Writing by me elsewhere....

****

...about planning!

The post includes a quote from one of my favourite songs:




Do enjoy - the tune and the blog!


...

I'm not "pro-smoking" but pro-freedom and pro-choice

****

The nannying fussbuckets have created a new category of evil - the "pro-smoking blogger". Mostly this is because they couldn't carry on with the lying claim that these bloggers were all in the pay of "Big Tobacco" since, in the main, they aren't. And the first act of terror under this new designation has been to claim that these naughty bloggers are "threatening" those nice anti-smoking folk who care only for the nation's health (and not at all for their own tenure, bank balance or preferment).

Indeed the nannying fussbuckets have gone as far as to create a little website - "TobaccoTactics" - wherein the expose the evil of these bloggers (not to mentions lobbyists, politicians and other opponents of their prohibitionist urges). I find some things odd about this whole effort not least the manner in which the anti-tobacco lobby tiptoe ever closer to defaming bloggers and writers who have the gall to disagree with the prohibitionist cause - presumably they are sure in their arguments or else confident that, without the funding anti-smoking groups enjoy, these bloggers are hard pressed to challenge.

Others have commented at length on the puerile nature of the "TobaccoTactics" webite but no-one - not even Dick Puddlecote - has spotted the glaring omission from the "politicians" list. Here is that list under "D":

D

• Simon Danczuk
• Alun Davies

D cont.

• Jim Dowd

Isn't there someone missing here? A non-smoking, teetotal advocate of personal choice? My MP and Dick Puddlecote's mascot?

It seems to me that this website and the carefully placed articles in the Guardian and Daily Mail reek of desperation - the prohibitionists are realising that their unpleasant, aggressive and judgemental campaigns are more and more counter-productive.

Those of us non-smokers who support the "pro-smoking bloggers" do so because we are pro-freedom and pro-choice. We are fed up with the endless nagging and finger-wagging from the anti-smoking brigade. And we think - like most sane people out there - that enough is enough. If people want to smoke they should be allowed to smoke - they know the potential consequences of that decision, they are grown-ups and should be allowed to carry on unmolested, uninsulted and free to make their own choices.

...

The Guardian are in it for the money, you know!

Yesterday the Guardian, behaving exactly as you would expect a struggling business to behave, shut down its ‘Guardian Local’ operation – or rather ‘experiment’:

The Local project has always been experimental in both concept and implementation. We've learned a lot from the beatbloggers, under the expert guidance of Sarah Hartley. We have also learned from the local communities who got involved with telling their stories. And using this we have continually refined our approach over the past year.

As an experiment in covering local communities in a new way, it has been successful and enlightening. Unfortunately, while the blogs have found engaged local readerships and had good editorial impact, the project is not sustainable in its present form.

Since the Guardian is losing loads of money (and wants to keep expensive London-based writers on its books), we shouldn’t be surprised by this decision – this ‘cut’. Nevertheless, the squeals of pain were heard, how could the Guardian do this? How could the cuddly, woolly-lefty, caring, sharing Guardian close down this wonderful community resource?

Here’s a reminder:

“The Manchester Evening News and its sister titles have made a huge contribution to the fortunes of the Group for the best part of a century. GMG would like to pay tribute to all the staff for their hard work and achievement in a sector dealing with structural change as well as economic downturn.

“GMG is mandated to secure the future of the Guardian in perpetuity, and we have a strong portfolio which has to be in the right shape to achieve that goal. The Group board and the Scott Trust have made the decision to sell in light of these strategic objectives.”

The Guardian severed its historic connection to Manchester, pulled out from local journalism and closed its Northern operations purely and simply to provide cash to prop up the ailing national title. The ‘experiment’ of Guardian Local was nothing to do with journalism or community but an endeavour aimed at spreading the Guardian brand. Its purpose was to make money for the Guardian, it didn’t so it is closed down.

It was never community journalism.  To do that we’d have to heed Mike Chitty’s words:

At some point we have to recognise that change that is prompted from outside, that is funded by someone else, that delivers someone else’s policy goals or answers someone else’s questions is really unlikely to provide us with any hope of transformation.

At some point we have to recognise that for any real long-term success we have to start from where WE are, and work with what WE have got, and break this dangerous habit of relying on external ‘benevolence’.

The Guardian is just a business. It has no interest in Leeds beyond the story and, of course, the cash.

 ....