All hail 2013

Posted: January 8, 2013 in life and times
Tags: , , , , , , ,

So it’s been a while since I’ve posted about what is going on. Let’s give it a bit of a rundown.

Employed, bigger opportunities on horizon: Finally re-entered the workforce in May last year, have just taken a Project role for the next three months with an opportunity on the horizon that I still can’t talk about.

This job is first to give me paid overseas travel: I’m heading to Singapore for a fortnight at the end of next month. Will have three weekends to myself up there which I plan to make bloody good use of. Just have to wait for the travel orders to be approved, but it’s just one final signature on what is pretty much a done deal.

Which means posting in AFF’s who’s travelling threads for the first time in nearly two years: Enough said there, but was starting to get withdrawal symptoms from not travelling. Seriously, it’s been that long and I do miss getting up in the air.

Advice from a friend has helped the relationship front: I seem to be getting somewhere on dating sites for a change, thanks to a small piece of truth one friend imparted on a ride home.

Depression still sucks: Can’t have everything work out as planned, but at least I’m in a better place than this time last year.

Work is going to really test me out: This project for the next three months is going to test every skill I have backwards, sidewards, and upside down. I dare say that there might be a few sleepless nights and some personal angst while it gets going.

So yes, things are really looking up this year. Here’s hoping it stays that way.

So it seems that a tweet I posted earlier tonight really hit a chord with the online zeitgeist.

My tweet specifically called for the sacking of 2DayFM Sydney presenters Mel Greig, Michael Christian & their producers in respect of their impersonating members of the British Royal Family when calling a hospital for the sole purpose of obtaining details about the medical condition of the Dutchess of Cambridge.

For those who don’t know, Jacintha Saldanha – the hospital nurse/receptionist who took this prank call and disclosed information she likely wasn’t supposed to has been found dead this morning UK time, suspected to have committed suicide at a location near her place of employment, King Edward VII’s Hospital.

As of writing, my tweet has reteeted by no less than 296 308 individuals in the space of two 16 hours, with a current estimated combined reach of over 20,000 100,000+ persons. It has been retweeted so many times that Twitter’s own email engine that notifies customers of retweets stopped sending me messages an hour ago. This is not withstanding that my iPad continues to chime every 30-60sec informing of a new retweet.

Anyway, background noise aside – my posting of my thoughts to Facebook lead to some friends raising a couple of interesting points and alternative views in respect of the story. These friends posited views including:

  • “If the nurse followed the rules, it would have never got to this point.”
  • “And she could have been planning to top herself for days or have a history of mental illness.”
  • “Yes it is sad. Yes the prank was in bad taste but you cannot control a persons mental state or predict it. The correlation is very loose.”

Now I don’t disagree with those points one bit – they are perfectly valid views to express, and obviously none of us can even beging to understand if there are any other factors outside of this prank call which could have contibuted to this lady taking her own life.

However, one must look at the flipside of this. While these points of view may centre around the latin falacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc (after it, therefore because of it), one must shine a light directly at all those parties involved in the execution and broadcast of the prank.

The question therefore must be asked: Could a normal person reasonably forsee that the prank would obtain information to which those doing so were not entitled, and could the broadcast of this information have forseeably lead to sustained, significant public embarassment for the nurse in question should their identity be revealled.

My answer to those questions, as a normal person, would be yes – on both counts.

I am firmly of the view that any normal, reasonable person could have forseen this as an outcome. One need only look at the way the British press has operated in recent times – leading to the establishment of a major parlimentary enquiry lead by Lord Justice Leveson that will most likely lead to more stringent press regulation.

Using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence

Anyone with a background in any form of broadcasting knows full well that the prank as conducted was not only a gross invasion of privacy by attempting to impersonate someone – much less members of that countries royal family, but the sheer number of offences the two hosts plus others involved have committed under Australian, UK and EU law.

The first of these that comes to mind Criminal Code (Cwlth) 1995, Section 474.17:

474.17 Using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:
(a) the person uses a carriage service; and
(b) the person does so in a way (whether by the method of use or the content of a communication, or both) that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, menacing, harassing or offensive.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 3 years.

The call to the hospital in London would have originated from a telephone service operated by, from, or transiting a carriage service within Australia, therefore the placing of that telephone call would fall within the definitions of the act, but also 474.17 and other aspects of the Commonwealth and NSW criminal codes.

And this is before we even consider offences under UK or EU criminal statutes, as the call was terminated in those locales, and therefore such activity also gives rise to criminal liability there. We need not re-visit the outrage uncovered during the Levenson Enquiry of the large scale of ignorance, invasion of privacy and illegal activity conducted by the press solely for the purpose of a story.

The radio codes of practice

We also have to look at that the Commercial Radio Codes of Practice which exist for the industry because of statuatory legislation. These codes are ones which are legally binding tha all broadcasters legally have to follow, and can be enforced by the regulatory agency when breached.

Their existance and legal standing is empowered by Section 43 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.

The Commercial Radio Codes of Practice make a number of statements in respect of this kind of content:

9.1 Subject to Codes 9.2 to 9.3 below, a licensee must not broadcast a program which, in all of the circumstances:
(a) treats participants in live hosted entertainment programs in a highly demeaning or highly exploitative manner;

One could argue that the impersonation of members of the royal family for the sole purpose of gaining information on a member of the royal household would constitute treating a participant, unknowingly, in a “highly exploitative manner“.

Reasonable privacy, and an invalid argument of public interest

One area of the codes that has yet to be legally tested is if programs that would be considered as live entertainment could actually be reclassified as news and current affairs programs – on account that the presenters frequently engage in updating their audience with such information, and they usually broadcast news at frequent intervals.

If this was tested legally, and found that the radio show in question could be treated as news and current affairs programs under the codes of practice, Section 2.1 of same then comes into play. It states:

“2.1 News programs (including news flashes) broadcast by a licensee must:
(d) not use material relating to a person‟s personal or private affairs, or which invades an individual‟s privacy, unless there is a public interest in broadcasting such information.”

On this point, the argument of public interest fails. The official media channel for the party in question, being the Press Office of St James Palace did issue a media release containing reasonable detail in respect of the Dutchess’s hospitalisation. It can be reasonably argued that no more information other than what was contained in that release needed to be made available as there wasn’t a clear public interest reason for doing so.

Having dispensed with the public interest argument, we then must look at if the action was an invasion of an individuals privacy. On that case, the lay person must say yes. Any reasonable person would have known that calling up any such place for information on a patient and impersonating a member of their family to do so was both illegal and improper, and would unreasonably invade the privacy of both the Duke and Dutchess of Cambridge, as well as their extended family and of course the British Monarcy.

Station exhibited poor moral judgement

And then we have to look at the moral aspect of it. You’d have to be a pretty dumb person not to know the undue and unnecessary pressure this would put on the poor women taking the call.

While I grant that she may have not acted within relevant professional standards and requirements in respect of information disclosure, the publication of the prank and the obvious subsequent naming of the poor lady, would forseeably lead to undue emotional stresses which was likely to have either caused, or contributed to, the reasons behind her reported suicide.

2DayFM has not learned its lesson

2DayFM has been frequently critisised by the regulator for its breaches of the codes of practice. Some of the stations more notable breaches in recent times include:

  1. 2006: Broadcasting inappropriate sexual material during Lowie’s Hot 30 Countdown
  2. 2010: Failed to provide protection for children participating in live hosted entertainment programs broadcast by 2DAY-FM, resulting in a license condition being imposed.
  3. May 2012: Comments by Kyle Sandilands breach decency standards, where the station had a second license condition imposed on it after the aforementioned presenter “broadcast[ed] indecent content and content that demeans women or girls“.

The imposing of the May 2012 license condition was also appealed by the station to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, who ruled to uphold ACMA’s decision to impose the condition.

So, where do we go from here?

In the UK, the debate about who is fit and proper to hold licenses or positions that allow them to act as a media outlet is one that continues. It’s also a debate, that whilst not as intense, is being had in Australia.

Should the laws be changed so that repeat offenders can be dealt with more swiftly? Yes.

Should the laws be changed so that media outlets who repeatidly breach the expected standards lose their right to broadcast?
Absolutely.

Would these two outcomes combined force media companies to be more cautious in how they do business to protect their assets, by not allowing presenters like those named above to conduct stupid pranks, if they knew the government could close them down and take everything they own and have built with the stroke of a few pens? I submit they would be more cautious, and put their presenters on much shorter leashes given the financial risk to them if they constantly make missteps – particually ones that lead such tragic circumstances.

Ok, those who know me will know that I’m a Eurovision tragic.

The three nights of the year SBS broadcasts the contest are permanently etched in my diary. Nothing, save the last days or a hot women offering me pleasure, will take me away from these three hilarious nights of terrible costumes, horrible voices, and hilarious snark.

And despite not being a drinker, I think it’s important for others to enjoy Eurovision whilst drunk. Shots, wine, absinthe – skull down whatever you keep as your favourite poison during the show.

To make it fun, here’s my rules for a Eurovision drinking game.

A word of warning. If you’re going to play this properly, please be a responsible host – and make sure you have a spare bed for your guests to sleep in rather than them risking their life on the roads.

Rules

Simple, each time one of these things happen – you have to take a drink.

Entire glass/bottle

  • UK or Ireland win (will be needed to survive their encore performance)
  • Obvious miming

Three shots/Skull

  • Wardrobe malfunction
  • Singing in invented languages
  • French entrant sings in English
  • Use of a water feature in an act

Two shots/Big gulp

  • Fireworks, pyrotechnics
  • Singer who evokes Adele undertones (gender doesn’t matter)
  • Lead singer with tattoos
  • Wind machines
  • Martial arts moves
  • Artists or their backups wearing leather or similar
  • Burlesque outfits
  • Any time Israel is mentioned
  • Strobe lighting

One shot/Sip

  • Buff men sans shirt
  • Anytime the UK is awarded points
  • Use of ethnic instrument
  • Country’s points presenter unnecessarily drags out announcing their votes
  • Any time the audience is heard booing the current act or country’s points announcement

Happy drinking!

I want to make clear from the outset, this is a viewpoint expressing on how people use social media for good intentions – but their intent doesn’t deliver effective results. This isn’t either for or against a specific, current missing person, but uses an online exchange in relation to them to highlight the problem.

Now, with that out of the way – let’s get to the point.

As my fingers touch keys, law enforcement authorities in the USA are working to find Isabel Celis, a six year old girl who has gone missing from Tuszon, Arizona since last week.

And is the fashion, people across all social media channels have commendably mobilised to assist in what ever way they can to help the effort to reunite this young girl with her family. From Facebook groups, twitter hashtags and the like – the users in these communities are at least helping to raise awareness about the case.

Image of a tweet that appeared in my twitter timeline today relating to the missing US girl Isabel Celis - Click to view full sized image.

Image of a tweet that appeared in my twitter timeline today relating to the missing US girl Isabel Celis.

This case came to my attention today when this screen-captured tweet was retweeted in my timeline, and is the basis for this post.

My issue with this tweet is this: It requires the user to do too many things for the information to be useful and actionable. Or put simply – a poorly crafted tweet, and a badly executed call to action.

When you hear or read about a missing person, and if your mind is anything like mine; you ask yourself a couple of important questions such as:

  • who is it?
  • where are they missing from?
  • how can I help find the person?

This of course goes back to the Five W’s of basic information gathering; which we were all taught in primary school. I’ll avoid talking about their origins in Latin for reasons of brevity.

Problem one: Reliance on prior knowledge

Only the first of these three questions comes close to being answered, provided and buried by way of a hashtag – a method on twitter for indexing a group of tweets or discussion – denoted by the string of words prefixed by the hash (#) symbol.

If you’re an inexperienced twitter user, you’re not likely to know what a hashtag is. This is most likely amongst the 17% of US internet users over the age of 30 who use twitter.

The use of a hashtag to convey important information is a poor choice. It is reliant on the assumption that the user knows what they are and how they are of value to the message being conveyed. The problem is best summed up by the following, and less offensive expression:

To assume is to make an ass out of u and me

Problem two: Key questions not answered

We move on to the second and third questions asked by the inquisitive mind when seeing a message about a missing person – where are they missing from, and how can I help.

The tweet doesn’t provide any answers to these important questions. It repeats the same mistake of assumption, and hopes that the user will click on a hashtag, to find a tweet, that contains relevant information, so they can get the answer to the questions they have.

The response from a user after being called out on a poorly crafted tweet that did nothing to inform interested parties on how they can help - click to enlarge.

The response from a user after being called out on a poorly crafted tweet that did nothing to inform interested parties on how they can help.

And the problem with this was highlighted by the somewhat flippant and idiotic justification received from the tweet’s original author (see right) when I questioned the original tweeter on his methodology and message, and its poor use of the medium that helps rather than harms the search for this girl.

How does looking at only the photo of a missing girl as an isolated act help with her recovery? Short answer – it doesn’t. Just ask people who write Missing Persons Investigative Best Practices Protocols, let alone the social media operatives for various agencies who already provide this information (and do it well), on how they think the tweet in question would be more hindrance than help.

However, this clicking creates an unnecessary barrier to providing the user with information. In order to answer their question, they will have to click on a hashtag, to scroll through a list of tweets until finally, amongst the signal to noise ratio that is social networks; find a message that gives them some of that information.

At least three to six clicks, and two minutes wasted trying to find it by my count. All of it unnecessary, and could have been easily fixed with a properly crafted message.

So what would the solution look like?

A screen capture of how the tweet should have been composed to ensure maximum effectiveness of the message - Click to view larger.

A screen capture of my tweet showing exactly how it should have been composed to ensure maximum effectiveness of the message.

So given Twitter’s 140 character limit, If I was the person sending that tweet – how would I have crafted it to actually be useful?

These are my two suggestions for crafting a better tweet in issues such as this:

  1. The message is the medium: Add as much relevant information as possible; so people who want to help can, without them getting frustrated, disinterested and ultimately taking no action.
  2. Use easily understood shorthand to maximise real estate: wk. for week, pic for picture, yr for year, fr. for from.

Here’s exactly what should have been tweeted (and I did by the way):

Isabel Celis, 6yr old fr. Tuscon AZ missing since last wk. Pic http://t.co/LF6bMmMl Info http://t.co/wljNonWM Please RT #findisabelcelis

And yes, I know I broke one of my own rules in this tweet – asking/begging for the reader to take action (by including the phrase Please RT). However, I make a small exception for this one because I can; and no parent (no matter how dark your heart is) should have to live with the uncertainty of a missing child.

Time for another missive on LinkedIn spam. I’ve touched on this topic before, discussing the notorious Pav Sanka and his inability to use a contact for its intended purpose.

Well fast forward to today, when the equally slimy John Keats – the Chief Sales Officer of 123 Greetings (visit at your own peril). Another person from the sub-continent who feels it appropriate to ignore clearly written information on what types of messages I’m happy to receive via LinkedIn.

For those who don’t remember, here’s a recap:

Contact Settings
Happy to share my knowledge and consider job offers, but please don’t contact me with spam.

Interested In: career opportunities, consulting offers, job inquiries, expertise requests, reference requests, getting back in touch

With that in mind, here’s the message I received today from John Keats:

Subject: CPO & CPM – Strategic Partnership
From: John Keats Chief Sales Officer at 123GREETINGS DOT COM
Date/Time: April 25, 2012

Hello Michael

I represent 123greetings.com (World’s #1 e-Greeting company) with 30 million opt- in users across the globe.

We help advertisers to reach their targeted audience on CPO and CPM basis via our email campaigns.

The Average performances are 6% open rate and 5% CTR and we can target users demographically and geographically.

You can message me for more information and I will be happy to discuss with you further. You can add me in Skype (greetings_sales)

Best
John Keats
Cell phone: +1 646- 257- 3763
Email:john.keats@123greetings-inc.com

Chief Sales Officer
123 Greetings.com, Inc
1674 Broadway, Suite 403, New York, NY 10019

Ok, let’s look at what messages I stated that I’m happy to receive via LinkedIn and which of these it matches up to:

  • career opportunities: No
  • consulting offers: No
  • job inquiries: No
  • expertise requests: No
  • reference requests: No
  • getting back in touch: Are you seeing a pattern emerging yet?

So – should John have sent his message? No way.

If I had even a remote interest in electronic greeting cards as part of a marketing campaign I might be running, I would have gone out looking for the relevant information.

And looking at this companies’ website, it doesn’t inspire me with confidence. It’s a design reminiscent of mid 2000, with all the design queues which give it the look and feel of something dodgy and untrustworthy you’d associate with India – right down to the use of generic and dodgy stock photos and more advertising than you can shake a stick at.

The consideration and application of ethics in marketing is something oft ignored by less scrupulous users of social media and communication networks. Those who fail to consider ethics in marketing also fail to realise the damage their activities do to their business and reputation.

I’ll bet this is why Pav Sanka tried to get in touch with me last week by phone, considering that Pav’s own name and business name (Vinsky Consulting) doesn’t appear on Google results without my entries appearing right next to or even before him and his company. It’s the same level of permanent record that’s given to Contractjobs.com and Lucy Plumridge thanks to their lack of business ethics and my well-honed SEO skills.

So, here’s the reply sent to the latest LinkedIn spammer. Will it achieve anything – likely not. However, if it does make the person in question reconsider their obnoxious tactics and think twice before misusing LinkedIn, then it has achieved its purpose.

John,

Let me be blunt and respond to your message with a question, did you bother to read the contact box on my profile which clearly states what kind of contacts I’m interested in receiving?

Let me answer that question for you – No, you did not.

You have sent me a message, a message with no purpose or relevance to why I’m here, and offers me nothing that’s aligned to the messages I’ve expressly stated up front that I’m willing to receive.

Spend a moment in my shoes – I get several messages here a day, on top of all the other informational networks I need to participate in to stay at the top of my profession. If you think that messages like yours are a valuable use of my limited and valuable time, you are sorely mistaken.

Connecting with you is of no value to me. You’re not a social network practitioner – you’re a bleeding sales person who’s so ineffective in their job that they don’t bother to read available information and form sound judgement. There’s simply no benefit to me in connecting with someone like you I don’t even know who is of zero relevance to me.

In short – you’re just another pain in the arse spammer who abuses networks like this for their own means and wastes other peoples time.

I’d thank you to refrain from such wasteful messages, and future pay better consideration to the messages you send so as not to waste other peoples time. Needless to say, I’ll be circulating your message and my response amongst my circle of influence both online and off to make sure that they never do business with you or your company.

Michael.

As I said last year – people like John need to learn the purpose of social networks, and understand the manners and expectations that goes with using them.

So if you’ve read Techdirt, you’d know their formula of CwF+RtB = The Business Model. It stands for:

Connect with Fans (CwF) + Reason to Buy (RtB)

 

I’d like to modify this a little, with a variation I’m coining SwF + RtL = Fail, or expanded;

Screw with Fans (SwF) + Reason to Leave (RtL) = Failure

 

I’ve coined this today after the Ten Networks’ decision this weekend to royally shaft mess up the schedule for Formula 1 fans in Western Australia.

One, the networks HD multichannel targeting sport entertainment, drama and comedy; has made a point of screening both Formula 1 qualifying and races live to air. This is a vast improvement over what fans experienced whilst the Nine Network held the broadcasting rights for this sport in the previous decade.

We will however avoid discussing their woeful pre-race show offering, and their poor scheduling of ad breaks which usually occurs at critical times. These are topics that are worthy of entire posts in their own right.

One has also been running a TV commercial (TVC) highlighting the networks commitment to Formula 1, and that from later this month all races will be screened live.

However, this weekends programming flies in the face of their effort to date and the aforementioned current TVC.

The F1 race will now be shown nearly two hours delayed into Western Australia, and instead screened on the networks SD channel (10). In its place on one, you will instead see a movie from 2001, and a significantly delayed (per normal) telecast of Australian Women’s Netball.

So that explains the screw with fans (SwF) side of the equation , but how does reason to leave (RtL) fit into this?

Simple. The screwing with fans gives them a reason to leave, for second screen viewing options, and use of VPN services to access better quality live broadcast of the sport.

I know amongst my circle of friends across Australia that this is already happening, and most of them having the technical ability (or the Google-Fu) to access UK-based VPN services – which in turn allow them to use internet services provided by the likes of BBC and SkyUK to access live broadcasts and feeds.

And all of this is at a time when the Ten Network is having a horror of a time, with its profits taking continued hits, continually declining viewer share, a less than impressive start to its new breakfast show, and a swathe of new reality shows – one of which may not even get off the ground thanks to an irate council and residents.

So, what can Network Ten do about this – and reverse their direction to avoid annoying fans? Listen, and deliver. Will it happen? Probably not.

Australian Twitter user and big F1 fan Supercujo had this to say after trying to speak to the network about it:

Just rang ten Perth about the #F1 delayed telecast. They don’t give a toss. Give them a call on 9345 1010.
2:30 PM – 17 Apr 12

And he’s just one of a number of Australian fans talking about it right now on twitter. Tweets have even been sent to Western Australian born F1 driver Daniel Riccardo, and local Ten News sports supremo Tim Gossage to see if they can get the network to listen.

I’m doing my part to drive the conversation online, and I’ve also sent off a considered email to the network asking them to step up and fix the scheduling snafu for WA F1 fans. My email is below.

Will anything come from all of this – likely not. However, we all need to make our views known so they at least know we give a damm when they pull scheduling moves like this.

If you feel strongly about shafting of F1 fans, I’d advise you to let your feelings known by email (contactone@networkten.com.au), by twitter (@tensporttv, @OneHD, @TimGossage) and Facebook (One HD, Channel 10). The more people who express their views, the more chance you have of getting your voice heard.

And now, for a copy of my email to the network:

To: contactone@networkten.com.au
Subject: F1 delayed telecast in SD this weekend
Date: Tue 17/04/2012 2:52 PM

To whom it may concern,

I write to express my displeasure over the scheduling of the F1 broadcast this weekend in Western Australia.

Firstly, It has always been broadcast on One in HD – one of the big and only advantages we have in Australia considering how woeful your pre-show is.

Moving it onto Ten, at a time when One has been heavily advertising it’s position on that channel and it’s soon guaranteed live status, seems entirely counter productive to this very strategy and intent.

But worse still, the race will broadcast nearly 2hrs delayed into WA – on a night where One will instead be choosing to screen a movie from 2001 and some non-live Netball coverage.

Australian F1 fans suffered for years at the hands of the Nine Network, with unpredictable schedules, screening at an indecent hour, and a total lack of live coverage.

While Network Ten has vastly improved the offering to loyal fans of the sport since taking the broadcasting rights, the step backwards its Programming Dept. has taken with this weekends schedule flies in the face of all the network’s efforts to date.

If this is the kind of backwards decision making we can expect despite TVC advertising campaigns promising otherwise; it it any wonder why more and more fans are option for second screen viewing of the race and pre-show options.

My preference is already shifting towards using UK-based VPN services to watch live and direct, a decision driven by decent commentary, engaging pre-show coverage, and no ad breaks (usually inserted by your network at critical points of the race).

If Network Ten wishes for its fans to move to second screen viewing of F1 broadcasts, keep doing what you’re doing. It’s a great way to alienate fans and reduce viewing numbers; leading to further reductions in advertising revenue, something which the network at this time can ill afford.

Kind regards,

Michael Harris

Posted: April 17, 2012 in sport, television
Tags: , , , , , , ,

So as you would know, I do like to cook. I enjoy it as one of my few passions and distractions from the daily grind that is my so-called life.

During the week, one of my twitter followers – Kitta, the pre-eminant monkey spanking food denying blogger of Perth, bemoaned the inability of her boyfriend to cook her a roast dinner.

Stepping up, I decided to show my easy to cook roast recipe. Sadly, her boyfriend failed to respond to my challenge to cook it for her – so this is a beef roast, not a pork which I gather is his favourite. Don’t worry, I’ll do the pork recipe and my apple sauce another time.

So – if you’re ready to begin cooking, get started from this photo. The ingredents and step by step instructions are included in the photo notes.

Please enjoy, and let me know what you think.

And if you’d just like to gawk and drool over the photos, here’s a selection of some below for your eye-nomming enjoyment.

Roast beef, vegetables and tomato gravy

  • Difficulty: Easy
  • Time to complete: 2-2.5hrs (note, there’s a lot of couch time in this recipe).
  • Nutrition: Contains three out of your five serves of daily vegetables, nutrients retained in peas and corn through steaming in water, potato skins for roughage.

 

My easy roast beef dinnerLet's get startedLet's make our extra marinade & gravy baseGet those extra tomato juicesBlend marinade/gravy baseStarting your roasting pan
Get your meat outGetting your beef started.Set your timerPrepare your potatoesBoil!Preparing your potato pan
The potato panDrink time10min later...Alfred Hitchcock hates hard potatoesI choose roasting!Roasting - Stage two
And now for...Seal it!Low and slow, then a drinks breakBack to workPrepare your veggiesGet up and steam
My easy roast beef dinner, a set on Flickr.

Posted: April 9, 2012 in home cooking
Tags: , , , , ,