Saturday:
Too soon?
Showing posts with label Roger Stavro Mordick. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Roger Stavro Mordick. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Friday, December 14, 2007
Day 2532: More Moredick
Friday:
INHERITANCE has been much in the news ever since Master Gideon convinced the Press and the Labour that giving a bung to millionaires was a MASTERSTROKE. But is it REALLY right that you should be able to get huge pots of wealth and power just because of who your DAD is?
Isn’t the idea of inherited wealth just CORRUPTING on its own?
For instance, consider Mr Jammy Moredick, son of the Emperor of the Airwaves, Mr Roger Stavro Moredick, who is set to inherit the Evil Empire.
With his recent admission
that he DECIDES which Party his papers back, people really OUGHT to be worried by the amount of UNTRAMMELLED power that Mr Moredick (snr) has at his command, even BEFORE he starts his DYNASTIC AMBITIONS.
You MIGHT argue that Mr Jammy really IS the best qualified person for the job because of the UNIQUE lifetime of training and education in the experience of his father that he has been given. Or you might say that a domineering parent has warped his whole life. It is all very well, trying to see that your kids have the best start in the world, but should you REALLY be using them to build a MONUMENT to YOURSELF?
Doesn’t it seem that the EXPECTATION of getting OODLES of LOOT can make people greedy or lazy or selfish? Consider the case that the papers are calling “The Ultimate Chinese Takeaway”.
An old lady chose to leave all of her money to her favourite restaurant and, instead of ACCEPTING her wishes, her relatives go to court and try to get the will changed posthumously. In this case, inheritance is clearly NOT about the rights of the departed matriarch to spend her cash as she chooses – much less about cherishing her dying wishes! It's all about the kids wanting the WONGA, and stuff what grandma cared about. Perhaps they would have been BETTER PEOPLE if they hadn't spent a lifetime being told (by the likes of Master Gideon) that they DESERVED to get their claws into their ancestor's money.
INHERITANCE has been much in the news ever since Master Gideon convinced the Press and the Labour that giving a bung to millionaires was a MASTERSTROKE. But is it REALLY right that you should be able to get huge pots of wealth and power just because of who your DAD is?
Isn’t the idea of inherited wealth just CORRUPTING on its own?
For instance, consider Mr Jammy Moredick, son of the Emperor of the Airwaves, Mr Roger Stavro Moredick, who is set to inherit the Evil Empire.
With his recent admission
that he DECIDES which Party his papers back, people really OUGHT to be worried by the amount of UNTRAMMELLED power that Mr Moredick (snr) has at his command, even BEFORE he starts his DYNASTIC AMBITIONS.
You MIGHT argue that Mr Jammy really IS the best qualified person for the job because of the UNIQUE lifetime of training and education in the experience of his father that he has been given. Or you might say that a domineering parent has warped his whole life. It is all very well, trying to see that your kids have the best start in the world, but should you REALLY be using them to build a MONUMENT to YOURSELF?
Doesn’t it seem that the EXPECTATION of getting OODLES of LOOT can make people greedy or lazy or selfish? Consider the case that the papers are calling “The Ultimate Chinese Takeaway”.
An old lady chose to leave all of her money to her favourite restaurant and, instead of ACCEPTING her wishes, her relatives go to court and try to get the will changed posthumously. In this case, inheritance is clearly NOT about the rights of the departed matriarch to spend her cash as she chooses – much less about cherishing her dying wishes! It's all about the kids wanting the WONGA, and stuff what grandma cared about. Perhaps they would have been BETTER PEOPLE if they hadn't spent a lifetime being told (by the likes of Master Gideon) that they DESERVED to get their claws into their ancestor's money.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Day 2482: "The Sun" commits Treason
Thursday:
Yes, I say that "The Sun" supports TREASON – or, if they're going to print a full page cartoon showing RAF Spitfires preparing to attack the Prime Monster's plane, is there some explanation that is not GLORIFYING TERRORISM?
Perhaps "The Sun says…" that a MILITARY COUP is FUNNY – perhaps they would like to say that to Ms Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan… though maybe not on a day when she's nearly been EXPLODED by (allegedly) FORMER GENERALS!
We SHOULD hold a referendum on the European Reform Treaty. We should vote YES.
But I'm not agreeing with "The Sun" here, you know. They are DEAD WRONG about Europe, and about the reasons for having a national vote on this treaty. We should have had a vote on the Single European Act; we should have had a vote on the Maastricht Treaty. We should have a vote at each and every step, not to make things DIFFICULT but because we're ALL Europeans and we all need to feel involved. Europe is for the PEOPLE not just some Euro-ELITE!
It's important to say that the Reform Treaty is NOT the Constitution in disguise – it doesn't go any where NEAR the much-needed "Reform of Institutions" and "Transparency and Openness" parts of the Constitution that we would like, concentrating instead on the "Making the Council Of Ministers Work" parts.
Mr Frown's opt-outs mean that – lucky us – we don't even get all the GOOD BITS.
(And we're certainly not getting a Euro-flag or Euro-national anthem. Or straight bananas, compulsory hard-hats for tightrope-walkers, or Emulsified High-Fat Offal Tubes. You should watch "QI", you know.)
And instead of replacing all the previous treaties with a single one-stop-shop document, the Reform Treaty chops bits out, tacks bits on and generally makes the legislations holding the Union together more of a crazy bird's-nest than ever.
It is ALSO important to say that strengthening the Union does NOT weaken Britain: au contraire – we can only gain from a Union that has a STRONG and CLEAR international voice, better able to negotiate in the World Trade Talks, more influential in the United Nations. And we can only gain from further expansion of the Union, impossible if we don't find a way to make the voting work, vital for spreading peace, prosperity and places we can sell our stuff.
It is LUDICROUS to say that agreeing with our neighbours is "selling out Britain".
The REAL sell-outs are newspapers like "The TRAITOROUS Sun" which toils tirelessly for the interests of its owner, an Australian/American/Tax Exile, and AGAINST the interests of the people of Britain, its own readers.
Of course, Mr Roger Stavro Moredick is NOT ALONE in manipulating politics using the media – think of Mr Berlusconi in Italy and all the trouble that HE caused. But it is large SUPRA-NATIONAL companies like his "NEWS" INTERNATIONAL that stand to lose out if the Union becomes stronger – strong enough to regulate HIM!
What, a TELEVISION company in need of regulation? How could THAT happen?! Again?!?
Yes, I say that "The Sun" supports TREASON – or, if they're going to print a full page cartoon showing RAF Spitfires preparing to attack the Prime Monster's plane, is there some explanation that is not GLORIFYING TERRORISM?
Perhaps "The Sun says…" that a MILITARY COUP is FUNNY – perhaps they would like to say that to Ms Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan… though maybe not on a day when she's nearly been EXPLODED by (allegedly) FORMER GENERALS!
We SHOULD hold a referendum on the European Reform Treaty. We should vote YES.
But I'm not agreeing with "The Sun" here, you know. They are DEAD WRONG about Europe, and about the reasons for having a national vote on this treaty. We should have had a vote on the Single European Act; we should have had a vote on the Maastricht Treaty. We should have a vote at each and every step, not to make things DIFFICULT but because we're ALL Europeans and we all need to feel involved. Europe is for the PEOPLE not just some Euro-ELITE!
It's important to say that the Reform Treaty is NOT the Constitution in disguise – it doesn't go any where NEAR the much-needed "Reform of Institutions" and "Transparency and Openness" parts of the Constitution that we would like, concentrating instead on the "Making the Council Of Ministers Work" parts.
Mr Frown's opt-outs mean that – lucky us – we don't even get all the GOOD BITS.
(And we're certainly not getting a Euro-flag or Euro-national anthem. Or straight bananas, compulsory hard-hats for tightrope-walkers, or Emulsified High-Fat Offal Tubes. You should watch "QI", you know.)
And instead of replacing all the previous treaties with a single one-stop-shop document, the Reform Treaty chops bits out, tacks bits on and generally makes the legislations holding the Union together more of a crazy bird's-nest than ever.
It is ALSO important to say that strengthening the Union does NOT weaken Britain: au contraire – we can only gain from a Union that has a STRONG and CLEAR international voice, better able to negotiate in the World Trade Talks, more influential in the United Nations. And we can only gain from further expansion of the Union, impossible if we don't find a way to make the voting work, vital for spreading peace, prosperity and places we can sell our stuff.
It is LUDICROUS to say that agreeing with our neighbours is "selling out Britain".
The REAL sell-outs are newspapers like "The TRAITOROUS Sun" which toils tirelessly for the interests of its owner, an Australian/American/Tax Exile, and AGAINST the interests of the people of Britain, its own readers.
Of course, Mr Roger Stavro Moredick is NOT ALONE in manipulating politics using the media – think of Mr Berlusconi in Italy and all the trouble that HE caused. But it is large SUPRA-NATIONAL companies like his "NEWS" INTERNATIONAL that stand to lose out if the Union becomes stronger – strong enough to regulate HIM!
What, a TELEVISION company in need of regulation? How could THAT happen?! Again?!?
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Day 2465: Cat-Monsters Not So Tough
Tuesday:
It turns out that the SABRE-TOOTHED CAT MONSTER – of whom I am NOT in any way afraid – may have been less of a TIGER and more of a PUSSY-CAT.
Scientists have used computers to create a model of the Cat Monster's skull and jaws and famous TEETH and deduced that its bite was only about a THIRD as powerful as a MODERN LION.
Er… hang on, that means LION MONSTERS are EVEN MORE SCARY! Where is Mr Stripy; I need a hug!
Speaking of TOOTHLESS, the Competition Commission has issued a bit of a slap to Mr Rodger Stavro Moredick's Sky Empire over their purchase of seventeen-and-a-bit percent of ITV.
You may remember that Sky snapped up a chunk of ITV in a BLOCKING MANOEUVRE to stop Virgin Media from taking over the venerable terrestrial commercial channel. Er, I mean, as A SOUND INVESTMENT in a promising industry… an investment that has so far lost them TWO-HUNDRED-MILLION pounds as ITV's share price has continued DOWNWARDS.
Virgin Media today welcomed the announcement:
"Sky should not be permitted to remain in a position where there is any question whatsoever about its ability to influence ITV," said a spokesperson.
After all, that's what Virgin wanted to do!
(Not that the Virgin Group EVER holds a grudge… those NICE people at British Airways will testify to that!)
In fact, the Commission does have a point. We benefit from a VARIETY of different providers of television in competition with each other. The BBC is funded by the Licence Fee; ITV is funded by a few pennies on everything you buy in the shops (what, you thought that the advertising money came from the companies?); Sky and Virgin are funded directly – though they take some of those advertising pennies too.
That competition OUGHT to drive them to make BETTER programmes as they try to attract a TV audience that will justify the advertisers' investment / the licence fee money / the subscriptions of their viewers.
Sky's share in ITV – the Commission said – put them in a position to take advantage of a rival. They could sabotage deals for ITV to get better television (say, by seeing a bid for sports coverage before ITV could submit it and then topping it by a pound).
Not that they ever WOULD do such a thing, but the danger would have been there!
Those IMPARTIAL people at Virgin called for "strong penalties" to put an end to the "problem".
The case, though, has been referred to Mr Frown's Secretary of State for Tripe and Infamy, Mr John Hutton (dressed as Lamb).
I am sure that Mr Moredick will want to clear up any UNCERTAINTY that this might cause – especially with the possibility of a General Election so soon! No doubt he and the government will be able to WORK SOMETHING OUT.
So long as the Competition Commission's BARK is – like the Sabre-Toothed Cat Monster's – worse than it's BITE, Mr Moredick is bound to remain the KING of the BEASTS.
It turns out that the SABRE-TOOTHED CAT MONSTER – of whom I am NOT in any way afraid – may have been less of a TIGER and more of a PUSSY-CAT.
Scientists have used computers to create a model of the Cat Monster's skull and jaws and famous TEETH and deduced that its bite was only about a THIRD as powerful as a MODERN LION.
Er… hang on, that means LION MONSTERS are EVEN MORE SCARY! Where is Mr Stripy; I need a hug!
Speaking of TOOTHLESS, the Competition Commission has issued a bit of a slap to Mr Rodger Stavro Moredick's Sky Empire over their purchase of seventeen-and-a-bit percent of ITV.
You may remember that Sky snapped up a chunk of ITV in a BLOCKING MANOEUVRE to stop Virgin Media from taking over the venerable terrestrial commercial channel. Er, I mean, as A SOUND INVESTMENT in a promising industry… an investment that has so far lost them TWO-HUNDRED-MILLION pounds as ITV's share price has continued DOWNWARDS.
Virgin Media today welcomed the announcement:
"Sky should not be permitted to remain in a position where there is any question whatsoever about its ability to influence ITV," said a spokesperson.
After all, that's what Virgin wanted to do!
(Not that the Virgin Group EVER holds a grudge… those NICE people at British Airways will testify to that!)
In fact, the Commission does have a point. We benefit from a VARIETY of different providers of television in competition with each other. The BBC is funded by the Licence Fee; ITV is funded by a few pennies on everything you buy in the shops (what, you thought that the advertising money came from the companies?); Sky and Virgin are funded directly – though they take some of those advertising pennies too.
That competition OUGHT to drive them to make BETTER programmes as they try to attract a TV audience that will justify the advertisers' investment / the licence fee money / the subscriptions of their viewers.
Sky's share in ITV – the Commission said – put them in a position to take advantage of a rival. They could sabotage deals for ITV to get better television (say, by seeing a bid for sports coverage before ITV could submit it and then topping it by a pound).
Not that they ever WOULD do such a thing, but the danger would have been there!
Those IMPARTIAL people at Virgin called for "strong penalties" to put an end to the "problem".
The case, though, has been referred to Mr Frown's Secretary of State for Tripe and Infamy, Mr John Hutton (dressed as Lamb).
I am sure that Mr Moredick will want to clear up any UNCERTAINTY that this might cause – especially with the possibility of a General Election so soon! No doubt he and the government will be able to WORK SOMETHING OUT.
So long as the Competition Commission's BARK is – like the Sabre-Toothed Cat Monster's – worse than it's BITE, Mr Moredick is bound to remain the KING of the BEASTS.
Friday, March 02, 2007
Day 2251: Sky(ve) Off – Virgin on the Ridiculous
Thursday:
Viewers of that FLEETING Twenty-First Century Phenomenon, TELEVISION, will probably know that there has been a bit of a FALLING OUT between two of the PYGMIES of British Broadcasting: "Virgin Media" (the cable people) and "BSkyB" (the satellite dish people).
Up until Wednesday, if you were a cable person you could watch SOME of the satellite people's programmes. Now you can't.
Apparently, this is because Sky wanted more money and Virgin didn't think they were worth it.
I will declare an interest: I do not watch Sky television. I do not LIKE Sky television. I will not let Daddy have one of their space-woks stuck to the side of my flat!
[R: not that we want one.]
We quickly got bored with Battleham Galacticake so we don't even watch the free one, Sky Three. I do not like Sky. They have a few decent shows, but they get them unfairly cheap because of their links to Fox in America. Their news channel is ugly and brash and has a right-wing agenda. And they are part of a group – News International – that has gone out of its way to spoil and cheapen newspapers and television. And they have too much influence already.
So, funnily enough – and despite Virgin Media being run by self-aggrandising beardy billionaire Sir Branson Pickle – I don’t have much SYMPATHY with one of the sides in this dispute.
Still, they DO seem to be going out of their way to be annoying. Rather than negotiations, it would appear that Sky have spent the last few days writing big letters to place in all the newspapers, saying how MUCH they love telly and how much they want to bring their "great shows" like "brand new" Simpsons, Lost, 24 and Battleham Galacticake.
We have increased our investment in channels and programmes by 68% they say! (Does this mean that "Hogfather" was FOUR hours long instead of THREE?)
They say that this is why they have provided the top 25 most watch pay-channel programmes in cable homes this year. Although personally (and remembering that "Torchwood" was hailed as the "most watched non-sport digital-channel show" when its launch double bill scored 2.3 millions) I suspect that it is because they have BOUGHT ALL the FOOTBALL.
Sky say that it is ALL Virgin's fault for dropping their channels, as only Virgin can choose what is on their cable.
(I am sure that the Sky people felt the same when they dropped the BBC news from their satellite in the '90s at the behest of the Chinese government.)
The Sky people tried SOOOOO hard to make a deal – they say – even "including proposing a way for Sky to retail channels directly to cable customers in a way that would cost Virgin Media nothing."
Hang on, Sky is saying that they want Virgin to supply and maintain the cables so that Sky can sell their channels and take ALL the money themselves. I wonder why Virgin did not agree to this idea!
Actually, this is not an unfamiliar Sky strategy. Sky have already announced that they will be PULLING their programmes from the FREEVIEW package too, although they spin replacing free telly with a pay-to-view service as "bringing their top shows to terrestrial digital". In this case, Sky want the BBC to play patsy – maintaining the transmitter network for Sky to cream off the profits.
In fact, for people who profess to LOVE television, they have made an AWFUL LOT OF EFFORT over the years to STOP PEOPLE WATCHING: what with grabbing exclusive broadcasts for themselves and trying to deny other channels access to their satellites or burying their channel listings.
You could be forgiven for thinking that when they say "competition keeps us on our toes" they actually mean "we want to see the competition sleeping with the fishes"! Particularly since in 1999 News International were found guilty of anti-competitive practices by the Office of Fair Trade.
Still, I'm sure Virgin Viewers were VERY upset to lose Thursday evening's quadruple bill of "The Simpsons" followed by three hours of reheated American imports about (a) a pathologist and a cop, (b) a fireman, and (c) a team of cops and pathologists.
And this weekend they will be forced to live without Saturday's Primetime offering of a double bill of "The Simpsons in Space" "Futurama"[*] and ANOTHER three hours of reheated American imports, this time about (a) that pathologist and cop again, (b) a psychotic anti-terrorist agent, and (c) a team of plastic surgeons. Oh, not forgetting the highlight of the evening, and Sky's contribution to "original television" for Saturday: 8pm – "Project Catwalk", billed as:
"Kelly Osbourne hosts a search for Britain's hottest new designer, aided by fashion gurus including Julien Macdonald and Ben de Lisi."
How will the Virgin viewers cope without THAT!
[*]Okay, "Futurama" is actually very good – but you can get ALL four seasons of it on DVD; not sure how "brand new" that makes it!
Viewers of that FLEETING Twenty-First Century Phenomenon, TELEVISION, will probably know that there has been a bit of a FALLING OUT between two of the PYGMIES of British Broadcasting: "Virgin Media" (the cable people) and "BSkyB" (the satellite dish people).
Up until Wednesday, if you were a cable person you could watch SOME of the satellite people's programmes. Now you can't.
Apparently, this is because Sky wanted more money and Virgin didn't think they were worth it.
I will declare an interest: I do not watch Sky television. I do not LIKE Sky television. I will not let Daddy have one of their space-woks stuck to the side of my flat!
[R: not that we want one.]
We quickly got bored with Battleham Galacticake so we don't even watch the free one, Sky Three. I do not like Sky. They have a few decent shows, but they get them unfairly cheap because of their links to Fox in America. Their news channel is ugly and brash and has a right-wing agenda. And they are part of a group – News International – that has gone out of its way to spoil and cheapen newspapers and television. And they have too much influence already.
So, funnily enough – and despite Virgin Media being run by self-aggrandising beardy billionaire Sir Branson Pickle – I don’t have much SYMPATHY with one of the sides in this dispute.
Still, they DO seem to be going out of their way to be annoying. Rather than negotiations, it would appear that Sky have spent the last few days writing big letters to place in all the newspapers, saying how MUCH they love telly and how much they want to bring their "great shows" like "brand new" Simpsons, Lost, 24 and Battleham Galacticake.
We have increased our investment in channels and programmes by 68% they say! (Does this mean that "Hogfather" was FOUR hours long instead of THREE?)
They say that this is why they have provided the top 25 most watch pay-channel programmes in cable homes this year. Although personally (and remembering that "Torchwood" was hailed as the "most watched non-sport digital-channel show" when its launch double bill scored 2.3 millions) I suspect that it is because they have BOUGHT ALL the FOOTBALL.
Sky say that it is ALL Virgin's fault for dropping their channels, as only Virgin can choose what is on their cable.
(I am sure that the Sky people felt the same when they dropped the BBC news from their satellite in the '90s at the behest of the Chinese government.)
The Sky people tried SOOOOO hard to make a deal – they say – even "including proposing a way for Sky to retail channels directly to cable customers in a way that would cost Virgin Media nothing."
Hang on, Sky is saying that they want Virgin to supply and maintain the cables so that Sky can sell their channels and take ALL the money themselves. I wonder why Virgin did not agree to this idea!
Actually, this is not an unfamiliar Sky strategy. Sky have already announced that they will be PULLING their programmes from the FREEVIEW package too, although they spin replacing free telly with a pay-to-view service as "bringing their top shows to terrestrial digital". In this case, Sky want the BBC to play patsy – maintaining the transmitter network for Sky to cream off the profits.
In fact, for people who profess to LOVE television, they have made an AWFUL LOT OF EFFORT over the years to STOP PEOPLE WATCHING: what with grabbing exclusive broadcasts for themselves and trying to deny other channels access to their satellites or burying their channel listings.
You could be forgiven for thinking that when they say "competition keeps us on our toes" they actually mean "we want to see the competition sleeping with the fishes"! Particularly since in 1999 News International were found guilty of anti-competitive practices by the Office of Fair Trade.
Still, I'm sure Virgin Viewers were VERY upset to lose Thursday evening's quadruple bill of "The Simpsons" followed by three hours of reheated American imports about (a) a pathologist and a cop, (b) a fireman, and (c) a team of cops and pathologists.
And this weekend they will be forced to live without Saturday's Primetime offering of a double bill of "
"Kelly Osbourne hosts a search for Britain's hottest new designer, aided by fashion gurus including Julien Macdonald and Ben de Lisi."
How will the Virgin viewers cope without THAT!
[*]Okay, "Futurama" is actually very good – but you can get ALL four seasons of it on DVD; not sure how "brand new" that makes it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)