develop from from an utterly unreliable wankdom into a major source of fact-ishness which can be clearly read by those who've used it a few times; that's most of us. Money should pour in to its public-spirited cause.
So why no breakdown of where the money will go? It's just "Gimme dollars!" without any explanation of where it might be used. Perhaps we'd be investing...is there a profit incentive or is it only moral investment?
Hhhhmmmmmmmm...
Blat Splat
Oh to be in England when the press are baying!
It's unlikely that anything will be learned from the FIFA world cup bidding process, in the UK at least. A quick review of the recent weeks would suggest that external forces have lit the blue touch paper and retired.
Feed a few half-substantiated rumours to the British Press and they'll run with them, no matter who suffers: the more the suffering, the bigger the market, is the theory, so anything goes.
Also, they're all so lazy, they'd rather print PR releases and street rumour.
So the Russians prime the pumps then sit back and let the press do the rest for them.
Oh yeah?
The BOF believes all this to be prime conspiracy theory. What worries him is that there may actually be a conspiracy in here somewhere. He suggests that the first place to look for its source is Blatter's office. If yesterday's reports of damage to England's world cup bid have any substance to them, it has been created in those environs.
Telephone records from FIFA HQ would be fascinating.
It's unlikely that anything will be learned from the FIFA world cup bidding process, in the UK at least. A quick review of the recent weeks would suggest that external forces have lit the blue touch paper and retired.
Feed a few half-substantiated rumours to the British Press and they'll run with them, no matter who suffers: the more the suffering, the bigger the market, is the theory, so anything goes.
Also, they're all so lazy, they'd rather print PR releases and street rumour.
So the Russians prime the pumps then sit back and let the press do the rest for them.
Oh yeah?
The BOF believes all this to be prime conspiracy theory. What worries him is that there may actually be a conspiracy in here somewhere. He suggests that the first place to look for its source is Blatter's office. If yesterday's reports of damage to England's world cup bid have any substance to them, it has been created in those environs.
Telephone records from FIFA HQ would be fascinating.
Tuesday 2 November 2010
Amazonian warrior
The BOF's mailbox set him chortling this morning. The chortles soon erupted into guffaws.
The story so far: BOF received an email along the "customers who bought..." line, claiming sales for a DVD which was not yet available. Amazon continued to hold their line, until the BOF pointed out that he was only talking to them as a curtesy before going to the relevant trading authority with a complaint.
That last nudge has pushed the slimy sales-addicts over the edge. They have capitulated.
Yup, you read that right. Amazon have capitulated. And, curiously, they've used their war department to do so.
How else can this curious beginning to an email be construed?
Thank you for contacting Amazon.co.uk.
My name is Sowmya and I work in the Customer Escalations Team.
Now, we would have expected this to come from the customer relations team. But no: it's from Customer Escalations, clearly a secret division whose purpose is to wind up customers until they make some libellous remark which is then used to silence the original complaint.
Sowmya, however, has other ideas. We can't see her lasting very long in the Amazon culture, for she goes on:
First of all, please accept my sincere apologies for any misunderstanding caused.
I would like to confirm that the "Jim Jefferies Alcoholocaust [DVD]" is not yet released and the message you have received wherein "We've noticed that customers who have purchased or rated The Aristocrats [DVD] [2005] have also purchased Jim Jefferies Alcoholocaust [DVD] on DVD. For this reason, you might like to know that Jim Jefferies Alcoholocaust [DVD] will be released on 8 November 2010. You can pre-order yours for just £11.93 by following the link below." is sent in error as purchased instead of pre-ordered.
This situation was the result of a technical error, and I'm truly sorry for any inconvenience caused.
Rest assured that the DVD "Jim Jefferies Alcoholocaust [DVD]" is not yet released and the customers have pre-ordered this DVD.
The BOF is highly amused that that the words "technical error" are themselves a technical error: they should have read "company policy". He is disappointed that the lawyer involved in drafting this email has not signed it. No ordinary mortal is capable, without giggling, of using the construction ...the message you have received wherein "We've noticed that customers who have purchased...
Amazon can "rest assured" that the BOF will try to keep this one alive.
The story so far: BOF received an email along the "customers who bought..." line, claiming sales for a DVD which was not yet available. Amazon continued to hold their line, until the BOF pointed out that he was only talking to them as a curtesy before going to the relevant trading authority with a complaint.
That last nudge has pushed the slimy sales-addicts over the edge. They have capitulated.
Yup, you read that right. Amazon have capitulated. And, curiously, they've used their war department to do so.
How else can this curious beginning to an email be construed?
Thank you for contacting Amazon.co.uk.
My name is Sowmya and I work in the Customer Escalations Team.
Now, we would have expected this to come from the customer relations team. But no: it's from Customer Escalations, clearly a secret division whose purpose is to wind up customers until they make some libellous remark which is then used to silence the original complaint.
Sowmya, however, has other ideas. We can't see her lasting very long in the Amazon culture, for she goes on:
First of all, please accept my sincere apologies for any misunderstanding caused.
I would like to confirm that the "Jim Jefferies Alcoholocaust [DVD]" is not yet released and the message you have received wherein "We've noticed that customers who have purchased or rated The Aristocrats [DVD] [2005] have also purchased Jim Jefferies Alcoholocaust [DVD] on DVD. For this reason, you might like to know that Jim Jefferies Alcoholocaust [DVD] will be released on 8 November 2010. You can pre-order yours for just £11.93 by following the link below." is sent in error as purchased instead of pre-ordered.
This situation was the result of a technical error, and I'm truly sorry for any inconvenience caused.
Rest assured that the DVD "Jim Jefferies Alcoholocaust [DVD]" is not yet released and the customers have pre-ordered this DVD.
The BOF is highly amused that that the words "technical error" are themselves a technical error: they should have read "company policy". He is disappointed that the lawyer involved in drafting this email has not signed it. No ordinary mortal is capable, without giggling, of using the construction ...the message you have received wherein "We've noticed that customers who have purchased...
Amazon can "rest assured" that the BOF will try to keep this one alive.
Bull.................Shit
So let's look at this one.
Amazon think it's OK to tell old customers (the email the BOF uses with them tells him it's from at least ten years ago) that they have a fab choice for the customer based on ... predicted sales. But that's dull, so they'll imply that they're real sales.
This sounds illegal, but, hey, correct us.
Amazon think it's OK to tell old customers (the email the BOF uses with them tells him it's from at least ten years ago) that they have a fab choice for the customer based on ... predicted sales. But that's dull, so they'll imply that they're real sales.
This sounds illegal, but, hey, correct us.
Monday 1 November 2010
Spot the deliberate mistake...
Greetings from Amazon.co.uk,
We've noticed that customers who have purchased or rated The Aristocrats [DVD] [2005]have also purchased Jim Jefferies Alcoholocaust [DVD] on DVD. For this reason, you might like to know that Jim Jefferies Alcoholocaust [DVD] will be released on 8 November 2010. You can pre-order yours for just £11.93 by following the link below.
The BOF cannot understand how customers have managed to purchase an item that is not yet for sale. He would welcome explanations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)