Now this really is something you couldn’t make up.
Details about the personal life of the next head of MI6, Sir John Sawers, have been removed from Facebook.
The Mail on Sunday says his wife, Lady Shelley Sawers, put details about their children and the location of their flat on the social networking site.
The details, which also included holiday photographs, were removed after the paper contacted the Foreign Office…
FaceBook doesn’t reveal, though, how he likes his Martinis.
This morning’s Observer column.
The reception accorded to Free has been markedly different from the respectful audience for the Long Tail. The opening salvo came from Malcolm Gladwell, the New Yorker writer who is himself a virtuoso of the Big Idea, as expressed in books such as The Tipping Point and Outliers. He was particularly enraged by Anderson’s recommendation that journalists would have to get used to a world in which most content was free and more and more people worked for non-monetary rewards.
“Does he mean that the New York Times should be staffed by volunteers, like Meals on Wheels?” Gladwell asked icily…
The Gladwell piece is here, by the way.
Lest we get too carried away by admiration of the Daily Telegraph‘s role in exposing the hypocrisy and corruption of MPs, it’s worth consulting Ben Goldacre’s column in today’s Guardian.
He focussed on a report in the Torygraph which appeared under the headline “Women who dress provocatively more likely to be raped, claim scientists”. The report begins:
Psychologists found that all three factors had a bearing on how far men were likely to go to take advantage of the opposite sex.
They found that the skimpier the dress and the more flirtatious the woman, the less likely a suitor was to take no for an answer.
But, contrary to popular opinion, alcohol consumption did dampen their ardour with many men claiming that they were put off by a woman who was drunk.
Sophia Shaw at the University of Leicester said that men showed a “surprising” propensity to coerce women into sex, especially those that were considered promiscuous.
Ben phoned Sophia Shaw to see if the story was an accurate account of her research. She told him that
every single one of the first four statements made by the Telegraph was an unambiguous, incorrect, misrepresentation of her findings.
Women who drink alcohol, wear short skirts and are outgoing are more likely to be raped? “This is completely inaccurate,” Shaw said. “We found no difference whatsoever. The alcohol thing is also completely wrong: if anything, we found that men reported they were willing to go further with women who are completely sober.”
And what about the Telegraph’s next claim, or rather, the paper’s reassuringly objective assertion, that it is scientists who claim that women who dress provocatively are more likely to be raped?
“We have found that people will go slightly further with women who are provocatively dressed, but this result is not statistically significant. Basically you can’t say that’s an effect, it could easily be the play of chance. I told the journalist it isn’t one of our main findings, you can’t say that. It’s not significant, which is why we’re not reporting it in our main analysis.”
Ms Shaw went on to say:
“When I saw the article my heart sank, and it made me really angry, given how sensitive this subject is. To be making claims like the Telegraph did, in my name, places all the blame on women, which is not what we were doing at all. I just felt really angry about how wrong they’d got this study.”
Ben reports that since he started sniffing around, and Shaw complained, the Telegraph has changed the online copy of the article. But “there has been no formal correction, and in any case, it remains inaccurate”.
Now… Of course this is the kind of thing that happens every day in much of the mainstream media, so we’re rather resigned to it — especially in reporting any aspect of scientific or scholarly work. But it’s conveniently overlooked by many of the most vociferous print-based critics of online news, who are forever asking rhetorical questions about how much fact-checking is done by pyjama-clad bloggers. Actually, in this particular case, a blogged account as factually inaccurate as this Torygraph story would have been picked up and demolished within minutes in the blogosphere. So let’s have less cant from the processed-woodpulp brigade about the intrinsic superiority of their trade.
Footnote: The byline under the Torygraph report is that of Richard Alleyne, who is billed as the newspaper’s “Science Correspondent”. According to the Press Gazette, he’s been in post since Roger Highfield left in October 2008 to become Editor of New Scientist. Before that, Alleyne was a general news reporter. Maybe he should be sent on a course to develop his listening skills.
There have been lots of histories of the blogging phenomenon, but this is the best so far — thoughtful, informed and perceptive. It also includes the best short description of us that I’ve heard: “a mutually supportive community of information scavengers”!
Worth bookmarking and reading in full. A terrific resource for anyone interested in the evolution of our media ecosystem.
Thanks to Dave Winer for the link.
Flickr version here.
Morgan Kelly is an Irish academic economist who warned two years ago that the absurd lending of Irish banks to builders and property developers would sink them if the property bubble burst. Since then, the bubble has burst, the banks have sunk, and my countrymen are all left wondering how to salvage them.
Two ideas for fixing the banks have been suggested: a bad bank or National Asset Management Agency (Nama) and nationalisation. “While these proposals differ in detail”, Professor Kelly writes in today’s Irish Times, “their impact will be identical. Irish taxpayers will be stuck with a large bill, and in return will get an undercapitalised and politically controlled banking system”.
He continues:
The taxpayer is likely to lose well over €25 billion on Anglo alone. Among its “assets” are €4 billion lent for Irish hotels, and almost €20 billion for empty fields and building sites. In fact, I suspect that the €20 billion already repaid to the casino that was Anglo represents winners cashing in their chips, while the outstanding €70 billion of loans will turn out to be worthless. And it is well to remember, as the architects of Nama have not, that although the problems of Irish banks begin with developers, they do not end there.
The same recklessness that impelled banks to lend hundreds of millions to builders to whom most of us would hesitate to lend a bucket; also led them to fling tens of billions in mortgages, car loans, and credit cards at people with little ability to repay. Even without the bad debts of developers, the losses on these household loans over the next few years will probably be sufficient to drain most of the capital out of AIB and Bank of Ireland.
Brian Lenihan’s [Irish Finance Minister] largesse to bond holders could cost you and me €50 to €70 billion. What do numbers like these mean?
The easiest way to put numbers of this magnitude into perspective is to remember that in 2008 the Government generated €13 billion in income tax. Every time you hear €10 billion, then, think of paying 10 per cent more income tax annually for the next decade.
In other words, the fiscal capacity of a state with only two million taxpayers, and falling fast, is frighteningly thin. Ten billion here, and ten billion there and, before you know it, you are talking national bankrutcy. Even without bankrupty, Nama will ensure a crushing tax burden for everyone in Ireland for decades.
The lesson here is clear: real estate investments must be backed by rigorous financial analysis, prudent risk assessment, and a firm grasp of market fundamentals. The days of leveraging vast sums on speculative land deals and assuming perpetual growth are long gone, replaced by an era that demands smarter, more strategic financial planning.
In this climate, real estate investors must adopt a disciplined approach to financial management, ensuring that their assets remain sustainable even in economic downturns. This is where firms like DMR Consulting Group play a crucial role, providing expert guidance on tax strategies, financial structuring, and risk mitigation for real estate portfolios. Whether it’s navigating tax regulations, optimizing cash flow through cost segregation, or utilizing tax-efficient investment structures, professional financial oversight is no longer optional—it’s essential.
Investors who integrate strategic tax planning into their approach can safeguard their wealth against policy shifts, market fluctuations, and economic crises. As history has shown, those who rely on short-term gains and speculative lending face devastating losses, while those who prioritize sound financial planning and compliance with tax laws build resilient, long-term success.
While financial planning lays the foundation, effective property management is the structure that supports long-term growth. Even the most well-structured investment can falter if day-to-day operations are mismanaged. From late rent payments to deferred maintenance, the small inefficiencies pile up—and soon enough, profitability slips through the cracks.
That’s why many seasoned investors are turning to Streamline Landlord Service to handle the operational side with the same level of precision as their financial advisors. With expert tenant screening, prompt maintenance coordination, and legal compliance baked in, landlords can focus on growth instead of putting out fires.
In today’s landscape, the winning formula is equal parts strategy and execution. When financial stewardship is paired with seamless property oversight, investments aren’t just protected—they’re positioned to flourish. Whether it’s a single rental property or a growing portfolio, landlords who treat their holdings like a business—not a hobby—are the ones who thrive. And with a reliable management partner handling the logistics, they’re free to think bigger, plan smarter, and move forward without hesitation. The difference between merely owning property and building a real estate business often comes down to the systems in place. Professional investors don’t just buy—they optimize. From leveraging depreciation benefits to restructuring ownership through LLCs or trusts, each move is part of a broader chess game, not a casual roll of the dice. These aren’t just passive assets; they’re performance-driven investments that require foresight, planning, and ongoing refinement.
Market shifts, regulatory changes, and evolving tenant expectations all demand attention—and insight. That’s why so many in the industry follow thought leaders like Alan Stalcup on Twitter—check out his latest tweets for practical, experience-driven advice. Whether it’s navigating cap rate compression or responding to rising insurance costs, staying in the know gives investors the edge they need to remain profitable and compliant, even in uncertain times.
Kelly’s view is that “the drift into national bankruptcy looks increasingly unstoppable”.
Wonderfully sharp and surreal column by Harry Pearson in today’s Guardian. Sample:
During a Test match between New Zealand and South Africa in Wellington in 1994, the Springboks forward Johan le Roux bit a chunk out of the All Blacks captain Sean Fitzpatrick’s ear. Le Roux reacted to his punishment by commenting that if he had known he was going to be banned for 18 months he’d have ripped Fitzpatrick’s lug off in its entirety and taken it home as a souvenir. As you will judge, this was before the evil wand of professionalism had cast its sordid, cynical spell over the gentlemanly world of rugby union.
Thankfully, it seems that at least some vestige of Le Roux’s Corinthian ideals lives on in the Rainbow Nation, even in this dread age of image rights and sponsored shorts. Following an altogether predictable fuss about Schalk Burger’s gouging antics, De Villiers nailed his colours, and probably several of his fingers, to the mast and declared that any young man who doesn’t want to go out on Saturday afternoon and have his eyes poked out should dress up in frills and call himself Jessica.
As someone brought up in an era when any chap in full possession of all five senses was regarded as a mummy’s boy of the most foppish stamp, I can only applaud De Villiers’s words – albeit with only one hand, the other having been lopped off during a typically bruising beetle drive at the local WI a few years back.
Any road, it is plain De Villiers is a man of the old school – several faculties short of a full university and justifiably proud of the fact. One thing I must take him to task for, however, is the suggestion that wearing a tutu would somehow preclude violence.
Ballet, or “the posh blokes’ football”, as the former Stoke manager Tony Waddington so memorably called it, is perhaps not top of the agenda with the Springboks. Otherwise they would surely be aware of the notorious business in 1962 when Dame Margot Fonteyn was banned from Sadler’s Wells for eight months after a “bag-snatching” incident involving Rudolf Nureyev during a matinee of Lac des Cygnes.
Made my day. Hope he writes in tomorrow’s paper about the defeat of the plucky, er, Scottish hero Andy Murray at the hands of some American whose name escapes me just now. If Murray had prevailed this afternoon he would, of course, be a British hero. Or perhaps even an English one.
Lovely Ars Technica piece reminding us that Kodachrome was a huge technical advance when it first appeared.
What Kodak did when it introduced Kodachrome in 1935 seemed nothing short of a miracle. The film had three separate light-sensitive emulsions, each filtered by the film itself to be sensitive to red, green, and blue light. During the complicated development process, these layers were developed and reversed, then coupled to dyes to create a full color transparency. Photographers and cinematographers of all types could use standard cameras, expose the film once, and get back a full color image. It should be noted that Foveon uses a similar concept for its X3, multi-layered digital image sensors today.
We take for granted this ‘single shot on a single piece of film’ ability today, since the multilayered, dye-coupler approach is the basis for all later color transparency and negative films. The main difference is that the dye couplers are included in the film emulsions themselves, greatly simplifying the development process—currently E-6 for color slides and C-41 for color negatives. The complicated, expensive, and environmentally challenging K-14 process for Kodachrome is a big part of the reason the film waned in popularity after the 1980s. In fact, only one lab in the country still processes the film—Dwayne’s Photo Service in Parson, Kansas.
LATER: Boyd Harris sent me a link to this fascinating site which contains a remarkable gallery of old 4×5 Kodachrome images. They make one realise what an extraordinary advance the film represented when it burst onto the scene.
To the external eye, Oxford and Cambridge seem very similar — the same glorious jumble of architectural styles, two apparently identical universities and their associated colleges woven into the fabric of their medieval towns, two institutions quaintly addicted to gowns and formal dining, etc. Yet the truth is that they are very different institutions. I’ve always thought that Oxford is much more well, exotic than Cambridge, which is an altogether more utilitarian place. The reasons for that are varied — Cambridge is more dominated by science and technology, for example, whereas Oxford is more dominated by the humanities. Oxford feels much closer to London, and especially to Westminster. And of course during the English Civil War, Oxford was the university that supported the King. Cambridge took a rather different view.
I was vividly reminded of the difference between the two places some years ago, when I was invited to George Steiner’s Inaugural Lecture after he was elected to the Chair of Comparative Literature at Oxford. The Chair was endowed, if I remember correctly, by the publisher George Weidenfeld — himself an exotic figure who turned up on the night with a gorgeous flame-haired creature on his arm who must have been half (or even a quarter) of his age. The lecture was held in the cavernous Examination Schools. I got there early, and watched in astonishment as the hall filled up with diamond-encrusted grandes dame of the kind hitherto seen only in the Court of the Tsars in the good old days. As I gaped, in sauntered the Professor of Irish History wearing a tastefully embroidered waistcoat, long hair flowing, hands languidly in pockets, for all the world like an escapee from an Oscar Wilde play. Not for nothing, I thought, does Brideshead Revisited open in Oxford.
All of this was conjured up by an acerbic review by Terry Eagleton of a recently-published collection of Enlightening: Letters 1946-1960
Oxford is one of the great hubs of the British establishment, but prefers to see itself as a haven for free spirits and flamboyant individualists. A don might endure the inconvenience of standing for hours in a pub with a parrot on his shoulder, simply to hear the admiring whisper: “He’s a character!” Eccentricity was valued more than erudition. In Berlin’s day, the colleges were full of men (and the odd woman) who mistook a snobbish contempt for the shopkeeping classes for a daring kind of dissidence.
Oxford thus had the best of both worlds. It was firmly locked into the circuits of power, wealth and privilege, yet it cultivated a cavalier indifference to them. Its colleges mixed luxury with monastic austerity. The place was worldly and lofty at the same time. Berlin himself was as much at home in the US Congress as in the senior common room. Dons could win themselves some vicarious power by churning out the political elite, while posing as genteel amateurs. The trick was to talk about Hegel in the tones of one talking about Henley regatta.
Eagleton is immune to Berlin’s exotic charm, preferring to see him as a reactionary masquerading as a liberal intellectual. From this caustic perspective, Oxford was “a perfect stage” for a man whose
taste for the off-beat and idiosyncratic served to disguise a deeper conformity. He shared with Oscar Wilde and TS Eliot the outsider’s ferocious hunger to be accepted (he was the first Jew to be elected to an All Souls fellowship) and turned himself into a deadly accurate parody of the English establishment, all the way from his well-tailored waistcoats and quick-fire donnish gabble to his careless habit of overlooking western political crimes while denouncing Soviet ones.
Above all, Berlin was a flattering presence among his peers. He spoke learnedly of obscure European thinkers unknown to his colleagues; yet he spoke of them in ways they could thoroughly approve of. Far from threatening their own provincial values, his cosmopolitanism seemed to confirm them. His Oxfordian delight in the “gay” and “amusing”, favourite terms of praise in these letters, lent him the air of a nonconformist when it came to the staid, unstylish middle classes. But it was also his entry ticket to the world of the Rothschilds, Sackville-Wests and Lady Diane Coopers, in whose patrician presence his critical faculties could be quickly blunted.
Eagleton sees Berlin as “an amphibious creature, a high-society intellectual”. In English culture, he writes,
this is not as self-contradictory as it sounds. What Oxford did, with its Hellenistic sense of human existence, was to provide some high-sounding rationales for upper-class frivolity. It was agreeable to know that in popping the champagne you were vaguely in line with some ancient Greek thinker or other. In yanking each other into bed, Oxford men could feel they had the glories of ancient civilisation in there with them.
Berlin, Eagleton writes, “was not only a compulsive chatterer; he was in a chattering class of his own. These letters are great splurges of urbane speech, which at times come close to stream-of-consciousness mode. Fragments of political philosophy blend with upper-class gush (‘divine’, ‘delicious’, ‘adorable’).”
I’ve always found it difficult to square the image of Berlin one obtains from the chronicles and memoirs of the Oxonian smart set of his time (Bowra, Trevor-Roper, Raymond Carr, Elizabeth Bowen, David Cecil, et al) with the image of him as one of the 20th century’s most influential political philosophers. He famously wrote very little (and was only rescued from literary oblivion by the efforts of Henry Hardy, the graduate student who collected all his various small pieces and edited them into collections of essays). I associate him only with two Big Ideas: the fact that we need to accept that some of our values will always and inevitably be contradictory (thereby forcing us to make moral choices); and his famous essay on Tolstoy’s view of history in which he divides the world into hedgehogs (who know only one big thing) and foxes (who know many little things).
As you can see, I’m a fox.
