Malachy

http://www.seenontv.com/prod-pages/images1/52weeks-Thumb.jpg

Marooned in Maywick, I know this is not the Shetland Life forum, but I'd like to respond to a couple of your points since this is specifically about the magazine. Firstly, regarding the reviewers 'credentials'. This is, I believe, a somewhat misleading idea, that food reviews require a reviewer with specific qualifications or experience. A review of food is no different from a review of music or literature - anyone with an opinion can do it. A music reviewer will generally just have a love of music - they need not be a musician themselves - and equally, a food reviewer needs only a love of food. They give their honest opinion on a meal. It is up to the reader to decide whether to act on that review somehow. We don’t claim any authority, and I can tell you that our reviewers (there are, in fact, two) do not work in the food industry. I believe this makes them less likely to be biased in some way. Secondly, on anonymity. This is a difficult one, and was a difficult decision for me. I am absolutely opposed to anonymous reviews generally, but I decided to make an exception in this case, and only because of the specific situation in Shetland. There were two reasons for this, and they are reasons that I think have been justified by events so far. One: a reviewer whose name is published will undoubtedly be known or will become known by food establishments in a small place like Shetland. They may get preferential treatment when they go to eat, or they may not even be allowed in. Anonymity avoids this possibility. Two: I believe that not all restaurant owners in Shetland are trustworthy enough to not react to a bad review, either by banning the reviewer from their establishment(s) or by retaliating in some other way. I do not want this to happen to anyone writing for the magazine, and they should not have to put up with that. As editor, I am happy to be the one who takes the flak for it. In one sense though I agree with you – the fact that the reviews are anonymous does somehow devalue them, because the reader has to take on trust the fact that a review (good or bad) is justified, and we cannot give any evidence to help you believe it. As editor, I strongly believe that my reviewers are honest and unbiased, but you just have to take my word for it. But then again, when I read a good review of a CD in a magazine, there is always a certain amount of trust involved for me to accept that the reviewer wasn’t bribed or coerced into writing it, or that it is not a false name. And if I go and buy that CD and don’t like it then I still can’t say the review was false because, in the end, a review is just a matter of taste, and readers have to remember that. Having said all that, I personally believe the food reviews could do a lot of good in Shetland eateries if they are taken the right way, both by restaurateurs and readers. PS – from April onwards, the food reviews will be published with the initials of the reviewers at the bottom. I hope this will alleviate some of the suspicion.

Good review of the Edinburgh gig in the Scotsman today. Hooray!

Excellent!

There's no quality threshhold for submissions - you can send any old rubbish you want to - but it might not get published. I did like the jellyfish poem, though it's not quite 'on subject' is it?

Good stuff, be fine to see you there (and you in Aberdeen Bryan) My apologies for the mixup with dates - I'm obviously so eager to go that I skipped a day in my head...

To me, to me! If you go to http://www.northidea.co.uk you will find all the relevant information... We need more entries people. Please!

Some shameless self-promotion here, but Steven Laurenson and I are about to embark on a mini-tour of Scotland with Tom Morton and it would be great to get some ex-pats / Shetlinkers coming along. We're playing at the following places with Tom: Thursday 21st - Aberdeen - Musa Friday 22nd - Glenfarg - Famous Beinn Inn Saturday 23rd - Glenrothes - Lang Spoons Festival (with Finniston and the Lush Rollers) Plus one solo gig: Sunday 24th - Edinburgh - The Wee Folk Club

I've got a copy of The Bridge lying around. You can have it if you like.

If that was an intentional pun then well done! I enjoyed it very much. If not, I'm glad to have pointed it out! Also, have to agree about The Road - bleak, disturbing, horrifying, but brilliant.

The problem with this argument is that Britain isn't the nearest country for anyone who is likely to be fleeing. There are not many French asylum seekers. It is a convenient way of saying "don't come here". If you followed it through then Northern Europe would not have to take anyone. There are two reasons Britain receives quite a lot of asylum seekers. One is that we spend large amounts of money through the British Council telling the rest of the world what a wonderful place we are, so people generally know about Britain, whereas they may not know much about, say, Belgium. The other reason is language. Lots of people can speak English, or some English. So of course they want to come to an English speaking country. Having said that, Britain gets far fewer asylum seekers than France.

I have asked both the sides to clearly make their case, and respond to some of the claims and counterclaims going about, for the next issue of Shetland Life. It is out on the 2nd March. Sorry about the blatant advertsing, but it is relevant.

Yes, that's exactly what Tesco do in Britain. Shetland is not a big enough place to support three supermarkets. Tesco can afford to undercut rivals until they give up, then prices will go up and all choice gone. Chance are that in the process one or two local shops - a butchers, fish shop maybe -will also go bust. Is that really a desirable outcome? Tesco know that when it comes to shopping people are very dumb. They can't help but think with their wallets. You offer someone a pallid, ill looking chicken that's been pumped full of chemicals and water and tastes like nothing, then show them a healthy free-range local chicken for a couple of pounds more. They'll take the crap every time.

Nobody's expecting any more than previously. You're right Twerto, we've chosen to live in a remote place and accept the limitations that involves. People understand that weather-related delays are inevitable, especially in winter. Nobody is asking the council to change the weather. But technical delays are different. The service now is less reliable than it was under Loganair, for the simple reason that the planes they are using now seem to be less reliable. This is a serious problem. If the ferry to Unst broke down the service would be carried out by another ferry. When both planes are broken we don't have that option.

Mr Irvine has presumably never been to the outer isles in winter. He perhaps doesn't know that our ferry service does a return journey only once a week. It's not really comparable with NorthLink is it? It is quite different being delayed for one day in Shetland because the NorthLink won't sail from being stuck in Fair Isle for five days because it's too windy for the ferry and the plane's broken (and they won't fly at weekends!)

Thanks for that. I am humbled by your helpfulness.

I thought this thread needed to be revived. Half-arsed attempt I know, but I'm only learning... http://lh4.google.com/image/malachytallack/Rc3ToiycyvI/AAAAAAAAABQ/gcnhqCSizY8/goonies.jpg edit: why doesn't that work - somebody help!! (*** MOD EDIT *** Heya, I removed the end part ?imgmax=512 and it worked. ?!?!)

Of course I'm not "siding with prisoners over children". The question is not "who deserves it most?" Yes, there is a finite amount of money, but that money is split into numerous different budgets. What I'm saying is that the cost of educating a prisoner will not equal one child not going to school. It is not that kind of a choice. Prison is an expensive service, but perhaps with a bit of foresight (including prisoner education and more thoughtful sentencing) reoffending would be reduced, and hence, the cost would gradually become less, and the state would be better off financially and socially.

All the human rights act does is make the European convention on human rights part of UK law. So, as I said, if we stuck to the rules we signed up to there'd be no problem. If the government breaks its own laws it is not setting a very good example!

That's the same with anyone. You can't guarantee that after ten years of school someone will not come out like Jade. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't educate people. Plus, we are not talking about a specific quantity of money here - if we spend it on prisoners the kids won't get it - it is an additional cost that would, undoubtedly be worth spending.

WZ is brilliant, but the problem with his albums is they can be pretty inconsistent. I have about six of them, and they nearly all have their downsides. The best, I would say, are Sentimental Hygiene (very 80s sound - takes a bit of getting used to), Mr Bad Example (brilliant, but difficult to find - it's gone out of print I think, but you might find it online somewhere) and the one he released just before he died - The Wind. Strangely, none of his best known songs are on these, but they're just more consistently enjoyable. His eponymous one is good too now that I think about it. In fact, ignore me, they're all great.

I think most of us are in agreement here that people shouldn't be just thrown into jail to sit and wait for their release. It is a waste of time and money. Some of the suggestions in your last post, droilker, were actually quite sensible. Much better than your "shoot them in the back of the head" post earlier. Working on a farm or some other kind of similar work would not only be productive it would also, hopefully, help prisoners to see the value of work, and maybe they would even enjoy it. So when they came out of prison they might choose to work rather than reoffend. Certainly, there is more chance of success with this method than putting folk in jail, beating them up and "humiliating" them for a few years as Styles suggests, then releasing them. That could only make things worse! Education, as Evil Inky says, is also hugely important.

I can't understand how a dislike of lawyers should necessarily equal a disrespect for human rights. Droilker, it is a simple set of rules to protect the individual (see the link somewhere above to read the rules). Britain has been signed up to those rules since 1950. Britain's problem is that it keeps breaking the rules! If it stuck to them it would have no problem at all. People test the law all the time. They sue each other, they sue companies, they claim compensation for whatever reason. In all of these cases, lawyers benefit. So why is it that the only thing that annoys you is that other people are entitled to the same rights as you?!! Do you think you should have special rights?

I forgot about the poll thing.

I quite agree. Equally responsible. There are alternatives though.