ANYONE in Britain with a TV set will soon be heartily sick of the general
election, especially the party political broadcasts slipped into the schedules
at the last minute in an attempt to trap viewers into watching them. According
to broadcaster Michael Cockerell, it was not always like this.
Cockerell has been sitting through the British Film Institute鈥檚 archives,
looking for odd examples of electioneering. He discovered that when the Labour
Party retained power in 1950, the BBC tried to stay neutral by giving the
election no coverage whatsoever. The next year, when the Conservatives won with
a small majority, the BBC screened just one short newsreel item which showed
politicians on soapboxes and in village hall meetings. There was no sound other
than a chirpy musical background and a bland commentary that told viewers how
鈥減lenty of questions were raised鈥�.
It was Harold Macmillan who finally thrust TV into the political limelight,
with a famously relaxed broadcast in 1959 in which he spun a world globe to
signify Britain鈥檚 Greatness.
Advertisement
The archives show why he was so relaxed. Macmillan, the then prime minister,
was scheduled to broadcast live from the BBC in the evening and went to ATV鈥檚
commercial TV studios in the afternoon for rehearsals. He learnt his lines, had
a glass of brandy, and did a dummy run. As he got ready to leave for home and
then the BBC, ATV鈥檚 engineers told him there was no need to go. They had used
one of the world鈥檚 first video recorders to tape the rehearsal. The tape would
go to the BBC instead of Macmillan.
The BBC bosses were furious, and refused to agree to this. After much
argument, a sort of compromise was reached. Macmillan went in person to the BBC
and sat happily doing nothing in the studio while the tape was played. The
Conservatives romped home with a majority of a hundred seats.
THE PEOPLE who take it upon themselves to warn us of the possible
dangers we face if we come into contact with chemicals are nothing if not
thorough.
The hazard data sheets published by the chemicals supplier BDH, for example,
include a page of safety instructions for people handling that well-known
noxious substance, water.
Conceding that this 鈥渃olourless liquid鈥� does not constitute a 鈥渇ire and
explosion hazard鈥� and is not known to be toxic or carcinogenic, it nevertheless
recommends extensive first-aid procedures for people who come into contact with
it: 鈥淓yes: irrigate thoroughly with water鈥ungs: remove from exposure. Skin:
wash off thoroughly with soap and water. Mouth: wash out mouth thoroughly with
water. In severe cases obtain medical attention.鈥�
The sheet also suggests that if spillage occurs, so long as 鈥渓ocal
regulations鈥� permit, the waste should be mopped up 鈥渨ith plenty of water鈥�. The
circularity of these instructions appears to have escaped the compilers of the
sheet.
Our favourite instruction, though, is the one which suggests that
鈥渁ppropriate protective clothing鈥� should be worn when dealing with excessive
amounts of this chemical. Do they mean wellies, mackintosh and umbrella? Or
perhaps a swimming costume? Sadly, no. A section later in the instructions
recommends plastic or rubber gloves, goggles or face-shield, and a plastic
apron.
Meanwhile, the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) sheets
published by Sigma, Aldrich and Fluka chemical companies are equally scrupulous
in their section on sodium chloride. This warns that if a person is unfortunate
enough to swallow this substance (something that you would have thought most of
us do quite frequently when we sprinkle it on our dinner), you should wash their
mouth out with water鈥斺�漰rovided person is conscious鈥�.
THANKS to Graham Dean for calling our attention to a sadly
neglected paper published in 1989 in Perceptual and Motor Skills. We
haven鈥檛 been able to get hold of a copy yet, but greatly look forward to reading
鈥淎 test of Sheldon theory of personality in ferrets鈥�, by D. Lester and C. J. N.
Dunn.
TIM HART has a long memory. On 30 September 1995 he read the following quotes
in an article in this magazine (This Week, p 8):
鈥淎merica鈥檚 Republicans thumbed their noses at the vast majority of the
world鈥檚 scientists last week by claiming that there is no proof that CFCs are
destroying the Earth鈥檚 ozone layer.
鈥溾�t a hearing before the House of Representatives Science Committee last
week, John Doolittle, a Republican from California, said that research
implicating CFCs in the destruction of ozone is `very much open to debate鈥�, and
there is `no established consensus鈥�
on the role of CFCs. `We need science, not pseudoscience,鈥� he said.
鈥溾�I鈥檓 inclined to believe that we鈥檙e not giving Mother Nature enough
credit for being able to replenish the ozone layer,鈥� said Congressman Tom DeLay,
the Republicans鈥� whip in the House of Representatives. He shrugged off a
challenge to produce some peer-reviewed studies supporting this view. `I鈥檓
not going to get involved in mumbo jumbo,鈥� he said.鈥�
Doolittle and DeLay arguing against action on the ozone hole? Surely, Hart
thought, this must be a setup, even if it wasn鈥檛 1 April. So he waited for us to
admit that we had been kidding. And he waited and he waited until he couldn鈥檛
stand it any more, so he wrote to Feedback demanding an explanation.
Sorry, Tim, it wasn鈥檛 a setup. We could hardly believe it ourselves. But
those were their real names.
A RECENT flyer advertising a one-day seminar on 鈥淗ow to handle
difficult people鈥� listed as part of its programme: 鈥淗ow to turn around
egotistical managers who smash all ideas except their own鈥�.
This could be a very useful skill. The trouble is, if you are unfortunate
enough to have a boss who falls into this category, he or she will probably have
to sign the forms authorising your attendance at the seminar. So how do you turn
around your boss to let you go?
JAMES KING bought a Hinari steam iron at the weekend. The
instructions say: 鈥淒o not allow this unit to be exposed to rain or moisture.鈥�
King feels that this was probably very good advice, except that he is now
wondering how to fill and use the iron.