Thursday, December 02, 2010


A great lead kindly provided by Junkeeter Anita of Writing Services:


WHEN: Entry D/L Jan 22 2011
WHAT: From their blurb:

This competition is aimed at creatives and students of all ages who are resident in the UK. Using Priplak polypropylene you are asked to create a product, an innovative packaging solution or a promotional incentive. Part of the brief is to think about re-usability, durability, multi-usage and multi-functional.

The designs may be an innovative solution to an existing product or common everyday item, but will be judged on creativity, originality, and functionality, cost effectiveness and use of the material.


There will be three categories: My Plastic ‘Packaging’ Idea, My Plastic ‘Product’ Idea and My Plastic ‘Incentive/Promotional’ Idea. First prize for each category is £500 cash and the overall winner will receive an additional £500. Shortlisted finalists will get showcased at an exhibition in May in front of potential clients. In addition, the organisers will be scanning all entries looking for potential opportunities for products or incentives to be developed to market on a royalty arrangement basis.

HOW MUCH: My fave... no mention of money!
COMMENTS: Possibly somewhat restricted by having to focus on reuse (and sussing out the plastic specified in the brief), we will for sure be having a go here. But if you do enter via us telling you... and win... make sure to give us a mention at least:)


That's the problem with standards.

Allow more than one, and you often end up with none.

And nothing, but nothing, undercuts the value of good work than having a compromised messenger for critical messages, especially one as grotesque as this:

It's as story from, it's fair to say, a sceptical site, but the ongoing indulgence of representatives such as John Prescott, in his joke role, simply perpetuates the own goals the hypocritical involvement in the name of green this involves.

Telling it like it... well, some want 'it' to be

It's no secret I hold our media estate in low esteem.

Especially on matters of science at the best of times, but even more so when agendas then get bolted on top of near zero appreciation of facts, what is know, or what is not, to support prejudices.

This highlights the point:

Two diametrically opposing news media; two diametrically opposing ways at looking at things.

It looks like a debate is brewing that may be worth the follow.

I have to agree that I'd rely on the Daily Mail for very little, but it does have its uses.

The Guardian is more credible, but can also be prone to seeing things through its own prism.

And the Met Office's record is not one I would hang my hat on to justify a story.