BBC F1 TV coverage – Australia

How do the BBC compare to the job ITV did last year? ITV weren’t perfect, but the BBC weren’t that much different. So much for their “huge coverage” they promised. So what was it like?

The Path to Peace in Gaza?

Here are some excerpts of what I wrote during the last few days of the 13 day attack by Israel on Gaza. It’s a basic summary of news reports, official figures, analysis, and my own opinions. I support both the State of Israel and Palestinian Statehood, but this recent conflict shows up one side to have lost rather more humanity than the other.

The Conservatives Fiddle while the world burns

George Osborn, Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, spoke today at the Tory Party Conference. Falsely.

He said a lot of things that on closer study are weasel words that do not mean what they lead you to believe you think they mean, and which you want them to mean. In other words, it was a carefully crafted PR speech fitting the role of the leader of a large PR company. Oh, that’s what David Cameron really is, was and always will be, isn’t it?

He specifically warned people that if they paid large dividends instead of rebuilding their capital base, those people would suffer. This was followed by a comment about not allowing taxes paid by lower end taxpayers to be used for the benefit of those earning millionaire bonuses. But that means they will do practically nothing at all! Let me explain.

The people who the average man in the street feel most badly about are the city traders getting multi-million pound bonuses each year. The problem is, these traders are employees, or partners (most stockbroking firms have been partnerships not Limited Companies. And if they are companies, each bonus earner is a small part in the whole so gets salary plus bonus. Salaries and bonuses are taken out of a company’s accounts before the dividends, so by making the bonuses big enough you can minimise the dividends to avoid any Tory inspired wrist slapping. Result? Tories can claim to be hitting the people most voters now want to be hit, but without actually having anything more than a feather duster to do it with.

Then there’s the matter of party funding. David Cameron has been attacking Labour for some time about being funded by the Unions and cozying up to big business, while at the same time they themselves have raised £50 million in 30 months. Well, nothing wrong with that you think. But just look how they’ve been doing it. Two examples.

First off, the Leader’s Group. This is an exclusive club that costs £50,000 a year to join but which gives you the right to evenings with David Cameron – special privileges for the privileged. If you can’t afford the fee, well, you can’t influence his thinking. 

Secondly, expatriate Lord Ashcroft and the £4 million donation that became £3 million for the Tories. According to a recent Channel 4 documentary, “Cameron’s Money Men” Ashcroft is not on the voters roll, is therefore not eligible to vote, and by law cannot contribute to a UK political party. So how did the Tories receive his money? A chain of companies starting with one in Belize where he is allegedly tax resident and has considerable interests with the last link in the chain being a company in Southampton. Not only is this not allowed, it may even be criminal, according to one of the experts on the Channel 4 program.

The Tories then used £2 million of his donation to fund publicity campaigns in key marginals across the country. Although there is a limit to how much money political parties can spend on an election campaign once one has been called, there is no limit to how much can be spent in the crucially influential two years preceding an election.

Channel 4 programs do not have the reputation for accuracy that perhaps the BBC might offer (remember The Great Global Warming Swindle?) but they did have some pretty well placed people making comments.

F1: the pathetic joke that calls itself a sport

There is a rule in Formula One that the drivers are very afraid of. They really should never break this. Just so they know exactly what this rule is, there is another (unwritten) rule for the officials that insists they repeatedly demonstrate to the drivers exactly what it is the drivers should not do.

It’s called “Bringing the sport into disrepute” and while drivers are not allowed ever to break this rule, the officials can and do do this on a regular basis. From sex scandals at the very top of the governing body, to questionable actions and repeated favouritism on the behalf of the FIA Stewards when it comes to applying the laws that are written down.

At Monaco, Kimi Raikkonnen skidded on a damp track at the chicane just after exiting the tunnel, and ploughed into fourth placed Adrian Sutil in the Force India, knocking the talented young driver out of a points scoring position. Did the FIA stewards penalise Raikkonen? No. At the time, Mike Gascoyne, the Force India Technical Director, said that if it were the other way around Sutil would probably have received a two race ban.

The FIA officials explanation? They said that because Sutil overtook three cars under yellow flags he would have got a drive through penalty worth 25 seconds so he wouldn’t have finished in the points anyway. Pardon? That’s a bit like saying you’re allowed to rob the bank if the bank made an accounting error on someone else’s account! Surely they should both have been given penalties – Sutil’s infringement should not mean Raikonnen’s need no penalty. That’s crazy.

At Valencia, right on camera, Felipe Massa broke a law in the pits which at the least should have given him a drive through penalty – GP2 drivers breaking the same law the same weekend at the same track were actually disqualified. But Felipe drives a Ferrari, the FIA’s favourite car. They didn’t disqualify him, they didn’t give him a Stop and Go, they didn’t even give him a drive through. For the first time ever, they decided to “investigate the matter at the end of the race”.

Well, at the end of the race Felipe won by 5.6 seconds from Lewis Hamilton. The FIA Stewards decided Massa had done something wrong, but did not apply a post facto drive through penalty by adding 20 to 30 seconds to his race time. No, they said he should pay a fine so small in comparison to his salary (and one probably picked up by his team anyway) that it in reality is not a penalty at all.

Move on to the next race, the Belgian Grand Prix at the famous Spa-Francorchamps circuit in the hills and forest of the Ardennes and a day of mixed weather. Ferraris are renowned for not being able to get heat into their tyres as quickly as the McLarens which also perform better on cold rubber, so when the race started with half the track damp and half dry an interesting prospect for all was in sight.

The last five to ten laps or so were the most interesting, because that’s when it rained. Up until this point Kimi Raikkonnen had done a great job in holding Lewis Hamilton off and had a pretty stable 5.8 seconds advantage. Felipe Massa was nowhere to be seen in third. There had only been one incident involving the stewards when they gave a drive through penalty to Heikki Kovalainen when he was hesitant about overtaking Mark Webber and then slid into him on the greasy track at the chicane on the run up to Les Combes.

So, down came the rain. The race woke up. So did the audience.

In the space of about 4 laps, Lewis Hamilton closed the 5.8 lap gap between him and Kimi until he was right behind him, breaking later for every corner, travelling faster at every apex. There was no way that in the 2 laps of the race that remained Kimi was going to be able to resist being overtaken with such a differential between the cars.

At what used to be known as the “bus stop chicane” Lewis went past Kimi on the outside. Kimi kept it tight on entry, then squeezed Lewis on the exit on the greasy track so there were only two possibilities for the British driver: hit Raikkonnen, or go off the track and cut the corner. Not wishing to be accused of “causing an avoidable accident” (as Raikonnen had not been at Monaco) Hamilton opted to cut the corner, then allowed Raikkonnen to move back into first place.

Raikkonnen started weaving to prevent the man from Stevenage from getting past. In the space of less than a La Source second, Raikkonnen weaved, Hamilton dodged, Hamilton passed. This was racing, one of the best passing moves in racing history, taking me back to that superb move of Mansell on Senna when he passed the great Brazilian at the Hungaroring in in the flash of an eye in 1987 or the move of Hakkinnen on Schumacher at Les Combes in 1999. Yes, it was that good.

Apparently the FIA Stewards (Frances’s Nicholas Deschaux, Surinder Thatthi of Kenya and Belgian Yves Bacquelaine) believe that remaining in second after cutting a corner at a chicane to avoid an accident gave Lewis an advantage he wouldn’t otherwise have had. Therefore they gave him a penalty. Not a fine, a 25 second penalty – not enough to let Alonso finish on the podium of course, but not so much that would mean Hamilton only lost one place. So, the odd 25 second penalty was applied. McLaren have announced they will appeal. So they should.

So now we have yet another means by which the FIA bring their own sport into disrepute. Man, have they got a thing against McLaren! And do they looooove Ferrari… but they certainly don’t apply justice.

Why is that? Answers on a post card please not including bent stewards, bribery, gambling scandals, institutional corruption, or blackmail. Pettiness of individuals I can accept. Incompetence I can certainly accept. Jealousy, meanness, and racism too. What do you think?

Incidentally, the BBC website hit a record for the number of people posting complaints about this injustice. Next year, the BBC take over the contract for F1 TV coverage. Will they have any audience left? At this rate, the FIA will have killed off interest in their own Championship.

Julia Roberts loses weight – medically?

Not often I comment on celebrities – in fact, this is the first time. But julia Roberts just happens to be one of my favourite actresses, intelligent, beautiful, and a great artist.

So, I was a little disappointed to see her on the TV at some event in today’s news with a very much thinner than normal face – just like she’d had cosmetic surgery. Too much cosmetic surgery. The Michael Jackson sort of too much cosmetic surgery. She just looked so thin. Much of her beauty had gone as her sunken cheeks stared out of the TV.

I blame a society in which image is considered paramount, but in which thinness is considered the main component of beauty. Well, by the image makers in Hollywood, anyway. I’m not convinced that they have realised that normal people don’t think quite the same anymore, after all, people are getting much bigger in Western societies and stick insects look spiky and unfriendly when compared to a woman with her natural curves and musculature fully intact.

Thing is, these actresses and other women who put themselves under the knife seem to be chasing a female view of beauty – to be thin because they think men want them to look thinner. But most heterosexual men do not. Sure, men aren’t after obesity, but the cosmetic surgery industry is just ruining too many faces of once beautiful actresses and entertainers.

Maybe the higher numbers of homosexual men in the fashion, glamour and entertainment industries skew the look of the average woman in such roles because they sub-consciously try to turn the women into boys and therefore select-out “normal” looking women?

Most men like curves, they like the natural swelling of a female stomach – they don’t want a woman with a six-pack. Men like a woman with a friendly and supportive looking face, one that offers softness that to them represents gentleness, not sharpness or thinness which represent meanness. I won’t even mention curves in other places.

Please women of the world, leave the cosmetic surgeons to people who really need them, like burns victims. And if a man tells you to go under the knife, ask if he is gay, or just married. Chances are, he won’t have your real interests at heart.

Mega Massa makes mincemeat of opposition as ham-fisted Hamilton has a horror

The nice thing about Formula 1 is its unpredictability. Well, this weekend, anyway. Never mind the unusual shenanigans happening off the track in Chelsea dungeons, on the track we are having quite a year. Quite rightly the Crown Prince of Bahrain insisted nothing would be allowed to distract us from the racing, despite all the salacious gossip in the press worldwide.

At Bahrain, there were one or two surprises. Swiss based BMW Sauber now lead the F1 Constructors Championship. Robert Kubica gained pole in a car that was clearly not the fastest at the event. Raikkonnen didn’t win. Massa did. Kovalainen beat Hamilton and got the fastest lap in not the fastest car on the circuit. Toyota actually beat their customer team, Williams. And the start was not chaotic. Presumably all that wind they experienced today – about 20 to 30 kmh gusting along the pit straight – distributed the sand fairly evenly and so the expected advantage of being on the racing line on the grid was not as great as it might have been.

OK, Hamilton cocked up big style at the start. He admitted to Autosport later that he hadn’t been able to put the mapping into “launch mode” quickly enough. I thought there were supposed to be no driver aids this year? So what’s all this talk about then?

Anyway, he was gobbled up by the pack quicker than you can crack a whip, falling from 3rd on the grid to 10th place by the end of the first lap. It didn’t help that he miscalculated just how slow the Renault was out of that corner and so ran into the back of the renegade in the Renault on acceleration, dropping himself down to 18th after pitting for a new nose. If he hadn’t have fluffed the start though, he wouldn’t have been anywhere near the middle of the pack. Looks like he’s having the kind of experience most other newcomers to F1 have in their first years in slower cars. For most of the race he was lucky to be racing with the Fisichella Force India over 13th place. 

Looking at the scores on the doors, McLaren have gone backwards since the beginning of the year scoring first 14, then 10 and now just 4 points as a team. Ferrari on the other hand has got better and better, with scores of 1, 10 and today top marks with 18 out of 18. BMW meanwhile have been more consistent, edging forward bit by bit with scores of 8, 11, 11 so far this season. BMW’s slow but deliberate progress clearly comes from the calm way that merry Mario Theissen runs things. More to come, I think.

So, now we have to wait three weeks for Barcelona, where we will see if any teams have made any leaps forward, or by standing still be going backwards. Up until now they have been away from home, and although teams as rich as Ferrari can ferry failed engines to their factory for analysis and problem solving in the week between the Australian and Malaysian GPs, most teams do not have such a $500 million budget. So, most changes – particularly to everyone’s aerodynamic packages – have had to wait until the return to Europe before they can be installed.

Hopefullly, the ITV commentary team will learn to observe and talk about what is actually happening next time, and not bore us with inane tales of gossip picked up around the paddock while something interesting is happening on the track. The usual character is of course to blame – Martin Brundle is, as always, superb. If only his colleague would watch the monitors while he is talking we might get some synchronisation between what he is saying and what we can see happening for a change.

Kubica marked out as future champ – but how do you pronounce his name?

BMW are the surprise of the year so far. Yes, everyone thought they would do well, and certainly be in the top three teams (ie 5th and 6th places) but they are instead nearly leading the Formula One World Championship. OK, that’s a bit like being “nearly pregnant” but it is a Boolean variable. Off and on.

And that’s exactly what Kubica has been. Off and On. In Melbourne he was on when he qualified second on the grid, but fell off in the race. In Sepang in Malaysia he actually finished second showing that his team-mate’s second place last week was no fluke. It is also a warning that Kubica is the main danger in the BMW camp, not Heidfeld (although Nick is no slouch).

Heidfeld has been out-qualified by Kubica at every race this season, much like last season. If Kubica had finished in second place last week, not Heidfeld, he would now be the one leading the Formula One World Championship, not his age-sibling Hamilton. They are both just twenty three years old.

Robert Kubica could be the 2008 World Champion if McLaren and Ferrari keep on screwing things up like they have so far shown themselves to be most adept at doing.

But how the heck do you pronounce Robert Kubica’s name? I cannot rely on the people commentating at ITV as anything remotely Continental to them seems to be unpronounceable. I guess James Allen would even have a problem pronouncing Cafe. Oh dear, I’m being naughty again. Well, some people are easy targets. But that’s no excuse. It isn’t his fault. I shall try harder next time.

As for pronouncing Robert Kubica, my best guesses are:

1. Kubicha (as in Charlie)
2. Kubitsa (as in bits o’ this and bits o’ that)
3. Kubika (as in bicker)

I am assuming the “Ku” bit is pronounced like “Coo” as in a dove’s cooing, but I guess it could also be pronounced like “Queue”. Let’s face it, Poland uses a strange spelling system: you only have to see the TV ads for Lodz to understand that (it’s pronounced “Wudge” or something similar). Yes, I know, it’s very weird – but they are lovely friendly people, really. I like them.

Anyone got any ideas? Are there any Poles out there who can tell us, please?

Dobri wieczur…

Spooks

Is Spooks one of the best TV series ever?

BBC1’s immensely fascinating insight into the world of counter espionage, as carried out by Her Majesties Secret Service in the guise of MI5, has an edge of reality that is both believeable, and reassuring at the same time. Certainly it makes one proud to be British, knowing such people carry out such tasks in such a selfless way. And relatively unthanked too.

Well, maybe they get an MBE here, a CBE there, maybe the Directorship of a QUANGO or so – or even a career in politics, as the last head of MI5 has only recently embarked upon.

Whatever, the program catches the reality of life as a spy in the same way that the Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister series’ both did for the civil servant/elected representative dynamic.

You get the feeling that these stories really happened, or could have happened. Strangely, it makes me like the US more too. Sure, they have an iffy President at the moment, but I don’t believe for a moment that all US secret service people think like he does. First of all they are far more patriotic (they served their country, George Bush never did) and secondly, they are far more intelligent. They just have to carry out some rather stupid orders at times.
Same for the MI5 staff. They aren’t stupid. And Spooks really shows that.

So, if you know someone from the secret services, pat them on the back for me. Tell them the public do appreciate their sacrifice, even though we cannot understand their burdens. We may even criticise the outcomes of their actions from time to time, but mostly, we are so glad they are there, protecting us.

The only thing I wonder about though, is when Harry says he believes in protecting “this country” which exact idea of this country does he mean? Does he mean the current Government (whichever one is in power right now) or does he mean the system of Parliamentary democracy with a Monarch as Head of State, or some private ideal?

Makes you think, doesn’t it?

This Week: Now I’ve seen it all…

It isn’t often I’m surprised these days. But just occasionally, every now and then, it suddenly hits me.

This evening I was watching as I often do “This Week” hosted by Andrew Neil, ex-editor of the Sunday Times, with regular participants ex-MP Michael Portillo and current MP Diane Abbott. The guest I found most interesting was surprisingly Katie Melua, a singer whose CD I coincidentally bought recently without knowing anything more about her (I’d heard her played on one of the ad-free, talk free, Swiss radio stations, either Radio Swiss Jazz or Radio Swiss Pop and so bought the CD online there and then).

No, this isn’t some fan mail about some sexy, good looking young singer who’s on a roll, after all, This Week is a politics show – and a good one for the most part. Although of course, she is all of the above too.

What was particularly interesting was what Miss Melua had to say. She’s a very bright girl with some very good ideas. Well, she’s a Doctor’s daughter. She also happens to be Georgian, an immigrant of 15 years into the UK which she arrived in at the age of 8. Her English is now perfect, and she has just taken on British Citizenship, which she is clearly very proud of. Her praise of Britain was great to listen to. If only more Britons spoke like that about their country!

The discussion was on immigration, Britishness, and integration. Katie said there was not enough teaching of or resources for, the teaching of English to older and younger new immigrants but perhaps too much political correctness in England when she arrived compared to her home country Georgia – or even to her first British home in Northern Ireland during the troubles where she had to learn Irish dancing and how to play the tin whistle, a complete contrast to England where nothing specifically British or English was required of her; Diane Abbot said the British tend to be most British when they are showing everyone how little British they actually are; Michael Portillo said in the fifties Britons were last proud to be British, while Andrew Neil in turn egged them on, or over-egged things as the flow demanded.

Then it hit me: none of these commentators, talking about Britishness, were actually English! Well, not completely. Katie Melua is a first generation immigrant from Eastern Europe. Diane Abbott’s parents came from Jamaica. Michael Portillo is half Spanish. And Andrew Neil is a Scot!

Now I’ve seen it all. Britain clearly is a most cosmopolitan society. And do you know what? It’s a lot richer because of that. The discussion was interesting, well-argued, stimulating and well researched. People with real experiences and relevant ideas came together without any particular cross to bear or chip on their shoulders, and although the discussion was short, it was very satisfying to listen to.

Well done the “This Week” team. Now I really have seen it all…

Do Foreigners have too much control over British Politics?

Murdoch: I decide Sun’s politics

This has got nothing to do with taxes or immigration issues. It’s a lot more important than that – in fact it’s a completely fundamental flaw in Britain’s current system of government and explains a lot of the negative culture that so holds Britain back from its true potential.

I don’t want this to appear to be an attack on Rupert Murdoch either, since the system we have isn’t his fault, he just knows how it works and how to benefit from it. You have to actually admire him for that. But he does make a good illustration of what is wrong with the system.

In the US, no foreigner can own a majority share of any media business. That’s why Murdoch changed his Nationality from Australian to American. So he could own an American media network.

However, Britain has no similar rule, and that’s surely wrong.

Any foreigner can own a British newspaper, and with the multi-million issue selling tabloid press can then influence huge swathes of the electorate. Mr Murdoch has even said, to a House of Lords committee investigating media ownership that he “exercises editorial control on major issues – like which party to back in a general election or policy on Europe.”

Pardon me? He does what?

He persuades people, through the editorial slant his tabloid newspapers take, the stories and photographs they publish, exactly which party to back in a general election!

Not because the binmen don’t come often enough to his house, or because he pays too much tax, or has to wait too long for an NHS Doctor’s appointment, or because his kids’ school is under equipped. No, instead he is far more likely to be influenced by what is happening in his adopted country. What is good for the US? Or just as dangerous perhaps, what is good for sales?

Foreign media owners cannot feel the things British residents or Nationals feel, they may have some idea, or an ideology they follow, but the less British they are the less it will be likely to benefit Britain. They are far more likely to be biased against British interests than they are to be biased against the foreign interests they see, feel and hear, day-to-day, back home.

As a puppetmaster, a foreign owner’s audience are the people in their adopted and original lands. To them, Britons are no more than the players on the stage, controlled by the strings in their hands.

The influence they exert may be very subtle. But how can it be in Britain’s best interests? Shouldn’t British owners living in Britain control the press? After all, foreigners are not welcome donors to political campaigns financially, so why are they allowed to make or break Prime Ministers through the use of ongoing campaigns to undermine them or their policies?

Not all Fifth Columnists are shady men from Russia or China in back alleys. Some foreigners influence our way of life for their own ends and most of us don’t even think about it, we do what we are led to believe is right. Just not for us.

Ban foreign ownership of the British media now!