The world is a horrible place and it won't get any better I'm afraid.
While the planet lurches from one crisis to another disaster, the general public just carry on with their lives, hoping for things to get just a little fairer. Realists will know that it won't get better, but it would be nice if it was fairer.
Personally, less than a week before Christmas (and yes, it is CHRISTMAS, none of this holidays crap) and I don't feel festive, nor do I look forward to the weekend with any relish. I'm not being a scrooge - I don't begrudge anyone having a great Christmas and I hope that many people do, but it isn't the same any more. Christmas starts in October and runs through till 12th Night. It has become the unnofficial season between autumn and winter. It used to be a special few days a year, something to look forward to even if you weren't a little kid - now by the time the actual day rolls around it has grown old and stale. There is a house down the road from me that has had its decorations up (every year) from the middle of November. One wonders why?
And to round it off, I'm facing the prospect of foresaking my traditional Christmas dinner this year for something either Mediteranean or Asian, and guess what? I'm quite looking forward to it...
Monday, December 20, 2004
Friday, December 10, 2004
Hey You
The world has gone PC mad. This made me so angry because it is so stupid and it appears that people don't realise just how stupid it is...
Father who smacked son banned from home for six months
The Guardian
A father who was spotted smacking his young son during a shopping trip was barred from his own home and separated from his family for six months, it emerged yesterday.
Earlier this year, a detective putting up murder inquiry posters in Chorlton, Greater Manchester, saw the 41-year-old giving a single smack to the bottom of his three-year-old son. The father, who cannot be named for legal reasons, pleaded guilty to common assault at Manchester magistrates court yesterday.
Bail conditions imposed by the court and social services had banned him from the home he shared with his partner and two children - including a new-born baby girl - as he waited six months for his case to come to trial.
He was also prevented from having any unsupervised contact with his son, and for several months was not even allowed phone contact with him.
Yesterday the man said that the ban had punished not just him but his entire family.
"My partner had to look after our son and bring up our baby all on her own for six months because I wasn't allowed to be around," he said.
"It's not just been punishing for me, it's been punishing for her and the kids. I was dealt with really unfairly."
Magistrates in the case, which came only weeks after an attempt by rebel MPs to outlaw smacking completely was defeated in parliament, placed the man on a two-year rehabilitation order.
They heard how the father had been out shopping with his partner, their son and their baby daughter in June this year when the incident happened. The three-year-old boy was misbehaving, and the father smacked him and was spotted by the detective.
Don Fletcher, prosecuting, said: "The policeman went to speak to the defendant and a security guard also saw the defendant lash out with his right hand and strike the small boy on his bottom."
The boy, who was lifted into the air by the force of the slap, began to howl, drawing the attention of other shoppers.
But Sara Lewis, defending, explained that the child had run out in front of a car, placing himself in danger, and that his behaviour had pushed his parents to the end of their tether.
She said the father, who wanted to bring the boy up properly, had accepted that the force of the slap was a little excessive and was sorry.
Father who smacked son banned from home for six months
The Guardian
A father who was spotted smacking his young son during a shopping trip was barred from his own home and separated from his family for six months, it emerged yesterday.
Earlier this year, a detective putting up murder inquiry posters in Chorlton, Greater Manchester, saw the 41-year-old giving a single smack to the bottom of his three-year-old son. The father, who cannot be named for legal reasons, pleaded guilty to common assault at Manchester magistrates court yesterday.
Bail conditions imposed by the court and social services had banned him from the home he shared with his partner and two children - including a new-born baby girl - as he waited six months for his case to come to trial.
He was also prevented from having any unsupervised contact with his son, and for several months was not even allowed phone contact with him.
Yesterday the man said that the ban had punished not just him but his entire family.
"My partner had to look after our son and bring up our baby all on her own for six months because I wasn't allowed to be around," he said.
"It's not just been punishing for me, it's been punishing for her and the kids. I was dealt with really unfairly."
Magistrates in the case, which came only weeks after an attempt by rebel MPs to outlaw smacking completely was defeated in parliament, placed the man on a two-year rehabilitation order.
They heard how the father had been out shopping with his partner, their son and their baby daughter in June this year when the incident happened. The three-year-old boy was misbehaving, and the father smacked him and was spotted by the detective.
Don Fletcher, prosecuting, said: "The policeman went to speak to the defendant and a security guard also saw the defendant lash out with his right hand and strike the small boy on his bottom."
The boy, who was lifted into the air by the force of the slap, began to howl, drawing the attention of other shoppers.
But Sara Lewis, defending, explained that the child had run out in front of a car, placing himself in danger, and that his behaviour had pushed his parents to the end of their tether.
She said the father, who wanted to bring the boy up properly, had accepted that the force of the slap was a little excessive and was sorry.
Wednesday, December 08, 2004
Undecided
I received a gift today - a very special book from my past.
It put me in a reasonably good mood for the rest of the day.
There was this program on BBC2 a few years ago called Life Laundry, where this lifestyle guru (a contradiction in terms, if ever there was one) helped people declutter their lives. Thoroughly dull TV, yet an inspiration nonetheless.
It set me thinking about why we keep things. In some circles it's called 'collecting' but generally it's just hoarding. But of course this tunnel vision is open to discussion. If you have a large record and CD collection and regularly play most of the music is that hoarding? If you have a collection of hardbacks by your favourite author(s) and you will read these books again, is that hoarding? What about stamps? Or people who collect all kinds of nonsense like Beeny Babes (I've got that right, haven't I) and trading cards and such like?
We're all capable of obsession - whether it's a full blown 'I wanna be a Klingon' obsession or the fact you'll buy the new Grisham or Hornsby novel when it comes out, we all like to keep things as our own.
Over the years I've collected a number of things and, more importantly, kept hold of a number of inconsequential items that at some point in my past, may well have held some kind of sentimental value, but now are just objects of a one-time desire.
It's different if you have a large or extended family, there's always someone you can leave your shit to when you die, especially if your other half doesn't want them, but what if you're on your own or in a dwindling family? If what you have means so much to you, think about this - despite you being dead, some bloke, probably from the council, is going to come round and bin the lot - all the stuff you've spent years keeping in good condition, all the stuff that your remaining relatives would rather see in a skip than boxed up heading towards some auction house.
The expression ephemeral is often used in conjunction with collecting and ephemeral means 'of the moment' or 'throw away'.
The problem is parting is so difficult.
It put me in a reasonably good mood for the rest of the day.
There was this program on BBC2 a few years ago called Life Laundry, where this lifestyle guru (a contradiction in terms, if ever there was one) helped people declutter their lives. Thoroughly dull TV, yet an inspiration nonetheless.
It set me thinking about why we keep things. In some circles it's called 'collecting' but generally it's just hoarding. But of course this tunnel vision is open to discussion. If you have a large record and CD collection and regularly play most of the music is that hoarding? If you have a collection of hardbacks by your favourite author(s) and you will read these books again, is that hoarding? What about stamps? Or people who collect all kinds of nonsense like Beeny Babes (I've got that right, haven't I) and trading cards and such like?
We're all capable of obsession - whether it's a full blown 'I wanna be a Klingon' obsession or the fact you'll buy the new Grisham or Hornsby novel when it comes out, we all like to keep things as our own.
Over the years I've collected a number of things and, more importantly, kept hold of a number of inconsequential items that at some point in my past, may well have held some kind of sentimental value, but now are just objects of a one-time desire.
It's different if you have a large or extended family, there's always someone you can leave your shit to when you die, especially if your other half doesn't want them, but what if you're on your own or in a dwindling family? If what you have means so much to you, think about this - despite you being dead, some bloke, probably from the council, is going to come round and bin the lot - all the stuff you've spent years keeping in good condition, all the stuff that your remaining relatives would rather see in a skip than boxed up heading towards some auction house.
The expression ephemeral is often used in conjunction with collecting and ephemeral means 'of the moment' or 'throw away'.
The problem is parting is so difficult.
Tuesday, December 07, 2004
Crimes of the Future
The first pint I ever bought cost 22p.
The first packet of cigarettes I ever bought cost me 12p
I'm talking new money here - new money meaning decimal money.
We're talking the last 33 years or there abouts.
Apparently back in 1976 when I bought my first packet of fags the government duty was something 2p, so a sixth of the money for fags went to the treasury. Now a packet of fags is about £5 and now about two-thirds of that goes to the treasury.
The same with booze. Duty on a bottle of wine is the same regardless of whether you spend £3 on plonk (£1.20 goes to the treasury) or £300 (£1.20 goes to the treasury). Madness really, but of course it's all designed to make sure that the poor pay more than the rich. Doesn't matter who is in power the balance of fairness is never going to be ... fair.
The first packet of cigarettes I ever bought cost me 12p
I'm talking new money here - new money meaning decimal money.
We're talking the last 33 years or there abouts.
Apparently back in 1976 when I bought my first packet of fags the government duty was something 2p, so a sixth of the money for fags went to the treasury. Now a packet of fags is about £5 and now about two-thirds of that goes to the treasury.
The same with booze. Duty on a bottle of wine is the same regardless of whether you spend £3 on plonk (£1.20 goes to the treasury) or £300 (£1.20 goes to the treasury). Madness really, but of course it's all designed to make sure that the poor pay more than the rich. Doesn't matter who is in power the balance of fairness is never going to be ... fair.
Monday, December 06, 2004
Like Leila Khaled Said
Had a conversation at the weekend with a mate who claims that evolution has already started, or more precisely mankind has played a part in its own evolution.
We live in a convenience world. I get so annoyed in supermarkets when more and more space is taken up with ready meals. However I get pissed off royally when I find pre-cooked, prepared vegetables in packaging, ready for you to just stick in the microwave and dish out. At £1.99 for a small amount of veg that would cost you about 40p if you bought it fresh, I think this just about sums up our lazy culture of burgers, sitting in front of the PC or TV and generally being unhealthy slobs.
The next stage in human evolution will be oversized buttocks, shovels for hands and natural Burberry skin tone.
We live in a convenience world. I get so annoyed in supermarkets when more and more space is taken up with ready meals. However I get pissed off royally when I find pre-cooked, prepared vegetables in packaging, ready for you to just stick in the microwave and dish out. At £1.99 for a small amount of veg that would cost you about 40p if you bought it fresh, I think this just about sums up our lazy culture of burgers, sitting in front of the PC or TV and generally being unhealthy slobs.
The next stage in human evolution will be oversized buttocks, shovels for hands and natural Burberry skin tone.
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
All of this and nothing
Wouldn't it be really good if the press and ponces of this country spent more time worrying and concerning themselves with the way the country is slowly eroding rather than spending acres of time and money on whether or not David Blunkett is dodgy.
Far too much onus is placed on the public side of politics - isn't it about time the press and ponces actually had a look at all the work being done? But of course that doesn't sell their particular brand of bile, does it?
Far too much onus is placed on the public side of politics - isn't it about time the press and ponces actually had a look at all the work being done? But of course that doesn't sell their particular brand of bile, does it?
Life's What You Make It
Watching The Wright Stuff on Channel 5 for about five minutes this morning it made me realise what horrendous memories people have. It also showed me what a complete arsehole Andrew Collins is, but it doesn't surprise me, he was a middle-classed smug conservative twat when he went to Weston Favel Upper school and performed in his band The Absolute Heroes.
As you can guess one was the guest on the other and Collins, with his square jaw and hollow eyes, was quick to have a go at David Blunkett, the current Home Secretary, suggesting that we should do everything in our power to see the man out of a job. In fact the program - The Wright Stuff - is a very pro-Tory kind of show. I've tuned in a number of times only to switch over quickly because I've found the 'holier-than-thou' attitude of Matthew Wright to be offensive and smug. He seems to love surrounding himself with a host of sycophants and people with similar fascistic tendencies, so I shouldn't be suprirsed that I find the program quite offensive.
In fact, in the immediate wake of Collins' Blunkett mention there was a flurry of anti-Blair and Labour sentiment peddled out. 1996 is only 8 years ago, you know. 8 short years is all you have to go back to remind yourself of what this country was like before Labour came along. If you really think we're worse off now than we were after 18 years of Tory rule then you really are a twat of infinitessimal proportions. Sure Blair is a bit of a wet and some of his ministers are nothing more than yes men, but they aren't Michael Howard, or IDS or Bill Vague or John Major or Maggie bloody Thatcher milk snatcher!
Programs like The Wright Stuff should not be allowed to be areas of political bias or opinion - especially not from the presenters. It claims to want to discuss issues of importance, yet allows itself to be a platform for Wright's own political bias. Perhaps he should leave the country, he's basically just an offensive little twit.
As you can guess one was the guest on the other and Collins, with his square jaw and hollow eyes, was quick to have a go at David Blunkett, the current Home Secretary, suggesting that we should do everything in our power to see the man out of a job. In fact the program - The Wright Stuff - is a very pro-Tory kind of show. I've tuned in a number of times only to switch over quickly because I've found the 'holier-than-thou' attitude of Matthew Wright to be offensive and smug. He seems to love surrounding himself with a host of sycophants and people with similar fascistic tendencies, so I shouldn't be suprirsed that I find the program quite offensive.
In fact, in the immediate wake of Collins' Blunkett mention there was a flurry of anti-Blair and Labour sentiment peddled out. 1996 is only 8 years ago, you know. 8 short years is all you have to go back to remind yourself of what this country was like before Labour came along. If you really think we're worse off now than we were after 18 years of Tory rule then you really are a twat of infinitessimal proportions. Sure Blair is a bit of a wet and some of his ministers are nothing more than yes men, but they aren't Michael Howard, or IDS or Bill Vague or John Major or Maggie bloody Thatcher milk snatcher!
Programs like The Wright Stuff should not be allowed to be areas of political bias or opinion - especially not from the presenters. It claims to want to discuss issues of importance, yet allows itself to be a platform for Wright's own political bias. Perhaps he should leave the country, he's basically just an offensive little twit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)