![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Girl On The Phone
May. 15th, 2007 10:35 amSo, there I was, walking out of Charing Cross Station, pondering such vital philosophical questions as "Where the hell ARE West Lothian or Liege?" and "How come I can always remember the keyboard ALT+ for e acute (ALTH+130) but never for e grave (ALT + 138)?" when my ponderings were interrupted by a gentlemen of indeterminant origins, screaming into his mobile phone "KATHUHEEDRA? KATHUHEEDRA!"
At which point I was sorely tempted to walk up to him and say "Hello."
To which he would reply "Yes?"
And I would say. "Sorry, I thought you were calling me. My name is Kathuheedra".
++++++++++++++
A quick glance at the FT this morning revealed yet more lazy sub-editing. There was a piece on Virgin Media and how institutional investors were mighty pissed off at the company's performance since it turned down a private equity offer.
Apparently the guys at NTL (for that is what Virgin Media really is) thought that everything would be rosy once they changed their name. What in fact happened was that people said "Ahh, Virgin Media! Didn't they used to be NTL? They were crap."
But, back to the lazy subbing. There was a picture (a big picture) of Richard Branson accompanying the news item -- once again associating the name Virgin with Branson.
But Virgin Mobile was sold to NTL some time ago. How much financial interest does Branson have in Virgin Media, I wondered. So I read the news piece. And that information was not forthcoming. Indeed, the news piece made no mention of Branson whatsoever. So why put a big picture of him to accompany the news piece? Lazy subbing. No more, no less.
I am perpetually interested on the extent of Branson's interests in the names of companies bearing the brand Virgin, but the actual information is invariably thin on the ground. My default assumption these days on the extent of a Branson interest in any "Virgin" company is, zero, until proved otherwise.
At which point I was sorely tempted to walk up to him and say "Hello."
To which he would reply "Yes?"
And I would say. "Sorry, I thought you were calling me. My name is Kathuheedra".
++++++++++++++
A quick glance at the FT this morning revealed yet more lazy sub-editing. There was a piece on Virgin Media and how institutional investors were mighty pissed off at the company's performance since it turned down a private equity offer.
Apparently the guys at NTL (for that is what Virgin Media really is) thought that everything would be rosy once they changed their name. What in fact happened was that people said "Ahh, Virgin Media! Didn't they used to be NTL? They were crap."
But, back to the lazy subbing. There was a picture (a big picture) of Richard Branson accompanying the news item -- once again associating the name Virgin with Branson.
But Virgin Mobile was sold to NTL some time ago. How much financial interest does Branson have in Virgin Media, I wondered. So I read the news piece. And that information was not forthcoming. Indeed, the news piece made no mention of Branson whatsoever. So why put a big picture of him to accompany the news piece? Lazy subbing. No more, no less.
I am perpetually interested on the extent of Branson's interests in the names of companies bearing the brand Virgin, but the actual information is invariably thin on the ground. My default assumption these days on the extent of a Branson interest in any "Virgin" company is, zero, until proved otherwise.
