Mauled by kittens

Having spent the afternoon watching the Murdochs and now Rebekka Brooks facing their parliamentary inquisitors, I've simply had my previous view confirmed: the gulf between people who succeed in business, and those who enter parliament, is huge. 

Most of the MPs didn't have a clue about how to tackle questioning powerful figures, and were, in the main, simply hamming it up for the cameras - I doubt the Murdochs could believe how easy it all was.  Any journalist or salesperson would have done a better job.  I'm staggered that the MPs generally seemed to believe that convoluted three- or four-part questions were the way to get at the truth: most of the time our elected representatives seemed to confuse themselves rather than worry the interviewee.

  I actually felt sorry for Young Mr Grace, as he didn't really seem to be fully engaged it matters at the start, and it came over as a bunch of bullies having a pop at a very old man.  Later on he got into his stride - well, it was more of a totter, but it was still too good for the committee.  Son James was simply too well briefed and too smooth - they didn't lay a finger on him.  It staggered me that the MPs believed that the men (and woman) at the top of a huge multi-national should have known every detail of what was going on - like all CEOs and Chairmen, they get told what they want to hear most of the time.

A self-publicising stand-up comedian throwing shaving foam in his face was a godsend for the octogenarian YMG - mugging old people offends British sensibilities.

Of the MPs, Tom Watson at least managed a decent imitation of being menacing, but the rest just huffed and puffed.

If you want it in footballing terms, I reckon it was probably something like 5-1 to the Murdochs and Ms Brooks, and to misquote  George Bernard Shaw, 'He can that can does. He who cannot, ends up on the Commons Media Committee'.

Are you being hacked?

I'm old enough to remember the extremely politically incorrect BBC show, 'Are You Being Served?'  It ran from the early 70s through to the mid 80s, and was set in a London department store called Grace Brothers. It featured John Inman as the effeminate, camp Mr Humphries, who would squeak every so often, 'I'm free!' as he minced around the menswear department, and Molly Sugden as the wisteria-rinsed Mrs Slocombe who spent the entire series referring to her cat as her pussy.  A prime example being "Animals are very psychic; the least sign of danger and my pussy's hair stands on end".  I kid you not - this was what the great British public watched and loved 30 years ago!



The store's owner was Young Mr Grace, an octogenarian who was pushed around in a wheelchair by two mini-skirted bimbos dressed vaguely as nurses.  Mr Grace would periodically visit the store and praise the staff by saying 'You've all done very well!', before collapsing into the arms of his nurses. 



So what has brought this unfunny show to mind?  It was Rupert Murdoch's comments to the Wall Street Journal that he and others in management had handled the hacking crisis "extremely well in every way possible" with just a few "minor mistakes."  What?

When you see the once all-conquering Murdoch dwarfed by his security men as they clear a path for him, and then you read comments such as those quoted, which border on delusional, then it's hard not to see him as Young Mr Grace.  If you're old enough to remember the show, I defy you to tell me otherwise. 

When he gives his evidence to the select committee next week, think Young Mr Grace, and then whatever he says and does can't possibly be scary.

Dave ducking and diving

Can someone please explian what David Cameron meant when he said that he gave Andy Coulson 'a second chance'?  My understanding was that Coulson denied (possiblly still denies) any knowledge of phone hacking or other illegality, and that Cameron appeared to accept that.  Surely then, there was nothing to forgive?

A very unusual phrase from our Prime Minister, and one that I suspect he'll come to regret.  One thing is clear, those who said that it was barmy to appoint Coulson have been proved right.  Even if Coulson walks away from this without a stain on his character, the furore has dragged Dave into the spotlight and made him look, frankly, a bit of a fool, and extremely light on good judgement.  How I enjoyed watching him squirm!

Clegg, Cable, Osborne and Cameron...what will become of this country?

Should we be shocked?

The suggestion that the voicemail of Milly Dowler, and quite possibly those of other murder victims or their relatives, have been hacked into, seems to have shocked the nation.  Why?  I would have been more surprised had it not been going on.

We have a tabloid press that has got itself into a spiral where each paper has to try to outdo its rivals in terms of scoops, exclusives, or sleaze.  They do it for one simple reason and that's because people want to read it, so a lot of the mock indignation doesn't sit comfortably with me.  There are only two things that can stop the sort of nonsense induged in by the NotW (and, more than likely, some of its rivals):  either people stop buying it, which isn't going to happen, or advertisers stop spending.  It seems that the latter might just be happening, but forgive me if I'm cynical about that too.

Are the companies that are considering taking their advertising away doing it for honourable reasons, or for commercial ones?  Do their managements really care about what's been going on, or are they simply trying to score a few brownie points with their customers, and perhaps an edge over their competitors by beating them to the punch ?  If it was the former they'd have done it years ago, but the truth is that they value access to the NotW's demographic much more than some sort of a moral stance. 

My bet is that those who stop advertising will hold a watching brief: if the NotW's readership levels hold up then they'll be back after a suitably decent interval - that will be precisely how long they think it takes for enough people to have forgotten about the current furore.

Principle?  Don't make me laugh!

The day horseracing lost its marbles

Watching Royal Ascot yesterday I saw one of the greatest horse races I've ever seen.  The ex-Aussie 'wonder horse', So You Think, went off at 4/11 - that means if you wanted to win £4 you'd have to risk losing £11 - in the Prince of Wales's Stakes.  That made him probably the hottest favourite of the week, and before the race his trainer, Aidan O'Brien oozed confidence, telling us that this was a very special horse.

However, things didn't go according to the script as Frankie Dettori gave Rewilding one of the best rides I've ever seen any jockey give a horse (no, I didn't back him so I'm not talking through my pocket), to edge it in the final strides.  Rewilding was hugely brave, and Dettori was inspired - it was the sort of spectacle that makes racing the great sport that it is.

How then do we explain to racing's audience the nine-day ban that Dettori got for using his whip 'with excessive frequency'?  It was totally absurd to ban a jockey for winning the race by getting his horse to give every ounce of effort, but that's the way that the crazy rules work.

Racing's rulers have made an abject surrender to the well-intentioned but misguided do-gooders who don't like seeing horses hit with the whip.  It's the job of the trainer to get his horse really fit, and then the jockey has to get it to try its best to win.  If a horse is being mistreated it will dig its heels in and not show its best - Dettori did not do anything that damaged Rewilding in any way and should not have been banned.

Dettori weighs less then nine stones soaking wet, and when he's riding he isn't allowed to let his lightweight whip be delivered from above shoulder height - try it for yourself and see how much, or rather, how little effort can be applied from that position.  I don't know what Rewilding weighs, but it's a damned site more than nine stones and I seriously doubt that the horse felt pain from Dettori's whip - if he had then he'd have stopped trying his heart out.  Was it the legendary trainer George Lambton who described Flat racing as little men on big horses?

There are times when the whip can be abused. and on those occasions the jockeys should be punished.  An exhausted National Hunt horse being whipped at the end of a three-mile race in the mud is an unedifying spectacle - and those jockeys are bigger, can hit harder, and the races are longer.  But in Flat racing?  No, I don't believe I've seen anything that I would describe as abuse.

Sport is about winning, and the best horse won yesterday.  When Dettori used his whip he was encouraging / asking Rewilding to try his hardest for him, and it was a joy to see the horse's obvious desire to give his partner everything he could, and show an indomitable will to win.  The authorities need to get a grip, and fast, as they're making a mockery out of a wonderful sport, and sadly they're doing it to appease a minority.

If you want one final, and totally damning piece of evidence that shows that there's nothing wrong with using the whip in racing, then here it is: John McCririck, plainly a total madman, would like the whip banned.  The defence rests its case.

The i's have it

I've like i, the Independent's concise, cheaper, and better younger brother, ever since it appeared.  It has now started to publish on a Saturday too, so hopefully that means it's doing well and will survive.

I've found something else to like about recently, and that's the 'Letter from the editor', Simon Kelner, that appears on page three.  On Friday he devoted it to some complaints that he'd received about the paper's coverage of the funeral of Olympic diver Tom Daley's father.  In its coverage the paper showed a picture of the funeral, and a number of readers asked whether that was truly necessary.

Kelner concluded that there hadn't been a need to do it - an editor listening to his readers and acting upon their suggestions?  He's clearly not cut out for the job!  He went on to make the distinction between the recent situation when they used pictures of Sir Henry Cooper's funeral: Cooper was a public figure and there was public interest, whereas Daley's father was not a public figure.  As Kelner put it, "The funeral of a national figure is a news event in its own right, but this was not that - it was the funeral of the father of a national figure".

Kelner concludes that the coverage that i gave the event was possibly 'prurient' and 'intrusive' - well done him for having the courage to admit that, and for telling his readers that in similar circumstances in the future, the paper will err on the side of caution.  Oh that other editors of nationals were half as brave and sensible.

  

Can anyone explain to me why the Archbishop of Canterbury's pronouncements get such wide publicity?  One look at the man tells you that he's as mad as a badger, but the press hangs on his every word.



I have no time for any brand of superstition, and therefore I tend not to listen to the brand managers when they decide to issue press releases, which is what Rowan Williams latest effort is.  Of course, if you spout often enough and long enough then it's inevitable that you'll be right once in a while, and the old duffer is on the money for once when he criticises the Coalition.  Don't you just love it when one establishment figure has a pop at another one - Dave v Rowan wrestling it out over three rounds, with Gideon and God as their respective seconds !

Williams is guest editing the New Statesman this week - what on earth were they thinking about when they invited him?  Who next, a White Witch or a member of the Flat Earth society?