we've got all the stuff we need, thanks very much

a piece in Le Monde today caught my attention.  It's here (in French) and it refers to a report that the British have now got all the consumer goods and possessions they need.  That a "peak" of consumption was reached a few years ago, and now the British are buying less stuff, using less energy, producing less rubbish, and so on.  It has been shown historically that this does happen in cycles.  I suspect that this has less to do with people having all the stuff they think they need than with changes in the way consumption is done.  After all, I didn't know until fairly recently that I needed a Kindle, but now I do.  But I scarcely buy paper books any more, and I used to buy them quite often, which meant that someone worked a fork-lift truck in a warehouse and someone else drove a van to deliver the book to a shop or another warehouse, and a postman delivered it to me, or I got on a bus and went to a shop and bought it, paying a human assistant for my purchase, and then I went to IKEA and bought some shelves to put the books on.  Pretty much all this stuff now happens electronically for me, and I am quite sure that the people who make that purchase happen are fewer in number and with more specialised skills than before.  And think on - I was struck by a shot in the (rather wonderful despite what most of the critics have said) film 'The Iron Lady' set in the 1970s.  The lights went out, as I remember them doing then, and the Cabinet was plunged into darkness.  Margaret Thatcher triumphantly pulled a torch out of her handbag and lit up the proceedings.  If the lights go out I can read print books by candlelight, but after a few hours my Kindle and iPad are useless.  And I remember the 1970s, so I always have candles and matches where I can lay my hands on them in the dark.  That doesn't mean I should stick to print.  It just means things are different.

Do we have all the stuff we need?  If you work at home, these days, you don't really need a home office.  No big printer, no fax machine, no tower for your computer's hard drive.  You don't even need to be at home.  Your notebook computer, or even your phone, is good enough for most kinds of work.  The newest workplaces don't even have offices.  People just work where they are.  So that's Less Stuff.  My daughter has just moved house, and she and her family now live in what was built about 20 years ago as a work unit, in south London.  But nobody wanted to rent small purpose-built work units.  So it has been converted into a charming, spacious, light and airy maisonette.  And guess what, my daughter sometimes works there when she works from home.

What do readers think?  I couldn't find anything on this subject in English, but I'm sure there are other articles.  Home computers and then the internet were supposed to enable us to work anywhere, so we would live in cottages in Wales.  But we don't.  We live, increasingly, in cities, and the article in Le Monde suggests that it is this too which helps reduce consumption - because greater interconnectedness, which urban populations have, means less need for resources - cars, home and garden maintenance and so on.

Would welcome developing this notion a bit further.  Clever people out there to help?

Oh, and here is a Kindle book for you.

should newspapers behave like this?

The Times has put its editorial outside the Paywall. Here is an extract from it. Seems reasonable to me.


People who are misrepresented or mistreated by newspapers deserve quick and easy access to a meaningful form of redress. Corrections should be in a regular, prominent place. Editors should be willing to remedy a substantial mistake on the front page by at least flagging a correction on the front page. And it would be helpful if the regulator posted newspaper corrections on its website and circulated them to all editors and newsdesks.
Newspapers should contact the person or institution that they are writing about before the story runs. This is for reasons of decency — it is better to tell something unpleasant to someone’s face than go behind their back; it is for reasons of accuracy — you want to know their side of the story; and it is for reasons of fairness — it gives them a chance to inform friends, family and colleagues of negative coverage to come.

different kinds of news?

The person called Sarah Hamilton, who wrote the email I reproduced in my last post, says that the hate piece published about me by the Reading Evening Post was "not a news story".  I have never really got this.  Do you think that when people read a newspaper and turn to a "diary" or other "light-hearted" item they make the mental adjustment "This Story Is Utter Bollocks".  "This Story Is Not True".  "The People Who Wrote This Don't Really Think This".  I do know that when a former colleague was subjected to a long-term campaign of personal vilification by the odious Matthew Norman in the even more odious Guardian she couldn't legal him, because what he wrote was "light-hearted diary items".  She got him in the end, when he put something similar in what purported to be a "serious" story.  But readers don't make that distinction.  They really don't.  And the writers surely know this.  So, readers of the Reading Evening Post, and any misguided souls who read the Guardian, please remember that a "diary" piece may be all lies.  And that's just fine, says Ms Hamilton.

HMV barked

this is the reply I got just now:

Dear Jane,


Thankyou typo! for your email.

This was a Diary piece written by Paul Cassell, who does exist, it is not a news story or should be "nor is it"defamatory.

'Quiet please' it was "quiet pleased" actually is a silly error.

Your picture and news story will still appear and is scheduled for this Wednesday. oh goody

waiting to hear His Master's Voice

Below is the text of my communication sent today to the editorial bosses of the Reading Evening Post.  I have not attached the article to which I refer to this post, as I do not publish hate speech, but it is attached to the communication I sent, for ease of reference.


To whom it may concern, Reading Evening Post


I would be most interested in your comments on the attached article, published in the Reading Post last week, and which has been sent to me. It appears to have been inspired by my informing the newsdesk that I had published a novel, and that I would be in Reading in some days' time. In fact the Post did send a photographer, as did Reading's other local paper, which also sent a reporter. However, the attached, by an individual styling himself Paul Cassell, who as far as I am aware I have never met, was published separately. Leaving aside the lamentable standard of literacy in the words allegedly written by Mr Cassell, if he exists ("quiet pleased"), the item was almost entirely copied and pasted from my blog, without attribution, which is deplorable journalistic practice in itself. As you see, it is topped and tailed with abusive personal attacks, and also attributes to me views and feelings I do not have ("quiet pleased" again). No-one from the Post spoke to me at any time - the photocall was arranged by an email exchange between me and Linda Fort. She had no discussion with me.

That the Reading Post should publish savage personal attacks on me is hardly unfamiliar behaviour. It did so regularly for a number of years, rarely seeking any comment from me or allowing me to respond. A person who is in public life must develop the resources to deal with the grubbier elements of the dead-tree press. But it is many years since I was a public representative of any kind in Reading. I simply thought that now my novel has been published it might be of interest to Reading people. Both Reading papers apparently thought so too, which is why they photographed me with the book. The Reading papers were far from the only media outlets I contacted, or who expressed an interest.

Elderly family members in the Reading area do not deserve the distress which is caused by a hate piece of this kind. The matter is currently with my legal representatives. Ahead of any representation I may make through them I am offering the Reading Post the opportunity to comment on the hate piece they published. I could wish that they had done me the same courtesy. I am also offering the Reading Post the opportunity to make restitution, of a nature to be discussed, and of course to apologise.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Jane Griffiths

My novel is to be found here.

Congratulations, Reading Evening Post!

Things I thought I'd never say no. 327.

  I get some haters on this blog from time to time, but the Post has now gone better than most of them.  They left out the gun porn that I get from time to time (those are the comments that get deleted, oddly enough) but there's still time for that.  Thanks Reading Evening Post for offering me a photocall tomorrow to publicise my book, I shall be there.  Such a tidal wave of pathological hatred and lies from someone on your website called Paul Cassell (who?) is bound to drive up sales, ta very much.

My little book has done no harm to anyone, and I am glad that it has not so far been treated unkindly.  Readers will however wonder who this person is who is being savagely attacked by this Mr Cassell, who as far as I know I have never met.  A piece of staggering journalistic ineptitude.  Congratulations chaps.

See you tomorrow, Reading people.  I've almost forgotten how to get there, it is years and years since I had anything to do with the place.

the smack of firm leadership

this from Conservative Home on events in Slough:

Cllr Rob Anderson, the Labour leader of Slough Borough Council has been deselected as his Party's candidate for Farnham Ward. He is looking for another ward to represent. The regional Party Director Malcolm Powers has been passed allegations of irregularities. Another selection contest, for Chalvey Ward, was rerun after Powers intervened. In that battle Cllr Natasha Pantelic, the Cabinet Member for Education, was chosen by one vote having been deselected from her own ward of Bayliss and Stoke.

Now Cllr Anderson has sacked one of the Cabinet colleagues, Cllr Fiza Matloob. This has been done under the Strong Leader Model which has been adopted in Slough to give the leader the power to hire and fire.
They all appear to be at each others throats. A third of the seats are up for election in May.


Strong Leader Model, hein?  First I'd heard of it.  Perhaps those closer to Labour management circles in the UK can enlighten me further.  Would be most interested.  There were times when strong leadership was just what was required.  I certainly recall the then South-East Regional Director, Mike "Mad Monk" Creighton, now Head of Compliance at Labour national HQ (you couldn't make this up) being threatened during the parliamentary selection process in Reading East - by people who were not from Reading East.  A bit of strong leadership would not have come amiss then, but was not to be found.  So this is Mr Powers' new idea.  Jolly good.