Couples suck - well to be precise, the type of Couple that Bridget Jones described as "Smug Marrieds". She is spot on and I hope I never turn into one or you will have free license to shoot me.
Some Couples are cool, they are fun, they do stuff together and seperately, they don't live and breathe off eachother, you can tolerate their presence. Other Couples do EVERYTHING together - and refuse to do ANYTHING apart. And if one person doesn't want to do something but the other does, they still stay together but one looks miserable while the other has a whale of a time. They turn into a single unit - a two-headed monster, so stupidly dependent on eachother that they have to ask permission just to go down the shops and buy some milk.
As a fiercely independent girlie I will never understand this. I've seen equally fiercely independent girlfriends of mine meet a guy, and suddenly they transmogrify into Coupledom, and suddenly they no longer want to go out anywhere unless he comes, they're happy to just sit around and watch TV instead, as long as he's watching it too. If he goes out with his mates they sulk and pout and whinge and get paranoid in case he's talking to other girls....she can't attach herself to him while he's out having a lark so instead of saying "sod you then I'm off out on the piss too", she stays in and whines and shrivels the night away.
Luckily the guy I'm with at the moment doesn't expect this element of Coupledom from me, I think he knows that if he tried it I'd tell him where to stick it. However, we do socialise quite a lot with some Smug Marrieds, and every time we've been together as a foursome (ugh I hate those couply nights out) the Smugs NEVER FAIL TO MENTION MARRIAGE. Phrases such as "when you two get married...." and "You may as well be married cos you bicker like you already are....." and "You've got a house now so you should get married..." leave me waning to scream at them. Why do the Smugs always want everyone around them who is unmarried or single, to get hitched? Why? So we can all turn into them? Such fun!
I can't understand why some girls don't want to keep seperate interests up...it's nice to go off and do your own thing for a day, leave him to do his, then meet up later on. Keeps things fresh. You have something that's still just for you, despite sharing everything else. I would get so bored and frustrated living in someone's pocket and I'm sure he'd get bored and fed up of me too!
But I'm 34 in January and a lot of my mates are getting hitched .... I don't feel left behind, marriage has never been a Life Goal Reason Why I Was Put On This Earth, but I do dread having to see all my friends at gatherings if they turn into Smug Marrieds and constantly ask me why I'm not married like them yet, and teasing me about being a spinster. Rather a Spinster who is independent, than a two-headed monster!
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Thursday, November 24, 2005
The Sue Society continues....
More news from the Ridiculous World of the "Sue Sue Sue" Society, where a Muslim office worker has sued his employees for "making him feel left out" after they passed around bottles of wine for Christmas gifts, but did not include him as he is Muslim and doesn't drink alcohol.
Erm fair engouh, a bit insensitive of them not to give him an alternative and more suitable gift. By all means go speak to your manager and say "Oi this isn't on mate". But there's no need to bloody sue him!!!!!! What good will that do your career now? Not much good if you decide to stay with the same company methinks! I envisage people plopping greenies into his coffee now, or drawing pins on his chair ....
Worst of all was the case of a chef who cut his finger and is suing a hotel for £25,000 compensation by claiming no-one warned him about the danger posed by an avocado.
Michael McCarthy sliced into his hand when the unripened avocado he was trying to cut slipped and he lost control of his kitchen knife. He claims he had been shown how to cut the fruit, but had not been told the avocado might not be ripe.
The writ states: "He had not been given any instruction that this may happen. The knife went through the avocado and sliced his finger. The knife was 10 inches long."
The chef, who lost less than £1,000 in wages, claims he cannot pursue his hoped-for career as a chef in the RAF.
FOR A CUT LITTLE FINGER?? And he used a 10" knife to cut a tiny avocado? FFS! Why wasn't he laughed out of court? If he was a chef you'd think he'd have cut avocados before .... just another case of a lazy youngster who wants an easy life of a fat compensation cheque rather than work for it like the rest of us. How will this affect the future when a hotel or a restaurant hire a chef? If he had burned himself on the oven would he have sued because "the hotel didn't tell me ovens were hot"?? I should hope the hotel would counter-sue because "he didn't tell us he was stupid when he applied for this job".
Are restaurants going to make employees sign a document saying they will not sue if they are injured thru their own actions? Are they going to have to take out insurance policies to protect themselves from people like Michael?
When is this all going to stop? Oh no, I'm so angry I've banged the keys too hard and now my fingers are bruised - who can I sue! MICROSOFT! It's their fault! They should have put padded keys on here for people like me who type angry!!! I want a million dollars please, I'm scarred for life!
Erm fair engouh, a bit insensitive of them not to give him an alternative and more suitable gift. By all means go speak to your manager and say "Oi this isn't on mate". But there's no need to bloody sue him!!!!!! What good will that do your career now? Not much good if you decide to stay with the same company methinks! I envisage people plopping greenies into his coffee now, or drawing pins on his chair ....
Worst of all was the case of a chef who cut his finger and is suing a hotel for £25,000 compensation by claiming no-one warned him about the danger posed by an avocado.
Michael McCarthy sliced into his hand when the unripened avocado he was trying to cut slipped and he lost control of his kitchen knife. He claims he had been shown how to cut the fruit, but had not been told the avocado might not be ripe.
The writ states: "He had not been given any instruction that this may happen. The knife went through the avocado and sliced his finger. The knife was 10 inches long."
The chef, who lost less than £1,000 in wages, claims he cannot pursue his hoped-for career as a chef in the RAF.
FOR A CUT LITTLE FINGER?? And he used a 10" knife to cut a tiny avocado? FFS! Why wasn't he laughed out of court? If he was a chef you'd think he'd have cut avocados before .... just another case of a lazy youngster who wants an easy life of a fat compensation cheque rather than work for it like the rest of us. How will this affect the future when a hotel or a restaurant hire a chef? If he had burned himself on the oven would he have sued because "the hotel didn't tell me ovens were hot"?? I should hope the hotel would counter-sue because "he didn't tell us he was stupid when he applied for this job".
Are restaurants going to make employees sign a document saying they will not sue if they are injured thru their own actions? Are they going to have to take out insurance policies to protect themselves from people like Michael?
When is this all going to stop? Oh no, I'm so angry I've banged the keys too hard and now my fingers are bruised - who can I sue! MICROSOFT! It's their fault! They should have put padded keys on here for people like me who type angry!!! I want a million dollars please, I'm scarred for life!
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
What a waste
Oxfam research reports that £1BILLION will be spent on unwanted Christmas presents this year, money that could fund Oxfam's projects for 12 YEARS.
I dunno how they reached these figures but apparently 83% of us receive at least one unwanted gift, which either festers in the loft or goes to a charity shop.
Such a waste! The only benefits are the charity shops or eBay! Why don't we stop this tide of waste by ASKING people what they NEED instead of PRESUMING what they want, then buying useless tat they DON'T NEED.
I'd be thrilled if someone bought me 6 months supply of shampoo and conditioner, or an Asda food voucher, or some gardening compost, or a sackful of flour for my bread machine or a months supply of rattie food - cos ultimately it wil all get used and save me money - the best sort of gift! Not a bit of plastic tat that I find amusing then discard after 30 minutes.
"But it spoils the surprise" you all whinge - erm so what? If you want a surprise, give your mate a list of 3 DVDs and tell her to choose ONE for your present, then the surprise will be WHICH ONE she buys - ooooh!
We should all just ask eachother what we need, and buy that, and sod the surprise. That's what our family all do now and we are left pleased at Christmas because we have a pile of stuff we needed and now don't have to buy ourselves, instead of wondering which charity shop to cart all our unwanted crap to. We are a very wasteful society and the CommercialFest that is "Christmas" only adds to that tenfold.
I dunno how they reached these figures but apparently 83% of us receive at least one unwanted gift, which either festers in the loft or goes to a charity shop.
Such a waste! The only benefits are the charity shops or eBay! Why don't we stop this tide of waste by ASKING people what they NEED instead of PRESUMING what they want, then buying useless tat they DON'T NEED.
I'd be thrilled if someone bought me 6 months supply of shampoo and conditioner, or an Asda food voucher, or some gardening compost, or a sackful of flour for my bread machine or a months supply of rattie food - cos ultimately it wil all get used and save me money - the best sort of gift! Not a bit of plastic tat that I find amusing then discard after 30 minutes.
"But it spoils the surprise" you all whinge - erm so what? If you want a surprise, give your mate a list of 3 DVDs and tell her to choose ONE for your present, then the surprise will be WHICH ONE she buys - ooooh!
We should all just ask eachother what we need, and buy that, and sod the surprise. That's what our family all do now and we are left pleased at Christmas because we have a pile of stuff we needed and now don't have to buy ourselves, instead of wondering which charity shop to cart all our unwanted crap to. We are a very wasteful society and the CommercialFest that is "Christmas" only adds to that tenfold.
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
So it was all true .....
Iraqis face the dire prospect of losing up to $200bn (£116bn) of the wealth of their country if an American-inspired plan to hand over development of its oil reserves to US and British multinationals comes into force next year. A report produced by American and British pressure groups warns Iraq will be caught in an "old colonial trap" if it allows foreign companies to take a share of its vast energy reserves. The report is certain to reawaken fears that the real purpose of the 2003 war on Iraq was to ensure its oil came under Western control.
The Iraqi government has announced plans to seek foreign investment to exploit its oil reserves after the general election, which will be held next month. Iraq has 115 billion barrels of proved oil reserves, the third largest in the world.
According to the report, from groups including War on Want and the New Economics Foundation (NEF), the new Iraqi constitution opened the way for greater foreign investment. Negotiations with oil companies are already under way ahead of next month's election and before legislation is passed, it said.
The groups said they had amassed details of high-level pressure from the US and UK governments on Iraq to look to foreign companies to rebuild its oil industry.
Earlier this year a BBC Newsnight report claimed to have uncovered documents showing the Bush administration made plans to secure Iraqi oil even before the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US.
Louise Richards, chief executive of War on Want, said: "People have increasingly come to realise the Iraq war was about oil, profits and plunder. Despite claims from politicians that this is a conspiracy theory, our report gives detailed evidence to show Iraq's oil profits are well within the sights of the oil multinationals."
The Iraqi government has announced plans to seek foreign investment to exploit its oil reserves after the general election, which will be held next month. Iraq has 115 billion barrels of proved oil reserves, the third largest in the world.
According to the report, from groups including War on Want and the New Economics Foundation (NEF), the new Iraqi constitution opened the way for greater foreign investment. Negotiations with oil companies are already under way ahead of next month's election and before legislation is passed, it said.
The groups said they had amassed details of high-level pressure from the US and UK governments on Iraq to look to foreign companies to rebuild its oil industry.
Earlier this year a BBC Newsnight report claimed to have uncovered documents showing the Bush administration made plans to secure Iraqi oil even before the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US.
Louise Richards, chief executive of War on Want, said: "People have increasingly come to realise the Iraq war was about oil, profits and plunder. Despite claims from politicians that this is a conspiracy theory, our report gives detailed evidence to show Iraq's oil profits are well within the sights of the oil multinationals."
Monday, November 21, 2005
You pay for what you do to yourself ....
Interesting article on the BBC website today stating that a poll of more than 2,000 people by private health provider BUPA found 34% supported charges for treatment for people who smoke, drink or are obese.
Various quotes from medical bods said "There is clear evidence from this study to support the view that individuals feel they should be accountable for their own health and well-being." and "We have a health service that is free at the point of need, and you can't start changing the rules just because you don't like somebody's lifestyle."
This is an interesting point to debate - while I thoroughly agree that smokers and drinkers should pay more, not so sure about obese people, as their obesity can be caused by other factors apart from just a love of chocolate. If doctors could somehow prove that the obesity was caused by eating all the wrong food all the time, then yes - charge them more for the treatment.
Like these people on "You are what you eat" who openly admit to loving cakes, fry-ups, late-night bags of chips, and pizzas. "But they don't know any better, its how they were brought up", the do-gooders say - erm EVERYBODY KNOWS that eating fruit and veggies is better for you than a pizza! Supermarkets sell fruit and veg, bookshops and the internet provide information and recipes - it's up to YOU to make the choice. If you choose to eat crap and get fat then you should be billed for it when you need a hip replacement or your arteries de-clogged.
Other people would argue about the drinkers, and say that alcoholism is a "disease" and can be caused by other factors like a hard life, abuse etc etc. But if that person was proven to have failed in numerous alcoholic treatment clinics etc, then what - do you charge them? Or would people say "it's not easy to stay on the wagon so not fair to charge those who keep falling off it". A good example is George Best, still drinking on his new liver and now costing the health service £££ to try and keep him alive as his whole body shuts down.
Smokers however have no excuse. Smoking isn't triggered by a hard life or abuse, you choose to buy those packs, you choose to inhale smoke and carbon monoxide into your healthy lungs turning them black and sticky, and costing the NHS billions when you get older and start coughing your guts up.
The NHS has been crippled for years now and it will only get worse in our culture of fast food, sugary crap, chemical processed junk, and lazy people who can't be arsed to cook. We can't carry on supporting these people, we will HAVE to charge, there is no alternative.
Or maybe these people will know that ultimately we as a nation would never leave someone to die in the gutter just because they can't pay for their medical treatment, so they will go on abusing themselves safe in the knowledge that the State MUST pick up the tab. So then what - do we reposess cars and houses? Introduce complex repayment schemes that require layers of bureacracy? Raid the kids Uni funds to pay for dad's 50 a day habit consequences? Then do we have to deal with someone sueing the State because they are homeless thanks to the NHS reposessing their bungalow to pay for Auntie Joan's liver transplant??
Various quotes from medical bods said "There is clear evidence from this study to support the view that individuals feel they should be accountable for their own health and well-being." and "We have a health service that is free at the point of need, and you can't start changing the rules just because you don't like somebody's lifestyle."
This is an interesting point to debate - while I thoroughly agree that smokers and drinkers should pay more, not so sure about obese people, as their obesity can be caused by other factors apart from just a love of chocolate. If doctors could somehow prove that the obesity was caused by eating all the wrong food all the time, then yes - charge them more for the treatment.
Like these people on "You are what you eat" who openly admit to loving cakes, fry-ups, late-night bags of chips, and pizzas. "But they don't know any better, its how they were brought up", the do-gooders say - erm EVERYBODY KNOWS that eating fruit and veggies is better for you than a pizza! Supermarkets sell fruit and veg, bookshops and the internet provide information and recipes - it's up to YOU to make the choice. If you choose to eat crap and get fat then you should be billed for it when you need a hip replacement or your arteries de-clogged.
Other people would argue about the drinkers, and say that alcoholism is a "disease" and can be caused by other factors like a hard life, abuse etc etc. But if that person was proven to have failed in numerous alcoholic treatment clinics etc, then what - do you charge them? Or would people say "it's not easy to stay on the wagon so not fair to charge those who keep falling off it". A good example is George Best, still drinking on his new liver and now costing the health service £££ to try and keep him alive as his whole body shuts down.
Smokers however have no excuse. Smoking isn't triggered by a hard life or abuse, you choose to buy those packs, you choose to inhale smoke and carbon monoxide into your healthy lungs turning them black and sticky, and costing the NHS billions when you get older and start coughing your guts up.
The NHS has been crippled for years now and it will only get worse in our culture of fast food, sugary crap, chemical processed junk, and lazy people who can't be arsed to cook. We can't carry on supporting these people, we will HAVE to charge, there is no alternative.
Or maybe these people will know that ultimately we as a nation would never leave someone to die in the gutter just because they can't pay for their medical treatment, so they will go on abusing themselves safe in the knowledge that the State MUST pick up the tab. So then what - do we reposess cars and houses? Introduce complex repayment schemes that require layers of bureacracy? Raid the kids Uni funds to pay for dad's 50 a day habit consequences? Then do we have to deal with someone sueing the State because they are homeless thanks to the NHS reposessing their bungalow to pay for Auntie Joan's liver transplant??
Never never ever ever
Last night we went round to an old schoolfriend's of Alans for a meal - they had 3 kids, two very young boys and an older girl.
After spending 4 hours in the house with the two boys I NEVER EVER EVER EVER want to have kids - EVER. George Clooney himself could beg to reproduce with me but I would say no. I've never been a maternal girl but now I have totally made my mind up - and at nearly 34 if I'm not maternal now, I never will be.
I didn't relax for 4 hours - I avoided eye contact with them so they would leave me alone.....I know what kids are like, if you engage with them once that's it - I suffered at the mercy of two 6 year old twin girls years ago cos I engaged with them, and after 3 hours of using me as a trampoline and pulling my hair and screaming in my ear, we had to leave because my throat was constricting due to my dust allergy after all the crap they had kicked up in their antics.
These two boys screamed and yelled and screamed and screamed and bounced around and ran and fell over and dropped stuff and spilled stuff and had to be monitored EVERY SECOND. And I know you are thinking "that's just the way they were brought up", but it's more than that - it's the fact that their house was a f*cking tip, the parents looked worn out, their kitchen was a bombsight, the cat was hiding for fear of its life, and you will NEVER EVER get a minute to yourself, until those kids have grown up - then they are even worse when they are teens!
I've just got sorted in a lovely house, we have plans for trackdays in Europe and the UK next year, we can go where we like when we like, we can do what we like and have total freedom - why the f*ck destroy all of that to have your life ruled and your finances wrecked by screaming brats?! Add into the mix the crap schools, crap society, crap climate that limits so much activities, and it's really not worth reproducing these days.
I politely told Alan this in not as many words, he thought it was highly amusing but he has yet to say anything more. Well we've only been together a year today, but I thought I'd just make myself clear RIGHT NOW.
But is it selfish of me to not want kids if he does? And is it selfish of him to force me to have them just because HE does? Loggerheads! But nothing short of a Lottery win will make me change my mind (then I can have a bespoke behavioural chip implanted in them).
On another subject, I'm getting some baby RATS at the start of December, yaaaaay! Two black boys! I'm getting more gooey and excited about them than I ever will about human babies!!
After spending 4 hours in the house with the two boys I NEVER EVER EVER EVER want to have kids - EVER. George Clooney himself could beg to reproduce with me but I would say no. I've never been a maternal girl but now I have totally made my mind up - and at nearly 34 if I'm not maternal now, I never will be.
I didn't relax for 4 hours - I avoided eye contact with them so they would leave me alone.....I know what kids are like, if you engage with them once that's it - I suffered at the mercy of two 6 year old twin girls years ago cos I engaged with them, and after 3 hours of using me as a trampoline and pulling my hair and screaming in my ear, we had to leave because my throat was constricting due to my dust allergy after all the crap they had kicked up in their antics.
These two boys screamed and yelled and screamed and screamed and bounced around and ran and fell over and dropped stuff and spilled stuff and had to be monitored EVERY SECOND. And I know you are thinking "that's just the way they were brought up", but it's more than that - it's the fact that their house was a f*cking tip, the parents looked worn out, their kitchen was a bombsight, the cat was hiding for fear of its life, and you will NEVER EVER get a minute to yourself, until those kids have grown up - then they are even worse when they are teens!
I've just got sorted in a lovely house, we have plans for trackdays in Europe and the UK next year, we can go where we like when we like, we can do what we like and have total freedom - why the f*ck destroy all of that to have your life ruled and your finances wrecked by screaming brats?! Add into the mix the crap schools, crap society, crap climate that limits so much activities, and it's really not worth reproducing these days.
I politely told Alan this in not as many words, he thought it was highly amusing but he has yet to say anything more. Well we've only been together a year today, but I thought I'd just make myself clear RIGHT NOW.
But is it selfish of me to not want kids if he does? And is it selfish of him to force me to have them just because HE does? Loggerheads! But nothing short of a Lottery win will make me change my mind (then I can have a bespoke behavioural chip implanted in them).
On another subject, I'm getting some baby RATS at the start of December, yaaaaay! Two black boys! I'm getting more gooey and excited about them than I ever will about human babies!!
Friday, November 18, 2005
Pickled Rat
An amusing story about a woman at ASDA who opened a jar of gherkins to discover a pickled RAT in there, gave way to when it was discovered that she had seen the rat in the jar and had bought it on purpose, in order to try to claim compensation.
She was initially "horrified" and "shocked" at her discovery and an apologetic ASDA offered her a free trolley dash as compensation. But then they looked at the CCTV footage and saw her examining the jar, calling her husband over to look at it, then putting it in her trolley to buy it.
She knew it was in there all along, and she had pretended to be shocked and upset in order to get money or freebies. What a stupid cow, she deserves everything she gets now. ASDA have withdrawn the trolley dash offer, no surprise.
Yet another case of our compensation culture gone mad. Heavens, if this had been Wartime they'd have considered the rat as extra meat and enjoyed it as a main course!!!!!
She was initially "horrified" and "shocked" at her discovery and an apologetic ASDA offered her a free trolley dash as compensation. But then they looked at the CCTV footage and saw her examining the jar, calling her husband over to look at it, then putting it in her trolley to buy it.
She knew it was in there all along, and she had pretended to be shocked and upset in order to get money or freebies. What a stupid cow, she deserves everything she gets now. ASDA have withdrawn the trolley dash offer, no surprise.
Yet another case of our compensation culture gone mad. Heavens, if this had been Wartime they'd have considered the rat as extra meat and enjoyed it as a main course!!!!!
Friday, November 11, 2005
Words fail me ....
A teenager has successfully challenged a court bid forcing her to wear an electronic ankle tag as she said it would not look right with a skirt. Natasha Hughes of Arboretum, Worcester, was described in court as a woman who liked to dress in a feminine way.
Worcester Magistrates' Court heard she should wear a tag for breaching the terms of her bail curfew. Ms Hughes, 18, said: "I didn't want to wear a tag because they are really bulky and embarrassing." 'It looks stupid'
She is on bail accused of assaulting another woman causing grievous bodily harm. On Tuesday, she admitted breaching the terms of her bail curfew, which states she must answer her front door to police whenever they call. The court heard Hughes did not answer the door at 0235 GMT on 1 November, claiming she was asleep at the time.
She added: "I like to wear skirts which means people can see it and it looks stupid. I am pleased at the decision and am glad I don't have to be tagged."
Prosecutor Douglas Marshall said Hughes should be forced to wear a tag to prove in future she was at home when she said she was. But David Taylor, defending, said this was not necessary and would interfere with his client's dress sense. He said: "She wants to wear skirts, not trousers, which would cover the tag. "Perhaps she could arrange for a doorbell that could be linked to her bedroom."
Worcester Magistrates' Court heard she should wear a tag for breaching the terms of her bail curfew. Ms Hughes, 18, said: "I didn't want to wear a tag because they are really bulky and embarrassing." 'It looks stupid'
She is on bail accused of assaulting another woman causing grievous bodily harm. On Tuesday, she admitted breaching the terms of her bail curfew, which states she must answer her front door to police whenever they call. The court heard Hughes did not answer the door at 0235 GMT on 1 November, claiming she was asleep at the time.
She added: "I like to wear skirts which means people can see it and it looks stupid. I am pleased at the decision and am glad I don't have to be tagged."
Prosecutor Douglas Marshall said Hughes should be forced to wear a tag to prove in future she was at home when she said she was. But David Taylor, defending, said this was not necessary and would interfere with his client's dress sense. He said: "She wants to wear skirts, not trousers, which would cover the tag. "Perhaps she could arrange for a doorbell that could be linked to her bedroom."
Poppy Day
It's Poppy Day today. Can you tell me what that means, what it represents? Today on Breakfast TV they showed a speeded-up film of a Veteran jangling his Poppy tin and being walked past by tons of people. Nobody stopped to buy a Poppy and chat to him.
They interviewed kids of my generation and some of them admitted they didn't know what the Poppies were sold for. One girl said "errrmmm it's for a charity isn't it but I dunno which one". Another young guy said "they could make them a bit more funky then maybe they'd sell more". IT ISN'T A FASHION ACCESSORY. Should it be turned into one, just to get people to buy one? Should it be the Wartime equivalent of a red AIDS ribbon? Or a pink breast cancer ribbon?
One older guy said that maybe the First and Second World Wars now seem so long ago tht we are numb of them, ignorant to what happened, blind to the suffering and sacrifice that happened all those decades ago.
But Poppy day isn't JUST for WW1 and 2 servicemen, it is for ALL servicemen, to help them and their families out. We are still fighting wars today and will shamefully continue to fight wars. I have ranted until I'm blue in the face about the fact that nobody is learning from the needless deaths of thousands of young men and women. Still we keep killing.
Maybe Poppy Day SHOULD be related more to todays wars and servicemen, but does that mean that WW1 and 2 will definitely be forgotten? WW1 was 91 years ago, very few veterans and people who lived through it are with us now. When they die, the stories die, and so too the remembering may die.
Should we see soldiers in modern uniforms jingling Poppy cans? It would definitely create more interest, which can only be good. Today's soldiers can help to educate our generation about ALL the wars, especially WW1 and 2 when so many men died. Wars today don't seem to take the volumes of soldier lives as they used to.
Are the schools to blame? Should they take the kids out on school trips to military museums, to memorials, to cemetaries? YES THEY SHOULD. We should stop insulating kids from the horrors of the past, present or future. Only by shocking them can we make them remember and realise how powerful their actions can be, how they can stop this happening in the future.
We need to show them the war in a way that they can smell it, touch it, feel it, visit the old buildings, see the photos, touch the uniforms, watch the film footage, read the stories or let them talk to the veterans themselves. But most of all, take them to the cemetaries and show them the memorials and the graves - let them walk down those rows and rows of pristine white tombstones, and read the names upon them - the miles and miles of names - each one a son, a father, a brother, a husband. Each young life snuffed out all for the power whims of a few evil men.
Last September I went to Normandy with my dad and we did the battlefield tour, and we went to Omaha Beach cemetary. It was the first really big WW2 cemetary I had ever visited, and I was both shocked, awed, upset and angry all at once at the sight before me. As I padded along on the damp dewy grass down the endless rows of white crosses, each white cross whispered to me as I walked past - "Never forget", never forget what we did for you", and most of all, "NEVER LET IT HAPPEN AGAIN".
But it is happening again, all over the world we still have wars, and all over the world men and women are dying, for the power whims of a few evil men. When will it stop, WILL IT EVER STOP?
If the children of my generation and all future generations can learn from the acres of white crosses in the cemetaries all over the world, if it makes them resolve to never let it happen again, then your work will be done, that will be your legacy. The future lies with them, make them understand that this has to NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN.
Now go out and buy a Poppy, chat to the old veteran who is selling them - he may be full of remarkable stories, he may have been a tank commander, he may have stormed the beaches of Normandy, he may have captured German soldiers. It is also highly likely that he saw his closest friends blown to pieces, or held him as the life slipped away from him, or said goodbye to him one day then posted his personal effects off to his family the next. He deserves a few minutes of your precious time and some money for a Poppy. Him and his generation will not be around for much longer, and the world will be an emptier place for it.
They interviewed kids of my generation and some of them admitted they didn't know what the Poppies were sold for. One girl said "errrmmm it's for a charity isn't it but I dunno which one". Another young guy said "they could make them a bit more funky then maybe they'd sell more". IT ISN'T A FASHION ACCESSORY. Should it be turned into one, just to get people to buy one? Should it be the Wartime equivalent of a red AIDS ribbon? Or a pink breast cancer ribbon?
One older guy said that maybe the First and Second World Wars now seem so long ago tht we are numb of them, ignorant to what happened, blind to the suffering and sacrifice that happened all those decades ago.
But Poppy day isn't JUST for WW1 and 2 servicemen, it is for ALL servicemen, to help them and their families out. We are still fighting wars today and will shamefully continue to fight wars. I have ranted until I'm blue in the face about the fact that nobody is learning from the needless deaths of thousands of young men and women. Still we keep killing.
Maybe Poppy Day SHOULD be related more to todays wars and servicemen, but does that mean that WW1 and 2 will definitely be forgotten? WW1 was 91 years ago, very few veterans and people who lived through it are with us now. When they die, the stories die, and so too the remembering may die.
Should we see soldiers in modern uniforms jingling Poppy cans? It would definitely create more interest, which can only be good. Today's soldiers can help to educate our generation about ALL the wars, especially WW1 and 2 when so many men died. Wars today don't seem to take the volumes of soldier lives as they used to.
Are the schools to blame? Should they take the kids out on school trips to military museums, to memorials, to cemetaries? YES THEY SHOULD. We should stop insulating kids from the horrors of the past, present or future. Only by shocking them can we make them remember and realise how powerful their actions can be, how they can stop this happening in the future.
We need to show them the war in a way that they can smell it, touch it, feel it, visit the old buildings, see the photos, touch the uniforms, watch the film footage, read the stories or let them talk to the veterans themselves. But most of all, take them to the cemetaries and show them the memorials and the graves - let them walk down those rows and rows of pristine white tombstones, and read the names upon them - the miles and miles of names - each one a son, a father, a brother, a husband. Each young life snuffed out all for the power whims of a few evil men.
Last September I went to Normandy with my dad and we did the battlefield tour, and we went to Omaha Beach cemetary. It was the first really big WW2 cemetary I had ever visited, and I was both shocked, awed, upset and angry all at once at the sight before me. As I padded along on the damp dewy grass down the endless rows of white crosses, each white cross whispered to me as I walked past - "Never forget", never forget what we did for you", and most of all, "NEVER LET IT HAPPEN AGAIN".
But it is happening again, all over the world we still have wars, and all over the world men and women are dying, for the power whims of a few evil men. When will it stop, WILL IT EVER STOP?
If the children of my generation and all future generations can learn from the acres of white crosses in the cemetaries all over the world, if it makes them resolve to never let it happen again, then your work will be done, that will be your legacy. The future lies with them, make them understand that this has to NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN.
Now go out and buy a Poppy, chat to the old veteran who is selling them - he may be full of remarkable stories, he may have been a tank commander, he may have stormed the beaches of Normandy, he may have captured German soldiers. It is also highly likely that he saw his closest friends blown to pieces, or held him as the life slipped away from him, or said goodbye to him one day then posted his personal effects off to his family the next. He deserves a few minutes of your precious time and some money for a Poppy. Him and his generation will not be around for much longer, and the world will be an emptier place for it.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
What a day ....
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 .........
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 .........
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)