I have spent most of the day saying, “I told you so!” to my mother. I cannot bloody stand Morrisons. While I’m aware that the cause of the latest chapter of E. Coli O157 Scottish edition has not yet been confirmed as Morrisons, it is not looking too good for them.

I had never heard of Morrisons until they took over Safeway. And Safeway was bad enough. I mean, as far as I could tell, the only reason you would shop at Safeway was if the other nearest supermarket was Lidl. Even then, at least Lidl don’t pretend to be classy when they’re not. It’s a bit like, “Look at us being a cheapo food shop where all the cooking instructions are not in English. Take it or leave it.”

Then along comes Morrisons, and boy, that really put Safeway into perspective. Invariably, their own-brand food tastes foul. You might say, “Serves you right for buying own brand food.” But I can eat own brand Sainsbury’s, own brand Tesco, and even own brand bloody Asda without being condemned to a yucky mouth (if you are lucky), violent diarrhoea attacks (if you moderately lucky) or death (if you are unlucky).

Even Kwik Save’s “No Frills” products were more appealing than Morrisons own brand. And I am not talking Morrisons economy or value lines. Actual own brand, I am talking about. Rancid. I have always told this to my parents, who sadly persist on going to Morrisons even though the food is foul.

I think I first noticed when I ate a pork pie. I mean, how you can eat a pork pie that is so dodgy that you can taste its dodginess is beyond me. Surely the point of pork pies is that they are disgustingly, disgracefully unhealthy. I doubt the existence of premium free range organic pork pies (although if you know of any, point me in the direction). Yet this pork pie was drier than the Sahara desert, which is just plain wrong. Actually, I think a mouthful of sand from the Sahara desert may have been preferable.

Then there are the rolls. Most supermarkets say something along the lines of, “Freshly baked today.” The label on this packet of “crusty rolls” says “Prepared for you in this store”. That is about as ominous as it gets. These rolls are less “crusty” and more “rock solid”. It tastes as though they have been “prepared for me in this store” then left out in the blazing sun to go stale for five days before someone remembered to put it out on the shelf.

One of my mother’s suggestions was that maybe it is not Morrisons’ fault, but a problem with their suppliers. But that hardly vindicates Morrisons. It just suggests that they are too cheap and / or rubbish to hook up with a supplier that can make pork pies with some moisture in.

If the source of this E. coli outbreak turns out to be Morrisons, then it will suggest that they were dealing with a meat supplier that was unable to follow the most basic of hygiene instructions. You know, like washing your hands between handling uncooked and cooked meat. Stuff that children know.

And of course I have an opinion on their logo, which is surely one of the worst known to man. Yellow and black can be a nice combination, but what is with that disgustingly ugly font? It looks like it was designed in the 1980s. The new logo is not much of an improvement. It looks like it was designed using Microsoft Word’s draw tools.

You might think I am joking, but this is a big part of what makes Morrisons unappealing to me. I mean, when the shop’s signage and products’ packaging are so ugly, it hardly gives you confidence about the quality of what’s inside. In short, Morrison’s image is old-fashioned and fusty. The food I had tasted old and fusty.

I am not all that picky when it comes to foods. Sure, I’m a bit queasy about sell by dates and the like, but I don’t mind eating cheap food. But I began to notice a pattern and it actually got to the point where I refused to eat own brand Morrisons products. This is not a joke. It is not every day you have your lifestyle choices vindicated by the top story in the news.

(NB. I do not wish to imply that I could have caught E. coli or any other gastric disease from Morrisons own brand pork pies or crusty rolls. Just that I found them so totally disgusting that I refused to eat them ever again.)

All of the national BBC Radio stations appear to be getting new logos. I had noticed that the logo for my station of choice, Radio Five Live, had completely changed at the same time as the theme music got watered down yet again (anyone else remember when it sounded punchy and authoritative?).

About time in a sense, because I can remember that Five Live had their old logo from even before I started listening to it regularly, which is a looong time. In fact, most of the BBC Radio logos are pretty damn old, as this website shows. Seven or eight years old in fact, which is good going for a logo these days (particularly one for a TV or radio station). So it was probably time for a bit of a refresh, although — as usual with these sort of things — the responses appear to have been lukewarm.

Indeed, some of the attempts at new logos are rather uninspiring. Radio 1’s has barely changed from what it had before. Meanwhile, Radio 2’s logo has been changed from the neat neon sign to the utterly dull plain 2 symbol.

But there are some signs of clever creativity. The incorporation of a bass clef into the numeral 3 for Radio 3’s logo is inspired, although it does make that numeral look slightly odd. Similarly, Radio 4’s logo cleverly has a speech mark in it, while 1Xtra incorporates a ‘play’ symbol.

BBC 7’s old logo was one of the best going, so the new version was always going to be a disappointment. It has turned out to be a greatly watered down version, although with a nod towards the old logo.

Similarly, 6 Music’s new logo is a bit like a watered down version of the old logo. I was never a fan of the old 6 Music logo. I never understood why that ‘6′ was so slanted and, well, big and fat. To represent Phill Jupitus?

BBC Asian Network’s logo is by far the jazziest. It makes me wonder why all of the other stations opted to go for more reserved, plain logos when the Asian Network can have such a colourful and vibrant one.

What I find most interesting about the new logos, though, is a point about branding in general. Firstly, the logos’ focus on numerals has effectively entailed a name change for one of the stations. The difference between ‘Radio Five Live’ and ‘Radio 5 Live’ might be subtle. But it was obviously important enough for someone to go around the website and, like a cuddly Stalin, change all instances of ‘Five Live’ to ‘5 Live’.

As such, overnight one of my tags has become irrelevant. Still, whoever it was that went around changing the website missed a couple of bits, including 5 Live’s own studios as my in-depth investigation of the website reveals! Notice also, that bbc.co.uk/5live still redirects to bbc.co.uk/fivelive. These pesky rebranding exercises are more trouble than they realise.

(Update: I have just realised that the changes on the Radio 5 Live website have even gone to the extent of writing ‘live’ with a lowercase ‘l’. What a load of arse! It is a bit like when Channel 5 changed its name to ‘five’. It just looks stupid! And it looks double stupid when some of the programmes are now called things like ‘5 live Report’ and ‘5 live Breakfast’.)

Another point is that all of the new logos contain the words ‘BBC Radio’, even when some of the station’s names do not. In other words, BBC 6 Music is not now called BBC Radio 6 Music, and BBC 7 is not now BBC Radio 7. But perhaps this is just a halfway house before going all the way to calling these radio stations.

Presumably the reason 6 Music and BBC 7 omitted the ‘Radio’ tag from their names was to emphasise the fact that you did not need to (indeed, you could not) use an old fashioned tranny to listen to them. This always irritated me, because surely there was more potential for confusion with the television channels.

I mean, the BBC used to always advertise Freeview and how you could get “eight BBC channels”. Yet the BBC have an outlet called BBC 7. Surely that is just asking for confusion. It would surely make more sense to call the radio station Radio 7 and leave the BBC X monikers to the television stations.

As the years have gone on, we have come to learn that radio is not a dirty word on the internet (or, indeed, on your DAB set). Radio is radio is radio, whether you are listening to it on the internet, as a podcast, one of those fancy-schmancy phones or, er, the radio. I mean, the internet is teeming with internet radio stations. Even I have two (courtesy of Last.fm)!

And another thing. Why haven’t the new logos incorporated the really swish ‘radio’ logo that appears on the actual BBC Radio website?

I think I have just given myself a headache over logos. Time to go back into hibernation.

This is another post about the new London 2012 logo. I have to admit it; I am actually becoming more fond of the logo. This now reminds me quite a lot of the time when I felt like the only person who didn’t think the Scottish Parliament building was a steaming pile of crap when it was being built.

Despite the fact that it looks like so many unfortunate things (the growing list now includes: Lisa Simpson giving a blowjob, someone getting a sex up the bum, somebody vomiting). Apart from that, I actually quite like the logo.

Anyway, I have started this post because I have seen a lot of people saying similar sorts of things, and I disagree with most of it. A popular one (too popular to link to any) is that the ideas sent into the BBC are better. But this is not really true.

The first one is actually really good; much better than the real logo. But of course, there is no way the IOC would allow the five rings to be chopped like that. Plus, it would give busybodying ethnic minority pressure groups plenty of scope to complain because, of course, it would be the black ring that has a bit missing.

Number two is just that: a load of number two. Just the sort of silly “Big Ben and London Eye” twaddle that I am glad was avoided.

Three is quite funny but, of course, couldn’t be the logo. 4 is another cheesy one that really is primary school art class standard. It also breaks the IOC’s rules concerning the five rings.

5: Bzzzp! London Eye. 6: Hopefully I don’t need to explain why this is a “no”.

7: Not really awful, but you can’t see it as the logo of the Olympic games. The Union Flag takes far too much prominence. And the outline of London is not recognisable enough (you might recognise it, but would you recognise the outline of Paris or New York for instance?).

8 is just bloody awful. Even though the real logo’s “2012″ is pretty illegible, at least you do not have to actually physically turn upside down to read it. 9: London Eye and terrible handwriting font!

10: Nice idea, but do you really want to be reminded of the London Underground the whole time? If this is the Olympics, you should be bloody sprinting to work, not taking the train.

Having dealt with that, another popular comment is, “I could have drawn that!!” Yeah, but the point is that you didn’t, did you? They did.

Bellgrove Belle compares the logo to those of previous Olympic Games. But I think it kind of proves the point that I made in my previous post. Just look at them all. They are all the bloody same! Okay, so there is a bit of evolution as time goes on. But broadly, each logo looks very similar to the previous one.

(Also, you will notice, it shows that London is not the first city to ditch the colours from the Olympic rings, as Atlanta did it in 1996. It’s not all that an uncommon thing to do anyway.)

But I am beginning to think that the biggest crime that the logo committed is just this: it bucks the trend. I’m pretty sure most people will have been expecting something pretty much exactly on the lines of the logos Bellgrove Belle featured — I know I was. To see something different is refreshing.

As for the widespread comments that it looks like something from the 1980s, this is admittedly true. But this is also one of the things that I quite like about the logo.

When I came up with the current design of this blog, part of my idea was to make it look like what the future was like in the 1980s (a prototype version was called “Ceefax”). You will also notice that the “garish” pinks, yellows and greens of the 2012 logo are near the same as the colours I use on this blog. So I think semi-consciously I am taking criticism of the logo’s colours as a criticism of my blog’s design. Sad, I know…

The most convincing arguments against the design have come from Chris Applegate, who makes several good points. He points out why the logo is unsuitable for the internet, despite London 2012’s claims that it was designed with things like the internet in mind.

Still, I do quite like the logo. While, if I had the responsibility, I probably would not have given it the thumbs-up, I am just glad that we didn’t get yet another derivative, unimaginative logo. Some bland, forgettable red, white and blue symbol with “London 2012″ written underneath is what we could have got.

What we have got is something quite different and, I would say, endearing (come on, the way it moves in that video is kind of cute). It was a risk though, and it looks like it hasn’t paid off. Maybe it would have been more suited to an album cover.

I just posted this on Twitter:

Am I the only one who thinks the new London 2012 logo isn’t THAT bad?

And pretty much instantly two people, Will Howells and Chris Applegate, told me that, yes, yes I am. (Update: And Sarah…)

I mean, I don’t think it’s a great logo or anything. For a start, it took me bloody ages to work out where “2012″ was written (everywhere, illegibly, apparently).

But I like it for being bold and different. I like it for not being yet another one of those bland, anonymous, forgettable logos that usually accompany such massive events.

Imagine if we had got one of these, which is really the most likely other alternative.

Usually these logos are shocking for just how similar they are to all the others. Love hearts, scrawly handwriting, use of national symbols. I can easily imagine a London 2012 logo where, for instance the London Eye made the ‘0′ and Big Ben made the ‘1′. Thank goodness they avoided that sort of thing.

So congratulations to the London 2012 people for not just making do with some bland squiggly emblem with “London 2012″ faux-handwritten under it.

…Having said that, the “Lisa Simpson giving a blowjob” thing is… er, unfortunate.

MatGB has collected some of the reactions to the logo. At first I couldn’t see the thing about it being a Designers Republic rip-off. (It’s not as if TDR are the only people who have ever used that kind of vibrant Japanese-influenced style.)

Then I watched the video. It has to be said that one particular part of the video reminded me very strongly of an iconic TDR-designed album cover.

Update: Forgot to include this rather funny suggested logo that ended up on the BBC’s website!