alfa.org.uk

So, Lord Hutton reported.

I think most people are quite surprised; not about what he said, but rather about what he didn’t say. There’s no doubt that while the BBC was never going to come out of this smelling of roses, there’s no way that the government and the MoD should have done either.

I find all that rather uninteresting though. I think the wider issues for the BBC and broadcasting in general are far more important. I only really came to any conclusions about this whilst watching Michael Howard responding to the Hutton Report in the House of Commons.

It seems to me that the basic problem the Government had was that there was an opinion that broadcasters in general (and the BBC in particular) were anti-government and anti-war, and were following a deliberately confrontational line. Personally, I think that’s a very strong way of putting it, but in general the point is a valid one.

So why have broadcasters become so deeply cynical and attacking towards the government? At the risk of repeating an oft-heard mantra - it’s all the Tories’ fault.

It’s undeniable that the terminal decline of the Conservative Party over the last decade has resulted in a political vacuum. The country has lacked strong, credible opposition to the policies of the Blair government, and the result has been that media organisations like the BBC have effectively filled that void, and become the official opposition.

I realised that whilst watching Michael Howard scrabbling for cover in the Commons. Poor guy, he’d been lining Blair up for weeks over Hutton, and then the judge pulled the rug out from under him. But the fact remains that the government was fundamentally angry with the BBC over many issues other than the Gilligan story, mainly because of the role the BBC had been forced to assume as effectively being the Official Opposition.

My worry is that now the BBC has been neutered by Hutton, that vacuum will again exist. And the possibility of the lack of a credible opposition to the Government is far more dangerous and threatening than the prospect of leaving the BBC in the position it had assumed before Lord Hutton reported.

I’m going to admit something now. It’s not too bad I don’t think, but there is an outside chance I’ll be labelled a “wussy frilly-dress-wearing girl”. Or something. Here goes…

I quite like watching “Sex and the City”.

I realise that this risks me demeaning my entire gender, but I think it’s generally quite well-written, and the characters make me laugh (especially Stanford). I find Carrie’s outfits hilarious, and Samantha always makes me think of my ex-housemate (who had a more-than-unhealthy interest in Kim Cattrell).

Trouble is, I get sucked in far too easily. It’s all very vacuous, very la-la-la whatever, but then suddenly, I realise how the characters are making exactly the same mistakes I do. I also realise, by the way, that this is precisely what the producers intended.

There was an episode in the last series that guest-starred David Duchovny as Carrie’s old flame from her high school days. You should realise, by the way, that I am this character. More than a bit geeky, not exactly great with women, but mildly witty. Perhaps. Maybe I’m flattering myself there. Okay, more than a bit geeky, not exactly great with women, and sarcastic to the point of absurdity.

In the episode him and Carrie are considering getting back together and trying again, when he says he has something important he has to tell her about himself. He goes on to explain that he’s been suffering from mental illness and is taking time off work to try and deal with things. Now, this isn’t very like me, (although I do wonder sometimes) but the next line he said really stuck in my head, and I can’t get it out.

He said, “I’m just trying to work out why some things seem to be so much harder for me than for other people“.

I know exactly how he feels.

You can’t say I didn’t try…

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about the Government’s proposals for tuition fees.

I considered all the arguments very carefully before last night’s vote. I have had my own concerns about the policy. Over the past few weeks I have had personal meetings with both Charles Clarke and Tony Blair and pressed for some of the important changes that have now been made. I am writing to let you know that I supported the Government’s final proposals and would like to explain why.

There are two parts to the policy: the introduction of higher fees, and the introduction of variable fees. The arguments about each element are rather different.

Universities have been badly under funded for years. Under the previous Conservative Government funding was actually cut. It has risen faster than inflation under Labour but there is still a need for additional resources. I believe that it is reasonable to raise some of those extra resources from those who will benefit directly from higher education. In an ideal world we would not need to do this, but there are not only limits on how much can be raised by taxation, there are also other priorities. Within education alone, better under fives provision would probably have a far bigger impact on educational performance than investment in HE.

Obviously there are concerns about the impact of higher fees. However, the Government’s scheme now has very significant safeguards. Firstly, upfront fees will be abolished. (At present students or their families have to find over £3000 to go on a university course before they graduate and before they have any chance to earn.) In future, no repayments will be made until after graduation. The threshold for repayment (the income you need before you start repaying) will be raised by 50%, and no debts will last longer than 25 years which will help those who go long term into lower paid jobs or decide to take time out to have a family. Secondly, the position for low income students is significantly better than today. Not only will they not have upfront fees, but they will be able to draw up to £3000 a year to support themselves whilst they are at universities. Of course they will have to repay their fees after graduation like everyone else, but they will avoid the worst of the financial pressures that put many off going to university or to leave their courses early.

These are real improvements, not just on the Government top-up fees
proposals but on the current position for poorer students.

Variable fees present different problems. Some have been concerned about unfair funding of the newer universities. I have been most concerned that high fees (the £10,000 per year that some universities want) would leave the elite universities as socially unrepresentative and divisive as they are today. Variable fees still form part of the Bill. However, their scope has now been severely limited for years to come. The maximum fee will £3000 in real terms until the end of the decade at least. The Government cannot simply change this policy; they would need support from both Houses of Parliament. In the meantime, only limited variation will be possible which I don’t find entirely unacceptable and could bring some benefits to some universities, some courses and some students.

The changes and safeguards made the Bill one that I could support. Last night’s vote was not simply about the Government’s Bill. The alternative was the Conservative policy which will deny hundreds of thousands of students the chance to go to University. This is not just bad for those students; it is disastrous for the country.

John Denham MP (Southampton Itchen)

I think the key point is that is that he believes variables fees “could bring some benefits to some universities, some courses and some students” (emphasis mine). Hmm, not exactly cast-iron, is it…

If you ever have to deal with PDF files, you’ll know that Adobe Reader is slow and bloated, and has horrific startup times. This can be fixed, thanks to these easy instructions:

1. Navigate to where you installed Reader (C:\Program Files\Adobe\Acrobat 6.0\Reader for me)
2. Rename the plug_ins directory to something else (perhaps plug_ins_old)
3. Create a new plug_ins directory
4. Copy the files EWH32.api, printme.api, and Search.api from your plug_ins_old directory into the new plug_ins directory
5. Test on a PDF file

I found that Reader now starts in one second rather than fifteen. Of course, by not loading all the plugins you won’t have access to some of the advanced features (like file encryption, web services, automatic updates), but really, who uses those anyway??

The real US Security Status.

You know what my email address is… ;-)

Some summers in the evening after 6 or so
I walk on down the hill
And maybe buy a beer
I think about my friends
Sometimes I wish they lived out here
But they wouldn’t dig this town
No they wouldn’t dig this town

Alice, the world is full of ugly things that you can’t change
Pretend it’s not that way
That’s my idea of faith
You can blow it off
And say there’s good in nearly everyone
Just give them all a chance
Now let’s give them all a chance

Thank God it’s you
Y’know, your timing is impeccable
I’m not fooling you
I don’t know what to do

- Ben Folds

I was thinking about the ongoing problems in the Middle East, and how there seems to be no real possibility of progress in the immediate future. There must be reasons for this right? I mean, I’m sure neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians are happy with the current state of affairs, where suicide bombers attack the Israelis whilst the Palestinian’s homeland is occupied and their human rights are abused.

So why is there no progress?

I think the answer has something to do with the lack of political visionaries in the region. When I think about major world problems in the past, and how they have been solved, I see one key person taking a stand for the future of their people. Think about it:

• British rule in India - Gandhi
• Apartheid in South Africa - Nelson Mandela
• Votes for women - Emmeline Pankhurst
• Black rights in America - Martin Luther King

The list could go on.

When I look at Arafat and Sharon, I just don’t see the kind of qualities that those people exhibited. Which is terrible, because it means we could be as much as a generation away from finding lasting solutions to the problems in the region.

Today, my spam filter is catching spam where the From: header contains my email address.

So the stupid spammer is including the person he’s forging email from on the To: list!

It defies belief.

This is possibly the most annoying thing ever.

Spammers are vermin, as we all know. They use devious and evil tricks to deliver their spam, breaking laws in the process. One of these things is the forging of email headers.

I have just started getting loads of email bounces landing in my account. Some stupid spammer has started using my domain name in the Reply-To: header of their junk.

This means that when the spammer sends spam to a dead email address, instead of the bounce coming back at the spammer, instead, it lands in my inbox. Bastards bastards bastards.

And there’s nothing I can do. Well, apart from be more aggressive with Procmail to try and filter the crap out.

40 bounces in the last hour, and counting…