elongated

just back from seeing the, somewhat bloated, last part of the harry potter movie series. i am not overly keen on the films - they are ok, they have some nice visuals in them. they are long.
i have never read the books. i am not likely to. it is not that i have anything against children's books. it is just that the books get increasingly larger and longer.
there was a time when i was excited when i got hold of a large paperback - the thrill of reading dune, lord of the rings or the stand. stories that went on for 4 or 5 hundred pages. epic.
same with movies - it it was two hours plus then you knew it was an event movie. something special.

now every paperback seems to weigh in at 300 or 400 pages and in the large format. no more the classic paperback format (pocket sized) and 200 pages.
now ever movie seems to be two hours plus.
and now it is no longer special.
now it becomes a chore, an endurance test.
some movies become numb bum evenings where fidgeting is the order of the day.
some books are so obviously padded that they are more filler than they are filling. authors talk about editors who want a three books series or only want a book if the author puts in another 100 pages or so.
i have no idea why they want to do that. smaller books seem to be the way to go. why? think of it this way if they can knock out a 500 page novel each year, they could do two 250 pages novels a year. twice the sales. already i have made it a winner. smaller books means more on the shelves, means less restocking, means more sales (just go into a sainsbury's that sells books and there will always be at least one of them that does not have a book or two on the shelves). or how about: if it takes me a month to read a 500 page book i am only going to read 12 books a year. make them shorter and i will read and buy more. (ok in my case that is a pointless assumption as i buy books in the full knowledge that i will probably never read them, but i just have to have them).

movies are the same. filled with padding and fluff. a 90-minute movie (the almost perfet length) gets turned into a two-hour plus itchy bum fidget fest. the longer the movies the fewer times they can be shown in the cinema. the fewer times they are shown the less sweets that can be sold. comedies that have two jokes in them stretched to over 120-minutes; acton films that have a smidgen of action but two hours of story; art house movies that redefine what it means to watch paint dry.

smaller is often better.
it is also more profitable.

and i wonder why they don't have me running a publishing company...
(well it might be that a line of books involving girls in skimpy costumes running around the world blowing things up might not be times bestseller material - but it darned well should be....)

amy

can't say i was ever a fan of amy winehouse. aside from 'rehab' i am not sure i could pick out any of her songs if they were played for me. doubt anyone was shocked that she died so young.
oddly this isn't about ms winehouse.
what has caused me to write is to do with the need of people to be in the media and to appear to be in the 'know'.
just the other day i was chatting about how there are some stories you just don't tell, some tales you just keep schtum on. others you just don't elaborate on. we all have them. there are some people who seem to be able to go that extra step and tell you the full story regardless of the light it paints them in.
this is even more the case in the new 24-hour always on news cycle and television shows of the likes of jerry springer and jeremy kyle: everyone wants to be a celebrity and everyone thinks they have something interesting to say.
when a celebrity dies there appears to be no shortage of people who can come forward to saying something about the situation. so it is with amy winehouse where we can read that a neighbour thought he heard screams from her house 'like some weird sex game'. nice to be wise after the event. i wonder if he thought to phone the police, or even the sun newspaper.
or perhaps the person who reckoned she must have been dead awhile because her cat was behaving oddly in the morning. i am sure he will get his own cat talk show in the near future.

now i am prepared to admit that i might be being harsh but frankly if all you had done was listen to some screams and just turned up the sound on your tv then you really shouldn't telling the press anything as you just come across as a tit. and not a particulary nice one.
all i have learnt from this is that ms. winehouse didn't have very nice neighbours.

if ever a time to follow 'silence is golden' then this would have been the time.

balance

there was a report in the evening standard awhile ago about how the shares in dixons, the retailer, had crashed, that there profits has declined and there was doubt over their long-term future.
still not all doom and gloom in the world of dixons as their cheif executive received a cash bonus of £120,000 (bringing his total salary to over £1m).
you would wonder quite how much mr. browett would trouser if dixons had been in profit, shares were on the up and up and the future was bright.
apparently he gets to pocket the bonus because he met some personal targets (these are not detailed) so i am guessing they must have been things such as turning up to work, wearing matching socks, writing nice reports (i used to work with someone who wrote very nice reports, he didn't type them up his secretary did and he didn't do the work in compiling the report others did that - he just wrote it up nicely) and being nice to the rest of the board.
i am sure the boys at the confederation of british industry could work out a way to explain how a business that is doing badly can pay out bonuses (the reason is probably something like: without him it would have been even worse). this is why most of the time we don't trust all the guff about how much better the private sector is.

still the report did mention that the shoppers who go into dixons have reported that their shopping experience is much nicer these days.

meanwhile over in my neck of the woods the newly elected mayor, lutfer rahman, (i didn't want a mayor and i didn't vote for him) has been pilloried for his daily use of a hire car. he isn't going to give it up. his reasons for needing a chauffeur driven car was the number of meetings he had to attend and the need to do work while on the move. so approximately £10,000 is to be used to get the mayor from here to there.
i have a solution to the problem: have more meetings in your office mr. mayor. let them come to you. it would save lots of money and make you seem even more important.
true it does mean you won't feel quite so grand as you do swanning around in an expensive car.
even better if you stay in the office - you will get more work done.
i am a genius.
with the money saved mr. rahman you can employ me.

the willingness of politicians to squander public money is one of the reasons why we distrust them.
the only difference between mr. rahman and mr. browett is that so far the people of tower hamlets haven't been able to say our living experience has improved - maybe that is why mr. rahman insists on the car; he doesn't want to see what it is like for the local population.

banksy

i quite like banksy. his work is clever, funny and sometimes has a wry political point to make.

his work was ephemeral glorying in the here-today-gone-tomorrow nature of graffiti. that was until graffiti became art and something to invest in. so lots of guff spoken about how this banksy and that banksy was worth tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds even though they were painted on the side of a building.

not that it mattered much to banksy – he was coining it with his gallery work as dealers and collectors fought to buy his works. though it could be argued that the people who made the most out of banksy were all the people who did books, prints, canvases etc of his work.

to his credit banksy didn’t court publicity; he just went on about his art.

now i like graffiti. i have taken lots and lots of photos of it. i have mixed feelings about the worth of it. as it has become more mainstream and street/urban art has entered the galleries i find myself less inclined to listen to the posturing of street artists who claim that graffiti is not vandalism.

in some cases they are right. some of the works of graffiti artists such as roa, bortusk leer, kid acne, elmo, eska et al are wonders to behold. yet for each of these there are a bunch of kids who just tag their names in bright colours. you can tell when a graffiti artist has some sway in the graffiti community because their work stays untouched by others. perhaps that is why there was such an outcry recently when the new owner of a building painted over the banksy that was on it (since then it has been partially restored). me i couldn’t understand what the fuss was all about – it was not like it couldn’t have been replaced, it isn’t like the image hasn’t been reproduced elsewhere or saved for posterity.

in the end i guess it comes down to (as with most of the world) not all graffiti and graffiti artists are created equal. until such time as i can walk into a gallery like ‘stolen space’ or ‘pure evil’ and tag the works of the artist on display without them saying i defaced their work then the argument about it being vandalism is one that local councils have won.

meanwhile a much greater loss than a covered up banksy was the sad death of lucien freud. shan’t be long before the large scale retrospective opens in a gallery near me, it will be good.

complaining

the fallout from the defence review contnues. the new wheeze is less of a standing army and more of a reservist maintained organisation. i am sure there are lots of bosses around the country who will be happy to see some of their employees bugger off for a several months in order to quell a rogue state, while they have to keep their jobs open for them. what is the betting that it works out to be more expensive? not to mention impractical.

over in scotland there is the likelihood that two airforce bases might be closed down.
back in westminster the scotish national party's leader in the house of commons, angus robertson, raises concerns at such a move.
"how can a cut of up to 74% in scotland be justified?"

hold on dear chap - i thought you lot wanted shot of us?
what better way to start the process by waving goodbye the military might of the british state? oh that's right with the defence industry moving south that is a big chunk of change gone from the scotish economy and that won't sit too well with some voters.

there has been several other groups and influential people complaining about where liam fox and go are taking the british armed forces (to hellmand in a hand basket - mmm another one of those quips that seemed so much funnier before i typed it out..)

so here is my suggestion. convert defence spending into aid spending nd turn the armed forces into a version of international rescue - the jet off when there is a natural disaster - help save the day.
but what about protecting oursevlves from invasion?
go the north korea route - have a few nuclear missles pointed at various places around the globe and just calmly tell people 'fuck with us and glow in the dark'.
there you go: peace.
sorted.
next job.

speech

words are important.
language is important.

it allows us to explain the world around us, it allows us to share ideas, and it allows us to communicate.
because they are social constructs words and language are not simple things, they can be wielded precisely or loosely. meanings twisted out of all shape to their original intention. they are not impartial. they are used to persuade.
most of us want freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of thought. most of us don't like censorship. most of us accept that there are limits on these freedoms, the limits change - what was acceptable 50, 30 or 10 years ago is not acceptable now.
we redefine censorship as tolerance (some might say political correctness).

the web is an interesting place one site leads to another and before you know it you have discovered something interesting (and for a change not pornographic). through a circuitous route of which i will spare you the details i came across a quote from one of the champions of free speech.
as with most of those who fight for free speech – he has his usual targets (i will leave you to guess them).
and he says this “i don't care what people believe as long as i don't have to keep hearing about it.” which sort of defeats the purpose of having freedom of speech.
it is a variant of the i-don’t-agree-but-i-defend school of thought.
so the speaker would defend the ability of various groups to say what they will but just not so it can be heard anywhere he might be. so censorship by another name.

the irony is off course is that as the world becomes more wired we are becoming more narrowcasted at: we choose where we get our news from and we generally choose something that agrees with us.
according to the view that is what free speech is all about: just agreeing with us. everything else is wrong or pandering to a minority group.
perhaps the problem is that there is too much speech, there is too much to be heard and we can’t hear the important words through the white noise.

the internet has become our very own tower of babble and confusion and misinterpretation is the new world disorder.

rain

it rained a lot today.
it looked fantastic.
it sounded fantastic.
it cooled the air.
i like the rain.
but i didn't go out in it.

lovely moon out tonight.

(i am sure in some circles the above counts as wonderful poetry. if i were to stand at a lectern and shout it and whisper it and repeat it in a shouty whisper then it would also be performance poerty. if while i was shouty whispering my repeated verse and it was videoed i have no doubt that it would become a youtube sensation and next thing you know i would be whisperyshouting on the late review show and pontificating on question time.
from there it is only a short step for me to be shouty whisperer on twitter (how? you ask - easy just mix up the cases on each word adn you have shouty whispering on twitter) with a large following all ready to be individuals and unique but also happy to do what i request.
then more shouty shouting type performances - just to show i am not a one trick pony. they will be followed by the difficult third performances which will have the inovation of whisper talking.
all of this will lead to a successful film career as i genre span shouting in romcoms and whispering (huskily) in action movies. for horror movies i will unleash as new screechy scream, which will also feature in the new live performances of angst ridden limericks about trying to choose the right tins of peas.

all this would have come from my shouty whispering performance of:
it rained a lot today.
it looked fantastic.
it sounded fantastic.
it cooled the air.
i like the rain.
but i didn't go out in it.

lovely moon out tonight.

if i had ever done it live and if it were ever recorded.
i didn't.
it wasn't.
the world wasn't ready.

yet.

odds

need to cut down on the long hours in work - it is so easy to be there late as it is just around the corner and there is sooooo much that needs to be done.
but i have to stop it because:
i am tired all the time.
i am getting fatter.
getting fatter? what has that to do with working late? you ask.
doughnuts! i reply. cakes! i mumble. chocolate! i whisper.
so it is time for less work and less calories.

seems like rebekah has gone. what will she do next? will she be able to reinvent herself as a smarmy television celebrity ala piers morgan? i hope not. it isn't because i have a particular dislike for ms brooks (though i do) it is more that the world has suffered enough with the smugness that is mr. morgan without another smug ex-journo cluttering up the screens. bad enough that andrew neil is gets screen time.
so what next for ms. brooks?
the inevitable book. no doubt there will be two drafts. this is the nice one that just details my life in journalism up to when things were still nice and calm in the gardens of news international. the second draft will contain all the bodies and still yet to be exploded bombs - but only to be published if the advance for the first draft is too low.
perhaps there is a chance she will team-up with ex hubbie. together they could go to the most dangerous places in the world, dealing with the most vicious gangs of the world. where in the past ross would just film their stories, now with rebekah in tow they would just beat them into submission and change the world into a nicer place.
mexican drug lords vs rebekah? my money is on ms. brooks.

murdoch + hacking + 9/11 - fbi = downfall.
sweet dreamy arithmatic.
i can only hope.

it wasn't me (again). i didn't win the millions and millions on the euro lottery. blast.
though it does mean that all that money i was going to give to my friends and good causes stay as imaginery as all the good things i would have done with the money.

i have a mutant toe nail.
i thought i would share that with everyone.

i love sport on the radio. even sports i have no interest in (mostly games that involves balls being hit by something: cricket, golf and tennis for instance) but put them on the radio and i an listen to hours of them. this is even more noticeable when the sport in question plays late into the night because it is taking place in some far off land (which was one of the reasons i was never keen on the olympics in london).
so i will be spending some of the weekened listening to the golf on the radio.
i have never played golf, i will probably never play golf but as a radio sport it is fascinating - not because of the golfers but because of the commentators.

back to the olympics: i have worked out the london organising committee of the olympic games (locog) publicity and marketing strategy. it seems to be: highlight the bad news - oh the ticketing was a disaster (even though it probably went as expected - more people wanted the good tickets than there were seats available and no one wanted the shit events), yet most of the tickets have been sold. you can probably guarantee that the empty seats will be those held by sponsors or friends of the olympic family.
now the olympic super highway is being called into question. the draconian laws being used to push it through, the loss of life it might cause, the disruption it might cause blah blah blah (not to belittle the seriousness of the claims).
the story that the international olympic committee were impressed by how far advanced everything was in the olympic village seems to have been buried.
bad news sells i guess - papers and tickets to big events.

and

it may come as a surprise to those who know me but i have been put in charge of a team of 10 staff. i am a manager. who would have thought it! as befits a manager i have my own office. true it is a pokey sweat box at the moment, but it is mine!
however i am not the sort of person who just sits there and lords it over people.
recently we have been very busy so i have decided to get out there among them all, also makes it easier for the students to get to me (not always a good thing). so at the moment i am in one of the big offices. laugh? oh yes we do. (apparently one of the things i need to learn is some professional distane - seems i am too pally with the staff).
there is one drawback being in one of the communal offices: i have to listen to their choice of radio station: captial or kiss. it is like sophie's choice but you get to choose between shit and puke.
i have quickly discovered that there is little variety as to the songs that are played: the 'hits' seemingly get played every show. so often in fact that against my will i am beginning to know the songs and able to sing along, at this rate i will even know who is singing them. as yet i have no idea if it is lady gaga, adele, jessie j or any other currently popular singer. at the moment the tune (if i can call it that) that annoys the most is some odd mash-up of a rap song and some urban soul ballad. it sounds like some badly cut-and-paste punk fanzine - there seems to be no connection between the two songs and they just clash against each other.
i am a good boss. i would be a better boss if i made them listen to diamanda gallas.
they are not ready for it....yet.

i may have written about my annoyance at trailers in the cinema. sometimes they entice you in only to disappoint (say transformers 3 - the trailer starts off promising something interesting and then delivers...oh), or sometimes you can see how trailers have changed as the vibe of a film has changed (super 8 springs to mind - first trailer is all about kids and their adventure that might be a little bigger than they (and we) think compared to the all out disaster moster movie second trailer that just shouts out 'ooops we pitched this film wrong and it hasn't done well in the states let's see if we can save it elsewhere...'). then there is the trailer that is released so many months before the film that by the time the movie opens you resent the fact that you have seen the trailer 20 or 40 times.
so imagine my surprise when i saw the trailer for the latest 'final destination' movie. not giving much away but: people will survive a disaster at the start of the movie only for them to be killed off in painful and interesting ways throughout the movie as death comes to reclaim them. fun premise that has worked well for four movies.
the reason i go to see the final destination movies isn't because of the complex storyline with its engaging cheacter sketches. nor am i going to enjoy the shakespeare rivaling script, nor am i going for the quality acting that shares emotions with the audience.
nope i am going for the interesting, funny and complicated deaths that are arranged for each character.
so traler makers here is a tip for you: don't give away all the interesting bits in the trailer or there is no point in going. thanks to the final destinaton trailer i know how most of them are going to die.
oh well i am sure it will raise a smile or two.

currently going through a 'i hate sportsmen' phase.
why?
most because i have come to realise that they are all moaning minnies who just never stop wanting. look there is wayne rooney talking about how the club's ambition may not match his own (of course he won't put his own money into it but he will demand someone else pay for his ambition). he is not alone most 'top' footballers will at some point come out and demand that their club buy more players. everyone is quick to spend other people's money.
the worst of the bunch has to be formula 1 racing cars. lewis hamilton has been moaning that his car isn't ip to iy. he want a new one and a better one. no offer to contribute to the costs, just wants to get paid.
when he wins it is because he is a great driver, when he loses it is because the car is not up to scratch.
all bases covered.

why is it a mars bar tastes so much better late at nght?
no idea why, but i can tell you it was yummy.

sods

why are there no famous male models, where is the male equivalent of kate or naomi. where is the male superstar model who throws a strop and gets hassled for being drunk and drugged up? there must be one, but why isn't he in all the newspapers?

why arn't there superstar women darts or snooker players? seriously why can't they play against and beat the men? just a case of aiming and letting go, it is just hand-eye coordination and as women can multitask they can play the game while having a chinwag with their mate in the third row.

why don't the laces in my plimpsols stay tied up? no matter what the knot i tie, no matter how tight it is at some point in the day the lace will come untied. when i tie it iup again that is a sing for the other one to come untangled. forcing me into a series of stopping, bending, knotting as i walk down the road.

why am i the poster boy for messy? i used to work with a chap who could wear anything and make it look suitable, appropriate, trendy and comfortable. it didn't matter what he wore he looked good in it. he also tended to be obsessively neat and precise, some would say anal (yet he wasn't the worst in the office, just the next in line) everything on his desk had a place and that place was neatly laid out in relation to all the other things that were on his desk. the complex laws of the universe laid bare in the positioning of a few pens and pencils.
his other super-power was that he was very much like 'the man in the white suit': dirt avoided him. he came to work wearing a very white coat, he wore it for a few weeks. never once did the coat look anything less than perfect shimmering white. it was an astonishing feat.
i am the total antithesis of this. not only am i the definition of messy, the concept of mess made flesh. around me are pools of chaos that turn organised desks and workspaces into jumbles and piles that remind one of those old fusty dusty second-hand bookshops where piles would tetter totter and the book you always wanted was in the middle of some impossibly high tower of books and yet somehow the wizend old man could pull that book from the pile - well my place is like that, except the piles wobble and fall when you go near them - forming a new ecosystem of mess that you have to learn to navigate.
when it comes to my white shirts (yes i have a few - hope springs eternal) i just set myself up for disappointmnet.
there i was today looking quite smart (for me) (for once) in a very white shirt. the boss came in with some very gooey doughnuts. i managed one (well it might have been three) without damage to the shirt. later on i was drinking coffee and bish bosh bash two fucking great big drips and i might as well be a hippy in a tye dye. oh well. crack on with work i think.
another cup of coffee (no drips this time) and another doughnut. ooops. out sploshes some strawberry cream and plonk down the other side of the shirt.
cripes i am looking like the mad english teacher who knew all the works of shakespeare but was never sure how to button his shirt or tie his laces.
i am a dirt attactor and a chaos magnet.
i think i am going to stick to t-shirts.

endings

news of the world. closed. finished. ended.
space shuttle. last trip. almost done. ending.
my laptop. last legs. pretty kaput. ending.

coincidence?
or
conspiracy?

you decide.

notw

today was the day the news of the world closed.

now i am no expert, which in the current climate means that i am perfectly capable of chatting about this as if i know what i am talking about (get me on the tv now), but the closing of the news of the world is on the one hand a feeble gesture and on the other hand a sign of hard headed pragmatism.

why is it a feeble gesture? simply because it has all been wrapped up with how sorry they are for stepping over the line. yet many of the people who are being ‘punished’ by the closing of the paper had nothing to do with the hacking of various phones around the country. those people who were, and are, in charge at news international are allowed to carry on as normal.  thus the closing of the news of the world is just a sacrifice to the masses, a diversion to keep them away from the power brokers.

it is a pragmatic move because for all intents and purposes the news of the world, as a brand and as a campaigning newspaper, is dead in the water. the loss of readers and advertisers making the paper no longer economically viable, more importantly the fear that the anger towards the actions of the news of the world would taint the rest of the news international stable. so the news of the world had to go.

no need to worry as there had already been moves within news international to position staff on the sun newspaper so that they can work seven days a week and the only reason for that? to get a sunday sun out. the question now is just how quickly can they do it and not look like they are not penitent about the news of the world situation.

max mosley must be laughing his head off. we had no problems with the revelations that they may have hacked the phones of celebs and politicians. we have been taught that they are fair game, that they are casualties that are necessary in the cause of a free press that seeks out stories in the national interest (which in newspaper terms broadly means profitable for the paper). it was only with the news that the hacking also intruded into the personal grief of ordinary people that the shit hit the fan for news international. apparently there is a lot more to come.

the original hacking claims didn’t cause that much of a stir for the public, mainly because the media tried its very hardest to ignore it.

odd really when you consider just what a powerful story it was, even when it was just celebrities. here was a national newspaper breaking the law, here was a newsroom apparently out of control, as the editors of the time seemed to be saying that they didn’t have a clue as to what was going on. yet somehow the story was never pursued. yet give the papers mp’s expenses and they were like ravening beasts – the most innocuous claim blown out of all proportion. or look how they pursued a few mps because of their sexuality – liked it mattered, forcing a few to confess as if being gay meant they were somehow incapable of the job. remember how quickly they were to shout for a minister to fall on their sword if something went wrong in their department.

contrast that with how quiet they were over the original hacking cases – how lightly andy coulson got off first time around. judging by some of the headlines in the red tops this past week they were keen to let it all slide.

none of them rushing to condemn, very few calls for the head of rebekah brooks or james murdoch perhaps out of misplaced loyalty to fellow journalists or more likely that there are skeletons in all their closets. for a long time they have used the ‘it is in the public’s interest’ when they have broken stories about scandals of the rich and famous. these footballers, musicians, actors and the like are, we are told, role models because they are in the public eye and because they can influence people. so the argument goes they are legitimate targets.

yet they are only role models and influencers because the media has told us so.

somehow the media, with a few notable exceptions, has remained in the background all the while influencing people. it never turns the spotlight on to itself, and it tried very hard not to do it with the latest hacking story preferring to tell cheryl not to go back to ashley.

if we are lucky this will lead to the media having a hard look at itself and changing. doubtful.

if we are lucky it will mean that the two main political parties will move away from worrying what the press has to say and develop policy that has more in common with what the public wants than what a few editors tell us the public want. at the moment the conservatives and david cameron are tarnished by this. labour hasn’t escaped untouched. this is something where they could come together to make sure that there is legislation in place to prevent, and if necessary punish, a media that oversteps the line. some might say that this could be used as a weapon to curtail a free press, but a press that is just interesting in tittle tattle and tawdry stories isn’t worried about the national interest just in the bottom line.

if we are lucky it will mean the end of murdoch’s overbearing influence on british politics and british opinion.

what i think will happen is that this will all blow over and it will be business as normal.

but we can hope.

prices

nice one british gas.
thanks.
just what i need.
i am so glad that privatisation meant better pricing for us (still waiting for that advantage).

wondering if they have released their price rises now hoping that it gets lost in the news about the 'news of the world' and the hacking scandal.
they wouldn't do that, would they?
just wondering.

blocking

there is an odd debate going on at the moment about blocking websites that host the streaming of copyrighted material, such as the premier league football games. the premier league makes most of its money through selling the rights to screen game live on tv. they are keen to protect and protect the brand they have created.
simpe. understandable.
it is all part of the digital economy act.
i am going to ignore the rights and wrongs of the act as i need to set a download running (joke.. it was a joke... a joke).
i can't see how ban a site that infringes copyright can be seen as an attack on free speech, more an attack on theft. the copyfighters all seem to be very keen to give away the work of others but have yet to invited me around to their place so i can just take a dvd or cd from their shelves.
however this isn't what this is about.
during one of the meetings to discuss this whole thing an executive from google said they would fight any attempt at web blocking. i feel safer knowing that. after all they put up such a fight in china, perhaps that sort of bravado is easy to maintain when your search engine is number one in most western countries.
nor does it seem a stance that is compata company who is accused of rigging the result of their searches engine searches in order to make the results of 'friends' appear much closer to the top, i guess that isn't the same as 'censorship', it is just misleading (and tits between pals so who cares.....)
when it comes to sense i have long since given up expecting it from any compant that is making  loads of money, would i do expect from them is their whinging on about the rights of the consumer to make money for the company in question.

over

line.
crossed over.
ooops 'news of the world'.
one thing snooping on self-important celebs who quite like the publicity.
quite another to hack the phone of a murdered girl.

crikey perfect time for clarkson or frankie boyle to tell one of their famous 'funny' jokes.

tired

so tired.
just fallen asleep on the bog.
woke up in some pain from where i had slumped over.
it wasn't the pain that woke me from my elvis like slumber, it was the terrible smell of a large job well done. while i was dreaming of impertinent french maids, my body had done what came naturally and had unleased a very large u-bend buster and a few smaller turds for good measure.
leave a pile like that festering for a while and you have a chemical reaction that can kill a goodly percentage of the people in the local area while also stipping the paint off of rhe nearest airaircraft carrier.
i was lucky: i was jolted back to reality by a smell that caused me to cough and my eyes to water.
i know have to look out for me going off on a 'sleep poo' adventure on other nights as it will be a tough one to explain!

intervention

the new buzz is all about early intervention.
all about investing in the early lives of those who are disadvantaged in oder to prevent massive future social costs.
nothing really radical there - after all the jesuits have been forever going on about show me the child and i will mould you the man.
it is all so obvious really.
the new labour governmen poured a lot of love, attention and resources trying to get over 50% of the population a degree. lot of money spent.
it was one of their biggest mistakes - the time, the effort and the money should have been going into infant and junior schools to make sure kids were in a position to not only be able to learn, but want to.
all this talk of early intervention comes down to that: giving kids a good environment in which to grow and develop.
perhaps this government will pay attention and do the right thing.
i doubt it, but it would be nice.

new

not liking the new look.
oops.
i am sure it will grow on me.

work

i just pulled an 87-hour work week.
madness.

i had to deal with whining staff (all legitimate complaints); moaning students and demanding agents. mostly i enjoyed it. i wouldn’t want to do it again for awhile.

i have to admit there was a sense of achievement walking out of the office at 4 or 5am.

though come saturday i was brain dead.

the thought that came to me was: why do we expect junior doctors to work such long hours? as there were times when i was having trouble entering data into spreadsheets. this was followed by: why do lorry drivers complain that they are not allowed to work as long as they want. if i can’t work a computer well at the end of 80 hours work, i am pretty sure that truckers would have trouble controlling their lorries.

i am up for doing another long week.

but not just yet.

dim

dim


my television is so dim, but it is still cleverer than jeremy clarkson.

boom boom.

my joke is about as funny as jeremy’s.

how ironic then that kia abdullah (a very tasty bangladeshi author) has been caught up in an ‘insensitivity’ row of another shade. ms abdullah made a ‘joke’ about the death of some british students with double-barrelled names while they were on a gap year trip to thailand. she claimed it was an attempt at ‘classist’ humour.

her ‘joke’ appeared on twitter. quite how people in the public eye forget the ‘social’ part of social media is beyond me, but they do. still she apologised and so that is fine and dandy.

on the radio a friend of the author and someone from the libertarian alliance ‘debated’ the situation. the friend basically said that ms abdullah had made a mistake and that was that. the libertarians began by saying that if ms abdullah had been facing prosecution from the police then they would be defending her, but as she wasn’t they were calling for her to be cast out as a social leper (which seems to be having your cake and eating it). he went on to point out that if this had been a white writer making a similar comment about students who had indian or african names there would have been a large outcry. which seemed odd as he had also claimed that ‘people can find racism in a bus queue’ (it is an analogy that doesn’t really work as often you can find racism in a bus queue, but we’ll gloss over that) so it is ironic how quickly he played the race card. ms abdullah’s friend claimed it had nothing to do with race, but was a poor attempt at humour based on class; in doing so proving that perceived racism is colour blind – it rarely comes in paler shades.

clarkson often defends himself by saying that those who are offended by his jokes don’t have a sense of humour. ms abdullah and her friend defends her by saying it was a mistake. neither of them seems to have been blessed by the comedy gods. perhaps both of them need to count to ten before they put their ‘jokes’ out there in the public arena.

j30

today the strikes are going on over the country.
no matter what happens the tories will claim that they show that the ordinary working people do not agree with public sector workers. no matter how many people come out on strike they will claim there was not enough support for it and they will start making noises about changing the rules that unions have to live by in order to call strikes (though they won't be quite so keen to apply the same logic to their roles).

but this isn't a blog about politics.
this is a blog to send a message out to a special person. a radical person. a caring person.

ems: get back to work!

strikes

michael gove has called on a mum's army to keep the schools working when teachers go on strike. mr. gove also goes on about how teachers will lose public support if they go on strike.
i have no idea if the teachers are right to strike or not, but the fact that mr. gove is against it is good enough for me.
go teachers! go teachers!

(meanwhile vince cable is playing down the idea that there might be tougher anti-union laws coming from the coalition. there was a small piece in the news of the world (it was there i read it; i didn't buy it) going on about how there might be an attack on trade union benefits.
amazing how if you go on strike to protect your standard of living you are are cast as enemies of the state and need to be crushed.
if you happen to be a financial institution who fucked the world's economic system sideways you just get a pass and told to continue.
no wonder we don't trust the coalition (nothing to do with the fact the tories are part of it, not at all...)

enough

look just shut up about the olympic tickets.
more people wanted tickets than there were tickets available - it really is that simple.
more people wanted to sit in the olympic stadium and watch the 100 metres final than there were seats available. get over it.
bradley wiggins and some swimmer have moaned that their family couldn't get tickets. boo fucking hoo. olympians get two tickets for each event they are in. some have mentioned that footballers and tennis players get more tickets when they are in cup finals or at wimbledon. perhaps i should point out that there are fewer players at both so the amounts of tickets to be given away is far far fewer. secondly, and perhaps more crucially, wimbledon and the fa cup (say) are both commercial events and the stadiums they take place in built with private money. in case you have forgotten the olympic stadium and park mostly built by state money (our money my friends, our money).
so bradley man up.
it is made even worse by the fact that most of the olympians will have benefitted from state funding in order for them to pursue their dreams (no matter what people say a well trained teacher or nurse will do more good for society than a host of linford christies). so it is doubly irksome when they seemingly have the attitude that the olympics is something for them and the rest of us are just lucky to be able to see it.
get real.

as bad as the atheletes are the moaners who didn't get tickets are even worse.
a popular event selling out - who would have thought it? i must be missing all the media coverage of glastonbury of people constantly complaining that they didn't get their ticket and that they will never listen to music ever again just because they aren't going.
sometimes life isn't fair.
get over it.

then the cynical part of me kicks in and i think that the london organising committee love this sort of thing as it is generating lots of interest in the games, making sure that the duff tickets are getting sold and there will be very few empty seats in any of the olympic venues.
clever stuff.

savings

david cameron has been over to europe for one of those there summits that that have. mr. cameron is always going on about how wasteful and extravagant the european council is - though he always seems happy to go on a jolly to brussels.
he is a bit miffed that there are plans to construct a new building to house the european council for mr. cameron this is just an outrageous waste of money. ignoring the keynesian aspect of it (public money creating wealth because of the spending power of the people employed on the project - oh hold on only the private sector can generate wealth: silly me), ignoring the ecological aspects: being purpose built it will be a sustainable bringing down the cost to the environment. you could even argue that a project that size in brussels might even mean a decrease in the number of johnny-east-europeans that the tories hate so much as they sit and fan their hate with a copy of the daily mail.

nope david cameron says of the building: "tt seems to me to do a perfectly good job of housing the european council. the microphones work, there is plenty of room and the food isn't bad either. what is the problem?"

he also says: ""you do wonder if these institutions actually get what every country and what every member of the public is having to go through, as we cut budgets and try and make our finances add up." a slightly longer version of the 'we are all in it together' formula that they like to spout - it is the sort of thing that had them walking to parliament on their first day (and i am sure they went cheap day eurostar for this trip).

but would this be the david cameron who, with his wife, had a second, brand spanking new kitchen installed in 10 downing street? they had said that they would pay the extra costs themselves, but that was for renovating the old one. mr. cameron also said his government would be more transparent with information about the costs of running the country, but it seems not so much when it comes to building a new kitchen.
i suppose if asked to comment i might say something like: "tt seems to me to do a perfectly good job as a kitchen. the hob works, there is a toaster and the food isn't bad either. what is the problem? you do wonder if these rich tory toffs actually get what every member of the public is having to go throug?"

don't you worry dave. i know you are thinking of me when you dip your toast into boiled egg, becuase like you i know we are all in it together - the only problem is you are standing on our sholders watching us suffer.

hot

someone told me that it was going to be blistering tomorrow.
i am already suffering now. lawks knows what i am going to be like tomorrow then.
sweat monster most probably.

tuckered

i am plum tuckered out. not been this tired for a looooong time.
almost fallen alseep at the computer. time for me to go and sleep before i collapse.

why

there is a lot going on in the world at the moment.
just think of british members of parliament who have a lot on their plate - there is the deficit; there is afghanistan and libya; there is the reforms of the nhs and education to name just a few. for most people that would be enough.
amazingly they are debating whether or not 'wild' animals should be used in the circus.
adding irony to the mix the mp  who has brought this before the house is a tory: the party who wants to overturn the ban on fox hunting. slaughtering foxes is ok, but getting an elephant to stand on its back-legs is a terrible effront to the the animal's dignity.
so remember:
foxes dead - ok.
zebras prancing  - bad.
i can almost follow the logic and that worries me.

over

friend laid to rest.
words spoken.
tears shed.
reminders of the past.
time to move on, time to get back to life, time to remember all the good thngs we have.

black

suit - newly bought (ill fitting).
shirt - newly bought (still in wrapper).
black tie - used a few times (plain).
boots - black (not shined).
train ticket - waiting (still have to pay for it).
time of departure - set (will i get there in time).
book - ready (something short and light).

all ready.
i am off on a summer funeral. fun for all the family.

u

we hated margaret thatcher when she told us that the ‘lady is not for turning’. for some her conviction politics was a sign of strength to the rest of us it was a sign of dogmatic certainty in the face of the suffering she was causing.
there are times when you expect politicians to stick to their guns, even if you don’t agree with them. blair and the iraq war springs to mind; even the coalition and their deficit reduction schemes. it might be something we don’t like but we can see what it is they are doing and we can even understand why they are doing.

we elected politicians to make laws and make the big decisions – no one ever agrees 100& of the time with everything the party they voted for says (often the members of parliament do not fully agree with their parties). that is part and parcel of politics.

we also expect politicians, and the government, to listen to us. we moan when they don’t heed what we say (think of the anti war marches). yet when they do listen and change their stance they are quickly accused of u-turns and weakness. david cameron is suffering that today with the announcement that the prison term discount plan had been dropped because it was ‘too lenient’. to most people the plan had some advantages but it quickly became obvious that in order to make sure that ‘bad’ criminals didn’t get the discount that it would have too many caveats as to be workable; that plus public (well media) opinion meant it was dead in the water.

the coalition withdrew the plan. they responded to the public. they did their job. yay them. or so you would think.

nope the labour party is quick to call it a u-turn when really it is part of government: they come up with ideas; we let them know how we feel.

i don’t see them changing their minds as one of weakness but of good government.

i do see the labour parties approach to calling it a u-turn as short sighted, they should be pointing out how they helped persuade the government to review and change their plans: except that isn’t an interesting sound bite. so you have ed miliband saying: "the prime minister has to ask how did he get himself into the position of making a proposal which wasn't thought through. it is yet another example of this government not being in touch with people and making proposals which they then have to abandon."

cameron and co. would argue that the fact they had changed their view demonstrates that they are indeed in touch with the people. where miliband is right is that this is another example of a half-thought through idea launched into the public domain without much consideration to the outcry it would cause. miliband’s attack shouldn’t have been on the fact that the government has changed its stance but that it had changed its stance once again, that this is a government that doesn’t know what it is trying to do, that it doesn’t think things through and just shoots from the political strategy hip.

ed, just for you, i give you this suggestion: don’t bother telling us about the u-turns as such, we don’t really care as often we have to do such things each day. instead keep reminding us that it is yet another half-baked idea and that the changes have come because you, the labour party, have convinced the government of the error of their ways. otherwise the constant sniping from the sidelines just comes across as ‘told you so’ but without you having offered something in return. because if all you have to offer is letting us know where cameron has slipped up you are not getting back into power.

slogan

the tories gave us "get on your bike".
won't be long before they start chanting "cripples work for free".
just got to love them.

panic

had a situation at work that had me breaking out in a cold sweat and coming close to shitting myself.
i am pretty sure i have a few more white hairs now.
left me pooped with worry. so tired now i can just about stay awake to write this - which is upsetting as i have just seen something where my pals at the cbi have wittered on about the government being afraid of union attacks and public backlashes.
this has meant that the coalition has 'lost its way' on public sector reforms.
it might also be that with each of the promised 'reforms' it looks as if the coalition (well the tories) have rushed headlong into without actually thinking it through only to discover that oooops the only people who really agree with the 'reforms' are those who are going to make money out of them.
here's hoping the leaders of the cbi are choking on their nightcaps.

promises

do you remember when the conservatives were banging on about no more top-down initiatives, no more targets driven from the centre. localism and let those who do make the choices.
this move away from central diktat framed in the talk of the market, of the free-spirit. unchain the slumbering beast of initiative and see how it can do the job so much better than central government. a lovely thought - one that ignores the fact that most very large companies are centrally run - sure the local branches may have a say in some small minor detail or two but they are no calling the shots, they are operating by central command. back in my past life i couldn't get  changes made unless i managed to persuade a vice-president an ocean away.
for all that we hate bureaucracy and red tape we also know that it is necessary. frankly i don't want the police to be free to pull over someone they suspect without having to fill out the paperwork. nor do i want to see hospitals run on the memory and whim of a few of the people working in the admin section. i want to know that they all know what they are supposed to be doing and who is supposed to be doing it.
at the same time i quite like the idea that everyone is, in theory, able to get access to the same service in schools, hospitals, social service etc. that policy is set by those we elect to run the country - after all it is why we voted them in.

so it will come as no surprise that i support michael (evil ventriloquist doll) gove's move to proscribe an ambitious target of gcse passes in secondary schools.
admittedly i am sure that there is an agenda attached to the move (the cynic in me reckons he is hoping local education services schools fail to meet this target and they all get taken over by chris woodhead and other private providers of education), but national recognisable targets are, in and of themselves, not something to be feared.

though if you remember all the blather and jibber jabber of david cameron et al such things are to be feared.
perhaps the tories are discovering that you do need targets and performance indicators when you are running a country and that when you run a country you have to set national standards from the centre.
i would like to think that they are all breaking out in hives having to do it, but we all know they are loving being in charge.

proof

isn't the situation with southern cross care homes a perfect example of just why the profit motive can't work when it comes to basic care of people?

meanwhile the 'evening standard' reveals that some commuters into london face fares approaching £10,000 a year. philip hammond, transport secretary (and someone who gets free transport and claimed almost the maximum amount possible for his second home, even though he lived in the commuter belt - hey it is a good way to help pay for those rail fares. he has said he would pay any profits he made on his second home into the public purse. oh in case you are wondering mr. hammond is minted) defends what could be double digit rises for some fares because they are needed to fund key improvements to the rail network.

so where are the benefits of privatisation? for years there has been subsidies to most of the rail companies, but prices have risen, services have declined (or been restructured so that they appear to be on target). now that there are to be 'key improvements' (with less government money) the rail companies use that entreprenurial know-how, that can-do approach, that efficiency driven method that we need in public services and ... oh they just put the prices up.
fuck me ragged with a railway siding, but if that is all that is needed to be seen as some gung-ho cheif executive where do i sign up.
after all how hard can it be to solve your problems with a simple 'raise the fares'. see i did it just there.
look i will do it again 'raise the fares'. simple.

in a way we should be happy that cameron has had a serious rethink on he national health service (showing for once that he is a serious politician - not that i think the nhs is safe in his hands if he gets a mandate for a second term), at least we won't be subjected to having to see prices escalate in hospitals just because the only way to make them profitable will be to squeeze the patien... sorry the customer dry.

eulogy

like most people i have a lot of pals, mates, muckers and chums.


i do not have many friends, i have been blessed with a group of friends i don’t really deserve, but sometimes you get lucky.

the last fortnight has been a very mixed one. i got to spend time with one of my oldest friends, adam, someone i haven’t seen for a very long time. he was visiting the country for the first time in 17 years. we chewed the breeze, we shot the shit, and we put the world to rights. part of the reason for him being here was a school reunion. it won’t surprise people to know i am not big on school reunions. why? because i am a miserable bastard.

surprise surprise, i had a good time. i only talked to a few people, but it was enough. anjuna looked as lovely as she did all those years ago. aside from much less hair andy could have been the same teenager who built his own synthesiser. janet looked even more gorgeous than when she was in the 6th form and i felt the pangs of unrequited love i had for her back then (ah the joy of angst ridden 6th form poetry from a broken heart – don’t worry i won’t repeat any of it). as we talked the years slipped away and i could remember being back in the sixth form telling jokes, making up wild stories, planning a band (well several in fact – even though i had no musical talent).

the evening ended. i was sad to see them go, best of all there were no false promises to keep in touch. the evening was what it was: a small reminder of what it was like to be a teenager with no cares in the world.

a few days later adam has to return to the states.

all is back to normal.

a few days later i am trying to contact another friend, emma woods, in order to get her to contact an old colleague as he needs some information from her. the number he has for her doesn’t work. the number i have for her just gets a ‘please try again message’. in the end i contact someone else to see if he has another number for her. a day or so later i get a message from him to phone him.

i do.

i get the news that emma is dead. no one is sure how. we are still waiting to know.

i don’t have a coherent picture of my friendship with emma. we met through work. it was a fiery relationship – full of rows and arguments. we loved each other in the way only friends can do. we shared ups and downs. we talked about serious stuff, we talked about silly stuff. we loved comics and movies. we hated each other’s music. she was there when i developed my man crush on bruce willis: the night we went to see die hard 2 in the prince charles cinema, just before she flew out to los angeles to work. we called each other late at night just to swap burps and swear words. she was one of the creators of the ‘geppi heads’ an event that still makes me smile, but it can’t be explained to anyone who wasn’t there.

as with many things we grew apart and as friends are wont came back together again. things had changed for both of us, but it didn’t matter we could still swear, we could still burp, we could still talk shit.

emma was intelligent, talented, outspoken, infuriating, passionate, argumentative and annoying. most of all, most importantly, she was my friend, and i was lucky to know her.

i will miss her.

amazon

i have a love hate relationship with amazon. in a previous life i hated having to deal with amazon, they made the life of a supplier a misery – for all their sophistication they could get their orders spectacularly wrong and we would have to bear the cost of that.


i love getting books cheap. i love getting books delivered to me.

there is something wonderful about having a package turn up at work, ripping it open and seeing a book you have ordered all new and waiting to be read. it makes the day.

what i hate about amazon is that something so simple can be so irritating.

i can order books that are in stock on a sunday night and not see them until the following week. meanwhile one of my work colleagues can order on a monday and get it tuesday! so it seems can my pal paul! why am i singled out for such poor treatment? i have no idea.

ok i will cheat the system. i will order on a saturday. ha! that will fool them. that will confuse them and i will have the books monday or tuesday. reeeeeeesult.

it was a nice plan. i made the cardinal error of ordering a books that wasn’t in stock and not due into stock for a week or so. both books i have ordered are sitting there. staring at me.

i needed cheering up so i decided i would place a second order on sunday. this time i have made sure all the books are in stock. they have them all and soon i will have them. oh yeah. i instruct amazon that i want them to go cheapest delivery and i want them to go in the fewest parcels (i care about the environment you see).

three books, all in stock. one delivery. midweek. sorted. happy pat.

a simple plan.

i look at the progress of my order. all three books are in stock. one is being processed. the other two are like the earlier books i have ordered just sitting there waiting.

i look again. no change. one book being processed. the other two still waiting.

i look again. one book has been despatched – by royal mail and no tracking to it. the other two books still sitting there. so that is 3 books in stock just sat there doing nothing, and one book waiting for a restock to arrive. one book on its way to me.

so much for the smallest number of packages.

i have no idea why they have sent just one book of an order of 3, when all are in stock. i have no idea why they take so long to deliver to me.

it is like amazon is out there persecuting me, they are picking on me, making my life a misery.

it is not fair.

i call on amazon to free the three books they have of mine and deliver them now. now i say.

amazon doesn’t care. they know i will be back.

the bastards.

pickles

it seems every government has to have one. new labour had prescott, the coalition has eric pickles.
mr. pickles is the communities secretary who is very keen on pushing 'localism' at people except in circumstances where the local people disagree and then it is all about the power of central government.
mr. pickles has a new wheeze - he wants to rent out the foyer of his office block to a well respected (and well heeled) chain retailer. he says it will bring money into the state's coffers, and as all good supporters of the coalition know we are in the middle of the worst deficit ever all caused by blah blah bloody fucking blah blah and we are all in it toblahblah.
some retail guru's have poured cold water over the idea (those simple naysayers) claiming that there isn't enough floor space to make it worthwhile.
they have no vision - mr. pickles does. he knows if it can work in his foyer then he can launch a range of starbucks (or such like) in everyone of the jobcentres in the country. not only can you sign on, not only can you get a coffee but you can also train for a career in the food industry.
once they have been cracked expect all the royal palaces to sport a coffee shop and supermarket or two.
think how much they could get if each of the members of parliament were sponsored - something like a cross-between a snooker player with one logo on the waistcoat and a formula 1 driver with lots plastered all over. you can see it now clegg stepping up to give his deputy leader speech festooned with the sponsorshp logos of the various universities who have raised their fees to £9k a year.
the house of commons would be brightened up by hanging large advertising banners from the roof. it would make money and let the country know who is really in charge.
once you have done that mr. pickles open up buck house to a retail chain - they must have enough space in there to have a small mall there.

however if you have seen mr. pickles you know there is one reason and one reason alone why he has decided to get a chain food store in there and it has nothing to do with deficit busting,
mr, pickles has decided that it is too far to walk in order to get a nice cheap sarnie, so he has decided to let the sandwiches and cakes come to him. after all it takes a great deal of work to get a body like mr. pickles.
just remember to make sure you don't have crumbs on your chin before your next appearance on local tv.

tickets

i didn't get any of the olympic tickets i ordered. boo hoo.
me and a million others.
while a pal of mine got all that he ordered and he is as happy as larry.
the outpouring of whinging from the people who didn't get their tickets was pretty amazing. 'oh i didn't get what i ordered - i am no longer interested in the olympics' 'i ordered lots of tickets and i didn't get any: it's a fix' 'i don't know anyone who got tickets' and on and on and on.
even boris johnson got in on the act bleating on about how disappointed that he didn't get any of the tickets he ordered.
yes boris, how i feel for you. i might have had more sympathy for you if it wasn't for the fact that as the mayor you will be getting to be there. now that you have told us all that you didn't get any tickets for the olympics, you might make sure that you don't go to any of the events that you have mayoral tickets for. of course that won't happen.
still you have given the impression you are just like us, so don't feel too guilty when you squat in those best in the house seats that you no doubt have.
or you could prove me wrong.

back

had a bit of a break. an old friend was over from the states so we spent time hanging out, chewing the breeze and shooting the shit. didn't leave much time for doing this.
while away from this went to a school reunion. normally i wouldn't go to such a thing but my friend had arranged it so i was honour bound to go.
i was glad i went.
it wasn't the borefest i thought it might be.
the old stomping grounds were pretty much as you expected them to be with changes thrown in to make it feel like it was fresh.
there were even a few people i was pleased to see. odd how you won't see someone for thiry-years or so and yet you can remember their gestures and quirks from when you knew them at school: that familiarity reminding you why you liked them in the first place.
for something i didn't want to go to i had a good time. i think i even learnt a few things about myself: some good, some bad.
best of all there was no 'let's keep in touch, let's exchange contact details' type of thing (which probably tells you all you need to know about how popular i was at school...), it was just a brief meeting and remembering of a shared past.

reunion done and dusted.
friend has gone back to the states.
things are almost back to normal, albeit with some thoughts about some changes that i need to make.

enough of that.
all you need to know is that i am back and i will be ranting and raving in a much ado about nothing kind of style.

go on admit - you have missed it.  

surprise

there are somethings in life which come as no shock.
we know bears shit in the woods.
we know the pope is catholic.
and we now know that sepp blatter is innocent.

no surprise there then.

disaster

in a new low in laziness - even for me - i decided to order a pizza online.
why? i had no cash and i couldn't be bothered to go out.
i like the pizzas that rocket pizza do.
i order online by a company called hungryhouse.
all is well and good.
although i live in a flat i am still hungry.
order is placed.
confirmation is received.
i sit back and play on the computer a bit more.
pop out to get the paper and some pop (not a long journey - i live above a newsagents).
i wait.
i am hungry.
i wait.
i am hungry.
i wait.
i am still hungry.
i wait.
even hungrier.
i phone them.
ooops they had the order - they just hadn't done anything with it.
be twenty minutes.
it wasn't.
it arrived.
i scoffed.
i am at bursting point.

the idea of being able to place an online order is a nice one.
a little like the big society - great idea, just doesn't seem to work in practice.

next time i want a pizza i am just going to call them.

pooped

i am super-pooped.
lot on my mind.
lot of things to do.
need to make lists, need to make plans.
too tired right now, too tired to go to the bog.
sleep that is about all i can do, maybe i will read a page or two of the new james bond book while the chorus of drunks drone on.
interesting dreams for me tonight.

yummy

we've been shown photos of cameron and obama dishing out the grub at one of those 'look at us we are just like you' photo-oppurtunities so beloved of politicians.
as nice as the food might have been i am betting it wasn't as gorgeous as the most recent treat i discovered at the local supermarket. i have to admit that i am a man of limited likes when it comes to food. i am not adventurous. i know what i like and i stick to it. if i could i would have extra large deep pan veggie pizza every night, and follow that by a cream cake, coffee and a few cans of fizzy pop. a little slice of heaven.
now i can add to that with the recent discover of the custard and jam pastry horn. delicious, delightful, divine.
true very fattening - but i can blame my wobbliness on any number of things that have nothing to do with me eating too much and too much of the wrong things.

so remember custard and jam pastry horn - awesomeness.

noble

obama addressed the british parliament today - the bbc described how the house fell silent when he began to speak, as if won over by his aura as opposed to them just being polite.

during his speech obama said: "we are the nations most willing to stand up for the values of tolerance and self-determination that lead to peace and dignity."
these are wonderful words.
words to live by.
words to be proud of.
yet somehow they don't ring true - they are tarnished by their frequent misuse and the way they are often ignored. that is why there is often confusion about how the two governments want or do. libya is a somewhere they believe they can go, but burma or zimbabwe are not.
add in the implict claim that democracy is the best system in the world, and it is 'our' democracy that is the model that others should adopt (yeah it gave us dubya for two terms and looks to be supporting david cameron: proof positive that it may not be such a good system.
no thought is given to the fact that some people want to live under a monachy, or a theocracy, or under military rule or any other system. no, we assume that they want to, and that they must, live under 'our' version of democracy.
perhaps the lead that obama and cameron need to give the world is an extended period of non-interference with other countries.
it would be a novel foreign policy.
it won't happen - because regardless of the noble words most of the west's foreign policy is not about promoting equality but about securing economic or military advantage.

drunks

i don't drink.
i have little tolerance for drunks.
i live near a costcutters although that is handy for the emergency can of pop there are times when it is the bane of my life.
the local drunks love the costcutter - it carries a lot of cheap booze, most of which is better suited to stripping paint from the hulls of ocean liner's than being imbied. the local booze hounds don't care.
i also live quite close to a small green. in summer it would be nice ot go and sit in it and read a book and relax. it is home to the boozers. as i have never sat out in the sun to read a book the fact they are there doesn't bother.
summer nights mean they can stay out longer.
means they can drink for longer.

so for the last few hours i have had several of them arguing about who should have been able to eat the chicken and chips - this became a debate about respect and integrity. it was a very loud debate about respct and integrity. whatever harm booze does it obviously gives people strong loud voices.
as with so many drunken debates violence was bubbling away.
nothing happned - it rarely does - but once the respect and integrity card has been played you have to move on to the 'i'll deck you' phase where each person claims to be able to knock the other one out quciker, harder and better than the others. this is followed by the 'my mate' phase where the losers of the 'i'll deck you' talk about how they know someone who is better and who will knock out the winner of the 'decking' phase if they were to call on them.
about now comes the sobbing moment when one of them will talk about something that happened to them years ago (or even minutes) which justifies their current attitude or actions.

once every aspect of the chicken and chips argument had been aired, countered, weighed up and judged they decided to go through it all again. loudly.

now they are discussing parenthood.
i am shuddering at the thought.

street theatre at its best.

ooops

it may seem odd, but i do like the idea of 'the big society'. david camerson is right to promote it, he is right to bang his chest about it. it is a big idea, it is a powerful idea.
there is nothing new with the idea - we all get misty eyed with ideas of community and social responsibility.
what makes cameron's 'big society' such a 'big' idea is that it is closely tied to his political philosophy of vastly shrinking the state. in the hands of cameron and the conservatives 'the big society' is just another way of going back the the paternalistic attitudes of the victorians (the dukes know best...)
most of us know that when cameron talks of the 'big society' he also means 'big cuts in public spending' - still it will be alright as there are always going to be a few nice rich people who will fund a local library or two; a few nice old biddies who will run it (and perhaps we will give a stipend to a few of the local urchins to keep the place clean).
see you already love the idea.
schools, hospitals, doctors, social workers, police everything and anything can be turned over to the big society (or big business if you need competition).

it is because we can all see behind the curtain that 'the big society' idea hasn't gained the traction mr. cameron had hoped it would, perhaps we are not as easily lead by toffs as some of them say we are?
the various relaunches of 'the big society' are about as successful and believable as a promise from nick clegg.
so spare a thought for mr. cameron has his latest push on the idea has hit a snag as his 'big society' tsar, lord wei of shoreditch, has decided to stand down and do his own thing. ooops.
tessa jowell, a member of the shadow cabinet, has said that once again the big society has descended into farce.
perhaps a little harsh and perhaps a little unfair.
but it can't be denied that at the moment the big society is comedy gold.

wtf

not sure what i am more surprised by - that the olympic ticketing ballot has gone so horribly wrong: people who went through the official 2012 site, still don't know what tickets they have. while other sites are offering tickets to events on a first come first served basis.
i guess the only people who know they have tickets are the 2 million or so who are getting them from the 'olympic family'. so seb knows where he is sitting. that makes it a-ok in my book.

or maybe it is the relaunch (did it ever take off) of the big society. david cameron is out and about trying to persuade us all to give more of our time and our money to charity. to make it easier for us we will soon be able to give charitable donations at the cashpoint or via mobile phone.
of course this seems to ignore that for a large chunk of us money is, as the song says, too tight to mention. while time isn't all that easy to give as more and more have to work longer hours or travel longer to work.
so david - here is an idea don't try to sell the big society to the little people, sell it to those whose bonuses are more than most of us earn in a year or three. ask them to give up the newest car and donate to charity; ask them to write a cheque to the local good cause. after all we are all in it together.
even better why not ask those companies who go out of their way to dodge tax to actually pay their taxes so that the money is there in the first place to make sure that the good works can continue.
after all we are all in it together.
or was that just a cynical soundbite?
oh silly me of course it was.

choice

they say you can choose your friends but you can't choose your family.
so spare a thought for poor old david cameron. there is mr. cameron (or 'call me dave' as littlejohn likes to refer to him) trying so hard to show us all that the conservative party is a changed animal - no longer is it the nasty party, no longer is it the party of the rich, no longer is it the party of big business. now it is the party for us all - just look at it all big society, localism - hey they even love the national health service.
the conservatives have changed.
they are the caring party - look at mr. cameron out and about without a tie. there he is with his jacket off and his sleeves rolled up - just like us ordinary people.

just when you think you have sold the lie up pops mr. cameron's uncle to declare:
"‘the thing is, and the labour party underestimate it, but if you ask the working classes who they want to lead them, they prefer to be led by a duke."
of course we do.

david cameron is probably squirming that it has been said so publicly and by someone so close to him. the tory party are never going to say anything like this - probably becuase they know it isn't true, besides it is not in the conservatives dna to ask - they just assume that they are the right people to lead, it is their right to lead.
remember that when george osborn begins his attacks on trade unions, there will be lots of talk about the freedom of choice all of which is just a way to hide the fact that the one choice they don't want is that of workers to choose to improve their lot.

remember doff those caps.

ryan

oh ryan you naughty naughty boy.
i may have confessed that i have little interest for celebrity gossip and scandal. i realise that we live in a society where the peccadillos of vaguely famous people rate more highly than news, where knowing that footballer 'g' is seeing minor celeb 't' is seen to be in the national interest (for national interest read sales figures). we seem to revel in celebrity misfortune - perhaps we believe it makes them more like us (or us like them).
i don't know.
mostly i don't care.
all the fuss and bother over this latest super-injunction has meant, ironically, that it is quite hard not to know who is at the centre of it all.
twitteratti have taken it upon themselves to 'fight' for the freedom of speech, ignoring the irony of the web allowing such freedom fighters to remain anonymous. in the end this isn't wikileaks this is just a bloke who has been a naughty boy and will have to deal with the consequences with his family. it isn't our business. it doesn't change our world. we haven't learnt anything new: people cheat - wow revelation.

actually i take that back if it wasn't for his dick i would never have learnt about the 'streisand effect'.
so thanks for that ryan.

andrew

it is funny how people can surprise you.
i am not a fan of andrew lloyd-weber, which isn't to say i don't like some of the things he has done.
i remember a terrible period when 'phantom of the opera' was released. i was in the middle of my master's degree; the usual stress between me and the girlfriend; flat was flooded and i was trying to write a paper on something to do with anthony giddens and the theoretical underpinnings of modes of production. so while the girlfriend and the kid slept i was in the kitchen trying to write this paper. the kettle was rarely off the gas oven, the coffee strong and hot. from the front room was the dull hum of the dehumidifier the council had given us to dry out the soaked room and from the radio in the kitchen the pleasing tones of radio 2 (chosen because the reception was clear). the witching hour had come and gone and i was now in the deep dark night. too much coffee and too little sleep. some odd light operatic show was on - the two presenters would talk a little and then burst into song and once the duet had finished they would be back to chit and chat. they were not helping me get my head around transitional forms of capitalism, the agency of change and the superstructure.
as if i were not suffering the dueting presenters moved into 'phantom of the opera' mode.
they talked about it, they played some of it, they talked about it some more, played some more of it and they may have even sung a song from it.
i wouldn't know - i was delirious at the time. i was trying to deide if weber and parsons would have been lloyd-weber fans and whether or not marx, althussar and giddens would have laughed him off of the radio.
my paper was shit.
my performance in class was such that i am still embarrassed by it today.

a few months later i was on the train to coventry to see my girlfriend while she was doing her masters at warwick university. i was going up for the weekend. i was knackered from a long week at work (ah the days of overtime - the money it brought in). some bastard on the train had his discman with him and decided to play 'phantom of the opera' very loudly and very often. i hated him.
i tried to sleep through it.
i may have done. i think i still have nightmares about it.
it turned out to be a very very shit weekend (but that is a tale for another night).

fast forward to the times of the con/dems.
in a way to get us all to be happy (because david cameron is very keen to make sure we are all happy) the con/dems decided to cut funding to varios art councils and groups (not necessarily a bad thing - again a debate for another night) but it seems an odd thing to do when you want people to be happy and to have access to culture.
but we are all in it together so we all have to have cuts together and besides the rich can still afford the opera so there is nothing to worry about.

some big names of the cultural world have stepped forward to complain about the cuts they have said that the government should maintain spending on the arts. most of these noble complainers are successful in their own fields. none of them short of a few bob or two and none of them seem to have anything to say other than: 'no cuts'.

stepforward andrew lloyd-weber.
now andrew isn't short of a few million, he has often featured on the sunday times' 'rich list'.
recently he sold a picasso painting and he has turned over the proceeds from the sale to his arts foundation. so some cultural organisatons in the uk will benefit from some of the £32 million pounds he has raised.
if ever david cameron wanted something that shows his 'big society' in a good light then andrew lloyd-weber is a perfect example. perhaps a few of the moaners can take a leaf out of his book?

so doff a cap to andrew lloyd-weber who has put his money where his mouth is.
it is a gesture that makes up for 'phantom of the opera'.
only just mind you; only just.

bloated

have a bloated feeling.
think i need a very big dump.
just thought i would share.

injunctions

i had no strong feelings about the current spate of injunctions and super-injunctions which allow the rich to, possibly, gag the press when it comes to revelations of their indescretions.
true the whole thing is lopsided in that the weaker of the two parties (normally the woman) is left out in the open and unable to defend herself. 
the reason i had no strong feelings about it all was simply because i don't care if some celebrity is sticking his dick where the sun don't shine while lying to his wife. it is none of my business what the son of the former leader of the british union of fascists gets up to in privacy of his spare time (i might be envious, but that is a different matter altogether).
no matter how you slice and dice it the only reason some of these revelations are in the 'public interest' is because the public have learnt to love salicious gossip masquerading as news.
the public believes it own celebrity and there must have the right to know everything about them. the press encourage this; their justification being that the public has a right to know what these public figures get up because they are famous and that somehow or another makes you a role model of some sort. thus when you have tarnished your image then you have to suffer the slings and arrows.
frankly just let them get on with the extra marital shagging or the visits to the local whore. who really cares? not i.
why do i say that?
mostly because these are people who, in the main, i wouldn't want to be a role model to any children (or adults), they become 'role models' because the press want something to beat them over the head with. we can't just be happy with whatever it is that makes them celebrities - we have to be able to tear them down.

it is safe to say i am no lover of celebrity (that of course will change when i am rich and famous). nor did i care much about the injnctions.
so what has changed i can hear you ask?
simple i head read that jeremy clarkson was for super injunctions and that swunf me around. it was bad enough being on the side of the tories during the av debate there is just no way i am going to appear on the same side as clarkson.

so i am now against injunctions and super injunctions being used to hide the fact that someone rich and famous did nothing very wrong, did something that most people do or have done. it is wrong to cheat on your wife or girlfriend but if they do it should be no one else's business.
it appears the rumours of mr. clarkson cheating on his wife are no more than that.
my advice to clarkson is: save the money: spend it wisely  and next time keep your dick in your trousers. then no one has to worry.

consistency

a simple word. a simple idea.

most people want consistency in their lives.

when i was being a step-parent one of the things i quickly learnt was that you had to be consistent with the kid. you couldn’t tell him not to do something one day and allow him to do it the next day. that just creates confusion and it creates problems.

consistency is important in when it comes to debate and thought. it isn’t that change is bad it is to be taken seriously there has to be a reason for the change. anything else is flip flopping which means you might as well be a liberal democrat.

logic isn’t my forte yet i try to keep as much as possible straight when i argue, perhaps i should give lessons to the nick clegg?

there i was reading an article about wind farms in wales. the author makes an impassioned argument against these mechanistic monstrosities on the gorgeous welsh landscape. as a bit of a diversion her argument is also a perfect example of why localism isn’t the great powerful social movement that cameron and co believe because all it really leads to is a series of non in my backyardism.

right back to the argument: on the one hand the author claims that wind farms are no good because when they produce excess electricity it is too much for the national grid to absorb. later the author claims when talking to an engineer working on the wind farm turbines they revealed that each one would just generate enough power for one light bulb per house in the local city. so from overpowering the national grid to just doing a light bulb – something not right in the state of denmark methinks.

or take alex salmond he has said that if scotland was independent then he is not adverse to sharing their military facilities with its neighbours (well they would be empty otherwise as you can bet that if independence became even a sniffing reality that various ships, subs and planes would be relocated in double quick time). only he goes on to say that an independent nation has to have an independent foreign policy and that scotland would not have agreed to the illegal war in iraq. oh well those two positions hold well together, though i am prepared to give mr. salmond the benefit of the doubt being deliberately contradictory.

but then he is a politician so that is alright.

support

i am not a fan of the uk independence party, and i have no love of their leader nigel farage. yet they are a legitimate political party who go out and campaign to get votes (though i do find it ironic that they have a voice only because they have representation in europe where their elected members get paid to sit in a parliament they want abolished).
however i hate the taxpayer's alliance - those arch, and somewhat shadowy, right-wingers who purport to speak for all taxpayers, when really all they are doing is speaking for the very rich and very powerful who are already doing all they can not to pay tax. quite why their rent-a-quote outfit gets any coverage on sensible news platforms is beyond me, but they do.
(as an aside both nigel farage and matthew sinclair, of the taxpayer's alliance, look like they could be characters from the simpsons.)

you may not have heard of it, but both uk independence party and the taxpayer's alliance were involved in a march and demonstration in support of the con/dems programme of spending cuts.
a bbc correspondent (one of the evils of the world as far as the taxpayer's alliance is concerned) said it is not often you hear people chanting 'we want more cuts' (unless of course it is outside a plastic surgeon's clinic - that bit was me and not the bbc).
lots of placards proclaiming "stop spending money we don't have" and even a banner that said 'taxes = slaves' (of course we won't see the taxpayer's alliance or ukip out supporting a living wage because companies would prefer to pay as little as possible thus making them economic slaves).
the news camera panned across the gathered throng trying to capture them all in one panoramic shot. it wasn't hard. what was hard was trying to disguise the gaps that allowed you to see bored pedestrians walking by and wondering what was going on.
the support that this demonstration got was counted in the low hundreds. some of the more lunatic speakers at hyde park probably get more each sunday to listen to them.

don't let the poor turnout bother you, it didn't bother mr. sinclair - because those few hundred represented the normally silent majority.
oh that is ok then.

i am guessing that the stop the cuts organisers could claim exactly the same thing- only more so.

i know which side i am on and it is not the chinless wonders of messrs sinclair and farage.

shard

the shard is going to be a very impressive and very impossing building on the south bank of the thames. not only will it be london's tallest building but it will be the tallest in the european union.
the developers are keen to make sure that they give back to the local economy. so they are going to make sure that some 150 jobs go to the residents of southwark.

when the shard is fully occupied it will be home to upto 12,000 workers.
still take heart a 150 of them will be local.

result

today it was announced by the institue of fiscal studies that household incomes may return to the levels of 2004 (which for me would be an improvement), which in case you are wondering means they are going to decline.
earlier in the week we heard that for those who reside on the sunday times rich list there was a recovery in their earnings and holdings.

the rich get richer and the poor gets poorer.
was ever thus.