I have aged ten years today, I have grey streaks in my hair ....
Got to work for 0840am in readiness for advanced ticket sales for Robbie Willliams' tour (I was one of the mugs who paid £25 to get 9am advance tickets 10 days before the public sale). Finally got logged on at 0850, got to the venue selection page, selected 4 tiks for Wembley then the clock hit 9am and CRASH - everything died.
The rest of the day was spent refreshing, refreshing, re-loggin in, crash - refresh - relogin - it was taking the piss. There were no phone lines to get tickets, you HAD to get in via the official website. Exactly how did they think the site would cope with a five-figure sum of people hammering away at it trying to get access???? Sometimes I got thru long enough to choose tickets, then the WorldPay payment site crashed and I was back to square 1.
Then all the best seats sold out, and it crashed again, so I gave up. By now there was a thread on Handbag.com forums that was 50 pages long, filled with girls ranting their frustrations at not being able to get the tickets. Radio 1 issued a statement to try and calm people down because they had been flooded with complaints. Only 3 venues are listed for the UK leg of his tour - and SIX in bloody Germany! I gave up and resigned to the fact that there MUST be more tour dates and tickets to be announced.
We all received emails telling us that the site would be up again at 2.30pm, so I duly logged in again only to see a neat row of SOLD OUT next to all the venues. I kept refreshing and then tickets became available again, but not the premium ones. I kept refreshing and suddenly there they were - Premium Standing at Roundhay Park Leeds. Uber-fast typing and I'd bagged four of them and collapsed on a heap on the floor with stress-induced psychosis. Meanwhile, fans are furious because by then they'd bought lesser crap-view tickets, only for the site to release more Premium tickets.
And on eBay, idiots were bidding over £300 for pairs of ticket put up there by greedy w*nkers out to make a profit. Ticket agencies were also offering the Wembley tickets for £125 each (face value £46). The BBC news website issued a statement from Robbie urging people not to buy from unlicensed touts, and expressing his anger at the profiteering. Was that just cos you're not getting a cut of the £ Robbie?? It's bad enough him extorting £25 out of fans just to get the advance tickets!
By now it was nearly 4pm and I'll probably get sacked if anyone reads my internet logs. 10000s of hits on robbiewilliamstickets.com, BBC news, Radio1 and handbag.com, I was lucky to get any work done at all. Some girls took the DAY OFF to try and get tickets, one girl was postponing getting pregnant so she could go to the concert!
Robster tickets aside, the previous day I had ordered an "Omni Knuckle massager" for Alan and his bad back for Christmas (http://www.iwantoneofthose.com/search.do?productCode=OMNKNU). It was duly delivered - IN BRIGHT PINK. It looks like a fucked-up Rampant Rabbit FFS!
I also ordered two other items for friends (who may read this page so not saying what it is) from eBay, only to be sent just ONE, and in the wrong colour. Then some sink taps I've bought also on eBay - they're trying to make me pay £12 for 48 hour courier delivery when I don't WANT or NEED the taps that quickly. And a very rare book I won weeks ago STILL hasn't arrived!!!
aaaaaaaarggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhh .........
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Monday, November 07, 2005
Rich Girls
Since finally getting Digital TV I've noticed an explosion of "reality" programmes centreing around the lives ofthe rich and priveliged, mainly young American girls who want for nothing and spend all their lives shopping, partying, spending, and talking about nonsensical shite.
My mouth fell open at the weekend as I watched one girl ceelbrate her 16th birthday with her parents giving her a brand new white top of the range Landrover, plus a birthday party that included an Arabian Nights theme and a bevvy of male models for photoshoots - the bill for these gifts was $200,000. And it's only her 16th birthday?? What about her 18th, and 21st, are they going to be equally expensive affairs or do they have to be MORE expensive so they top the last one?!?!
Her dad said as he signed the bill "she's worth it". Holy Crap man, what kind of father are you?? What example are you setting your daughter, what has she to be ambitious about for her future life, apart from where to fly to in her Lear Jet to shop for shoes, or how to better her friends with the next big social event that costs $$$$$$. Another Rich Girl programme showed her attending an audition that mummy had arranged for her, for a stage musical. Fuck me she could NOT sing, I think the casting woman said she could simply because there was a camera in her face and mummy had probably bunged her $500 to say nice things about little Kristy.
I wonder if her father even encourages her to have a goal for her future other than spending his money - his money that may not be there next week or next year if business suddenly turns bad, or if his investment portfolio goes tits up or if he's caught out with a bad lawsuit. Then what will she do, how will she cope? And will her friends be there for her if she no longer has the money and needs REAL friends?
Another interesting programme that was on a while back was when a rich girl swapped places with a "normal girl", and the Rich Girl went to work every day for the minimum wage, lived in a "normal" family home, washed the dishes, and had to shop at Primark (she couldn't believe you could get trousers for £6), while the "normal" girl partied the night away on £200 bottles of champers, and shopped at Harvey Nicks. The reactions of the two girls to their new lives were interesting. The Rich Girl was hoplessley inadequate in all life skills and thoroughly intolerant of having to work every day, but she noticed the closeness of the family she was living with and compared it to her own family relationships and didn't like what she saw.... Meanwhile the poor girl was missing home, thinking her new life was repetitive and empty, and longing to get back to the grind.
All these wealthy children should be made to spend Christmas volunteering in an orphanage, an animal rescue centre, a homeless shelter, or a battered women's shelter, just to introduce them to the realities of real life and show them that their money that they throw around on their silly parties and their $1000 shoes could be used for the greater good and to make a difference in someone else's life. It would also keep their feet on the ground by showing them that life can turn bad for anybody at any time, regardless of their status, and you'd better be prepared and ready for it when it comes at you.
I'd love to take part in one of these Life Swap programmes simply to see whether suddenly having troughloads of money would make me look at life in a new perspective. Would I suddenly feel powerful and safe, and start spending like an idiot? Or would I argue with my New Rich Friends that they were idiots spending £200 on a bottle of booze that probably cost a tenner to buy at cost price, or spending £500 on a new top when H&M sell them for a more reasonable £25.
Having lived in the Real World all my life and seen the shit that goes on and how money can help somewhat to alleviate that shit for a lot of people, I would sleep better at night knowing that if I was going to throw away $100k, I'd rather do it for a good cause other than my own birthday party.
Programmes like this can have one of thre effects on teens who watch it - they will either be ambitious enough to think "I want to live like that" and get off their arses, work hard and go and get a fabulous career, or they will compare their lives with the Rich Girl lives and be despondent and depressed, cos they want that life but have no self belief that they can go and get it. Or they will react like I did, flinging cushions at the TV screen and screeching "you daft worthless empty headed spoiled little brat!"
My mouth fell open at the weekend as I watched one girl ceelbrate her 16th birthday with her parents giving her a brand new white top of the range Landrover, plus a birthday party that included an Arabian Nights theme and a bevvy of male models for photoshoots - the bill for these gifts was $200,000. And it's only her 16th birthday?? What about her 18th, and 21st, are they going to be equally expensive affairs or do they have to be MORE expensive so they top the last one?!?!
Her dad said as he signed the bill "she's worth it". Holy Crap man, what kind of father are you?? What example are you setting your daughter, what has she to be ambitious about for her future life, apart from where to fly to in her Lear Jet to shop for shoes, or how to better her friends with the next big social event that costs $$$$$$. Another Rich Girl programme showed her attending an audition that mummy had arranged for her, for a stage musical. Fuck me she could NOT sing, I think the casting woman said she could simply because there was a camera in her face and mummy had probably bunged her $500 to say nice things about little Kristy.
I wonder if her father even encourages her to have a goal for her future other than spending his money - his money that may not be there next week or next year if business suddenly turns bad, or if his investment portfolio goes tits up or if he's caught out with a bad lawsuit. Then what will she do, how will she cope? And will her friends be there for her if she no longer has the money and needs REAL friends?
Another interesting programme that was on a while back was when a rich girl swapped places with a "normal girl", and the Rich Girl went to work every day for the minimum wage, lived in a "normal" family home, washed the dishes, and had to shop at Primark (she couldn't believe you could get trousers for £6), while the "normal" girl partied the night away on £200 bottles of champers, and shopped at Harvey Nicks. The reactions of the two girls to their new lives were interesting. The Rich Girl was hoplessley inadequate in all life skills and thoroughly intolerant of having to work every day, but she noticed the closeness of the family she was living with and compared it to her own family relationships and didn't like what she saw.... Meanwhile the poor girl was missing home, thinking her new life was repetitive and empty, and longing to get back to the grind.
All these wealthy children should be made to spend Christmas volunteering in an orphanage, an animal rescue centre, a homeless shelter, or a battered women's shelter, just to introduce them to the realities of real life and show them that their money that they throw around on their silly parties and their $1000 shoes could be used for the greater good and to make a difference in someone else's life. It would also keep their feet on the ground by showing them that life can turn bad for anybody at any time, regardless of their status, and you'd better be prepared and ready for it when it comes at you.
I'd love to take part in one of these Life Swap programmes simply to see whether suddenly having troughloads of money would make me look at life in a new perspective. Would I suddenly feel powerful and safe, and start spending like an idiot? Or would I argue with my New Rich Friends that they were idiots spending £200 on a bottle of booze that probably cost a tenner to buy at cost price, or spending £500 on a new top when H&M sell them for a more reasonable £25.
Having lived in the Real World all my life and seen the shit that goes on and how money can help somewhat to alleviate that shit for a lot of people, I would sleep better at night knowing that if I was going to throw away $100k, I'd rather do it for a good cause other than my own birthday party.
Programmes like this can have one of thre effects on teens who watch it - they will either be ambitious enough to think "I want to live like that" and get off their arses, work hard and go and get a fabulous career, or they will compare their lives with the Rich Girl lives and be despondent and depressed, cos they want that life but have no self belief that they can go and get it. Or they will react like I did, flinging cushions at the TV screen and screeching "you daft worthless empty headed spoiled little brat!"
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Goodbye tooth fairy
Reports yesterday said that a 4 year old girl who had 4 teeth removed in hospital was told she couldn't take them home for the Tooth Fairy because "they were body parts and had to be disposed of according to procedures".
So the tooth fairy is now being stamped out by bureacracy - fantastic! Couldn't the dentist/nurse who was in charge of the little tyke just winked at her and put the teeth in her pocket with a whispered "don't tell anyone kid" ???? FFS .....
So the tooth fairy is now being stamped out by bureacracy - fantastic! Couldn't the dentist/nurse who was in charge of the little tyke just winked at her and put the teeth in her pocket with a whispered "don't tell anyone kid" ???? FFS .....
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Bestie
George Best is dying - do we care??? I sure don't. He was famous for being a great footballer what, 30+ years ago? So what? A footballer big wow, did he invent a cure for aids, did he invent a new wonder drug that saved millions of lives, did he do ANYTHING of worth since his footballing and shagging days? No! He drank himself into oblivion, produced a useless offspring who is now whoring himself on reality TV shows, and married a gold digging bimbo who took years off his life and drove him to drink even more.
They're trying to blame the immuno-suppressants he's been taking since his liver transplant 3 years ago (a liver that he ruined by starting to drink again, infuriating the parents of the dead boy who donated it). He has no-one to blame but himself and his endless boozing. Stand by for Alex Best HELLO magazine articles "I loved George really", "my mourning hell", "I plan to be buried alive with him".
I say good riddance to a faded hero.
They're trying to blame the immuno-suppressants he's been taking since his liver transplant 3 years ago (a liver that he ruined by starting to drink again, infuriating the parents of the dead boy who donated it). He has no-one to blame but himself and his endless boozing. Stand by for Alex Best HELLO magazine articles "I loved George really", "my mourning hell", "I plan to be buried alive with him".
I say good riddance to a faded hero.
Monday, October 24, 2005
Sex Ed for 5 year olds???????
Unbelieveable - Government ministers want Sex Education classes for FIVE YEAR OLDS to begin in our schools. They think it's the only way to "curb teenage pregnancies".
What a pile of steaming bollocks, the only way to stop teen pregnancies is to stop our children growing up too fast, to stop bombarding them with sexual images in the form of teen magazines, sexy fashions for young girls, sexy kids TV programmes and presenters, sexy dolls such as "Bratz" that encourage young girls to obsess about their appearance. Argos selling thongs for fucks sake .... and the parents don't seem to be trying to stop all this.
My biggest whinge and one of the root causes of this sexualisation of girls that are far too young to be even thinking about sex, is TEEN MAGAZINES. I saw a copy of "More" magazine once that had a sealed tinfoil booklet on the front titled "Blow Jobs - all you want to know" and it included information on how to do them, techniques, and probably pictures too. Do newsagents police who buys these magazines, do they say to the 10 year old girl "sorry love can't sell it to you"? Of course they don't! So many teen magazines now are making girls obsess about body image, makeup, being sexy, flirting, getting a boyfriend, having sex, and having sex in every possible position and style that is possible. There is rarely anything of substance in any of these magazines to give young girls ambitions in life other than to look pretty and get laid.
Sure, they have the odd paragraph in them about "making a mature choice" about whether to have sex or not, but that is only a whisper amongst the pages of sex toys sex talk blow jobs, flirting and french kissing.
When I was growing up Sky TV and the internet didn't exist, and kids TV was presented by adults, not screaming frantic slang-talking teens showing their midriffs off. TV and advertising and films didn't shove sex in my face 24/7, and nobody wore tshirts with FCUK on them. I went through my early school years being blissfully unaware of blow jobs, STDs, flirting, and french kissing I read JACKIE magazine and wanted a pony, I did my homework and I was madly in love with a boy called Matthew McCoid in the year above me, and I also fancied Dan Aykroyd in "Ghostbusters" (no accounting for taste). I never wore makeup cos I didn't have a clue how to put it on, and my fashion sense left a lot to be desired....When I was 5 a boy at primary school showed me his willy, I just laughed and ran away and wondered what all the fuss was about (darn it I could have sued him for billions for "emotional upset"...)
I remember a one-off sex ed class when I was about 14, it was in the lecture theatre and we tittered and giggled all through it when the teacher talked about condoms and periods. All of us apart from a small group of tarty girls, were untroubled by the pressures of shagging. My mother never sat me down and "had the talk" with me, although she did with my brother, strangely enough. All she said to me was that if I had sex before I was married she'd kill me (I broke that rule but she didn't find out for years!)
A lot of you would say that to be so ignorant about sex in this day and age would be dangerous, and I guess I have to agree - because I wasn't bombarded with sex from all angles, being ignorant about it wasn't as bad back then, it just passed us all by until we were properly grown up.
I progressed through my teenage years a plain frump who attracted no interest from the opposite sex. Some would say "how fucking sad is that" but I don't mind now when I look back - I did my homework, got on with my schooling and now I have a good job with a good wage. Many of the girls in my class who had boyfriends and spent their schooldays daydreaming or crying over them, have fared a lot worse off with their broken marriages and multiple kids by different men and crap jobs.
It seems that there is no way to stop this sexual assault on our teens - no matter how much we talk now about responsibility and thinking things through before sex and always using a condom, it just isn't working, and now these new morals are seeping through into the next generation we are seeing a 12 year old who is the youngest mother of triplets in Europe, while the father of the children is already saying he wants nothing to do with them. It seems that the fundamental instinct that having sex when you are in your teens is wrong, is missing from the new generation. Nobody thinks twice about one night stands now, about screwing a guy you barely know, and doing it WITHOUT protection. Teens aren't mature enough to cope with the emotional explosion of sex and intimacy (no matter how much they pout and say they are), and the results are plain for all to see in our national teenage pregnancy rate.
Giving sex ed classes to five year olds is not the way, they are FAR too young to comprehend anything about sex - they should be reading stories, playing with toys, watching Disney cartoons, and writing to santa, not worrying about whether their first boyfriend will want anal sex after a week of dating.
What a pile of steaming bollocks, the only way to stop teen pregnancies is to stop our children growing up too fast, to stop bombarding them with sexual images in the form of teen magazines, sexy fashions for young girls, sexy kids TV programmes and presenters, sexy dolls such as "Bratz" that encourage young girls to obsess about their appearance. Argos selling thongs for fucks sake .... and the parents don't seem to be trying to stop all this.
My biggest whinge and one of the root causes of this sexualisation of girls that are far too young to be even thinking about sex, is TEEN MAGAZINES. I saw a copy of "More" magazine once that had a sealed tinfoil booklet on the front titled "Blow Jobs - all you want to know" and it included information on how to do them, techniques, and probably pictures too. Do newsagents police who buys these magazines, do they say to the 10 year old girl "sorry love can't sell it to you"? Of course they don't! So many teen magazines now are making girls obsess about body image, makeup, being sexy, flirting, getting a boyfriend, having sex, and having sex in every possible position and style that is possible. There is rarely anything of substance in any of these magazines to give young girls ambitions in life other than to look pretty and get laid.
Sure, they have the odd paragraph in them about "making a mature choice" about whether to have sex or not, but that is only a whisper amongst the pages of sex toys sex talk blow jobs, flirting and french kissing.
When I was growing up Sky TV and the internet didn't exist, and kids TV was presented by adults, not screaming frantic slang-talking teens showing their midriffs off. TV and advertising and films didn't shove sex in my face 24/7, and nobody wore tshirts with FCUK on them. I went through my early school years being blissfully unaware of blow jobs, STDs, flirting, and french kissing I read JACKIE magazine and wanted a pony, I did my homework and I was madly in love with a boy called Matthew McCoid in the year above me, and I also fancied Dan Aykroyd in "Ghostbusters" (no accounting for taste). I never wore makeup cos I didn't have a clue how to put it on, and my fashion sense left a lot to be desired....When I was 5 a boy at primary school showed me his willy, I just laughed and ran away and wondered what all the fuss was about (darn it I could have sued him for billions for "emotional upset"...)
I remember a one-off sex ed class when I was about 14, it was in the lecture theatre and we tittered and giggled all through it when the teacher talked about condoms and periods. All of us apart from a small group of tarty girls, were untroubled by the pressures of shagging. My mother never sat me down and "had the talk" with me, although she did with my brother, strangely enough. All she said to me was that if I had sex before I was married she'd kill me (I broke that rule but she didn't find out for years!)
A lot of you would say that to be so ignorant about sex in this day and age would be dangerous, and I guess I have to agree - because I wasn't bombarded with sex from all angles, being ignorant about it wasn't as bad back then, it just passed us all by until we were properly grown up.
I progressed through my teenage years a plain frump who attracted no interest from the opposite sex. Some would say "how fucking sad is that" but I don't mind now when I look back - I did my homework, got on with my schooling and now I have a good job with a good wage. Many of the girls in my class who had boyfriends and spent their schooldays daydreaming or crying over them, have fared a lot worse off with their broken marriages and multiple kids by different men and crap jobs.
It seems that there is no way to stop this sexual assault on our teens - no matter how much we talk now about responsibility and thinking things through before sex and always using a condom, it just isn't working, and now these new morals are seeping through into the next generation we are seeing a 12 year old who is the youngest mother of triplets in Europe, while the father of the children is already saying he wants nothing to do with them. It seems that the fundamental instinct that having sex when you are in your teens is wrong, is missing from the new generation. Nobody thinks twice about one night stands now, about screwing a guy you barely know, and doing it WITHOUT protection. Teens aren't mature enough to cope with the emotional explosion of sex and intimacy (no matter how much they pout and say they are), and the results are plain for all to see in our national teenage pregnancy rate.
Giving sex ed classes to five year olds is not the way, they are FAR too young to comprehend anything about sex - they should be reading stories, playing with toys, watching Disney cartoons, and writing to santa, not worrying about whether their first boyfriend will want anal sex after a week of dating.
Friday, October 21, 2005
TV dinners
The ridiculous announcement today that our Government are going to start a public campaign to get parents and their kids to all sit down together at the table for their evening meals. They want families to talk to eachother once more and discuss their daily happenings, instead of all skulking off to their respective TV sets with their microwaved crap, to never utter a word for the rest of the night.
I'm very interested to see how the Govt intend to enforce this. Erm, they can't! It's up to each family, and if they can't be arsed with the furore of denying little Timmy the pleasure of watching Sponngebob Squarepants while he guzzles down his chemical meals, then they just won't ever bother. To parents today, it's easier to let kids have their own way than risk a yelling match when, heaven forbid, they try to assert themselves as a parent.
Having just moved into a house that has a kitchen big enough to have a dining table in it, and after over 7 years of TV meals with no table, I delight in sitting down away from the TV and scoffing in peace or in good conversation without someone turning up the volume when I dare to speak. It would do families a great deal of good to have a good convo over their meal, and would improve the communication skills of kids today, who can barely do more than grunt.
I was also pleased to see that teachers are going to be given powers to "restrain disruptive pupils" in schools once more. WHY ON EARTH were these powers removed in the first place?
Only after several expensive court cases and several injured teachers, plus the growing tide of classroom violence, is this stupid "hands off or I sue" law being revoked. We need to get back to the days when you got a clip round the ear if you did not respect your teacher. Lack of respect for authority figures is rife amongst kids today - they walk around arrogantly sneering that they know their rights and you can't touch them, even if they have just spat in your face or keyed your car. I wouldn't think twice of twatting a sarky kid if he ever got in my face, and let the courts try to catch me afterwards.....
I'm very interested to see how the Govt intend to enforce this. Erm, they can't! It's up to each family, and if they can't be arsed with the furore of denying little Timmy the pleasure of watching Sponngebob Squarepants while he guzzles down his chemical meals, then they just won't ever bother. To parents today, it's easier to let kids have their own way than risk a yelling match when, heaven forbid, they try to assert themselves as a parent.
Having just moved into a house that has a kitchen big enough to have a dining table in it, and after over 7 years of TV meals with no table, I delight in sitting down away from the TV and scoffing in peace or in good conversation without someone turning up the volume when I dare to speak. It would do families a great deal of good to have a good convo over their meal, and would improve the communication skills of kids today, who can barely do more than grunt.
I was also pleased to see that teachers are going to be given powers to "restrain disruptive pupils" in schools once more. WHY ON EARTH were these powers removed in the first place?
Only after several expensive court cases and several injured teachers, plus the growing tide of classroom violence, is this stupid "hands off or I sue" law being revoked. We need to get back to the days when you got a clip round the ear if you did not respect your teacher. Lack of respect for authority figures is rife amongst kids today - they walk around arrogantly sneering that they know their rights and you can't touch them, even if they have just spat in your face or keyed your car. I wouldn't think twice of twatting a sarky kid if he ever got in my face, and let the courts try to catch me afterwards.....
Thursday, October 13, 2005
The Turner Prize
Well it's that time of the year again - when some hapless no-talent Twit walks away with £25k because Art critics are all W*nkers.
On the news this morning they showed one of the nominees for the Turner Prize, and it was ....
A SHED.
A fucking shed....that had been knocked down and rebuilt as a boat, then knocked down again and rebuilt by the "artist" as a shed.
Can someone PLEASE explain to me the art behind this, and why this twat deserves to win £25k. Does this mean that the B&Q special down my garden can win me megabucks, if I think up of some stupid arty reason why I built it and fool a bunch of pretentious rich twats to give me loads of money for it?
I hate modern art, in fact I refuse to call it modern ART cos it's not - it's worthless shite.
On the news this morning they showed one of the nominees for the Turner Prize, and it was ....
A SHED.
A fucking shed....that had been knocked down and rebuilt as a boat, then knocked down again and rebuilt by the "artist" as a shed.
Can someone PLEASE explain to me the art behind this, and why this twat deserves to win £25k. Does this mean that the B&Q special down my garden can win me megabucks, if I think up of some stupid arty reason why I built it and fool a bunch of pretentious rich twats to give me loads of money for it?
I hate modern art, in fact I refuse to call it modern ART cos it's not - it's worthless shite.
Friday, September 23, 2005
Down with hipsters!!!
Joy upon joy, can it really be happening? Can that bloody awful symbol of "fashion", the hipster skirt and trousers, really be dying at last? An article in the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/gender/story/0,11812,1574728,00.html) speaks of all the European and American fashion houses sporting nipped-in wasts, corsets, and skirts/trousers with HIGH WAISTS and belts that show your waistline off.
Yaaaaaay! So I can finally walk down the street in my 1940s-style trousers with a waistline that goes ABOVE my belly button, without getting weird looks from people cos I'm not in bloody hipsters! I can live in hope that soon trousers and skirts and dresses that flatter the waistline and NOT hang below it will soon be available in mainline fashion shops!
Fashion writers are talking about the old-style screen goddesses like Grace Kelly, Sophia Loren, Audrey Hepburn and Marilyn Monroe, who wore fabulous outfits that showed off their perfect figures. They are talking about the old "feminine" shape that turns heads and set the movie screens alight.
But the article also talks about a threat to this rising new fashion - the fact that women today are "built like refrigerators" and do not seem to have waists anymore! In 1951, the average British woman had a 27.5-inch waist. Now, she boasts a 34-incher. That's a growth of more than an inch a decade.
Quite why we're growing at such a rate may seem obvious. We eat too much. But it's not just about quantity. The way we eat, and what we eat, has altered radically over the past half-century. As Emma Stiles, nutritional scientist at the University of Westminster, says, "The waist-hip ratio has changed over the past 100 years because of a change in the macronutrients in our diet. Our intake of carbohydrates and sugars has grown rapidly, which increases insulin production. This in turn aids fat-cell deposits on the torso rather than anywhere else on the body."
So does this mean we are stuck with hipsters forever, or straight-waisted clothes to suit our new shape? NOOOOOOOO! Hipsters are even WORSE for the figure that waisted clothes! I am sick of seeing beer-bellied women spilling over the waistlines of their trousers! If you haven't got a washboard stomach then you simply CANNOT wear hipsters. But similarly, if you have a girl-beer-belly then a high waist will be tight and uncomfortable....just as uncomfortable as hipsters digging into you as you sit down though, where is the happy medium!!!!
But high-waisted clothes aren't all M&S or Simon Cowell - if they are cut and made properly they can emphasies a fairly slim waist, hide a multitude of sins, and make those lucky enough already to be slim, look SUPER-SLIM. Just sit and watch a few classic 1940s films, or the DiCaprio film "The Aviator" to see the fabulous shapes of the women in those clothes.
The campaign starts here - down with hipsters down with hipsters!
Yaaaaaay! So I can finally walk down the street in my 1940s-style trousers with a waistline that goes ABOVE my belly button, without getting weird looks from people cos I'm not in bloody hipsters! I can live in hope that soon trousers and skirts and dresses that flatter the waistline and NOT hang below it will soon be available in mainline fashion shops!
Fashion writers are talking about the old-style screen goddesses like Grace Kelly, Sophia Loren, Audrey Hepburn and Marilyn Monroe, who wore fabulous outfits that showed off their perfect figures. They are talking about the old "feminine" shape that turns heads and set the movie screens alight.
But the article also talks about a threat to this rising new fashion - the fact that women today are "built like refrigerators" and do not seem to have waists anymore! In 1951, the average British woman had a 27.5-inch waist. Now, she boasts a 34-incher. That's a growth of more than an inch a decade.
Quite why we're growing at such a rate may seem obvious. We eat too much. But it's not just about quantity. The way we eat, and what we eat, has altered radically over the past half-century. As Emma Stiles, nutritional scientist at the University of Westminster, says, "The waist-hip ratio has changed over the past 100 years because of a change in the macronutrients in our diet. Our intake of carbohydrates and sugars has grown rapidly, which increases insulin production. This in turn aids fat-cell deposits on the torso rather than anywhere else on the body."
So does this mean we are stuck with hipsters forever, or straight-waisted clothes to suit our new shape? NOOOOOOOO! Hipsters are even WORSE for the figure that waisted clothes! I am sick of seeing beer-bellied women spilling over the waistlines of their trousers! If you haven't got a washboard stomach then you simply CANNOT wear hipsters. But similarly, if you have a girl-beer-belly then a high waist will be tight and uncomfortable....just as uncomfortable as hipsters digging into you as you sit down though, where is the happy medium!!!!
But high-waisted clothes aren't all M&S or Simon Cowell - if they are cut and made properly they can emphasies a fairly slim waist, hide a multitude of sins, and make those lucky enough already to be slim, look SUPER-SLIM. Just sit and watch a few classic 1940s films, or the DiCaprio film "The Aviator" to see the fabulous shapes of the women in those clothes.
The campaign starts here - down with hipsters down with hipsters!
Sunday, September 18, 2005
Invisible crusts
I had to laugh at Hovis' new revelation "Invisible Crust Bread" (http://www.hovisbakery.co.uk/invisible/). They claim to have baked a bread without the crust so "there will be no waste" and so kids won't leave their crusts. It took TWO YEARS of research and God knows how many £ to achieve this.
As a serial crust-leaver (only the top crusts though not the other 3 edges!) I remember my parents nagging me to eat my crusts and saying they'd make my hair curly. I didn't want curly hair so I used to go to tea at my Gran's and leave the crusts in a nice circle under the rim of my plate. Gran would clear the table, lift my plate up, and there was a perfect circle of my crusts. Again I received nagging, but I just don't LIKE the top crust!
I never dreamed that people would bow to the fact I hated crusts and bake me a bread without one. So now little Timmy doesn't have to be nagged at! He can get away with it! He doesn't have to face the trauma of his parents actually TELLING him to eat his crusts!
The Hovis press section proudly tell us that "35% of mothers waste their time cutting off the crusts, and also wasting 45% of the bread by cutting the crusts off". The loaf also has an "internal crumb structure" to stop the crustless bread tearing when you cut it. WTF!
So if this loaf is lacking crust is it bigger in size? is the price more or less? Are you actually getting more for your money? Are we that rushed for time that we can't even be arsed to spend 2 minutes cutting crusts off bread? What about the poor ducks or garden birds that always used to benefit from my crusts? They will starve!!!!
The Guardian newspaper says that crustless bread is helping to expand the culture of "lazy food" that is sweeping the world. Things like plastic bowls of cereal with the milk in one half and the cereal in another - ready-sliced mushrooms - ready-to-go stir frys - frozen chopped onions - and the funniest of them all - frozen mashed potato.
I've been touring loads of DIY and furniture shops as a new house buyer, and the kitchens on offer are beautiful - lovely cupboards, workbenches, very cool cookers, built-in fridges, and tons of cool kitchen gadgets to help you prepare food. I love kitchens and would happily spend hours in a lovely old fashioned one with a stone floor and a big aga, cooking up miracles. Why are we then bothering with these fab kitchens if we seem to loathe spending any time in them! If we don't want to stand and chop mushrooms, or mash potatoes, or cut off crusts? We seem to want to dash in, throw something in the microwave, empty our frozen mash into a pan, serve it then eat it in front of the telly, while not conversing at all with our kids, who sit there getting fat on processed crap and chemicals. Why not do away with the kitchen totally and just improve the lounge to have a microwave and a dishwasher next to the telly?!?!?!?!
As a serial crust-leaver (only the top crusts though not the other 3 edges!) I remember my parents nagging me to eat my crusts and saying they'd make my hair curly. I didn't want curly hair so I used to go to tea at my Gran's and leave the crusts in a nice circle under the rim of my plate. Gran would clear the table, lift my plate up, and there was a perfect circle of my crusts. Again I received nagging, but I just don't LIKE the top crust!
I never dreamed that people would bow to the fact I hated crusts and bake me a bread without one. So now little Timmy doesn't have to be nagged at! He can get away with it! He doesn't have to face the trauma of his parents actually TELLING him to eat his crusts!
The Hovis press section proudly tell us that "35% of mothers waste their time cutting off the crusts, and also wasting 45% of the bread by cutting the crusts off". The loaf also has an "internal crumb structure" to stop the crustless bread tearing when you cut it. WTF!
So if this loaf is lacking crust is it bigger in size? is the price more or less? Are you actually getting more for your money? Are we that rushed for time that we can't even be arsed to spend 2 minutes cutting crusts off bread? What about the poor ducks or garden birds that always used to benefit from my crusts? They will starve!!!!
The Guardian newspaper says that crustless bread is helping to expand the culture of "lazy food" that is sweeping the world. Things like plastic bowls of cereal with the milk in one half and the cereal in another - ready-sliced mushrooms - ready-to-go stir frys - frozen chopped onions - and the funniest of them all - frozen mashed potato.
I've been touring loads of DIY and furniture shops as a new house buyer, and the kitchens on offer are beautiful - lovely cupboards, workbenches, very cool cookers, built-in fridges, and tons of cool kitchen gadgets to help you prepare food. I love kitchens and would happily spend hours in a lovely old fashioned one with a stone floor and a big aga, cooking up miracles. Why are we then bothering with these fab kitchens if we seem to loathe spending any time in them! If we don't want to stand and chop mushrooms, or mash potatoes, or cut off crusts? We seem to want to dash in, throw something in the microwave, empty our frozen mash into a pan, serve it then eat it in front of the telly, while not conversing at all with our kids, who sit there getting fat on processed crap and chemicals. Why not do away with the kitchen totally and just improve the lounge to have a microwave and a dishwasher next to the telly?!?!?!?!
Friday, September 16, 2005
Petrol Part IV
Interesting and good news to hear that Asda, Tesco and Esso have taken 4p off the price of petrol. Also interesting the resounding silence from the Government about this. A few days ago Gordon Brown was saying how he can't reduce petrol prices right now, but today Esso have said they are reducing their prices "due to the falling cost of oil". But Gordon stayed silent.
So exactly who is in charge of giving permission to reduce petrol prices? The Government? Or Asda, Tesco and Esso, who seemed to have taken things into their own hands and announced the price drop. If they had not done this would Gordon have stayed silent and continued to reap the rewards of the inflated fuel tax? I bloody bet he would have.
So exactly who is in charge of giving permission to reduce petrol prices? The Government? Or Asda, Tesco and Esso, who seemed to have taken things into their own hands and announced the price drop. If they had not done this would Gordon have stayed silent and continued to reap the rewards of the inflated fuel tax? I bloody bet he would have.
Bird Flu
You can tell I'm not very busy at work today :-D Another entry!
Been reading Boris Johnson's blog (http://www.boris-johnson.com) and found an entry about Ken Livingston the London mayor. Apparently he is spending £1m of the congestion charge raised on 100,000 doses of anti chicken flu medication....They have drawn up a list of "elite" figures, mainly government ministers and BBC high-ups, who would be required to keep the country going in the event of the chicken plague, and who must therefore receive free doses of the wonderdrug.
He says "What drives me mad is not that I am excluded from this list (opposition politicians, you will not be surprised to learn, are thought to be dispensable to the running of Britain), but that we are getting in a flap about a chicken disease which has killed a grand total of 57 human beings since it was detected in 2003, most of them Asian owners of fighting-cocks who chose to give mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to their spifflicated birds.
To get these figures in proportion, you should know that nine million people are suffering from tuberculosis, of which two million will die in the next year, and half a billion people are suffering from malaria. So why are we scaring ourselves witless about this Asian fowl pest? "
Well said Boris and what a scandalous waste of money. It seems that they have picked up on the media-panic about chicken flu and are convinced it's going to wipe out the globe. Like the SUDAN-1 scare - it made me piss myself laughing to see people so scared of eating a Pot Noodle or a curry "in case I get cancer", then they carry on with their 50-a-day habit and their cancer causing unhealthy lifestyles. But the media once again created the panic, and we drank it in like George Best.
Diseases such as malaria and TB are such a part of our everyday vocabulary that we ignore the millions of deaths caused by it. There is no scandal, no glamour, no frontpage news to be had about it, and because it doesn't really affect us Brits then once again we close our eyes to it.
Been reading Boris Johnson's blog (http://www.boris-johnson.com) and found an entry about Ken Livingston the London mayor. Apparently he is spending £1m of the congestion charge raised on 100,000 doses of anti chicken flu medication....They have drawn up a list of "elite" figures, mainly government ministers and BBC high-ups, who would be required to keep the country going in the event of the chicken plague, and who must therefore receive free doses of the wonderdrug.
He says "What drives me mad is not that I am excluded from this list (opposition politicians, you will not be surprised to learn, are thought to be dispensable to the running of Britain), but that we are getting in a flap about a chicken disease which has killed a grand total of 57 human beings since it was detected in 2003, most of them Asian owners of fighting-cocks who chose to give mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to their spifflicated birds.
To get these figures in proportion, you should know that nine million people are suffering from tuberculosis, of which two million will die in the next year, and half a billion people are suffering from malaria. So why are we scaring ourselves witless about this Asian fowl pest? "
Well said Boris and what a scandalous waste of money. It seems that they have picked up on the media-panic about chicken flu and are convinced it's going to wipe out the globe. Like the SUDAN-1 scare - it made me piss myself laughing to see people so scared of eating a Pot Noodle or a curry "in case I get cancer", then they carry on with their 50-a-day habit and their cancer causing unhealthy lifestyles. But the media once again created the panic, and we drank it in like George Best.
Diseases such as malaria and TB are such a part of our everyday vocabulary that we ignore the millions of deaths caused by it. There is no scandal, no glamour, no frontpage news to be had about it, and because it doesn't really affect us Brits then once again we close our eyes to it.
Boozing
Interesting to see how most of the papers are highlighting Freddie Flintock's 48 hour booze-athon following his Ashes win, and chuckling about it and joking how he had to stop the victory parade to nip into some Starbuck's toilets to throw up. "Well done Freddie you deserve a good piss-up" they say. Flintock himself boasts about how he can't remember the past few days celebration because he was so utterly bladdered.
Strange how only two weeks ago the same media were tutting and preaching about 24-hour licensing and binge-drinking amongst teens and the evils of drink and the cost to the health service.
But if you manage to win a pathetic egg-cup of an ashes trophy for our country it's fine to drink yourself into a stupor and to set a shining example to the next generation who adore our sports "personalities" and try to emulate everything they do, including marathon pissups. And you get a thumbs up from the two-faced media for doing so!
Strange how only two weeks ago the same media were tutting and preaching about 24-hour licensing and binge-drinking amongst teens and the evils of drink and the cost to the health service.
But if you manage to win a pathetic egg-cup of an ashes trophy for our country it's fine to drink yourself into a stupor and to set a shining example to the next generation who adore our sports "personalities" and try to emulate everything they do, including marathon pissups. And you get a thumbs up from the two-faced media for doing so!
From Carole Malone in The Mirror
IT almost beggars belief... Last week a gang of under-age yobs who admitted tying 13-year-old Kyle Parker to a tree, putting a monkey mask on him before setting fire to him - all the while filming it on their mobiles - were told by the Crown Prosecution Service they wouldn't be charged because they were all of previous good character.
What kind of farcical reason is that for this gutless, inept organisation not to prosecute a group of boys who tried to kill another boy? ALL criminals are of previous good character until they commit their first crime.
So, 13 teenagers who try to kill a defenceless boy and have the audacity to call it Happy Slapping (a misnomer for a vicious, premeditated crime) get off scot- free, yet just days later 71-year-old retired vicar Alfred Ridley, who has a serious heart condition, was thrown into one of Britain's toughest jails for refusing to pay £63 he owed in council tax.
It will cost taxpayers more than £3,000 to keep Alfred locked up in Woodhill top- security jail for his 28-day sentence and God only knows what will happen to him in an institution which counts murderers, rapists and robbers among its inmates.
Until he was banged up Mr Ridley lived with his wife in a council house on an income of £530 a month, but he withheld £63 from his £970 council tax bill because he maintained that an 8.5 per cent rise imposed by South Northamptonshire Council in 2003 was illegal.
What the hell is wrong with this country when muggers, burglars, robbers and kids who think it is OK to try and kill other kids, are allowed to manipulate our increasingly soft legal system yet decent men like Alfred Ridley, who has devoted his life to helping others, is chucked in jail for a piddling £63?
You can bet if he was some scrounging layabout on benefits who hadn't paid £63 worth of fines he'd be sitting on his sofa at home now instead of slopping out at Woodhill. You can bet if he'd been an asylum seeker bleating about his human rights he'd have had a boat-load of compensation already.
It's a disgrace that our courts use the full force of the law to punish soft targets yet hardened criminals who know how to manipulate it get treated with kid gloves - especially if they utter those magic words "human rights".
One inmate released from Woodhill last week said when Alfred arrived: "He looked depressed and shaken up. He had his head down and was just staring at the floor."
Of course he was! He was ashamed for God's sake. A decent, law-abiding man like Alfred Ridley will carry the shame of being slung in jail until his dying day - unlike some ofthe other wasters in there with him who see "doing time" as a bit of a holiday.
And just as the magistrates who put him in jail should be sacked for having zero judgment, what excuse do the fools at South Northamptonshire Council have for deciding to waive Alfred's arrears two days after he was jailed? Why didn't they do it months ago, which would have saved Alfred a lot of life-threatening distress, not to mention a costly court case?
And while we're at it, this Government must also shoulder some of the blame. How dare they put hard-up pensioners in the intolerable position of having to spend vast amounts of the little money they have on extortionate council tax demands?
It's shameful that elderly people who've worked their entire lives are having to spend what should be a peaceful retirement worrying how they're going to pay their council tax from a pension that barely gives them enough to feed, heat and clothe themselves.
Tony and Cherie Blair come from working-class stock. They know only too well the hardships that elderly people face, yet they're presiding over a Government which is bullying pensioners into early graves. The real disgrace here is that we elected Tony Blair on a socialist ticket. Sadly, the closest he and Cherie get to socialism these days is when they have an intellectual debate about it over champagne and canapes with their posh friends.
The words hypocrites and traitors come to mind.
What kind of farcical reason is that for this gutless, inept organisation not to prosecute a group of boys who tried to kill another boy? ALL criminals are of previous good character until they commit their first crime.
So, 13 teenagers who try to kill a defenceless boy and have the audacity to call it Happy Slapping (a misnomer for a vicious, premeditated crime) get off scot- free, yet just days later 71-year-old retired vicar Alfred Ridley, who has a serious heart condition, was thrown into one of Britain's toughest jails for refusing to pay £63 he owed in council tax.
It will cost taxpayers more than £3,000 to keep Alfred locked up in Woodhill top- security jail for his 28-day sentence and God only knows what will happen to him in an institution which counts murderers, rapists and robbers among its inmates.
Until he was banged up Mr Ridley lived with his wife in a council house on an income of £530 a month, but he withheld £63 from his £970 council tax bill because he maintained that an 8.5 per cent rise imposed by South Northamptonshire Council in 2003 was illegal.
What the hell is wrong with this country when muggers, burglars, robbers and kids who think it is OK to try and kill other kids, are allowed to manipulate our increasingly soft legal system yet decent men like Alfred Ridley, who has devoted his life to helping others, is chucked in jail for a piddling £63?
You can bet if he was some scrounging layabout on benefits who hadn't paid £63 worth of fines he'd be sitting on his sofa at home now instead of slopping out at Woodhill. You can bet if he'd been an asylum seeker bleating about his human rights he'd have had a boat-load of compensation already.
It's a disgrace that our courts use the full force of the law to punish soft targets yet hardened criminals who know how to manipulate it get treated with kid gloves - especially if they utter those magic words "human rights".
One inmate released from Woodhill last week said when Alfred arrived: "He looked depressed and shaken up. He had his head down and was just staring at the floor."
Of course he was! He was ashamed for God's sake. A decent, law-abiding man like Alfred Ridley will carry the shame of being slung in jail until his dying day - unlike some ofthe other wasters in there with him who see "doing time" as a bit of a holiday.
And just as the magistrates who put him in jail should be sacked for having zero judgment, what excuse do the fools at South Northamptonshire Council have for deciding to waive Alfred's arrears two days after he was jailed? Why didn't they do it months ago, which would have saved Alfred a lot of life-threatening distress, not to mention a costly court case?
And while we're at it, this Government must also shoulder some of the blame. How dare they put hard-up pensioners in the intolerable position of having to spend vast amounts of the little money they have on extortionate council tax demands?
It's shameful that elderly people who've worked their entire lives are having to spend what should be a peaceful retirement worrying how they're going to pay their council tax from a pension that barely gives them enough to feed, heat and clothe themselves.
Tony and Cherie Blair come from working-class stock. They know only too well the hardships that elderly people face, yet they're presiding over a Government which is bullying pensioners into early graves. The real disgrace here is that we elected Tony Blair on a socialist ticket. Sadly, the closest he and Cherie get to socialism these days is when they have an intellectual debate about it over champagne and canapes with their posh friends.
The words hypocrites and traitors come to mind.
Hollow apology
How nice of Bush to take responsibility for the cock-up that is New Orleans ... how nice of him to promise between $60-200 BILLION to rebuild the town - a town that is UNDER sea-level and which some people say should have have been built in the first place.
Where are these billions going to come from? He can't fund the Iraq war AND rebuild New Orleans surely, plus keep his promise of all that aid to the Asian Tsunami appeal, AND the relief money for Africa? My guess is all other country aid will be pulled in favour of New Orleans, which is maybe a good and a bad thing.
I note he didn't apologise for CAUSING the destruction in the first place by pulling the levy funding that would have bolstered the city's defences and maybe prevented the flooding? How much money did he save by doing this? I bet it now seems pennies compared to the outlay to rebuild the entire town. Not to mention the cost of supporting all those people while their houses, jobs, lives, education, medicare and basic support systems are put back into place.
Well done George hope you're happy with your pennypinching. His apology means nothing to me and doubtless means nothing to him - he's not up for re-election anymore so doesn't need to placate his people in order to win another term in the White House. In short he couldn't give a stuff what happens to the people of NO - cos he doesn't need them to vote him in any more.
Where are these billions going to come from? He can't fund the Iraq war AND rebuild New Orleans surely, plus keep his promise of all that aid to the Asian Tsunami appeal, AND the relief money for Africa? My guess is all other country aid will be pulled in favour of New Orleans, which is maybe a good and a bad thing.
I note he didn't apologise for CAUSING the destruction in the first place by pulling the levy funding that would have bolstered the city's defences and maybe prevented the flooding? How much money did he save by doing this? I bet it now seems pennies compared to the outlay to rebuild the entire town. Not to mention the cost of supporting all those people while their houses, jobs, lives, education, medicare and basic support systems are put back into place.
Well done George hope you're happy with your pennypinching. His apology means nothing to me and doubtless means nothing to him - he's not up for re-election anymore so doesn't need to placate his people in order to win another term in the White House. In short he couldn't give a stuff what happens to the people of NO - cos he doesn't need them to vote him in any more.
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Sick f*ckers
The chance to make a quick buck from Hurricane Katrina has not escaped some, with items on eBay including a "rain-soaked newspaper" delivered on the day the storm hit the American south, jars of rainwater and a message in a bottle that supposedly led to the rescue of several families.
Among other items on sale on eBay yesterday was a scribbling that a Texan "artist" claims he drew after waking from a dream 10 days before the storm, which uncannily resembles satellite pictures of Katrina. One man, claiming to be a survivor of the catastrophe, is offering the rights to his story, starting at $12,500 (£6,800).
This kind of thing disgusts me - is nothing sacred for people to try to make money out of?????
However, one bumper sticker that is for sale amused me - it says "Disaster Relief: Get Rid of Bush".
Among other items on sale on eBay yesterday was a scribbling that a Texan "artist" claims he drew after waking from a dream 10 days before the storm, which uncannily resembles satellite pictures of Katrina. One man, claiming to be a survivor of the catastrophe, is offering the rights to his story, starting at $12,500 (£6,800).
This kind of thing disgusts me - is nothing sacred for people to try to make money out of?????
However, one bumper sticker that is for sale amused me - it says "Disaster Relief: Get Rid of Bush".
Homeless and hungry
This from Jamies Big Voice, an excellent blog written b an ex-homeless heroin addict who cleaned up: http://www.jamiesbigvoice.blogspot.com/
When you become homeless it's not really by choice. There doesn't seem any other choice. Things just happen beyond your control. Take the teenager bullied and the one that's abused at home, he or she runs away. It's in that instant they made that decisive move to leave, to get away. There was no thought of the future.
They couldn't see beyond the relief of finally getting away from the life that is, to a life that could be. It's like saying to a thief but didn't you think about the consequences before you committed the crime. What thief does. It's only as the years go by and you are still living with nothing but your wits and believe me when I say you need them. Do they want to live on the streets trying to survive? The answer sadly is, sometimes their life is sometimes better than it was.
After a while you get what they called street wise, you learn to survive. It's then the streets are home. What's the definition of home ( a place where one lives, a place where a family or social unit lives, a place one can call a refuge.) People on the streets have there own social circles they can often been seen in groups after all they are no longer part of society on the whole. Is it true that homeless people are second class citizens? I would have to say yes. The sadness of it all is that this is a way of life to some and it's by our giving the little we do give to the beggars that some people do actually survive like me for instance why I am still here I haven't got a bloody clue but I wouldn't be here if you hadn't given every morning. Yes it did go on drugs to make me something like a normal human being everyday but it also went on food. You helped me survive.
When I am now asked the question would I give? I do, but I speak to the person before I give that way I have an idea what the money is going on. If I think it's going on drugs then I will buy them a sandwich and give then a couple of bob. They might not thank me for it but at least I am helping them survive. For charities and organizations to come out shouting don't give to beggars is alarming in itself. I know this might sound absurd but aren't charities doing the same but only legally?
I don't want to run charities down because some do a fantastic job with the little resources they have. I just wanted to point out that ones legal and ones not but I was merely asking the question why? As the goal of survival is the same. I don't condone drug taking but as I see more and more youngsters on the streets and using drugs. I want to help if this means giving a few bob and a sandwich so be it. Survival is the name of the game on the streets. To get where I am today I needed to survive.
So when you see someone with the words homeless and hungry on a piece of cardboard look at them as a person. Maybe even speak to them you never know they might surprise you.
When you become homeless it's not really by choice. There doesn't seem any other choice. Things just happen beyond your control. Take the teenager bullied and the one that's abused at home, he or she runs away. It's in that instant they made that decisive move to leave, to get away. There was no thought of the future.
They couldn't see beyond the relief of finally getting away from the life that is, to a life that could be. It's like saying to a thief but didn't you think about the consequences before you committed the crime. What thief does. It's only as the years go by and you are still living with nothing but your wits and believe me when I say you need them. Do they want to live on the streets trying to survive? The answer sadly is, sometimes their life is sometimes better than it was.
After a while you get what they called street wise, you learn to survive. It's then the streets are home. What's the definition of home ( a place where one lives, a place where a family or social unit lives, a place one can call a refuge.) People on the streets have there own social circles they can often been seen in groups after all they are no longer part of society on the whole. Is it true that homeless people are second class citizens? I would have to say yes. The sadness of it all is that this is a way of life to some and it's by our giving the little we do give to the beggars that some people do actually survive like me for instance why I am still here I haven't got a bloody clue but I wouldn't be here if you hadn't given every morning. Yes it did go on drugs to make me something like a normal human being everyday but it also went on food. You helped me survive.
When I am now asked the question would I give? I do, but I speak to the person before I give that way I have an idea what the money is going on. If I think it's going on drugs then I will buy them a sandwich and give then a couple of bob. They might not thank me for it but at least I am helping them survive. For charities and organizations to come out shouting don't give to beggars is alarming in itself. I know this might sound absurd but aren't charities doing the same but only legally?
I don't want to run charities down because some do a fantastic job with the little resources they have. I just wanted to point out that ones legal and ones not but I was merely asking the question why? As the goal of survival is the same. I don't condone drug taking but as I see more and more youngsters on the streets and using drugs. I want to help if this means giving a few bob and a sandwich so be it. Survival is the name of the game on the streets. To get where I am today I needed to survive.
So when you see someone with the words homeless and hungry on a piece of cardboard look at them as a person. Maybe even speak to them you never know they might surprise you.
Store cards
News reports of how consumers are being ripped off with store cards made me laugh. Consumers are whingeing that they are being charged 20 or 30% interest rates on their store cards, compared to 15% on a normal credit card, and how disgusting it is.
Erm - READ THE SMALL PRINT and ask what the interest rate is before you sign up! Idiots! Are you blind? I never use store cards, even if they DO offer you 10% off a prchase when you first apply - one look at the ridiculous interest rate is enough for me to walk away - so why can't everyone else????
Erm - READ THE SMALL PRINT and ask what the interest rate is before you sign up! Idiots! Are you blind? I never use store cards, even if they DO offer you 10% off a prchase when you first apply - one look at the ridiculous interest rate is enough for me to walk away - so why can't everyone else????
Monday, September 12, 2005
Petrol Part III
The news this morning warned us of an imminent petrol protest that was going to start on Wednesday. It apparently is going to be a non-blocking-of-fuel-supplies protest, so we shouldn't worry about not being able to get any fuel. Nevertheless, petrol stations were full this morning of people "topping up just in case". Admittedly, even I did as I'm on low and need to get to work.
I started to feel a hint of the apprehension I last felt at the time of the serious fuel protests in 2000, when the whole country was starved of the precious lifeblood of petrol. Sitting in a queue en route to work I thought about how people would cope when fuel does eventually dry out. It would be hell on earth. Panic buying at the supermarkets would clear their stocks, then the supers themselves wouldn't be able to restock because their distribution centres are miles away. Smaller local food outlets would then be squeezed dry, followed by the raiding of neighbourhood allotments at every opportunity.
Rural communities would probably survive better for longer, the proximity of farms and supplies of farm grown food and animals, plus the fact they would be miles away from the desperate citygoers and their empty cars, and out of the reach of food looters.
Businesses would suffer because they'd not be able to get fresh stock, and their workers may not be able to get to work at all. Fat kids who are driven to school would suffer because heaven fordib, they'd have to WALK or cycle to school! But then, if teachers can't get to the school what will happen to the education infrastructure?
No doubt emergency service vehicles would get raided for their fuel, just like in 2000 when nurses had their cars broken into and their fuel siphoned out by some desperate idiot who no doubt thought that his job of pushing paper around a desk is more important than a nurses job of potentially saving someone's life.
How would food be brought to us? By the emergency services? What if even THEY had no fuel? What would we do apart from raid garden centres to get seeds to grow our own food, buy a bread machine and then try to get shitloads of flour and yeast? What if you live in a flat with no garden? What would happen to our rubbish bins if no binmen could clear them away and take our waste to the landfills? The stench of rotting rubbish would bring forth a wave of rats and scavengers, not to mention disease and germs.
How much we would be willing to compromise when fuel does run out? Would we still insist on a wide range of fresh food on our plates from all around the country/world? Would we whinge about the fact that yes we'd have to cycle or walk to work, even in crappy cold wet weather? Walk miles to get some food then queue for hours for our rationed portions of 1 loaf of bread, some beans and some apples? Would we bleat because Fat Timmy wants his dino-shaped chicken nuggets and must HAVE his dino-shaped chicken nuggets, petrol or no petrol? Would we accept the fact that until this mess is sorted out, us and our kids may actually have to eat less and have fewer choices and waste less? Back to wartime recipies using dripping and home-ground flour, and no complaining please ....
Would we patrol our allotments with a shotgun and in true New Orleans style, put signs up that said "Loot and I Shoot"? Would we steal other people's hybrid cars to get around? Or would we turn back into a community and pull together to help eachother out? Would we turn vicious and violent in our desperation, stealing and conniving to get what we need for OURSELVES, and fuck everyone else?
It's so scary to me that our entire life is now dependent on petrol. We can't get anywhere or do anything without it, we are helpless, crippled without it. I hate the addiction we have. I hope petrol never runs out in my lifetime, or I hope that soon the new emerging culture and demand for hybrid and electric cars will start to really gather pace and begin a tide of change towards breaking the addiction.
Of course fuel isn't just goint to run out just like that and leave us stranded. But one day it will grow less, and less, and less, and the panic will set in and not go away because we will discover that it is actually running out and this time there will be no respite. I hope when that day comes that electric cars are ready and waiting in the wings, and that the seamless transition will take place, and life will go on as always, dino-shaped chicken nuggets and all.
I started to feel a hint of the apprehension I last felt at the time of the serious fuel protests in 2000, when the whole country was starved of the precious lifeblood of petrol. Sitting in a queue en route to work I thought about how people would cope when fuel does eventually dry out. It would be hell on earth. Panic buying at the supermarkets would clear their stocks, then the supers themselves wouldn't be able to restock because their distribution centres are miles away. Smaller local food outlets would then be squeezed dry, followed by the raiding of neighbourhood allotments at every opportunity.
Rural communities would probably survive better for longer, the proximity of farms and supplies of farm grown food and animals, plus the fact they would be miles away from the desperate citygoers and their empty cars, and out of the reach of food looters.
Businesses would suffer because they'd not be able to get fresh stock, and their workers may not be able to get to work at all. Fat kids who are driven to school would suffer because heaven fordib, they'd have to WALK or cycle to school! But then, if teachers can't get to the school what will happen to the education infrastructure?
No doubt emergency service vehicles would get raided for their fuel, just like in 2000 when nurses had their cars broken into and their fuel siphoned out by some desperate idiot who no doubt thought that his job of pushing paper around a desk is more important than a nurses job of potentially saving someone's life.
How would food be brought to us? By the emergency services? What if even THEY had no fuel? What would we do apart from raid garden centres to get seeds to grow our own food, buy a bread machine and then try to get shitloads of flour and yeast? What if you live in a flat with no garden? What would happen to our rubbish bins if no binmen could clear them away and take our waste to the landfills? The stench of rotting rubbish would bring forth a wave of rats and scavengers, not to mention disease and germs.
How much we would be willing to compromise when fuel does run out? Would we still insist on a wide range of fresh food on our plates from all around the country/world? Would we whinge about the fact that yes we'd have to cycle or walk to work, even in crappy cold wet weather? Walk miles to get some food then queue for hours for our rationed portions of 1 loaf of bread, some beans and some apples? Would we bleat because Fat Timmy wants his dino-shaped chicken nuggets and must HAVE his dino-shaped chicken nuggets, petrol or no petrol? Would we accept the fact that until this mess is sorted out, us and our kids may actually have to eat less and have fewer choices and waste less? Back to wartime recipies using dripping and home-ground flour, and no complaining please ....
Would we patrol our allotments with a shotgun and in true New Orleans style, put signs up that said "Loot and I Shoot"? Would we steal other people's hybrid cars to get around? Or would we turn back into a community and pull together to help eachother out? Would we turn vicious and violent in our desperation, stealing and conniving to get what we need for OURSELVES, and fuck everyone else?
It's so scary to me that our entire life is now dependent on petrol. We can't get anywhere or do anything without it, we are helpless, crippled without it. I hate the addiction we have. I hope petrol never runs out in my lifetime, or I hope that soon the new emerging culture and demand for hybrid and electric cars will start to really gather pace and begin a tide of change towards breaking the addiction.
Of course fuel isn't just goint to run out just like that and leave us stranded. But one day it will grow less, and less, and less, and the panic will set in and not go away because we will discover that it is actually running out and this time there will be no respite. I hope when that day comes that electric cars are ready and waiting in the wings, and that the seamless transition will take place, and life will go on as always, dino-shaped chicken nuggets and all.
Cricket
It's amusing to me today to listen to the news and read what people are saying about the blasted cricket. Countless people have been quoted as saying "we're crossing our fingers for the weather to stay bad" or "we just need the Aussies to screw up again and we've won", or the news reporters saying that "the onset of more bad weather will return the Ashes to England after 18 years".
What's wrong with these quotes? They are all beautifully negative towards the skills of our England cricket team, in fact they don't even mention the team! We are all counting on either bad weather, or the OTHER TEAM'S misfortune for us to win! Not the skills of our own team!
This once again highlights Brit attitudes to sport. We trumpet that we're great, but really we just take the piss and we know we're crap. Jonathan Ross was saying the other day how the athletics commentators make excuses for and run down each member of the England team before they've even thrown a javelin or left the starting blocks .... "oh, she had a cold three months ago so she'll be a bit delicate today", "well his dog died last week so obviously he's missed training and will be a bit rusty". They're almost apologising for them because they know they're going to do crap before they start! I had noticed this way back in the Olympics and was greatly relieved to hear someone else agreeing.
So now we're reduced to hoping anything other than our team, will help our team win. Roll on the London Olympics, plenty of time to make excuses up and have them at the ready for each and every athlete!
What's wrong with these quotes? They are all beautifully negative towards the skills of our England cricket team, in fact they don't even mention the team! We are all counting on either bad weather, or the OTHER TEAM'S misfortune for us to win! Not the skills of our own team!
This once again highlights Brit attitudes to sport. We trumpet that we're great, but really we just take the piss and we know we're crap. Jonathan Ross was saying the other day how the athletics commentators make excuses for and run down each member of the England team before they've even thrown a javelin or left the starting blocks .... "oh, she had a cold three months ago so she'll be a bit delicate today", "well his dog died last week so obviously he's missed training and will be a bit rusty". They're almost apologising for them because they know they're going to do crap before they start! I had noticed this way back in the Olympics and was greatly relieved to hear someone else agreeing.
So now we're reduced to hoping anything other than our team, will help our team win. Roll on the London Olympics, plenty of time to make excuses up and have them at the ready for each and every athlete!
Sunday, September 11, 2005
The Poverty of America
The disaster in New Orleans sheds new light on the nature of poverty in the rich world, according to writer Jeremy Seabrook.
=====================
The human toll of Hurricane Katrina is still being counted as the fetid waters that drowned a city recede or evaporate in the hot sun. Much has been written about how the 'war on terror' diverted spending from the defences of New Orleans. The absence of large numbers of the National Guard, on duty in Iraq, further delayed help to the stricken. The lack of clarity in responsibility between federal, state and local authorities exacerbated the disaster. The somnolence of George W Bush, deep, no doubt, in dreams of redistributing yet more wealth from poor to rich on his long holiday in Texas, made him slow to react to the enormity of what had happened. It has also uncovered unexpected vulnerabilities in this, the most powerful country on earth. It has laid bare, in the starkest and most tangible form, what is well known in theory: that this society is constructed upon a celebration of inequality, ingrown violence and great historic wrongs, which, for their sustenance, require continuous human sacrifice.
People in India often ask me whether poverty exists in the West. I tell them it is widespread. They accept the truth of this, but look puzzled. They find it hard to reconcile the ubiquitous imagery of abundance and luxury from the West with what they know of poverty as they experience it - the emaciation of extreme want. Do people labour in the fields for less than a day's wage? Do they suffer hunger? Must they work 16 hours a day? Do they send their children to work? Must they wait till evening for the money that enables them to eat?
No, it isn't like that. Poverty in the West is, assuredly, a violent visitation. But it has a different face from the poverty of India. It is hard to describe to those who have never been out of India the face of poverty in the richest societies in the world.
The effects of Hurricane Katrina have made it easier to explain, since it has demonstrated to everyone the nature of exclusion and resourcelessness in a country whose prodigious wealth inspires both envy and desire in the peoples of the earth.
For the waters that swept through New Orleans did more than inundate a beautiful and historic city. Among the debris of buildings, stores, churches, casinos, factories and fields, a human wreckage was deposited on the desolate streets. Pictures of used-up humanity - the shut-ins and the locked-aways, an incarcerated populace, a concealed people, those who pay the true cost of the expensive maintenance of the American Dream - have been beamed into the gilded dwelling-places of wealth.
Of course, no-one in the path of the violent storm that gathered such intensity from the overheated waters of the Gulf could have resisted its violence. But the spectacle of lives washed up on hard city pavements was instructive of how far the poor of America are, in the ordinary conduct of their daily lives, without resources. If this seems a statement of the obvious, it shows nevertheless the dissimilarity between poverty in rich and poor countries. The stranded survivors of New Orleans were devoid of basic skills for survival, since survival in America depends totally upon money.
Even the poorest people of Bangladesh, Niger, Brazil or India are not poor in the same way. The poor of the US have been remade in the image of wealth; that is to say, their lives have been fashioned by the same values, influences and expectations as the rest of society, which are those of the well-to-do. They are just as dependent upon money as the rich are, only they do not have the wherewithal to participate in a society constructed on the assumption that all human needs, wants and comforts must be bought in from the market. Nothing is grown, made, invented or created by the people for themselves and for others. Wealth means simply the ability to buy; to be cut off from this fundamental activity is to excluded, exiled from the society, an exile dramatically made worse when they were unable to move out of the path of the swirling floodwater.
In the developing world, poor people have learned to cope with what is lacking in their lives - not always successfully, it is true, but they have not yet learned the superior wisdom of the West, that nothing can be done without money. This is why the urban poor in Dhaka, Mumbai, Nairobi and Lagos still build their own shelters, create their own livelihoods, seek out their own fuel and grow food on any small parcel of land they can find.
But it is at times of catastrophic suffering and loss that the difference is most visible. That people in New Orleans left bodies unattended in the putrid waters of the Gulf and plundered the dispossessed is shocking and incomprehensible to the poor of India, Bangladesh or Africa. For when disaster strikes in the poor world - as it so regularly does - people do not loot and steal. They do not fire guns at rescue helicopters. They do not rob the hospitals of their drugs. They do not barricade themselves inside their rough shelters and write in white paint on their walls, Loot and Be Shot. The instinctive response of the poor in the 'underdeveloped' world is to succour those weaker than themselves, to share with them such meagre resources as they possess, to show a fundamental solidarity: the dereliction of others is not seen as an opportunity for gain. This is why they feel a bewildered compassion for the destructive rage of deprivation in the US.
Some commentators in America described scenes in New Orleans as 'reminiscent of the Third World.' They could not have been more wrong. This was an entirely 'First World' phenomenon: gun battles between looters and the National Guard, who operate a shoot-to-kill policy against predators, bloated corpses abandoned on riverbanks and sidewalks, or simply floating, unclaimed on the toxic flood - these are scenes which occur only in the lands of privilege.
This is what the poor of India and all the other hopeful countries of the world have been taught to envy and to long for. This is the supreme achievement of the richest societies the world has ever known; and it is the model, not merely preached, but actually imposed by the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization and the governments of the G8. That they are in no position to tell anyone else what to do is the enduring lesson from the disaster which has befallen, not merely Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama, but American society itself, as it has demonstrated to the world its indifference towards those for whom the designation 'loser', 'no-hoper', 'failure' is applied as a stigma of moral, as well as material, incapacity.
It has long been clear that the West could easily provide a comfortable sufficiency for all the people of its own societies, if it chose to do so. It does not, for the simple reason that the fate of the poor must be maintained, as a warning and example to all who might otherwise be tempted to drop out, to relax their vigilance, to withdraw from the competitive ethos that drives people on to accumulate.
It is not ambition that drives the creation of wealth but the coercive fear of this ghastly version of poverty, this human-made construct that creates outcasts of plenty, human scarecrows brandished at dissenters to urge them to conform with this, the American or Western Dream. An indispensable component of its promise of wealth and affluence is its threat of a desperate, contrived and brutal form of poverty, of which the poor of India remain, at least for the moment, still innocent.
=====================
The human toll of Hurricane Katrina is still being counted as the fetid waters that drowned a city recede or evaporate in the hot sun. Much has been written about how the 'war on terror' diverted spending from the defences of New Orleans. The absence of large numbers of the National Guard, on duty in Iraq, further delayed help to the stricken. The lack of clarity in responsibility between federal, state and local authorities exacerbated the disaster. The somnolence of George W Bush, deep, no doubt, in dreams of redistributing yet more wealth from poor to rich on his long holiday in Texas, made him slow to react to the enormity of what had happened. It has also uncovered unexpected vulnerabilities in this, the most powerful country on earth. It has laid bare, in the starkest and most tangible form, what is well known in theory: that this society is constructed upon a celebration of inequality, ingrown violence and great historic wrongs, which, for their sustenance, require continuous human sacrifice.
People in India often ask me whether poverty exists in the West. I tell them it is widespread. They accept the truth of this, but look puzzled. They find it hard to reconcile the ubiquitous imagery of abundance and luxury from the West with what they know of poverty as they experience it - the emaciation of extreme want. Do people labour in the fields for less than a day's wage? Do they suffer hunger? Must they work 16 hours a day? Do they send their children to work? Must they wait till evening for the money that enables them to eat?
No, it isn't like that. Poverty in the West is, assuredly, a violent visitation. But it has a different face from the poverty of India. It is hard to describe to those who have never been out of India the face of poverty in the richest societies in the world.
The effects of Hurricane Katrina have made it easier to explain, since it has demonstrated to everyone the nature of exclusion and resourcelessness in a country whose prodigious wealth inspires both envy and desire in the peoples of the earth.
For the waters that swept through New Orleans did more than inundate a beautiful and historic city. Among the debris of buildings, stores, churches, casinos, factories and fields, a human wreckage was deposited on the desolate streets. Pictures of used-up humanity - the shut-ins and the locked-aways, an incarcerated populace, a concealed people, those who pay the true cost of the expensive maintenance of the American Dream - have been beamed into the gilded dwelling-places of wealth.
Of course, no-one in the path of the violent storm that gathered such intensity from the overheated waters of the Gulf could have resisted its violence. But the spectacle of lives washed up on hard city pavements was instructive of how far the poor of America are, in the ordinary conduct of their daily lives, without resources. If this seems a statement of the obvious, it shows nevertheless the dissimilarity between poverty in rich and poor countries. The stranded survivors of New Orleans were devoid of basic skills for survival, since survival in America depends totally upon money.
Even the poorest people of Bangladesh, Niger, Brazil or India are not poor in the same way. The poor of the US have been remade in the image of wealth; that is to say, their lives have been fashioned by the same values, influences and expectations as the rest of society, which are those of the well-to-do. They are just as dependent upon money as the rich are, only they do not have the wherewithal to participate in a society constructed on the assumption that all human needs, wants and comforts must be bought in from the market. Nothing is grown, made, invented or created by the people for themselves and for others. Wealth means simply the ability to buy; to be cut off from this fundamental activity is to excluded, exiled from the society, an exile dramatically made worse when they were unable to move out of the path of the swirling floodwater.
In the developing world, poor people have learned to cope with what is lacking in their lives - not always successfully, it is true, but they have not yet learned the superior wisdom of the West, that nothing can be done without money. This is why the urban poor in Dhaka, Mumbai, Nairobi and Lagos still build their own shelters, create their own livelihoods, seek out their own fuel and grow food on any small parcel of land they can find.
But it is at times of catastrophic suffering and loss that the difference is most visible. That people in New Orleans left bodies unattended in the putrid waters of the Gulf and plundered the dispossessed is shocking and incomprehensible to the poor of India, Bangladesh or Africa. For when disaster strikes in the poor world - as it so regularly does - people do not loot and steal. They do not fire guns at rescue helicopters. They do not rob the hospitals of their drugs. They do not barricade themselves inside their rough shelters and write in white paint on their walls, Loot and Be Shot. The instinctive response of the poor in the 'underdeveloped' world is to succour those weaker than themselves, to share with them such meagre resources as they possess, to show a fundamental solidarity: the dereliction of others is not seen as an opportunity for gain. This is why they feel a bewildered compassion for the destructive rage of deprivation in the US.
Some commentators in America described scenes in New Orleans as 'reminiscent of the Third World.' They could not have been more wrong. This was an entirely 'First World' phenomenon: gun battles between looters and the National Guard, who operate a shoot-to-kill policy against predators, bloated corpses abandoned on riverbanks and sidewalks, or simply floating, unclaimed on the toxic flood - these are scenes which occur only in the lands of privilege.
This is what the poor of India and all the other hopeful countries of the world have been taught to envy and to long for. This is the supreme achievement of the richest societies the world has ever known; and it is the model, not merely preached, but actually imposed by the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization and the governments of the G8. That they are in no position to tell anyone else what to do is the enduring lesson from the disaster which has befallen, not merely Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama, but American society itself, as it has demonstrated to the world its indifference towards those for whom the designation 'loser', 'no-hoper', 'failure' is applied as a stigma of moral, as well as material, incapacity.
It has long been clear that the West could easily provide a comfortable sufficiency for all the people of its own societies, if it chose to do so. It does not, for the simple reason that the fate of the poor must be maintained, as a warning and example to all who might otherwise be tempted to drop out, to relax their vigilance, to withdraw from the competitive ethos that drives people on to accumulate.
It is not ambition that drives the creation of wealth but the coercive fear of this ghastly version of poverty, this human-made construct that creates outcasts of plenty, human scarecrows brandished at dissenters to urge them to conform with this, the American or Western Dream. An indispensable component of its promise of wealth and affluence is its threat of a desperate, contrived and brutal form of poverty, of which the poor of India remain, at least for the moment, still innocent.
Friday, September 09, 2005
$$$$$$$
Congress has approved £52 BILLION aid money to help the New Orleans disaster recovery. £52 BILLION. Where does this money come from???? If America has such a huge surplus why can't they spend some of it on some of the other disasters in their country - namely tackling obesity, inadequate and junky food school meals, medical care, housing, homeless people, RESEARCH INTO ALTERNATIVE FUELS FOR CARS??
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
Don't forget ....
In the wake of all the media splurging over New Orleans, we are all forgetting the huge cleanup operation that's still going on following the Asian Tsunami. These people are still rebuilding their shattered lives and homes, still trying to find friends and relatives, but they are old news now, forgotten, been there done that, TV crews packed up and gone. Is anyone checking whether the millions of $ in aid promised from the world has actually been delivered to them? Or is it all being diverted to help America now, America who is FAR MORE IMPORTANT than the rest of the world I'm sure .
Also we are coming up to the Sept 11th anniversary too, where no doubt New York will come to a standstill and we will all have to drop everything and think about what happened in 2001, when needless thousands died because their President ignored repeated security warnings. Over 4000 people lost their lives that day and the world has to stop to remember them. But nobody thinks of the tens of thousands, if not more, of innocent lives lost all over the world thanks to Bush's megalomanic desire to rule the it with his own form of "Democracy". Lies, lies, pretence, corruption, needless wars, corporate greed, personal agendas, more lies, more war, more destruction, and more innocent deaths and misery for so many families.
Everybody knows there were serious mistakes made in the run up to 9/11 and in the aftermath and clean up, but still nobody stands up and shouts and demands justice. So many unanswered questions still ignored, so many of the relatives shoved into a corner and told to shut up. They impeached Clinton over a fucking spunk stain on a dress FFS, why not impeach Bush for murdering over 3000 people???? Or stealing elections? Or any other of the Heinous crimes he has committed? Thank God he can't be re-elected.
When the fuck are we going to find someone who will work their way through the ranks of Government and remain uncorrupted? Is it even possible? A shred of me will always believe that YES, this is possible and one day it will happen. I think we all need that hope, else what's the point?? But at the same time the possibility seems so absolutely remote that I may as well laugh at myself for even having that shred of hope in the first place. But it won't die inside me, no matter how much you tell yourself it's useless.
We all want the Hollywood America, where the President is Bill Pullman or Harrison Ford, a good guy, a guy who has morals and principles and actually cares about his people, and tells the corrupt wankers to piss off and go to hell because his country comes before the $$ in his bank account. I wish I could just step into the cinema screen and go live in a world like that.
Also we are coming up to the Sept 11th anniversary too, where no doubt New York will come to a standstill and we will all have to drop everything and think about what happened in 2001, when needless thousands died because their President ignored repeated security warnings. Over 4000 people lost their lives that day and the world has to stop to remember them. But nobody thinks of the tens of thousands, if not more, of innocent lives lost all over the world thanks to Bush's megalomanic desire to rule the it with his own form of "Democracy". Lies, lies, pretence, corruption, needless wars, corporate greed, personal agendas, more lies, more war, more destruction, and more innocent deaths and misery for so many families.
Everybody knows there were serious mistakes made in the run up to 9/11 and in the aftermath and clean up, but still nobody stands up and shouts and demands justice. So many unanswered questions still ignored, so many of the relatives shoved into a corner and told to shut up. They impeached Clinton over a fucking spunk stain on a dress FFS, why not impeach Bush for murdering over 3000 people???? Or stealing elections? Or any other of the Heinous crimes he has committed? Thank God he can't be re-elected.
When the fuck are we going to find someone who will work their way through the ranks of Government and remain uncorrupted? Is it even possible? A shred of me will always believe that YES, this is possible and one day it will happen. I think we all need that hope, else what's the point?? But at the same time the possibility seems so absolutely remote that I may as well laugh at myself for even having that shred of hope in the first place. But it won't die inside me, no matter how much you tell yourself it's useless.
We all want the Hollywood America, where the President is Bill Pullman or Harrison Ford, a good guy, a guy who has morals and principles and actually cares about his people, and tells the corrupt wankers to piss off and go to hell because his country comes before the $$ in his bank account. I wish I could just step into the cinema screen and go live in a world like that.
Petrol Part II
Sure enough on the news this morning people were asking what the New Orleans catastrophe has to do with rising petrol prices in the UK. Another spokesman for the union that crippled the UK in 2000 with the fuel strikes, is talking of more strikes unless the Govt cuts the taxation on our fuel.
They also talked about Hybrid cars, and this got me thinking of a potentially vicious but good cycle that could start:
1) People realise that if they buy a hybrid car they will spend less money on fuel, thus saving shitloads
2) Demand for hybrids rockets
3) Car companies respond to the demand cos they can see £££££££ profits from hybrids
4) Hybrids are churned off the production line and bought in the thousands
5) Petrol usage starts to drop slightly cos all the commuters are now chugging around on battery power, and need half the amount of fuel
6) We finally start to save the environment - yay!
7) Petrol companies get pissed off cos their profits start to dip, so prices rise
8) People who can't afford hybrids are stuck paying £2/gallon to fill up their old Jalopies
Is this too simplistic a view on the future? The spread of hybrids can only help the environment which is great. But what will happen if petrol prices DO go up because we are buying less of it and the greedy petroleum people still want their profits (or the Govt still want their taxes on it). What will happen to all the vintage car owners who can only use petrol, all the military vehicle enthusiasts who need gallons of it for their thirsty American jeeps (speaking as the GF of a jeep owner I can verify they ARE thirsty!), all the truckers who probably can never run a huge heavy lorry on battery power, all the bikers too (is there a hybrid motorbike anywhere or plans for one???)
The Government will also be worried if fuel consumption drops, as their tax cut will also drop. So how will they tax us to make up the deficit? By screwing the petrol buyers, or imposing a special tax on Hybrids, or just applying a dozen stealth taxes on other things instead?
The price of diesel here in Norwich is at 98.9p. I remember the days when diesel cars were considered dirty and smelly, and nobody drove them except for trade people/builders/electricians etc etc. Diesel fuel used to be screamingly cheap back then. Now suddenly diesels are everywhere, the trendiest cars are diesels, and oooh look, the price overtakes that of Unleaded, once the priciest fuel.
Now tell me if the price rise is linked to "oil production" or just the Government's greed because they realise that everyone wants a diesel now, so hey, let’s screw them for their fuel prices and get more taxes!!!! Diesels are meant to be more economical in MPG, but if the price continues to rise, people will go back to their unleaded cars, or start using chip fat as fuel (it works too!).
That's something I'd love to see - a car that runs successfully on oils and fats ... how would Blair deal with that? Would he start charging £10 for a bottle of chip fat? He'd never get away with it! So as a result, is the development of oil-powered cars being pushed? I guess not.
They also talked about Hybrid cars, and this got me thinking of a potentially vicious but good cycle that could start:
1) People realise that if they buy a hybrid car they will spend less money on fuel, thus saving shitloads
2) Demand for hybrids rockets
3) Car companies respond to the demand cos they can see £££££££ profits from hybrids
4) Hybrids are churned off the production line and bought in the thousands
5) Petrol usage starts to drop slightly cos all the commuters are now chugging around on battery power, and need half the amount of fuel
6) We finally start to save the environment - yay!
7) Petrol companies get pissed off cos their profits start to dip, so prices rise
8) People who can't afford hybrids are stuck paying £2/gallon to fill up their old Jalopies
Is this too simplistic a view on the future? The spread of hybrids can only help the environment which is great. But what will happen if petrol prices DO go up because we are buying less of it and the greedy petroleum people still want their profits (or the Govt still want their taxes on it). What will happen to all the vintage car owners who can only use petrol, all the military vehicle enthusiasts who need gallons of it for their thirsty American jeeps (speaking as the GF of a jeep owner I can verify they ARE thirsty!), all the truckers who probably can never run a huge heavy lorry on battery power, all the bikers too (is there a hybrid motorbike anywhere or plans for one???)
The Government will also be worried if fuel consumption drops, as their tax cut will also drop. So how will they tax us to make up the deficit? By screwing the petrol buyers, or imposing a special tax on Hybrids, or just applying a dozen stealth taxes on other things instead?
The price of diesel here in Norwich is at 98.9p. I remember the days when diesel cars were considered dirty and smelly, and nobody drove them except for trade people/builders/electricians etc etc. Diesel fuel used to be screamingly cheap back then. Now suddenly diesels are everywhere, the trendiest cars are diesels, and oooh look, the price overtakes that of Unleaded, once the priciest fuel.
Now tell me if the price rise is linked to "oil production" or just the Government's greed because they realise that everyone wants a diesel now, so hey, let’s screw them for their fuel prices and get more taxes!!!! Diesels are meant to be more economical in MPG, but if the price continues to rise, people will go back to their unleaded cars, or start using chip fat as fuel (it works too!).
That's something I'd love to see - a car that runs successfully on oils and fats ... how would Blair deal with that? Would he start charging £10 for a bottle of chip fat? He'd never get away with it! So as a result, is the development of oil-powered cars being pushed? I guess not.
Monday, September 05, 2005
A lovely morning ...
This morning it was the same. I'm lucky enough to work in a place that has a HUGE lake and parklands, and driving to work I decided I had to go down there before I went to the office. There was an autumn mist in the air and yet again the sun was golden, but this time it was lighting up the mist as it came through the tree branches, creating bright gold streaks of light that touched the morning dew and made the grass sparkle.
A lone squirrel rippled along the ground collecting nuts, paused when it saw me, stared, then bounded up the tree with the amazing slow grace only squirrels have. Rabbits sat hunched in the dew, chewing slowly and watching me with an unscared eye. The smell of the air was so lovely, so fresh, slightly damp but yet slightly warm too, and everywhere there was gold, gold, golden sun.
Nobody was about as I approached the lake, which resembled unbroken glass with the mist hanging above it and the autumn trees flanking it all along the banks. I just stood and breathed in, and took in the lovely, peaceful sight before me. Buggeration that it was nearly 9am and soon I'd have to go sit in my plastic and concrete office all day, I just wanted to stay here.
I took out a bag of old bread and as soon as the plastic rustlings echoed across the lake, the ducks appeared across the other side and hurried over to feed, creating V shapes in the glasslike water, then deciding to fly over and beat the other ducks to it.
When they had fed they drifted off and the lake resumed it's glasslike sheen once more, broken only by the occasional ripple as the small fish feasted on the remaining breadcrumbs.
I took some photos but my PC is now unplugged and packed ready for the house move, so I can't upload them. I sat on the bench looking out at this gorgeous spectacle and despite my loathing for the UK climate in general, I do love golden autumn days such as this, and I wish they lasted for longer! Sitting there surrounded by such peace and beauty it's hard to think of all the other crap going on in the world, and how so many people will never witness a sight such as this, or the feeling of peace and silence that an empty misty autumn lake can bring you. It's also amazing how some people can walk past a sight like this and never realise, never stop to take it in, never marvel at nature in all it's glory.
Over in Texas, the long hot scared frustrated traffic queues grow bigger - over in New Orleans the cleanup continues - over in Iraq the senseless killing continues, so much misery and pain, and all happening simultaneously while I sit by this quiet beautiful lake.
I had to drag myself away to the plastic palace that is my office. Nearly lunch hour now but the sun has gone and with it the magic of this morning too.
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Way to go NHS
This from The Sun today:
University College Hospital in London has spent £70,000 on a giant lump of polished granite, shipped in from Brazil and polished to a high sheen at great expense. The money came from charity donations, but the donors are said to be furious about the reckless spending of the hospital. Health chiefs claim the six-ton lump will help patients get better faster by promoting a “healing environment”.
But the stone is outside the hospital in the entrance, and hardly any patents will see it.
If the money had been spent on drugs it could have bought 2,000 prescriptions of insulin for diabetics, 160 treatments with the breast cancer wonder drug Herceptin or 14,000 doses of Viagra.
The hospital, housed in a futuristic new building, rushed to defend the sculpture — just one of a series of crackpot artworks there that will cost a whopping £250,000.
========================================
£250k spent on "art". How many operations could that have paid for, how many people could that have helped, made smile again, made walk again, repair burns, scars, help premature babies, etc etc etc. FFS - £70k on a fucking rock. I'll bet that within 3 months it will be surrounded by fag ends, have chewing gum stuck onto it, never get polished again, and used as a dog toilet. How very healing. Sometimes i wish we could all withold our taxes in protest about the way they are spent
University College Hospital in London has spent £70,000 on a giant lump of polished granite, shipped in from Brazil and polished to a high sheen at great expense. The money came from charity donations, but the donors are said to be furious about the reckless spending of the hospital. Health chiefs claim the six-ton lump will help patients get better faster by promoting a “healing environment”.
But the stone is outside the hospital in the entrance, and hardly any patents will see it.
If the money had been spent on drugs it could have bought 2,000 prescriptions of insulin for diabetics, 160 treatments with the breast cancer wonder drug Herceptin or 14,000 doses of Viagra.
The hospital, housed in a futuristic new building, rushed to defend the sculpture — just one of a series of crackpot artworks there that will cost a whopping £250,000.
========================================
£250k spent on "art". How many operations could that have paid for, how many people could that have helped, made smile again, made walk again, repair burns, scars, help premature babies, etc etc etc. FFS - £70k on a fucking rock. I'll bet that within 3 months it will be surrounded by fag ends, have chewing gum stuck onto it, never get polished again, and used as a dog toilet. How very healing. Sometimes i wish we could all withold our taxes in protest about the way they are spent
Tuesday, August 09, 2005
Stupid bint
Is it just me that wants to slap that woman who deserted her 15 year old daughter to run off with her toyboy Turkish DJ lover? What a stupid bint, and how pissed off I was to see her getting air time on GMTV and column inches in the papers. No doubt a fawning HELLO magazine article will follow, with such sickly titles like "Our instant love as we shagged in the loos", "He'll never leave me despite my saggy tits", and "We'll be together forever!!"
There are better people in this world that deserve media exposure. How stupid and disillusioned Elaine Walker is, and how I wet myself laughing when she indignantly said "I didn't leave my daughter with £25 .... it was £35". She has 5 kids with 5 different men, she took her other 17 year old daughter to Turkey with her and allowed her to shack up with a Turk too, and she actually thinks this is true love that will last. Worst of all she said that giving up her daughter "was worth it" to be with her toyboy.
Why aren't the authorities dragging her back right this minute? Apparently they are "investigating". This girl is 15 years old, isn't she still considered "a minor"??
I saw loads of women like Elaine on the plane to Sharm el Sheikh when I went to Dahab. Sad old divorced slappers with too much make up on, too much Argos jewellery, and clothes 2 sizes too small for them and fit for a 20 year old not a 45 year old. Of they go to Sharm to get pissed and get chatted up by the local boys who only want a shag or to rip them off, or worst case scenario, to try and get a visa. Some of them go out there just for a laugh and a shag which I guess is fine, but the ones who go out there thinking they can form a serious relationship with these young bucks are the sad ones. Certainly not worth giving up a daughter for .
There are better people in this world that deserve media exposure. How stupid and disillusioned Elaine Walker is, and how I wet myself laughing when she indignantly said "I didn't leave my daughter with £25 .... it was £35". She has 5 kids with 5 different men, she took her other 17 year old daughter to Turkey with her and allowed her to shack up with a Turk too, and she actually thinks this is true love that will last. Worst of all she said that giving up her daughter "was worth it" to be with her toyboy.
Why aren't the authorities dragging her back right this minute? Apparently they are "investigating". This girl is 15 years old, isn't she still considered "a minor"??
I saw loads of women like Elaine on the plane to Sharm el Sheikh when I went to Dahab. Sad old divorced slappers with too much make up on, too much Argos jewellery, and clothes 2 sizes too small for them and fit for a 20 year old not a 45 year old. Of they go to Sharm to get pissed and get chatted up by the local boys who only want a shag or to rip them off, or worst case scenario, to try and get a visa. Some of them go out there just for a laugh and a shag which I guess is fine, but the ones who go out there thinking they can form a serious relationship with these young bucks are the sad ones. Certainly not worth giving up a daughter for .
Friday, August 05, 2005
Working hard
With all that's going on in the world today it's good to know that the European Union are working hard for our best interests, assuring the safety of our country and the people. I'm so glad we shovel so many millions at them so they can issue directives to help us through our daily lives, such as the latest directive which is:
ORDERING BARMAIDS TO COVER UP THEIR CLEAVAGES
Yes, seriously. There is a new ruling saying that cleavages on barmaids are a health hazard, because "when they go outside to collect glasses they are at risk from skin cancer
SOMEBODY PLEASE STOP THE FUCKING MADNESS!!!!!!!!!
I can't believe they are serious!!!
ORDERING BARMAIDS TO COVER UP THEIR CLEAVAGES
Yes, seriously. There is a new ruling saying that cleavages on barmaids are a health hazard, because "when they go outside to collect glasses they are at risk from skin cancer
SOMEBODY PLEASE STOP THE FUCKING MADNESS!!!!!!!!!
I can't believe they are serious!!!
- How many minutes does it take a barmaid to collect outdoor glasses?
- As this is the UK, it's not always deathly sunny so the skin cancer risk is relatively low
- The same barmaids will no doubt jet off to Majorca for two weeks of nude sunbathing in 35oC heat anyhow so what does it bloody matter!
- Attendance in pubs will plummet if the girls all wear polo necks
- The EU should get a f***ing life and start doing worthy things instead of this bollocks
- If they think that it's such a risk collecting glasses in the sun, then when are we all going to be banned for simply walking around in the sun? We do that every July and August and we're exposed for far longer than it takes to collect a few pints!
- We are all sensible enough to know to wear sunblock on the very hot days. Or are we now going to see a spate of idiots sueing the EU because "we went to the beach and weren't told to put on Factor 30 by the EU so it's their fault we got burned, can we have £60million please
Thursday, August 04, 2005
From George Carlin
The paradox of our time in history is that we have taller buildings but shorter tempers, wider freeways, but narrower viewpoints. We spend more, but have less, we buy more, but enjoy less. We have bigger houses and smaller families, more conveniences, but less time. We have more degrees but less sense, more knowledge, but less judgment, more experts, yet more problems, more medicine, but less wellness.
We drink too much, smoke too much, spend too recklessly, laugh too little, drive too fast, get too angry, stay up too late, get up too tired, read too little, watch TV too much, and pray too seldom. We have multiplied our possessions, but reduced our values. We talk too much, love too seldom, and hate too often.
We've learned how to make a living, but not a life. We've added years to life not life to years. We've been all the way to the moon and back, but have trouble crossing the street to meet a new neighbour. We conquered outer space but not inner space. We've done larger things, but not better things.
We've cleaned up the air, but polluted the soul. We've conquered the atom, but not our prejudice. We write more, but learn less. We plan more, but accomplish less. We've learned to rush, but not to wait. We build more computers to hold more information, to produce more copies than ever, but we communicate less and less.
These are the times of fast foods and slow digestion, big men and small character, steep profits and shallow relationships. These are the days of two incomes but more divorce, fancier houses, but broken homes. These are days of quick trips, disposable diapers, throwaway morality, one night stands, overweight bodies, and pills that do everything from cheer, to quiet, to kill. It is a time when there is much in the showroom window and nothing in the stockroom. A time when technology can bring this letter to you, and a time when you can choose either to share this insight, or to just hit delete.
Remember, spend some time with your loved ones, because they are not going to be around forever. Remember, say a kind word to someone who looks up to you in awe, because that little person soon will grow up and leave your side. Remember, to give a warm hug to the one next to you, because that is the only treasure you can give with your heart and it doesn't cost a cent.
HOW TO STAY YOUNG:
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away.
We drink too much, smoke too much, spend too recklessly, laugh too little, drive too fast, get too angry, stay up too late, get up too tired, read too little, watch TV too much, and pray too seldom. We have multiplied our possessions, but reduced our values. We talk too much, love too seldom, and hate too often.
We've learned how to make a living, but not a life. We've added years to life not life to years. We've been all the way to the moon and back, but have trouble crossing the street to meet a new neighbour. We conquered outer space but not inner space. We've done larger things, but not better things.
We've cleaned up the air, but polluted the soul. We've conquered the atom, but not our prejudice. We write more, but learn less. We plan more, but accomplish less. We've learned to rush, but not to wait. We build more computers to hold more information, to produce more copies than ever, but we communicate less and less.
These are the times of fast foods and slow digestion, big men and small character, steep profits and shallow relationships. These are the days of two incomes but more divorce, fancier houses, but broken homes. These are days of quick trips, disposable diapers, throwaway morality, one night stands, overweight bodies, and pills that do everything from cheer, to quiet, to kill. It is a time when there is much in the showroom window and nothing in the stockroom. A time when technology can bring this letter to you, and a time when you can choose either to share this insight, or to just hit delete.
Remember, spend some time with your loved ones, because they are not going to be around forever. Remember, say a kind word to someone who looks up to you in awe, because that little person soon will grow up and leave your side. Remember, to give a warm hug to the one next to you, because that is the only treasure you can give with your heart and it doesn't cost a cent.
HOW TO STAY YOUNG:
- Throw out nonessential numbers. This includes age, weight and height. Let the doctor worry about them. That is why you pay him/her.
- Keep only cheerful friends. The grouches pull you down.
- Keep learning. Learn more about the computer, crafts, gardening, whatever. Never let the brain idle. " An idle mind is the devil's workshop." And the devil's name is Alzheimer's.
- Enjoy the simple things.
- Laugh often, long and loud. Laugh until you gasp for breath.
- The tears happen. Endure, grieve, and move on. The only person who is with us our entire life, is ourselves. Be ALIVE while you are alive.
- Surround yourself with what you love, whether it's family, pets, keepsakes, music, plants, hobbies, whatever. Your home is your refuge.
- Cherish your health: If it is good, preserve it. If it is unstable, improve it. If it is beyond what you can improve, get help.
- Don't take guilt trips. Take a trip to the mall, to the next county, to a foreign country, but NOT to where the guilt is.
- Tell the people you love that you love them, at every opportunity.
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away.
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
A window into their lives
Have you ever looked into your rearview mirror when stuck in traffic, and watched the person/people in the car behind you? They are unaware you are watching them (spesh if you have shades on then you can stare!) and you see a moment from their lives, open and unguarded.
The tired middle aged couple who stare into space and don't speak, the young mum with boisterous kids in the back yelling at them, the lone guy leaning against the window with a ten yard stare, not noticing when you move off away from him, the teenage couple laughing and joking with their mates in the back seat, the happy couple smiling and chatting and exchanging glances, the young girl singing along to her favourite song, the angry couple having a furious argument, and the usual twat gassing on his mobile and then trying to drive and change gear with one hand as you move off.
A moment in their lives - try to imagine what sort of life they have from that small segment, are they happy? Where are they going, where have they been?
And also be aware that you may be watched when YOU are next bored in traffic, so don't pick your nose!!!
The tired middle aged couple who stare into space and don't speak, the young mum with boisterous kids in the back yelling at them, the lone guy leaning against the window with a ten yard stare, not noticing when you move off away from him, the teenage couple laughing and joking with their mates in the back seat, the happy couple smiling and chatting and exchanging glances, the young girl singing along to her favourite song, the angry couple having a furious argument, and the usual twat gassing on his mobile and then trying to drive and change gear with one hand as you move off.
A moment in their lives - try to imagine what sort of life they have from that small segment, are they happy? Where are they going, where have they been?
And also be aware that you may be watched when YOU are next bored in traffic, so don't pick your nose!!!
Saturday, July 30, 2005
Parental Visit Day I
Well Gladys survived the trek up to Hull but bloody hell she needs firmer shocks, I was getting seasick going round roundabouts! Worse than Vernie for body roll!!!
Upon arrival at the Parental Units' residence, father crawled all over Gladys, up her skirt and under her bonnet, and announced her to be a decent and worthy purchase for the money. Mother started her unrelenting routine of asking me if I wanted anything to eat, and to this very minute at 2130 hours she is still offering me all manner of foods including chocolate cake and lemon meringue.
"Do you want some cheese on toast"
"No I'm not hungry"
"What about dippy eggs, or I can get a quiche out"
"No I'm not hungry I've eaten already"
"I've made you some chocolate krispies or there's strawberries in the fridge"
"I've eaten mum!"
"But it's teatime now you have to have something"
"No thanks"
"What about some soup"
[Rache gives up]
[An hour later the conversation repeats, with varied other foods being offered]
[Said conversation keeps going in a bluescreen of death loop all weekend until my departure]
Then she moans about how she's put on 5lbs in the last few days :-D
Not sure if it's just my parents, but they have a TV in EVERY ROOM of the house apart from the bathroom. And during the day EVERY TV IS SWITCHED on, resulting in a cacophony of mixed TV-noise-blare that makes you dizzy after a few hours. When I go to switch one of the TVs off, despite the fact my mum is upstairs and busy doing something, she gets narky cos I switched the kitchen TV off:
"I was watching that!!!"
"But mum you're upstairs watching it"
"Well if I come downstairs I want to have it on there too"
"Well switch the tellies on and off as you come into each room then, I can't hear myself think!"
"Don't just walk into this house and start trying to change my routines!"
The resulting mixed-TV noise plus mine and mum's bickering (dad just goes into the garage to "fix the car" and escape the yelling) sets off the BLBs (Bloody Noisy Budgies) that my parents insist on keeping as pets. The slightest conversation or TV noise or fart sets them off on their incessant screeching that only ceases when a slipper is thrown at the cage, but resumes about 2 minutes after the missile attack, during the screeching from my mum at me for throwing said slipper at cage. After a prolonged whining session from me, plus the TV being turned up to full volume to drown out the screeching budgies, they are finally removed to an upstairs bedroom, to be kept company by another TV blasting at them that they can screech at till their hearts content. Ohh to be back home with my quiet ratties!!!
We sat and watched Sleepless in Seattle, agreed with eachother (for once) how bloody ugly Tom Hanks is, then I tried to watch the film while mum talked most of the way through it then complained that she missed bits of the dialogue. Then we watched a bit of Pretty in Pink (Duckie Dale rocks) on DVD and she pre-empted nearly every line until I threatened to throw a slipper at her too. (I am actually guilty of line pre-empting in Star Wars Ep 4 5 and 6 though!)
Then I had a bath, and whilst lazing in their avocado suite corner bath, I perused the labels of shampoo in my mum's collection. L'Oreal "Body Boost Shampoo with Expansyl" with "Non-stop volume" that "props hair up from the root": I read the small print where it tells you that consumer tests were done on only 102 WOMEN and that 55% of them claimed that "hair volume was maintained for over 18 hours". So on the basis of only 102 WOMEN out of a population of f*ck knows how many billion women, L'Oreal are marketing this worldwide brand of "Body Boost Shampoo" promising up to 18 hours of hair volume".
WHAT A CROCK OF SHIT. How can a shampoo "prop hair up from the root" ???? It's A SHAMPOO!!!! It cleans your hair and does NOTHING at all regards "propping". The only thing that can give you body is a decent blow dry and a diffuser and a big fat round brush! Or rollers!! Not a frickin' shampoo!!!!
How come these companies are allowed to make such solid claims on the basis of 102 WOMEN and a 55% success rate, most of which is probably all in the minds of the women testers?
Same goes for Sunsilk "anti-flat" conditioner, promising "Visible volume for flat and sad hair" and "enriched with a 3D Complex" but no details on the said complex, and no figues of how many women were tested to prove this "visible volume". Or "L'Oreal Elvive for Men Body Building Shampoo" with Regenium X-Y (oh PURLEEEZ), that "fortifies and thickens men's thinning hair". Sorry but if a shampoo causes hair to thicken, won't that be swelling the hair shaft which would then split the hair, leaving it resembling straw? These claims were made "Based on a sample of 115 men". Oh that's OK then, it must be true!!!! Calling all baldies, go and waste money on L'Oreal!
Despite all the parental whinges I've had a good day, sorted through a load of my old stuff in the loft ready to move it down to Norwich when we get the keys to the house on Friday (yaaay!). Found all my old works leaving cards with various amusing comments in from old forgotten colleagues (ie, "Sod off!" and "If you ever need references I am a compulsive liar"). Also found a huge thick ring binder of all my old penfriend letters (in the days before email, shock horror!) so it will be fun reading them and reminiscing.
Whilst I'm being ruthless and sacrificing my cars to tanks, I selected various soft toys for charity shop/car boot or to be kept. I felt like a Nazi choosing prisoners to live or be gassed as I held each teddy up, scrutinised it's pleading glassy little eyes, weighed up how sentimental each one was for whatever reason, then consigned it to the relevant bin bag.
The two wombles that my Auntie Issy made for me and my bro when we were toddlers were definitely to keep, as was "Blue ted" who seems to be developing cataracts as his plastic eyes have gone a bit gooey, and a shapeless cuddly owl that I was permenantly attached to for about 2 years when I was 8, plus the infamous "Jazzy" the little white bunny that I once dropped into the docklands mud where my dad used to work, causing him and his workmates to all make fishing rods from brooms and string and hooks, and fish out a stinking muddy Jazzy from the Humber mud, if only to stop my hysterical screaming and crying :-D
Also very pleased to find a bag of my old office clothes from about 8 years ago and find that the skirts still fitted perfectly on the waist. Yaaay, no middle aged spread yet!!
Tomorrow I will probably trek into town and peruse various Sofa establishments just to compare prices of Hull sofas with Norwich sofas. If they are mightily cheaper I have to first ask if they will deliver to Norwich, or weigh up the cost of the sofa plus the cost of van hire and petrol for us to get it back to Norwich, versus the extortionate costs of Norwich sofas. Then back home again to more force-feeding from Mother, and more slipper-throwing at the screeching budgies, followed hopefully by a Hugh Jackman DVD session, with mum so gobsmacked at the horniness of Mr Jackman that she actually doesn't talk throughout the whole film.
Upon arrival at the Parental Units' residence, father crawled all over Gladys, up her skirt and under her bonnet, and announced her to be a decent and worthy purchase for the money. Mother started her unrelenting routine of asking me if I wanted anything to eat, and to this very minute at 2130 hours she is still offering me all manner of foods including chocolate cake and lemon meringue.
"Do you want some cheese on toast"
"No I'm not hungry"
"What about dippy eggs, or I can get a quiche out"
"No I'm not hungry I've eaten already"
"I've made you some chocolate krispies or there's strawberries in the fridge"
"I've eaten mum!"
"But it's teatime now you have to have something"
"No thanks"
"What about some soup"
[Rache gives up]
[An hour later the conversation repeats, with varied other foods being offered]
[Said conversation keeps going in a bluescreen of death loop all weekend until my departure]
Then she moans about how she's put on 5lbs in the last few days :-D
Not sure if it's just my parents, but they have a TV in EVERY ROOM of the house apart from the bathroom. And during the day EVERY TV IS SWITCHED on, resulting in a cacophony of mixed TV-noise-blare that makes you dizzy after a few hours. When I go to switch one of the TVs off, despite the fact my mum is upstairs and busy doing something, she gets narky cos I switched the kitchen TV off:
"I was watching that!!!"
"But mum you're upstairs watching it"
"Well if I come downstairs I want to have it on there too"
"Well switch the tellies on and off as you come into each room then, I can't hear myself think!"
"Don't just walk into this house and start trying to change my routines!"
The resulting mixed-TV noise plus mine and mum's bickering (dad just goes into the garage to "fix the car" and escape the yelling) sets off the BLBs (Bloody Noisy Budgies) that my parents insist on keeping as pets. The slightest conversation or TV noise or fart sets them off on their incessant screeching that only ceases when a slipper is thrown at the cage, but resumes about 2 minutes after the missile attack, during the screeching from my mum at me for throwing said slipper at cage. After a prolonged whining session from me, plus the TV being turned up to full volume to drown out the screeching budgies, they are finally removed to an upstairs bedroom, to be kept company by another TV blasting at them that they can screech at till their hearts content. Ohh to be back home with my quiet ratties!!!
We sat and watched Sleepless in Seattle, agreed with eachother (for once) how bloody ugly Tom Hanks is, then I tried to watch the film while mum talked most of the way through it then complained that she missed bits of the dialogue. Then we watched a bit of Pretty in Pink (Duckie Dale rocks) on DVD and she pre-empted nearly every line until I threatened to throw a slipper at her too. (I am actually guilty of line pre-empting in Star Wars Ep 4 5 and 6 though!)
Then I had a bath, and whilst lazing in their avocado suite corner bath, I perused the labels of shampoo in my mum's collection. L'Oreal "Body Boost Shampoo with Expansyl" with "Non-stop volume" that "props hair up from the root": I read the small print where it tells you that consumer tests were done on only 102 WOMEN and that 55% of them claimed that "hair volume was maintained for over 18 hours". So on the basis of only 102 WOMEN out of a population of f*ck knows how many billion women, L'Oreal are marketing this worldwide brand of "Body Boost Shampoo" promising up to 18 hours of hair volume".
WHAT A CROCK OF SHIT. How can a shampoo "prop hair up from the root" ???? It's A SHAMPOO!!!! It cleans your hair and does NOTHING at all regards "propping". The only thing that can give you body is a decent blow dry and a diffuser and a big fat round brush! Or rollers!! Not a frickin' shampoo!!!!
How come these companies are allowed to make such solid claims on the basis of 102 WOMEN and a 55% success rate, most of which is probably all in the minds of the women testers?
Same goes for Sunsilk "anti-flat" conditioner, promising "Visible volume for flat and sad hair" and "enriched with a 3D Complex" but no details on the said complex, and no figues of how many women were tested to prove this "visible volume". Or "L'Oreal Elvive for Men Body Building Shampoo" with Regenium X-Y (oh PURLEEEZ), that "fortifies and thickens men's thinning hair". Sorry but if a shampoo causes hair to thicken, won't that be swelling the hair shaft which would then split the hair, leaving it resembling straw? These claims were made "Based on a sample of 115 men". Oh that's OK then, it must be true!!!! Calling all baldies, go and waste money on L'Oreal!
Despite all the parental whinges I've had a good day, sorted through a load of my old stuff in the loft ready to move it down to Norwich when we get the keys to the house on Friday (yaaay!). Found all my old works leaving cards with various amusing comments in from old forgotten colleagues (ie, "Sod off!" and "If you ever need references I am a compulsive liar"). Also found a huge thick ring binder of all my old penfriend letters (in the days before email, shock horror!) so it will be fun reading them and reminiscing.
Whilst I'm being ruthless and sacrificing my cars to tanks, I selected various soft toys for charity shop/car boot or to be kept. I felt like a Nazi choosing prisoners to live or be gassed as I held each teddy up, scrutinised it's pleading glassy little eyes, weighed up how sentimental each one was for whatever reason, then consigned it to the relevant bin bag.
The two wombles that my Auntie Issy made for me and my bro when we were toddlers were definitely to keep, as was "Blue ted" who seems to be developing cataracts as his plastic eyes have gone a bit gooey, and a shapeless cuddly owl that I was permenantly attached to for about 2 years when I was 8, plus the infamous "Jazzy" the little white bunny that I once dropped into the docklands mud where my dad used to work, causing him and his workmates to all make fishing rods from brooms and string and hooks, and fish out a stinking muddy Jazzy from the Humber mud, if only to stop my hysterical screaming and crying :-D
Also very pleased to find a bag of my old office clothes from about 8 years ago and find that the skirts still fitted perfectly on the waist. Yaaay, no middle aged spread yet!!
Tomorrow I will probably trek into town and peruse various Sofa establishments just to compare prices of Hull sofas with Norwich sofas. If they are mightily cheaper I have to first ask if they will deliver to Norwich, or weigh up the cost of the sofa plus the cost of van hire and petrol for us to get it back to Norwich, versus the extortionate costs of Norwich sofas. Then back home again to more force-feeding from Mother, and more slipper-throwing at the screeching budgies, followed hopefully by a Hugh Jackman DVD session, with mum so gobsmacked at the horniness of Mr Jackman that she actually doesn't talk throughout the whole film.
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Rock Music Will Send You To Hell
Good blog from http://spaces.msn.com/members/halfsara666/
Rock Music Will Send You To Hell
No, really.
Just look at this if you don't believe me.
http://www.bible-truths.org/tracts/rockmu~1.htm
I particularly enjoyed the part about rock concerts involving ritual sacrifice and encouraging rape and murder. Now there's a gig I'd like to see.
The bunch of hypocrtical narrow minded bigots who wrote that load of rubbish also decided to completely disregard ANY rock musician who is religious (And there are loads) saying that "It is a deceit and is in deadly opposition to the life of Christ within you". Well, that's me petrified into believing doing or listening to anything remotely enjoyable will send me straight to the fiery inferno below.
Personally, I have no idea whether or not I believe in anything. Organised religion in particular is just an excuse for power over people, and is also the biggest excuse for war ever created.
Whatever happened to the freedom to worship whatever deity you happen to believe in, in the way you want to? If I want to pray to the Almighty while listening to Slipknot full blast and bedecked in pentagrams, then I will. So there.
Rock Music Will Send You To Hell
No, really.
Just look at this if you don't believe me.
http://www.bible-truths.org/tracts/rockmu~1.htm
I particularly enjoyed the part about rock concerts involving ritual sacrifice and encouraging rape and murder. Now there's a gig I'd like to see.
The bunch of hypocrtical narrow minded bigots who wrote that load of rubbish also decided to completely disregard ANY rock musician who is religious (And there are loads) saying that "It is a deceit and is in deadly opposition to the life of Christ within you". Well, that's me petrified into believing doing or listening to anything remotely enjoyable will send me straight to the fiery inferno below.
Personally, I have no idea whether or not I believe in anything. Organised religion in particular is just an excuse for power over people, and is also the biggest excuse for war ever created.
Whatever happened to the freedom to worship whatever deity you happen to believe in, in the way you want to? If I want to pray to the Almighty while listening to Slipknot full blast and bedecked in pentagrams, then I will. So there.
Friday, July 22, 2005
LEST WE FORGET: THESE WERE 'BLAIR'S BOMBS'
By respected journalist John Pilger (http://www.johnpilger.com/)
In all the coverage of last week's bombing of London, a basic truth struggled to be heard. It has been said quietly, politely, guardedly, as if it might somehow dishonour the dead, instead of speaking truth to the cause. While not doubting the atrocious inhumanity of those who planted the bombs (as if anyone could), no one should doubt that these were "Blair's bombs"; and he ought not be allowed to evade culpability with yet another unctuous Bush-inspired speech about "our way of life". The bombers struck because he and Bush attacked Iraq, having been warned by the Joint Intelligence Committee that the "by far the greatest terrorist threat" to this country would be "heightened by military action against Iraq".
Indeed, this was the one reliable warning from British intelligence in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. A House of Commons committee has since verified this warning. Had Blair heeded it instead of conspiring to deceive the nation that Iraq offered a threat the Londoners who died on Thursday might be alive today, along with tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis.
Three weeks ago, a classified CIA report revealed that the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq had turned that country into a focal point of terrorism. None of the intelligence agencies regarded Iraq as such a flashpoint before the invasion, however tyrannical the regime. On the contrary, in 2003, the CIA reported that Iraq "exported no terrorist threat to his neighbours" and that Saddam Hussein was "implacably hostile to Al-Qaeda".
Blair's and Bush's invasion changed all that. In invading a stricken and defenceless country at the heart of the Islamic and Arab world, their adventure became self-fulfilling. Denial of that by those who supported the invasion insults the memory of all those who have died as a result. Blair's epic irresponsibility has brought the daily horrors of Iraq home to Britain and he is not (to paraphrase one of the few challenging questions put to him before the invasion (by John Humphries) fit to be prime minister.
For more than a year, he has urged the British to "move on" from Iraq, and last week it seemed that his spinmeisters and good fortune had joined hands. The awarding of the 2012 Olympics to London created the fleeting illusion that all was well, regardless of messy events in a faraway country. Moreover, the G8 meeting in Scotland and its accompanying "Make Poverty History" campaign and circus of celebrities served as a temporary cover for what the greatest political scandal of modern times: an illegal invasion conceived in lies which, under the rule of international law established at Nuremberg, represented a "paramount war crime".
Over the past two weeks, the contrast between the coverage of the G8,its marches and pop concerts, and another "global" event has been striking. The World Tribunal on Iraq in Istanbul has had virtually no coverage, yet the evidence it has produced, the most damning to date, has been the silent spectre at the Geldoff extravaganzas.
The tribunal is a serious international public inquiry into the invasion and occupation, the kind governments dare not hold. Its expert, eyewitness testimonies, said the author Arundathi Roy, a tribunal jury member, "demonstrate that even those of us who have tried to follow the war closely are not aware of a fraction of the horrors that have been unleashed in Iraq." The most shocking was given by Dahr Jamail, one of the best un-embedded reporters working in Iraq. He described how the hospitals of besieged Fallujah had been subjected to an American tactic of collective punishment, with US marines assaulting staff and stopping the wounded entering, and American snipers firing at the doors and windows, and medicines and emergency blood prevented from reaching them. Children, the elderly, were shot dead in front of their families, in cold blood.
Imagine for a moment the same appalling state of affairs imposed on the London hospitals that received the victims of Thursday's bombing. Unimaginable? Well, it happens, in our name, regardless of BBC's suppression of the Fallujah and other atrocities. When will someone draw this parallel at one of the staged "press conferences" at which Blair is allowed to emote for the cameras stuff about "our values outlast (ing) theirs"? Silence is not journalism. In Fallujah, they know "our values" only too well.
While the two men responsible for the carnage in Iraq, Bush and Blair, were side by side at Gleneagles, why wasn't the connection made between their fraudulent "war on terror" and the bombing in London? When will someone in the political class say that Blair's smoke-and-mirrors "debt cancellation" at best amounts to less than the money the government spent in a week brutalising Iraq, where British and American violence is the cause of the doubling of child poverty and malnutrition since Saddam Hussein was overthrown (Unicef).
The truth is that the debt relief the G8 is offering is lethal. Its ruthless "conditionalities" of captive economies far outweigh any tenuous benefit. This was a taboo during the G8 week, whose theme was not so much making poverty history as the silencing and pacifying and co-opting dissent and truth. The mawkish images on giant screens behind the pop stars in Hyde Park included no pictures of murdered Iraqi doctors with the blood streaming from their heads, cut down by Bush's snipers.
Real life became more satirical than satire could ever be. There was Bob Geldoff on the front pages resting his smiling face on smiling Blair's shoulder, the war criminal and his smitten, knighted jester. There was an heroically silhouetted Bono, who celebrates men like Jeffrey Sachs as saviours of the world's poor while lauding "compassionate" George Bush's "war on terror" as one of his generation's greatest achievements; and there was Paul Wolfowitz, beaming and promising to make poverty history: this is the man who, before he was handed control of the World Bank, was an apologist for Suharto's genocidal regime in Indonesia, who was one of the architects of Bush's "neo-con" putsch and of the bloodfest in Iraq and the notion of "endless war".For the politicians and pop stars and church leaders and polite people who believed Blair and Gordon Brown when they declared their "great moral crusade" against poverty, Iraq was an embarrassment. The killing of more than 100,000 Iraqis mostly by American gunfire and bombs -- a figure reported in a comprehensive peer-reviewed study in the The Lancet -- was airbrushed from mainstream debate.
Untold numbers of loved ones are missing in Iraq because of the horror Bush and Blair have inflicted on that society. But where do the families post their pictures, as the grieving do in London? If they ask at the American bases, they run the risk of themselves disappearing. In our free-speaking societies, the unmentionable is that "the state has lost its mind and is punishing so many innocent people", as Arthur Miller once wrote, "and so the evidence has to be internally denied." Not only denied, but distracted by an entire court: Geldoff, Bono, Madonna, McCartney et al, whose "Live 8" was the very antithesis of 15 February 2003 when two million people brought their hearts and brains and anger to the streets of London. Blair will almost certainly use last week's atrocity and tragedy to further deplete basic human rights in Britain, as Bush has done in America. The goal is not security, but greater control. Above all this, the memory of their victims, "our" victims, in Iraq demands the return of our anger. And nothing less is owed to those who died and suffered in London last week, unnecessarily.
In all the coverage of last week's bombing of London, a basic truth struggled to be heard. It has been said quietly, politely, guardedly, as if it might somehow dishonour the dead, instead of speaking truth to the cause. While not doubting the atrocious inhumanity of those who planted the bombs (as if anyone could), no one should doubt that these were "Blair's bombs"; and he ought not be allowed to evade culpability with yet another unctuous Bush-inspired speech about "our way of life". The bombers struck because he and Bush attacked Iraq, having been warned by the Joint Intelligence Committee that the "by far the greatest terrorist threat" to this country would be "heightened by military action against Iraq".
Indeed, this was the one reliable warning from British intelligence in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. A House of Commons committee has since verified this warning. Had Blair heeded it instead of conspiring to deceive the nation that Iraq offered a threat the Londoners who died on Thursday might be alive today, along with tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis.
Three weeks ago, a classified CIA report revealed that the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq had turned that country into a focal point of terrorism. None of the intelligence agencies regarded Iraq as such a flashpoint before the invasion, however tyrannical the regime. On the contrary, in 2003, the CIA reported that Iraq "exported no terrorist threat to his neighbours" and that Saddam Hussein was "implacably hostile to Al-Qaeda".
Blair's and Bush's invasion changed all that. In invading a stricken and defenceless country at the heart of the Islamic and Arab world, their adventure became self-fulfilling. Denial of that by those who supported the invasion insults the memory of all those who have died as a result. Blair's epic irresponsibility has brought the daily horrors of Iraq home to Britain and he is not (to paraphrase one of the few challenging questions put to him before the invasion (by John Humphries) fit to be prime minister.
For more than a year, he has urged the British to "move on" from Iraq, and last week it seemed that his spinmeisters and good fortune had joined hands. The awarding of the 2012 Olympics to London created the fleeting illusion that all was well, regardless of messy events in a faraway country. Moreover, the G8 meeting in Scotland and its accompanying "Make Poverty History" campaign and circus of celebrities served as a temporary cover for what the greatest political scandal of modern times: an illegal invasion conceived in lies which, under the rule of international law established at Nuremberg, represented a "paramount war crime".
Over the past two weeks, the contrast between the coverage of the G8,its marches and pop concerts, and another "global" event has been striking. The World Tribunal on Iraq in Istanbul has had virtually no coverage, yet the evidence it has produced, the most damning to date, has been the silent spectre at the Geldoff extravaganzas.
The tribunal is a serious international public inquiry into the invasion and occupation, the kind governments dare not hold. Its expert, eyewitness testimonies, said the author Arundathi Roy, a tribunal jury member, "demonstrate that even those of us who have tried to follow the war closely are not aware of a fraction of the horrors that have been unleashed in Iraq." The most shocking was given by Dahr Jamail, one of the best un-embedded reporters working in Iraq. He described how the hospitals of besieged Fallujah had been subjected to an American tactic of collective punishment, with US marines assaulting staff and stopping the wounded entering, and American snipers firing at the doors and windows, and medicines and emergency blood prevented from reaching them. Children, the elderly, were shot dead in front of their families, in cold blood.
Imagine for a moment the same appalling state of affairs imposed on the London hospitals that received the victims of Thursday's bombing. Unimaginable? Well, it happens, in our name, regardless of BBC's suppression of the Fallujah and other atrocities. When will someone draw this parallel at one of the staged "press conferences" at which Blair is allowed to emote for the cameras stuff about "our values outlast (ing) theirs"? Silence is not journalism. In Fallujah, they know "our values" only too well.
While the two men responsible for the carnage in Iraq, Bush and Blair, were side by side at Gleneagles, why wasn't the connection made between their fraudulent "war on terror" and the bombing in London? When will someone in the political class say that Blair's smoke-and-mirrors "debt cancellation" at best amounts to less than the money the government spent in a week brutalising Iraq, where British and American violence is the cause of the doubling of child poverty and malnutrition since Saddam Hussein was overthrown (Unicef).
The truth is that the debt relief the G8 is offering is lethal. Its ruthless "conditionalities" of captive economies far outweigh any tenuous benefit. This was a taboo during the G8 week, whose theme was not so much making poverty history as the silencing and pacifying and co-opting dissent and truth. The mawkish images on giant screens behind the pop stars in Hyde Park included no pictures of murdered Iraqi doctors with the blood streaming from their heads, cut down by Bush's snipers.
Real life became more satirical than satire could ever be. There was Bob Geldoff on the front pages resting his smiling face on smiling Blair's shoulder, the war criminal and his smitten, knighted jester. There was an heroically silhouetted Bono, who celebrates men like Jeffrey Sachs as saviours of the world's poor while lauding "compassionate" George Bush's "war on terror" as one of his generation's greatest achievements; and there was Paul Wolfowitz, beaming and promising to make poverty history: this is the man who, before he was handed control of the World Bank, was an apologist for Suharto's genocidal regime in Indonesia, who was one of the architects of Bush's "neo-con" putsch and of the bloodfest in Iraq and the notion of "endless war".For the politicians and pop stars and church leaders and polite people who believed Blair and Gordon Brown when they declared their "great moral crusade" against poverty, Iraq was an embarrassment. The killing of more than 100,000 Iraqis mostly by American gunfire and bombs -- a figure reported in a comprehensive peer-reviewed study in the The Lancet -- was airbrushed from mainstream debate.
Untold numbers of loved ones are missing in Iraq because of the horror Bush and Blair have inflicted on that society. But where do the families post their pictures, as the grieving do in London? If they ask at the American bases, they run the risk of themselves disappearing. In our free-speaking societies, the unmentionable is that "the state has lost its mind and is punishing so many innocent people", as Arthur Miller once wrote, "and so the evidence has to be internally denied." Not only denied, but distracted by an entire court: Geldoff, Bono, Madonna, McCartney et al, whose "Live 8" was the very antithesis of 15 February 2003 when two million people brought their hearts and brains and anger to the streets of London. Blair will almost certainly use last week's atrocity and tragedy to further deplete basic human rights in Britain, as Bush has done in America. The goal is not security, but greater control. Above all this, the memory of their victims, "our" victims, in Iraq demands the return of our anger. And nothing less is owed to those who died and suffered in London last week, unnecessarily.
Thursday, July 21, 2005
What's wrong with these lyrics??
"Land of Hope and Glory,
Mother of the Free,
How shall we extol thee,
Who are born of thee?
Wider still and wider
Shall thy bounds be set;
God, who made thee mighty,
Make thee mightier yet. "
Do these lyrics offend you? Do they seem to you to be far to patriotic? Too political? Or is it just a song aobut how proud we are of our country?
COUNCILLORS want to ban Land Of Hope And Glory from a Remembrance Day festival because it is “too political”.
Labour members are pushing for the stirring patriotic anthem to be kicked out and replaced with Rod Stewart’s 1975 hit Sailing.
Wolverhampton Councillor Peter O’Neill said: “It is my view that the song has political connotations. It should be replaced by Sailing because that will connect better with the younger generation.”
But old soldiers who will proudly carry the Union Flag blasted the plan. The Royal British Legion’s John Mellor said: “It’s nonsense. To say it is political is barmy.”
=======================
FFS, what a crock of SHIT. WE ARE SAILING?? WTF?? So we can't even sing anthems to our own country now? Does this mean the end to "Last Night of the Proms" and all that pomp and flag waving and choruses of "Rule Britannia"? Heave forbid we should sing songs to praise our own country! Is all this crap in case we offend non-Brits living over here? Well I'm sorry but if you come to live in Britain then you should NOT be offended by some of our customs - in fact ALL of our customs.
"Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves..." we sing, even though she DOESN'T rule the waves any more, but hell, we like singing it, it boosts our flagging pride in this country we live in that seems to be slipping down the drain of political correctness, and having its identity stripped away from it by political do-gooders who are terrified of offending anyone and everyone.
These classic anthems remind a lot of us of the time when Britain was under a very real and tangible threat, when she stood alone in Europe with Hitler snapping at her heels from over the English Channel, when our brave and outnumbered Spitfire and Hurricane pilots held them back during the Battle of Britain, and when our morale and heads were held high despite the Blitz and bombings and death that surrounded us, and the worry of our loved ones away fighting. Songs such as this held us together, kept our pride alive, kept our belief alive that we WOULD succeed and we WOULD conquer, and we'd smash the Nazis into oblivion. And do that we did.
Today in the midst of accusations about the current war and why it was even started, and now the very real threat of more attacks in the UK thanks to Blair's ass-kissing of Bush, we are not allowed to sing those very same anthems. Not allowed to fly our flags, not allowed to be too Patriotic in case it is mistaken for racism against our fellow foreigners. I feel as if our pride is being slowly sapped and sued away, airbrushed, gone for ever.
We can sing what we like where we like, if we're proud of Britain we should bloody well be allowed to express it - if you don't want to hear the songs then put some bloody earplugs in or turn the radio/TV off.
Mother of the Free,
How shall we extol thee,
Who are born of thee?
Wider still and wider
Shall thy bounds be set;
God, who made thee mighty,
Make thee mightier yet. "
Do these lyrics offend you? Do they seem to you to be far to patriotic? Too political? Or is it just a song aobut how proud we are of our country?
COUNCILLORS want to ban Land Of Hope And Glory from a Remembrance Day festival because it is “too political”.
Labour members are pushing for the stirring patriotic anthem to be kicked out and replaced with Rod Stewart’s 1975 hit Sailing.
Wolverhampton Councillor Peter O’Neill said: “It is my view that the song has political connotations. It should be replaced by Sailing because that will connect better with the younger generation.”
But old soldiers who will proudly carry the Union Flag blasted the plan. The Royal British Legion’s John Mellor said: “It’s nonsense. To say it is political is barmy.”
=======================
FFS, what a crock of SHIT. WE ARE SAILING?? WTF?? So we can't even sing anthems to our own country now? Does this mean the end to "Last Night of the Proms" and all that pomp and flag waving and choruses of "Rule Britannia"? Heave forbid we should sing songs to praise our own country! Is all this crap in case we offend non-Brits living over here? Well I'm sorry but if you come to live in Britain then you should NOT be offended by some of our customs - in fact ALL of our customs.
"Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves..." we sing, even though she DOESN'T rule the waves any more, but hell, we like singing it, it boosts our flagging pride in this country we live in that seems to be slipping down the drain of political correctness, and having its identity stripped away from it by political do-gooders who are terrified of offending anyone and everyone.
These classic anthems remind a lot of us of the time when Britain was under a very real and tangible threat, when she stood alone in Europe with Hitler snapping at her heels from over the English Channel, when our brave and outnumbered Spitfire and Hurricane pilots held them back during the Battle of Britain, and when our morale and heads were held high despite the Blitz and bombings and death that surrounded us, and the worry of our loved ones away fighting. Songs such as this held us together, kept our pride alive, kept our belief alive that we WOULD succeed and we WOULD conquer, and we'd smash the Nazis into oblivion. And do that we did.
Today in the midst of accusations about the current war and why it was even started, and now the very real threat of more attacks in the UK thanks to Blair's ass-kissing of Bush, we are not allowed to sing those very same anthems. Not allowed to fly our flags, not allowed to be too Patriotic in case it is mistaken for racism against our fellow foreigners. I feel as if our pride is being slowly sapped and sued away, airbrushed, gone for ever.
We can sing what we like where we like, if we're proud of Britain we should bloody well be allowed to express it - if you don't want to hear the songs then put some bloody earplugs in or turn the radio/TV off.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Water
It seems amazing to me that this country is actually being affected by a water shortage. Britain - the country of endless grey skies and a 9 month winter - actually had its driest winter in nearly 30 years. Hosepipe bans are in place now and are likely to spread further afield as the summer progresses.
Typically, the South East and London areas are the worst hit, and Ken Livingstone has requested that Londoners don't flush the loo "just for a pee". I quite agree! I mean, how many of us flush the loo - all that full tank full of water - just to get rid of less than a pint of piss??? FFS leave it there until it's time for a number 2, then flush it, won't do any harm and the combined effort of people doing this would save millions of litres daily. Naturally if you're a guest in a house or have guests, then yes I guess you have to flush, nobody wants to stare at other people's pee-pee. And unfortunately all the huge motorway service stations and public toilets are perpetually flushing.
But why hasn't more been done to introduce economical flushing toilets, specially in the public buildings and service stations? Australia has the good old "two button" loos, a short flush for pees and a long flush for poos. Great idea, why aren't we following suit? What about the old vacuum toilets that suck your poops away with the minimum of water?
Would be interesting to hear how Prescott would cope with his "let's build a billion more houses near London" plan - where the f*ck will the water come from to cope with all those new loos? These days everyone wants en-suites and all new houses have at least 3 toilets. Nobody seems to be regulating the building companies and saying "hey, you HAVE to fit ecoflush loos or we'll fine your arses big time".
Last week, Thames Water was criticised by Ofwat, the water regulator, for failing to meet its target for tackling leaks. It loses 915 million litres of water a day from old and crumbling pipes but says it has an extensive programme of pipe replacement. Hmmm must be going well the huh guys? Replacing water pipes is probably like painting the Sydney Harbour bridge - never-ending task. But who came up with that huge figure and how on earth can they measure and accurately state that leakage figure though???
Not sure why I wanted to whinge about this today, guess I just wanted to "talk shit" hur hur hur ....
Typically, the South East and London areas are the worst hit, and Ken Livingstone has requested that Londoners don't flush the loo "just for a pee". I quite agree! I mean, how many of us flush the loo - all that full tank full of water - just to get rid of less than a pint of piss??? FFS leave it there until it's time for a number 2, then flush it, won't do any harm and the combined effort of people doing this would save millions of litres daily. Naturally if you're a guest in a house or have guests, then yes I guess you have to flush, nobody wants to stare at other people's pee-pee. And unfortunately all the huge motorway service stations and public toilets are perpetually flushing.
But why hasn't more been done to introduce economical flushing toilets, specially in the public buildings and service stations? Australia has the good old "two button" loos, a short flush for pees and a long flush for poos. Great idea, why aren't we following suit? What about the old vacuum toilets that suck your poops away with the minimum of water?
Would be interesting to hear how Prescott would cope with his "let's build a billion more houses near London" plan - where the f*ck will the water come from to cope with all those new loos? These days everyone wants en-suites and all new houses have at least 3 toilets. Nobody seems to be regulating the building companies and saying "hey, you HAVE to fit ecoflush loos or we'll fine your arses big time".
Last week, Thames Water was criticised by Ofwat, the water regulator, for failing to meet its target for tackling leaks. It loses 915 million litres of water a day from old and crumbling pipes but says it has an extensive programme of pipe replacement. Hmmm must be going well the huh guys? Replacing water pipes is probably like painting the Sydney Harbour bridge - never-ending task. But who came up with that huge figure and how on earth can they measure and accurately state that leakage figure though???
Not sure why I wanted to whinge about this today, guess I just wanted to "talk shit" hur hur hur ....
Thursday, July 14, 2005
A scary forecast for the future
I read these two stories today and was highly disturbed:
"A BOY of 14 faces SEVEN charges of raping four primary school girls in a park near their homes. The lad is accused of carrying out the sex attacks on a seven-year-old, two girls of eight and one of ten. They had been playing on swings in Mandley Park, Salford, Greater Manchester, before the alleged incidents last Sunday. The Salford boy, who cannot be named, is said to have attacked each in turn in secluded undergrowth."
A BOY of 13 told yesterday how a “happy slapping”gang tied him to a tree and set him on fire. Kyle Parker — who also had a monkey mask forced on to his face — screamed in terror during the 20-minute ordeal, filmed by the yobs on their mobile phones. Kyle was bound to a tree with masking tape and had his legs tied together with his tie. He said: “The gang were all laughing at me and then they set the tape on fire. “I managed to get out of the tape but they tied me back up again and set it on fire again. “I felt the heat from the flames on my shoulder but I managed to get out of the tape and put out the flames before I was seriously hurt.” Police will quiz eight boys, believed to be 15 and from the same school. They also seized seven phones.
What on earth can be going on in the mind of a 14 year old for him to rape such young girls??? What happened in his life to fuck him up so much? 14 year olds shouldn't even KNOW about sex at that age, let along RAPE? He should be out on his bike after school or playing with his mates or on his computer, or going to football club or something???? And what will happen to him regarding punishment?
He's too young for prison, will he go to a YOI where he will doubtless learn the trades of crime from his fellow teen inmates? Will he get a slap on the wrist and be released into the community again? Will he get an ASBO and be forced to stay indoors? Will he be counselled by a bunch of do-gooders? And will someone investigate his family and parents to find out what the fuck happened in his young life to mess him up so much?
More importantly, how will his future be shaped and monitored to prevent this happening again when he is older and physically stronger, to prevent more violent abuses and rapes from happening to innocent victims?
As for the "happy slappers", it seems their borders between fantasy computer-game violence, and real fear and pain have been thoroughly blurred. How can they think that setting someone alight is a) funny, and b) NOT dangerous???? It's a shame that they can't be given the same treatment as a form of punishment, see how they like it. Maybe if one of the boys had accidentally burned himself while setting the other boy on fire, he could have sued someone for emotional trauma because his crime was interrupted by his own clumsiness. No doubt we would have given him legal aid and supported his case all the way to the European Court of Human Rights too???
Childhood has lost its innocence and it seems that every day more evidence is presented that assures me that it will never return.
"A BOY of 14 faces SEVEN charges of raping four primary school girls in a park near their homes. The lad is accused of carrying out the sex attacks on a seven-year-old, two girls of eight and one of ten. They had been playing on swings in Mandley Park, Salford, Greater Manchester, before the alleged incidents last Sunday. The Salford boy, who cannot be named, is said to have attacked each in turn in secluded undergrowth."
A BOY of 13 told yesterday how a “happy slapping”gang tied him to a tree and set him on fire. Kyle Parker — who also had a monkey mask forced on to his face — screamed in terror during the 20-minute ordeal, filmed by the yobs on their mobile phones. Kyle was bound to a tree with masking tape and had his legs tied together with his tie. He said: “The gang were all laughing at me and then they set the tape on fire. “I managed to get out of the tape but they tied me back up again and set it on fire again. “I felt the heat from the flames on my shoulder but I managed to get out of the tape and put out the flames before I was seriously hurt.” Police will quiz eight boys, believed to be 15 and from the same school. They also seized seven phones.
What on earth can be going on in the mind of a 14 year old for him to rape such young girls??? What happened in his life to fuck him up so much? 14 year olds shouldn't even KNOW about sex at that age, let along RAPE? He should be out on his bike after school or playing with his mates or on his computer, or going to football club or something???? And what will happen to him regarding punishment?
He's too young for prison, will he go to a YOI where he will doubtless learn the trades of crime from his fellow teen inmates? Will he get a slap on the wrist and be released into the community again? Will he get an ASBO and be forced to stay indoors? Will he be counselled by a bunch of do-gooders? And will someone investigate his family and parents to find out what the fuck happened in his young life to mess him up so much?
More importantly, how will his future be shaped and monitored to prevent this happening again when he is older and physically stronger, to prevent more violent abuses and rapes from happening to innocent victims?
As for the "happy slappers", it seems their borders between fantasy computer-game violence, and real fear and pain have been thoroughly blurred. How can they think that setting someone alight is a) funny, and b) NOT dangerous???? It's a shame that they can't be given the same treatment as a form of punishment, see how they like it. Maybe if one of the boys had accidentally burned himself while setting the other boy on fire, he could have sued someone for emotional trauma because his crime was interrupted by his own clumsiness. No doubt we would have given him legal aid and supported his case all the way to the European Court of Human Rights too???
Childhood has lost its innocence and it seems that every day more evidence is presented that assures me that it will never return.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Unbelievable ....
13 July 05
I saw what must be one of the most pointless inventions ever today, in a newsagents....it was a "cigarette packet bottom", which was basically the empty bottom of a fag packet in lots of pretty stripey patterns. The slogan underneath the sign said "hides the health warnings on your cigarettes". So you buy your Marlboros with that screaming slogan on "Smoking Kills" and you slip it into your pretty packet bottom, and hey presto, the slogan has gone! Well done you, how clever you are in denying the obvious dangers!!!
WTF?????? What on earth is the point of that, and which clever bugger thought of it and by now probably patented it and is retiring on the profits - or is he? What kind of person would BUY one of these things? What's the point? To make you feel less guilty about smoking? To make you think that if you cover up the health warning, the risks will also disappear? There's absolutely no point in trying to disguise any part of what ciggies do to your health, we ALL KNOW they kill you, so if you cover it up with a silly pretty fag packet bottom, we'll just think you're a twat for doing so! Get a life!!!!
I saw what must be one of the most pointless inventions ever today, in a newsagents....it was a "cigarette packet bottom", which was basically the empty bottom of a fag packet in lots of pretty stripey patterns. The slogan underneath the sign said "hides the health warnings on your cigarettes". So you buy your Marlboros with that screaming slogan on "Smoking Kills" and you slip it into your pretty packet bottom, and hey presto, the slogan has gone! Well done you, how clever you are in denying the obvious dangers!!!
WTF?????? What on earth is the point of that, and which clever bugger thought of it and by now probably patented it and is retiring on the profits - or is he? What kind of person would BUY one of these things? What's the point? To make you feel less guilty about smoking? To make you think that if you cover up the health warning, the risks will also disappear? There's absolutely no point in trying to disguise any part of what ciggies do to your health, we ALL KNOW they kill you, so if you cover it up with a silly pretty fag packet bottom, we'll just think you're a twat for doing so! Get a life!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)