My first two articles in The Australian

Outbreak contained as infected pigs on the mend

Etan Smallman | August 04, 2009

Article from: The Australian

It's no piggery-jokery

AN outbreak of swine flu at a central NSW piggery has been contained.

However authorities have urged farmers to remain alive to the danger posed by the highly contagious disease.

The 2000-animal piggery at Dunedoo, in the state’s central west, was quarantined on Friday after tests confirmed that several pigs had caught the A H1 virus, believed to have been transmitted to them by staff.

But the disease has not spread outside the farm in Dunedoo and the health of the pigs diagnosed with the disease is improving, according to the NSW Department of Primary Industries.

None of the Dunedoo animals has entered the food chain.

A telephone conference was arranged yesterday between state, territory and federal representatives from the health and agriculture sectors. It was decided quarantine measures at the farm would only be reconsidered when the pigs were no longer suffering the flu and after they had recovered fully for seven days.

Alan Sharrock, a veterinary surgeon at the affected farm in Dunedoo, said an overreaction among the general population had done the pig industry harm as people inevitably link swine flu with pork.

But he quoted a colleague who said:

“I’m safer kissing a pig than kissing my wife.”

Federal Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry spokesman John Cobb yesterday highlighted concerns over Australia’s feral pigs, calling on the NSW government to begin an immediate surveillance program to ensure they “do not become a reservoir for the A H1 flu virus”.

Mr Cobb urged the NSW government to undertake an immediate feral pig control program in the Central West, including shooting, baiting and trapping, to prevent the disease coming back “as a meaner, nastier, deadlier virus”.

Neil Franks of Aztec Farms Piggery, who keeps between 6000 and 7000 pigs on his farm in Myall Park, near the southern NSW centre of Griffith, said swine flu remained a concern for pig farmers across the state.

“We are closely monitoring the situation with our staff and making sure that they are fit and well,” he said.

Mr Franks’s wife, Merilyn, said they had been taking precautionary measures for the past two months — ever since cases of swine flu were first reported in the local Griffith community.

The farm always has a closed herd, whereby no stock is taken in from any other property, but in response to swine flu, staff have been instructed to minimise their contact in the wider community and not to travel by air.

“We’re a bit scared about airports, sports events and picture theatres,” she said.

Mrs Franks said sales had been affected as a result of fears among the population.

The farm’s processors have reported a fall in sales of 10 per cent, despite experts confirming that there is no danger from eating pork products.

- Click here to view PDF

Anzac flag thief urged to salute

Etan Smallman | August 07, 2009

Article from: The Australian

Flying the flag

The historic banner was the first flag carried ashore by Australian troops at Gallipoli in World War I. It was carried by Australian troops of the 9th battalion, 3rd brigade, throughout the campaign in Turkey from 1915.

The homemade mauve and grey banner bears the signatures of several historical figures, including Albert Windsor, who became King George VI.

It was noticed missing from Anzac House, in Sydney’s CBD, on Monday, but could have been stolen at any time after July 15.

The flag was being held in storage while renovations were carried out on the war memorial in Sydney’s Hyde Park, where it was usually on display. State RSL president Don Rowe said the item was insured for $25,000, but its historical and sentimental value made it irreplaceable.

No worries mate…. Oh, you’re an intern! … #*@~*

I have been marvelling at the laid-back Aussie temperament ever since I landed. I have also been revelling in being treated like a proper journalist. Not just the pesky work experience kid in the corner, fighting for a desk, sharing an email address and lucky to have access to that most modern of communication instruments – a telephone.

Well, it didn’t take long for either of my illusions to be ripped asunder. It just took a modicum of journalistic endeavour for the laid-back Aussie character to break.

Researching a story about an ill-advised move by a TV personality (who I shan’t name, since for some reason the story never made it into the paper) who joined a racist Facebook group, I was firmly put back in my place. I had already confirmed with the personality’s agent and it was the real deal, not some cyber-imposter. I then wanted to call the company he works for to get a statement from them. After a lot of buck-passing and question-dodging (and a man on the end of the phone who said he could not give me even his first name just to chase up the enquiry) I was put through to a different gentleman who also refused to divulge his name.

“I’d be careful what you’re saying because that’s not the ‘real’ [Mr x],” he said before asking: “Are you an intern at The Australian?”

Am I that obvious, I wondered. (But I think a quick Google of my name had flung up an entry from this very blog, informing him of my second-class journalistic status).

“Yes, I am,” I said happily.

“Well then I have absolutely nothing to say to you,” he raged, before hanging up the phone.

A second call had me on hold before I was again mysteriously left listening to a dial tone.

At a third attempt, and after it was pointed out that [Mr x’s] agent had confirmed it was the ‘real’ [Mr x], the man added: “Why do you keep calling here?! Stop calling! We have nothing to say from our perspective. If you carry on calling, we will be making a formal complaint against you. Clear?!” before again hanging up.

Crystal, thanks.

And you thought Russell Brand was bad…

Forget about Sachsgate. You ain’t heard nothing yet.

This scandal broke the day I arrived, but I only just got round to sharing! In the most ill-advised of live radio stunts, Kyle Sandilands, an Australian shock jock breakfast radio host and Australian Idol judge managed to make Brand and Ross look like serious journalists.

Presenting a slot involving a 14-year-old girl, a lie detector and questions about her sex life is probably not the wisest idea. But Sandilands (and co-host Jackie O) had the great luck to – albeit unknowingly – be playing this dicey little game on a rape victim.

The girl’s mother had initiated the stunt and posed the series of questions to her daughter on air – despite the girl saying to Sandilands in advance: “I’m scared … it’s not fair”.

As The Australian reported:

Her mother asked her daughter: “Have you ever had sex?” The 14-year-old replied: “I’ve already told you the story about this … and don’t look at me and smile because it’s not funny.”

After a pause, she raised her voice with frustration and said: “Oh okay, I got raped when I was 12 years old.”

It got worse. Sandilands persisted – with this:

“Right … is that the only experience you’ve had?”

before the mother admitted that she had “only” found out about the rape “a couple of months” earlier.

Cue big media furore and the pair’s indefinite suspension. Though, still not nearly the fuss that we had in the UK over Andrew Sachs’s answerphone.

- Listen to the segment here

UPDATE: Sandilands has been “dumped” from his judging slot on Australian Idol – and it’s leading the news bulletins.

Yes, I blog from home – and away

Photo: Semuthutan/Flickr

G’day all. The pommy has landed. I pashed Blighty goodbye on Tuesday and set off for Sydney to enjoy a one-month internship at Oz’s national broadsheet, The Australian – the reward for winning The Times Kate Alderson Prize, in memory of a former City student and Times reporter.

I arrived safely in Sydney late Wednesday arvo – and started at The Oz bright and early at 9am the next morning. Strewth, you might say. But fair dinkum – I’m only here for three and a half working weeks and was pretty keen anyway to get started. Jet-lag? No worries, mate.

I was in court yesterday before writing up a story about a double-murderer. Now I just can’t wait to have a barbie or two, savour the Aussie grog, make a few cobbers and not make too much of a galah of myself. Bonzer!

So, as my first post, here are five quick Aussie questions – answers on a boomerang….

1. Are they actually as delightfully laid back as the stereotypes and guide books attest? (“No Worries Mate” isn’t just a fabled Aussie cliché – I got one as soon as I arrived at the airport)
2. However, that was before I passed through the strictest customs in the world. My banana was promptly confiscated as I walked up to “Quarantine”. “Don’t bring any bananas here again – they’re not allowed.” But they didn’t touch my nuts! (Apparently cashews are perfectly acceptable). And are all their bananas home-grown?
3. I went to the Sydney Opera House today – you know the one. But I want to know what on earth Sydney put on its postcards before 1973. It’s bothering me.
4. Am I the only British tourist who keeps feeling as if he’s just walked on to a Neighbours/Home and Away set? The accents are awesome!
5. Is my name really as stupefying here as the UK? The delightfully named Meldi, the ‘cyber’ trainer, just couldn’t cope and resorted to Mister E. Another Australian employee complimented me. Apparently I’m named after a very prestigious school.

Will be blogging as often as I can, so do watch this space… (Oh, and don’t worry, no more dodgy lingo – I’ve exhausted all my Aussie vocab).

“Notes from an award-winning blog: the Brit who scooped the European prize”

This was first published on Journalism.co.uk

Photo: Flickr/antaldaniel

For a country that is sneered at by almost all of its European neighbours for its remote, aloof and imperious attitude towards the European Union, I, a humble Brit, was pretty proud (not say totally shocked) to be crowned the winner of the first ever European blogging competition at its finale in Rotterdam this week.

Take that, De Gaulle. Up yours, Delors. What a turn-up for the books.

What’s more, I was by no means the only Brit to triumph at the awards ceremony of ‘Th!nk About It,’ a competition that aimed to get young people talking about the European elections that took place to almost no other fanfare at all earlier this month. In all, four out of the five British participants took home awards – not bad for a country that was derided as ‘ignorant’ at the very same event.

When I sent off a brief email in December to apply to take part in the first project of its kind – a pan-European contest that I dubbed ‘the blogging world’s Eurovision song contest’ – I had very little idea of what I was letting myself in for. Five months, and 39 self-penned blog posts later, to my surprise and delight, I have won the entire competition, beating 80 other competitors from all 27 EU member states – and collecting a top of the range Mac laptop for my efforts.

Photo: Flickr/ejcnet

In January, we all assembled in Brussels for a free trip to meet each other and launch the contest – organised by the European Journalism Centre (EJC), and part funded by the European Commission. They weren’t doing things by halves, with speakers including the BBC’s venerated Europe editor, Mark Mardell, and the FT’s Brussels bureau chief, Tony Barber.

Four-and-a-bit months on in Rotterdam, there was a mood of celebration. Wilfried Rütten, director of the EJC, said that the competition had achieved so much, he was embarrassed by its success. The EJC said it did not have any expectations at the outset and that the project had helped engage young people in European politics.

But aside from the back-slapping and self-congratulatory Euro-love on display in Rotterdam, how successful has the project actually been? This is where it gets tricky. The hard numbers are certainly impressive; these are a few that have been bandied about:

• Nearly 600 blog posts
• 2,316 comments
• Around 5,000 trackbacks from external websites
• Over 2.7m hits
• 14,000 Google links

However, the original figure of 81 bloggers taking part is actually one of the most damning. Despite a higher than 1 in 3 chance of coming away with a prize (ranging from iPhones to laptops and Flip cameras) – and two free trips on offer – a significant minority lost interest as soon as they returned to their home countries. Is that a desperate indictment of the EU and its ability to relate to its citizens? I’m inclined to conclude that it is more of a comment on the level of interest and commitment shown by some, who failed even to complete the minimum of one blog post per month to remain in the competition.

Turnout at the EU elections was horrendously low; but even the most ardent new media enthusiasts would be unlikely to claim that blogging should have changed that. A more important question is how many people from outside the Euro bubble actually popped their ear up against out blogging wall. My fear is that we were just an echo chamber; albeit a large, active and impressively innovative one.

However, compared to numerous EU inititatives in the new media arena, Th!nk About It was a roaring success. Its 2.7m or so hits in four months compare extremely favourably to the EU’s public flop of a European television station, EUTube, which notched up a dismal 2.2m viewers in the two years since its launch.

Charlie Beckett, director of media think tank POLIS, criticised the project several months ago: “Irrelevant of new media, I don’t think it is fair to expect bloggers talking in different languages in different media markets to cross boundaries and change political climates,” he said.

That is perhaps true, but nonetheless, actually getting representatives from every EU country talking together – and about the EU, of all things – is undoubtedly an ambitious start. And it does seem that this is only the start, as a quick glance at the current website will attest.

The site has undergone a quick re-brand since the awards ceremony, and the competition is now branded: ‘Round #1′. This could be just the beginning…

I managed to scoop the Indy, the Mail and the Guardian … by two months

Kirstie's lost property

Very strangely, the Independent, the Daily Mail and the Guardian came across TV hot property Kirstie Allsopp’s tale of her lost ring a couple of days ago.

I say strangely, because it was a story that we at the Hackney Post reported a whole two months ago.

And sadly, Kirstie still doesn’t know the location, location, location of her 33-carat diamond surrounded spinel.

If you have any news, give her a ring. [Every last awful pun intended].

What was Gordon Brown thinking (again)?

What just went out on television screens across the country didn’t look like a party political broadcast for the Labour Party. It looked like a personal political broadcast dedicated to Gordon Brown.

The beleaguered PM took centre stage from beginning to end: Gordon reading. Gordon writing. Gordon lecturing. Gordon with kids. Gordon to camera, walking and talking, on a train, with wife, with Obama … and so it went on. And on.

However, the most gobsmacking part was saved until the very end. Because, in case you hadn’t had your fill of Gordon after watching the three saturated minutes of him (not to mention his previous YouTube antics), the ad invites you to savour some more: “For exclusive video of Gordon Brown, log on now to www.labour.org.uk” is what occupies the final frame. Go on, you know want to …

You would be forgiven for thinking it was a joke. It looked like it had been designed as a party political suicide note for the digital age. At the last general election, the main concern being expressed was how individual candidates could distance themselves from Brand Blair. Brown certainly looked more statesmanlike than he has of late, but this broadcast looked more like an attempt to shore up Gordon’s personal credentials to lead his party, than a vote-winner for June. If anything, it’s surely a horrendous vote-loser for the party. Far from being a political asset for Labour, the past few weeks have shown clearly (at least to everyone but the man himself) that Gordon Brown is Labour’s greatest liability. Brand Brown appears to be becoming more and more toxic by the day. The only question: who’s going to tell the prime minister?

British euroscepticism – Don’t shoot the messenger

Originally posted on Th!nk About It.
Vote for me in the European Blogging Competition here.

Just 22 per cent of Britons intend to vote in the upcoming European Parliamentary elections. Thirty per cent say they are already certain that they won’t cast their vote – and that is according to a survey conducted by the European Commission itself.

The perception of many Europhiles is that the reason for this opposition (or utter ambivalence) is the British media; generally branded as irredeemably hostile to the European Union – and castigated for warping the nation’s attitudes towards it.

Photo: Dunechaser/flickr

And with notorious front pages like ‘Up Yours Delors’; a keen preoccupation with stories of the ‘bendy bananas’ ilk; and an attitude towards our continental neighbours that Roy Greenslade summarises (presumably using the words of the Queen Mother) as “huns, wops and dagos”, it is little wonder that the British press is apportioned the bulk of the blame.

Nevertheless, Robert Oulds, director of Euro-sceptic think tank the Bruges Group, is unequivocal that the media should shoulder no culpability for Britain’s Euroscepticism.

“The British public are far more Eurosceptic than the press and the BBC has been found to be Europhile,” he tells me. “Therefore, British opinion is ahead of the media, not following it.”

“Furthermore, in many other European countries such as Ireland, France and the Netherlands – where the Lisbon Treaty/EU Constitution was rejected – the media was overwhelmingly in favour of more EU centralisation; yet the public said no.”

However, the best evidence to show that the media is not the main culprit comes not from polls surrounding the current controversy over the Lisbon Treaty, but from the months and years that ran up to Britain’s 1973 entry and subsequent referendum. Despite much of the press being wholly supportive of European integration, the public’s ambivalence can be seen to have gone right back to the advent of the European project.

Greenslade points out that

“it was clear by 1971 that most newspapers … were enthusiastic about Britain becoming a member of the European Economic Community.” In spite of this, “throughout 1971, opinion polls showed the public was hostile. One Harris poll in May showed a 62-20 majority against entry.”

Bruno Waterfield, the Daily Telegraph’s Brussels correspondent cites this historical evidence in his argument that “it is not sufficiently honest” to simply blame the press for what he argues is a more endemic British mistrust of European political and economic union. “I don’t think the messenger should be shot,” he tells me in an interview.

“There has long been a mistrust of established political state forms in Britain and that is particularly deep when it comes to the EU” which he describes as “not particularly open”, “secretive”, and “bureaucratic in the true sense of the word in that it deals with technical regulations like the shape of cucumbers … which means that there is often a gap between what it is doing and public opinion, to put it mildly.”

“I don’t actually think British newspapers are really as Eurosceptic as they’re made out to be,” he says. “For example, British newspapers are very hostile to the activities of MPs, particularly when it comes to their expenses, but you wouldn’t then go and say they’re anti-Parliament.”

He does, however, feel that more newspapers should have full-time Brussels correspondents. It is a point on which he is in complete harmony with the BBC’s Europe editor, Mark Mardell.

Interestingly, Mardell’s current job was only created as a result of some characteristic BBC soul-searching.

A review conducted by Lord Wilson identified five main problems with the BBC’s EU coverage: “institutional mindset”, “over-simplified polarisation of the issues and stereotyping”, “[coverage seen too much through a] Westminster prism”, “ignorance” and “omission”.

Curiously, despite a general opinion that the BBC is too pro-Europe and “Guardianista” in its coverage, the review found that in some areas it could be seen as too Euro-sceptic.

However, as Mardell tells me, although “it is certainly true that in Britain we have the most hostile press towards the European Union within the EU” it is also the case that “on most measures [we have] the most hostile population towards the EU. But our job at the BBC is to remain rigorously and strictly neutral.”

He cites a major problem as the expectation by some that the BBC should thrash out the “in/out” debate in every EU story.

“You know, I find when I write an article explaining foreign affairs policy in I hope fairly neutral terms – reporting it like you’d report any other story – people think that is dodging the issue, because to them, the main issue is it shouldn’t exist or we shouldn’t be in it. Now you can’t do that with every story.

I agree that ’should we be in it/ should it exist?’ is a big part of the overall EU story and I absolutely think we shouldn’t ignore that. I’m more criticised by people in Brussels for paying too much attention to UKIP than I ever am for ignoring them, which I don’t do. But, you can’t do every single story from the angle of in or out. It would be like doing every story from Westminster and saying ‘And the SNP don’t think there should be a British Parliament.’”

When the press is dismissed as the major factor behind British hostility to the EU, there is no shortage of other possible explanations to fill the breach. Even communication staff within the European Parliament point to numerous reasons why apathy abounds.

One explains that “the EU does not deal with the major issues in national politics” such as the distribution of income, taxes, benefits, healthcare etc. adding that:

“National politicians can be somewhat parochial by concentrating solely on what is happening in the square kilometre or so that is their capital. To them – and the media – it is more important if a minister has literally stumbled on some steps than if a decision has been taken to hold illegal immigrants for a maximum of six months in a detention centre.

“While governments are quite happy to take the credit for European policy measures that find favour with the public [they] point the finger at Brussels when a measure is unpopular.”

Former Europe minister, Denis MacShane, also partly exonerates the press. In a speech, he lamented the public’s disinterest in utilising “the huge amounts of information available in libraries and on the internet, telling you about what Europe can do for you. The ‘no-one tells me the facts’ argument doesn’t wash anymore.”

The problem for both politicians and journalists – trying to “sell” the EU in their respective ways – is that they can try to take the British public to water – but they can’t make them drink.

Because the EU’s trouble is not the press, but its remoteness, opaqueness and slow-burn policy procedures, all combined with a distinctly British mentality and natural cynicism towards external political power-bases. It is clear that while you can shoot the messenger, it won’t resolve those root problems.

All of these factors – regardless of the press – conspire to create the conditions that mean that (as Mardell asserts) “more than anything else, most people [in Britain] simply see the EU as an irrelevance.”

The lady is for tubing – Blog post on Hazel Blears, published on Spectator.co.uk

First published on the Spectator’s CoffeeHouse blog

Etan Smallman 6:21pm

So Hazel Blears has decided to fill the bank holiday news void – and ruin Gordon Brown’s weekend – by attacking politicians’ use of YouTube.

Fraser and Martin have highlighted the sticky political consequences of her Observer piece, but there’s a more straightforward problem. A quick search of YouTube will reveal Hazel as a massive hypocrite. She has her own account and the website is littered with this prolific YouTuber giving Brown a run for his money in the new media stakes.

Here she is evangelising about her online prowess:

“The internet is reshaping the way we do politics … My department is trying to be a pioneer. I’ve got a blog, we put videos of important events and meetings on YouTube and there are 2250 people following us on Twitter.”

In this video, Blears is seen cleaning the shelves at her local Tesco:

And take a look at this one.

She’s even got the same rictus grin and disturbing swaying that Brown made his own in that expenses vid:

And finally – if you can take it – this corker has both Blears and Brown gurning to camera:

The changing face of Britain’s super-rich

First published on the Spectator’s CoffeeHouse blog

Etan Smallman 12:06pm

So what effect will the 50p tax have on the super-rich? It depends who these people are – and surprisingly little is known about them. One of the most useful sources is the Sunday Times Rich List. One came out last week, and the first issue was in 1989. Unfortunately, it’s not online, but it is stored at the national newspaper archive in Colindale. As it’s the last day of my two-week internship at The Spectator, I went along last night to compare the Rich Lists of 1989 with 2009. This year’s Rich List shows 38 out of Britain’s 100 richest people being immigrants. A healthy percentage – and one that would come as no surprise to any Bond St jeweller or to the maitre d’ of any top London restaurant. But the list of 1989, right after the Lawson budget which cut the top rate from 60% to 40%? There were just 11 immigrants. The Sunday Times argued then:

“The country has been enriched by ‘outsiders’ … but again there are not enough of them. Instead of trying to bar the Hong Kong Chinese from Britain, we should be welcoming them. Perhaps only a huge influx of foreign entrepreneurs can transform the composition of Britain’s rich. They could certainly do with some fresh blood.”

And so it came to pass. Lawson’s tax rate then made London one of the cheapest places in the world to be rich (we know that most of the richest 1% live in the capital, and the South East). Immigrants now make up a third of London. And which section of the economy has the most immigrants? Anyone who thinks catering or agricultural work would be wrong: the answer is finance. Our benign tax regime made Britain a magnet to the wealthy over the last 20 years. As they come here, spend, opening companies, employing staff, their tax receipts have come cascading into the Government’s coffers. It stands to reason: the more the richest 1% pay (and it’s now about a quarter of all income tax) the less the other 99% pay.In light of last week’s announcement, the most pertinent entry of the Sunday Times Rich List 1989 is probably that of packaging mogul Hans Rausing (4th in 1989, 5th in 2009) which read:

“Few millionaires flee to Britain to escape higher taxes elsewhere but that is what the Rausing brothers did in 1982 when they left their native Sweden.”

Such a move may soon look like a relic from a bygone era. We shouldn’t only fear a hemorrhaging of Britain’s rich from our shores; we should also be aware that fewer foreigners will choose to come here. From April, only three other countries in the world will have higher top rates of tax than us (Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands). Britain is surely going to look a little less appealing.And the risk is clear. Wealth can go away as quickly as it comes. Britain could well return to being a “second-class” economic power. Globalisation has done our economy lots of favours – and London has become a capital of the globalised world. But ease of movement cuts both ways: as a Conservative government may well be about to find out.