What's up with the Journal?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Stuart on May 6, 2009 at 18:40

Yeah, me too. Mine defaults to this:

http://aka-cdn-ns.adtech.de/apps/428/Ad2362284St3Sz168Sq2843703V0Id1/clickTAG,%20"_blank"

Appears to be something to do with an advertising service they're using (if you follow the error message and go to aka-cdn-ns.adtech.de).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on May 6, 2009 at 22:58

YES, I'm seeing the same behaviour you report (with Safari on Mac). Have you tried it with Firefox and especially Firefox with either or both of the add-ons, AdBlock Plus and NoScript?

The former suppresses most display advertising and the latter puts a brake on JavaScript activity which slows down computers. NoScript can stop viruses that haven't been invented yet (those which depend on JavaScript). I haven't tested them with the Journal's page yet but I recommend both these add-ons generally for Firefox.

Letter to The Journal

The Journal has published my recent letter – admittedly lengthy – but edited out the reference to political correctness in Haringey Councii's hiring policies, as a factor in the quality of services they deliver (or not):

Haringey unable and unwilling
to face deep-seated problems

NOW we learn that another defenceless child (a two year old girl) has suffered grievous harm while on Haringey Council's Child Protection Register.

Unfortunately, the council seems at least as concerned with managing public relations aspects, as it does with addressing the underlying problems.

The announcement of the sacking of several more Baby Peter staff, appears to have been held off until just 24 hours before the verdict in the latest trial involving a mistreated child on Haringey's CP Register. Was there not ample reason for these sackings to have been made months ago?

Was this more municipal media management, cynically timed to soften the shock of further revelations of the previously unknown court case (which finally revealed Peter's name) and about which the council had undoubtedly known for a long time?

We have been told that in order to improve child protection, the council will do more of what it was doing before and intensify its previous policies. This formula appears to be PR and also suits the council's self-image.

The council leader, Ms. Kober, has previously suggested that her council's demotion to one-star status is unfair, because of the emphasis on child protection. But the heavy weighting is right, because infants and children are the most defenceless and vulnerable citizens of society and that is the proper yardstick by which council's are judged.

Ms Kober (or her PR editors) is recently quoted as saying,

"We have accepted that things went badly wrong with our child protection in 2007",

This implies that the problem is a transitory blip in a single year. Perhaps the council leader, aged about 30, was not around at the time of the Victoria Climbié tragedy or has forgotten about the ensuing public inquiry. Or she does not care to remind us. Back then, Haringey paid lip service to mending its ways.

The Climbié case should have brought radical improvements. The further tragedies on Haringey's child protection register suggest a pattern of chronic problems and not only in calendar year 2007.

The Leader's statement, like previous council statements on the subject, still evidences detachment from what occurred and an unwillingness to take direct responsibility, notwithstanding the late, forced apologies and the tardy resignations by two members from the "cabinet" (but not from the council). Even the ex-leader's self-serving claim to have resigned out of "personal honour" might have been credible, had it not come after weeks of intense media attention.

How did so many senior staff get it so wrong over Baby Peter?

We are told that Haringey faces problems in recruitment to Children's Services. As with much else that goes wrong in the LBH – the recruitment difficulty is of their own making:

• Haringey's reputation, going back to the Loony Left days of the 1980s, persists, notwithstanding the propagandist Haringey Pravda/People magazine pushing the image of "Better Haringey" the award-winning, five-star, Beacon-council.

• Haringey has long been choosy in their hiring polices, but not choosy in wanting the best person for the job, regardless of other factors (i.e. solely on merit). They are choosy in terms of political correctness, both in the objective characteristics of candidates and also in job candidates' willingness to mouth politically-correct material.

• Haringey look, for example, at the ability to answer questions like, how are you anti-racist? Give examples of your anti-racism? I do not recommend that the council hires racists. I suggest the emphasis and priorities are misplaced and when it comes to child protection, dangerously so. If you are the best social worker in Britain but couldn't satisfy Haringey's PC criteria, would you apply or be hired?

• Haringey's reputation among social workers was tarnished after Victoria Climbié's death and yet real, meaningful change was evaded by the council.

With this history and reputation – quite apart from Baby Peter and the national implications his death had – is it any wonder that social workers of ability are reluctant to come to LBH? Will Haringey recognise that there is a fundamental flaw with their hiring policies?

These chronic factors mean that even with the payment of huge salaries and with the best will in the world (and that is not always present), the situation is not going to be fixed soon. When things go wrong, the council's instinct is to blame others, reach for PR consultants and look for scapegoats. They need to look elsewhere. Most bathrooms will have the glass fixture they need to use.


.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Liz on May 6, 2009 at 23:11

Thanks Clive.
I always use Firefox (does it in IE too) will try the add ons but really think the Journal should sort this... can't be good for business.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on May 6, 2009 at 23:18

Hi Liz: AdBlock Plus works automatically; NoScript puts a yellow banner at the bottom of the page when it encounters unknown scripts and will need some "training". Only you can decide whether the initial interruption is worth it.

You will be surprised at just how many scripts are running that you didn't know about, or even suspect. Using it will tend to keep you fast and safe (you do want to be fast and safe, don't you?!)

(yes, The Journal should fix this and so should the Ham&High, who have other issues with their web pages)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alison P on May 6, 2009 at 23:22

Freaky - worked fine for me once (Firefox, no add ons) and then started doing exactly what you describe.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Liz on May 7, 2009 at 16:47

They seem to have fixed the problem...about time.

• ▶ Reply