Don't Stand So Close to Me

Two things have pissed me off more than most this week (actually there were three things, but we'll leave one of them). The first thing is the police, the second thing is the unbelievably puerile nanny state we are now living in...

The police - I mean let's be honest about this - are nothing more than glorified fine collectors/imposers. I mean if they actually did their job effectively all the time, rather than just showing willing when some poor sod disappears or is kidnapped by perverts then perhaps we'd have a little more respect for them. This week there were two fantastic incidents of where ones faith in the British constabulary is severely tested. The first involved a woman holding an apple. The police, because they have the eyes of hawks, deemed the apple was actually a mobile phone and decided to not only chase the woman with sirens and lights flashing, but on stopping her ignored the facts she didn't have a mobile phone in her hand, but a half eaten apple, charged her for driving while using a mobile phone. 10 court cases later and the woman finally walked free from court with her honour intact (shame you couldn't say the same for her bank balance because she ended up having to pay her own costs!). The police remained unapologetic.

Outside of the obvious things about this case that I find abhorrent is the smaller, overlooked fact, that despite there being a ban on using mobile phones in vehicles, bugger all people are taking any notice of it. Where are the police when this law is being flaunted? Chasing women eating apples, that's where? Today, a week before the banning of fox hunting there was some toff twat on TV news today saying that he was going to completely ignore this stupid law - I wonder if the police will be eager to chase him and his crones down? Is riding a horse while using a mobile phone illegal?

The nanny state! PC gone mad! What the hell is happening to this planet and is it the Americans' fault, with their faux puritanical Christian right bullshit?

A few weeks ago Prince Harry was pilloried by the press for sporting a Nazi fancy dress costume at a private party (where some opportunist wag decided that the rest of the world should see Harry's gaff). The point that everyone seemed to miss, regardless of the fact that Harry is 3rd in line to the throne - he might as well be reserve goalkeeper at Chelsea for the chances he's going to have of doing anything kingly at all, unless tragedy wipes his father and brother out - is that Nazi uniforms are the 3rd most popular fancy dress costume on sale in the UK.

OK, Harry should not have done it, especially with the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz (and don't get me started on that), but it wasn't anti-semitic and it wasn't aimed at the Jewish community (despite Harry's German origins). Thankfully the row blew over, but today it's back in a different format. The Labour party is being accused of anti-semitic gestures with the latest election poster campaign. The poster suggesting that when the Tories economic strategies would work would be when pigs will fly. Superimposed on the two flying pigs were the heads of Michael Howard (head of the floundering far right) and Oliver Letwin (the buffoon would-be chancellor who was hidden away at the last general election because he's quite mad) and guess what? Howard and Letwin are both Jews and the fact that Jews don't eat pork is being used as a way of suggesting this was an anti-semite gesture. Oh for heaven's sake, isn't it time we concentrated on the important things in this world rather than pfaffing about with semantics over semitics?

Talking to friends the other day I said I'd love to just have enough money to go and live somewhere remote and actually try and survive without TV, radio or newspapers as a daily necessity. I think I'd be happier, said I. None of them could understand it.

It's obviously just me.

Somewhere A Clock is Ticking

Is 2005 the year to be a callous bastard?

I ask because I'm getting fed up to the back teeth with two things this year already. One is tragic and shocking, the other is petty and inconsequential.

I'm shocked and appalled at the devastation caused by the tsunami. It looks like nearly a quarter of a million people could end up dead because of it. It is a shocking and tragic event, but can we please stock having 24/7 coverage of it. Surely news people realised after weeks of 9/11 that most people don't want their TVs choc-a-bloc with tragedy - it puts everyone on a downer and we need to be positive about the beginning of the year.

The other thing that has pissed me off recently is the BBC. Now I'm a fan of the Beeb, but I'm growing concerned that my license fee is not used the way I want it to be.

Take BBCNews24 for starters, and throw in the BBC1 bulletins for good measure.

Do we really need two-thirds of the BBC news team positioned across the devastated areas? Did we really have to fly George Alaghia and Sian Williams out to Sri Lanka? Did we really need 6 different reporters in the Ukraine for the elections and subsequent upheaval? I'm growing concerned that my money is being used to keep news teams in work and while I'm on the subject, just who pays for BBCs 3 & 4?