things i nearly wrote about but didn't - so you are probably pleased.
the question of pay for members of parliament. they aren't getting enough. i suspect most of us who earn less than mps were probably in agreement that they get paid enough or too much (not only do they get a pretty hefty salary, but they get expenses and do very well for their second home allowance).
this coincided with the bedroom tax and the changes to benefits which were going to prevent people on benefits from receiving more than the average worker got.
of course this wasn't going to be the yardstick used for mps.
then there was drugs in sport. several high end sprinters got caught with junk in their systems.
ooops. smack on the wrist and you will probably be back in time for the rio olympics.
this story must of irked the british olympic association who were taking a tough stance on this - get caught for using drugs and you ain't in our olympic team. mr. chambers took them to court and won. quite why a team can't choose it's players based on its own criteria wasn't really explained, but hey as long as the dopers get to run that is ok.
also irked must have been chris froome winner of the tour de france - who at all times was being asked if he was clean or not, just because he was winning. you would have thought that a sport of doped to the gills as cycling has been it wouldn't really have mattered.
strangely i think athletes should be able to pump themselves full of any old gunk they want to. those that want to compete clean just say they are clean and get tested. those that say they are on drugs just go on their merry way. let the sponsors and fans decide. based on the speed that some sponsors pulled away from tiger woods because of his marital breakdown you would like to think that sponsors wouldn't touch drugged up athletes with a barge pole - but i am betting that if they were winning and the fans were cheering then they would keep paying.
there was going to be a moan about the hoohah over celebrity deaths.
as with many things now death has become a social media thing. you've appeared in a tv drama; you die and the news carries the tweets of your cast mates.
you could almost understand it if they were long standing rolls or actors who had spanned generations but mostly they are people who have appeared in one well known american series.
i don't care.
there is too much news out there to worry about someone who appeared in a tv show.
(i reckon their saving grace is that they are not kiddie fiddlers).
which brings us to porn and the internet.
david cameron gets lots of good publicity by saying something that no one is going to argue with - child porn is bad and people shouldn't have access to it.
no shit.
this was mixed up with protecting kids from accessing porn online.
by having kids and porn in the same sentence - all commonsense went out the window and the chance of a sensible debate went out the window.
to cameron's credit he does seem to have got the main computer companies doing something (which he didn't get them to do on their tax avoidance), the only problem is they say they have always taken a hard line of child abuse images (and i believe them) and what cameron is proposing isn't much different from what they were doing.
all of this has lead to lots of debates about freedom of choice and privacy.
my opting into porn/adult content will no doubt have my name on some sort of list.
meanwhile all the talk about child abuse material has given pointers as to where the darker side of the web is and how you get there.
amanda platell is probably telling everyone who will listen that it was all down to her - that her claim of child abuse images being readily and easily findable via a websearch via bing or google being patently wrong is neither here nor there.
twitter and trolls. can i say i just don't get it - but then i don't understand the longevity of the low slung jeans as a fashion.
it's not that i don't understand that for some it is a horrible experience to be threatened and insulted on social media but there is a part of me that just says ignore them, block them or just leave social media for a few days (the only problem with that - it seems - is that so many people claim that social media is so important that they can't 'turn it off').
look i am in the fortunate position that no one reads my stuff so no one is likely to get offended by it and so no one is likely to have a violent reaction to it. (although once i did upset a michael jackson fan so much they set up a campaign against me. no one cared.
to me there seems to be two fundamental points that come from this.
firstly that for all the talk of progress and equality that there does still seem to be an underlying hate of women who are strong and have strong values and beliefs. as much as i hate to admit it appears that the no more page 3 and no more lads mags brigades may have a point. that the casual sexualisation and objectification of women doesn't just leave them open to casual sexism but makes it acceptable for people declare they are going to rape a woman just because she got the image of a woman on a £10 note - imagine the fury if the change was something really important. (and no i am not demeaning the achievement of getting ms austen's mug on the tenner).
the other part of it is just how coarse public discourse has become in the era of social media. that this great tool of communication has appeared at a point when most people do not have the manners and civility to use it for anything other than calling each other cunts is baffling. i did have to laugh when once again teachers were called upon to teach kids how to be safe and how to interact online. in short could teachers also explain to kids how to be polite.
kids do need to learn how to be polite: it costs nothing and you can reap great rewards from it.
surely that is one of the things parents should be doing.
oh answered my own question there.
disillusionment with sport.
i am not an avid sport fan. yet i am finding more and more that sporting heroes are nothing more than jumped up johnnies who may as well give lessons to mariah carey in how to be divas.
this is especially true of footballers - the new collective term for them being: cunts.
amazement that i have started to like some middle of the road radio friendly stuff.
that i have sung along to jamie callum and michael buble. that i quite like emeli sandi.
however may i point out right now that gotye and the passenger both need a punch in the larynx
paperbacks. whatever happened to paperbacks. you know those proper sized paperbacks.
not the oversized things that called themselves paperbacks.
i miss them. bring them back.
funny how in a world where most things get smaller - paperbacks have gone the other way and have gotten bigger.
there you go: some of the things i was going to write about but didn't.
the question of pay for members of parliament. they aren't getting enough. i suspect most of us who earn less than mps were probably in agreement that they get paid enough or too much (not only do they get a pretty hefty salary, but they get expenses and do very well for their second home allowance).
this coincided with the bedroom tax and the changes to benefits which were going to prevent people on benefits from receiving more than the average worker got.
of course this wasn't going to be the yardstick used for mps.
then there was drugs in sport. several high end sprinters got caught with junk in their systems.
ooops. smack on the wrist and you will probably be back in time for the rio olympics.
this story must of irked the british olympic association who were taking a tough stance on this - get caught for using drugs and you ain't in our olympic team. mr. chambers took them to court and won. quite why a team can't choose it's players based on its own criteria wasn't really explained, but hey as long as the dopers get to run that is ok.
also irked must have been chris froome winner of the tour de france - who at all times was being asked if he was clean or not, just because he was winning. you would have thought that a sport of doped to the gills as cycling has been it wouldn't really have mattered.
strangely i think athletes should be able to pump themselves full of any old gunk they want to. those that want to compete clean just say they are clean and get tested. those that say they are on drugs just go on their merry way. let the sponsors and fans decide. based on the speed that some sponsors pulled away from tiger woods because of his marital breakdown you would like to think that sponsors wouldn't touch drugged up athletes with a barge pole - but i am betting that if they were winning and the fans were cheering then they would keep paying.
there was going to be a moan about the hoohah over celebrity deaths.
as with many things now death has become a social media thing. you've appeared in a tv drama; you die and the news carries the tweets of your cast mates.
you could almost understand it if they were long standing rolls or actors who had spanned generations but mostly they are people who have appeared in one well known american series.
i don't care.
there is too much news out there to worry about someone who appeared in a tv show.
(i reckon their saving grace is that they are not kiddie fiddlers).
which brings us to porn and the internet.
david cameron gets lots of good publicity by saying something that no one is going to argue with - child porn is bad and people shouldn't have access to it.
no shit.
this was mixed up with protecting kids from accessing porn online.
by having kids and porn in the same sentence - all commonsense went out the window and the chance of a sensible debate went out the window.
to cameron's credit he does seem to have got the main computer companies doing something (which he didn't get them to do on their tax avoidance), the only problem is they say they have always taken a hard line of child abuse images (and i believe them) and what cameron is proposing isn't much different from what they were doing.
all of this has lead to lots of debates about freedom of choice and privacy.
my opting into porn/adult content will no doubt have my name on some sort of list.
meanwhile all the talk about child abuse material has given pointers as to where the darker side of the web is and how you get there.
amanda platell is probably telling everyone who will listen that it was all down to her - that her claim of child abuse images being readily and easily findable via a websearch via bing or google being patently wrong is neither here nor there.
twitter and trolls. can i say i just don't get it - but then i don't understand the longevity of the low slung jeans as a fashion.
it's not that i don't understand that for some it is a horrible experience to be threatened and insulted on social media but there is a part of me that just says ignore them, block them or just leave social media for a few days (the only problem with that - it seems - is that so many people claim that social media is so important that they can't 'turn it off').
look i am in the fortunate position that no one reads my stuff so no one is likely to get offended by it and so no one is likely to have a violent reaction to it. (although once i did upset a michael jackson fan so much they set up a campaign against me. no one cared.
to me there seems to be two fundamental points that come from this.
firstly that for all the talk of progress and equality that there does still seem to be an underlying hate of women who are strong and have strong values and beliefs. as much as i hate to admit it appears that the no more page 3 and no more lads mags brigades may have a point. that the casual sexualisation and objectification of women doesn't just leave them open to casual sexism but makes it acceptable for people declare they are going to rape a woman just because she got the image of a woman on a £10 note - imagine the fury if the change was something really important. (and no i am not demeaning the achievement of getting ms austen's mug on the tenner).
the other part of it is just how coarse public discourse has become in the era of social media. that this great tool of communication has appeared at a point when most people do not have the manners and civility to use it for anything other than calling each other cunts is baffling. i did have to laugh when once again teachers were called upon to teach kids how to be safe and how to interact online. in short could teachers also explain to kids how to be polite.
kids do need to learn how to be polite: it costs nothing and you can reap great rewards from it.
surely that is one of the things parents should be doing.
oh answered my own question there.
disillusionment with sport.
i am not an avid sport fan. yet i am finding more and more that sporting heroes are nothing more than jumped up johnnies who may as well give lessons to mariah carey in how to be divas.
this is especially true of footballers - the new collective term for them being: cunts.
amazement that i have started to like some middle of the road radio friendly stuff.
that i have sung along to jamie callum and michael buble. that i quite like emeli sandi.
however may i point out right now that gotye and the passenger both need a punch in the larynx
paperbacks. whatever happened to paperbacks. you know those proper sized paperbacks.
not the oversized things that called themselves paperbacks.
i miss them. bring them back.
funny how in a world where most things get smaller - paperbacks have gone the other way and have gotten bigger.
there you go: some of the things i was going to write about but didn't.
No comments:
Post a Comment