Wednesday, 29 February 2012
366/60 - Coins
Click here for day 60 of my Project 366.
Labels:
coins,
cuckold,
currency,
danny kaye,
photography,
project 365,
Project 366,
the five pennies,
word of the day
Tuesday, 28 February 2012
366/59 - Top Hat
Click here for today's Project 366.
Monday, 27 February 2012
Sunday, 26 February 2012
Saturday, 25 February 2012
366/56 - And another card collection begins...
Click here for today's Project 366.
Friday, 24 February 2012
366/55 - Really?
Click here for today's Project 366 posting.
Thursday, 23 February 2012
Wednesday, 22 February 2012
366/53 - The Phone Book
Click here for today's Project 366 photo, music and word.
Labels:
abjure,
muse,
phone book,
photography,
project 365,
Project 366,
take a bow,
word of the day
Tuesday, 21 February 2012
366/52 - Water melon
Click here for today's photo, music and word of the day.
100WCGU: The Flip Side
100 Word Challenge for Grown Ups - Week 31 - The Flip Side
The Flip Side
by
Robert Steadman
James liked things organised.
He'd organised his collection of vinyl singles alphabetically by artist. Then, when he fancied a change, he'd reorganised them alphabetically by song.
But James got bored.
He tried chronologically by date recorded, and then by date purchased.
Next he reorganised them by duration, shortest songs first.
He had even tried organising them by label colour - in rainbow order, but that made finding a specific song almost impossible.
He wondered about organising them by the song on the flip side, but he'd hardly listened to any of them.
Maybe organising them alphabetically wasn't such a bad idea.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
100 Word Challenge for Grown Ups - Week 31 - The Flip Side
The Flip Side
by
Robert Steadman
James liked things organised.
He'd organised his collection of vinyl singles alphabetically by artist. Then, when he fancied a change, he'd reorganised them alphabetically by song.
But James got bored.
He tried chronologically by date recorded, and then by date purchased.
Next he reorganised them by duration, shortest songs first.
He had even tried organising them by label colour - in rainbow order, but that made finding a specific song almost impossible.
He wondered about organising them by the song on the flip side, but he'd hardly listened to any of them.
Maybe organising them alphabetically wasn't such a bad idea.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
100 Word Challenge for Grown Ups - Week 31 - The Flip Side
Labels:
100 word challenge,
100 words,
100WCGU,
creative writing,
grown ups,
writing
Royal Shrovetide Football - Ashbourne, Derbyshire
The annual Royal Shrovetide Football Match, a game of "street football", takes place on Shrove Tuesday and Ash Wednesday in Ashbourne, Derbyshire.
Background
It has been played since the 12th century, but the exact origins of the game are unknown - one theory suggests the 'ball' was originally a severed head tossed into the waiting crowd following an execution.
The match begins at 2 p.m. Each day when the specially made ball is "turned up" from a plinth in Shawcroft. Two teams, the 'up'ards' and 'down'ards' compete to 'goal' the ball at their particular goal post. The two sets of goal posts are 3 miles apart at former mills on the brook.
Anthem
Before the match begins, the following anthem is sung in a ceremony in the town's Green Man Hotel:
There's a town still plays this glorious game
Tho' tis but a little spot.
And year by year the contest's fought
From the field that's called Shaw Croft.
Then friend meets friend in friendly strife
The leather for to gain,
'And they play the game right manfully,
In snow, sunshine or rain.
Chorus
'Tis a glorious game, deny it who can
That tries the pluck of an Englishman.
For loyal the Game shall ever be
No matter when or where,
And treat that Game as ought but the free,
Is more than the boldest dare.
Though the up's and down's of its chequered life
May the ball still ever roll,
Until by fair and gallant strife
We've reached the treasur'd goal.
Chorus
'Tis a glorious game, deny it who can
That tries the pluck of an Englishman.
Rules
*Committing murder or manslaughter is prohibited. Unnecessary violence is frowned upon.
*The ball may not be carried in a motorised vehicle.
*The ball may not be hidden in a bag, coat or rucksack, etc.
*Cemeteries, churchyards and the town's memorial gardens are strictly out of bounds.
*Playing after 10 p.m. is forbidden.
*To Score a goal the ball must be tapped 3 times in the area of the goal.
Background
It has been played since the 12th century, but the exact origins of the game are unknown - one theory suggests the 'ball' was originally a severed head tossed into the waiting crowd following an execution.
The match begins at 2 p.m. Each day when the specially made ball is "turned up" from a plinth in Shawcroft. Two teams, the 'up'ards' and 'down'ards' compete to 'goal' the ball at their particular goal post. The two sets of goal posts are 3 miles apart at former mills on the brook.
Anthem
Before the match begins, the following anthem is sung in a ceremony in the town's Green Man Hotel:
There's a town still plays this glorious game
Tho' tis but a little spot.
And year by year the contest's fought
From the field that's called Shaw Croft.
Then friend meets friend in friendly strife
The leather for to gain,
'And they play the game right manfully,
In snow, sunshine or rain.
Chorus
'Tis a glorious game, deny it who can
That tries the pluck of an Englishman.
For loyal the Game shall ever be
No matter when or where,
And treat that Game as ought but the free,
Is more than the boldest dare.
Though the up's and down's of its chequered life
May the ball still ever roll,
Until by fair and gallant strife
We've reached the treasur'd goal.
Chorus
'Tis a glorious game, deny it who can
That tries the pluck of an Englishman.
Rules
*Committing murder or manslaughter is prohibited. Unnecessary violence is frowned upon.
*The ball may not be carried in a motorised vehicle.
*The ball may not be hidden in a bag, coat or rucksack, etc.
*Cemeteries, churchyards and the town's memorial gardens are strictly out of bounds.
*Playing after 10 p.m. is forbidden.
*To Score a goal the ball must be tapped 3 times in the area of the goal.
How to make pancakes
Today, in the Christian calendar, it is Shrove Tuesday. The day before Lent begins. In Rio they mark Mardi Gras ("Fat Tuesday") with their exuberant carnival, its lavish costumes and driving samba rhythms. In the UK we have Pancake Day.
Here's a recipe to make pancakes.
Ingredients
1 1/2 cups flour
3 1/2 teaspoons baking powder
1 teaspoon salt
1 tablespoon white sugar
1 1/4 cups milk
1 egg
3 tablespoons melted butter
Process
• Sift together the flour, baking powder, salt and sugar
• Make a well in the centre and pour in the milk, egg and melted butter
• Mix until smooth
• Heat a lightly oiled frying pan over medium heat
• Pour the batter onto the frying pan (1/4 cup per pancake)
• Brown on both sides
• Serve hot, with lemon juice and sugar (or another filling of your choice)
Here's a recipe to make pancakes.
Ingredients
1 1/2 cups flour
3 1/2 teaspoons baking powder
1 teaspoon salt
1 tablespoon white sugar
1 1/4 cups milk
1 egg
3 tablespoons melted butter
Process
• Sift together the flour, baking powder, salt and sugar
• Make a well in the centre and pour in the milk, egg and melted butter
• Mix until smooth
• Heat a lightly oiled frying pan over medium heat
• Pour the batter onto the frying pan (1/4 cup per pancake)
• Brown on both sides
• Serve hot, with lemon juice and sugar (or another filling of your choice)
Labels:
cooking,
Mardi gras,
pancake,
pancake day,
Pancakes,
Recipe,
shrove Tuesday
Monday, 20 February 2012
REVIEW: Homeland (Channel 4)
I'm just watching the first episode of Homeland, which is currently being shown on Channel 4 in the UK after a prize-winning series in the USA.
The story follows Marine Sergeant Nicholas Brody (played by Damian Lewis) who returns home after eight years having been missing in Iraq. Carrie Mathison (Clare Danes) is a CIA officer who suspects there's more to Brody's story than meets the eye. She thinks he might be plotting an attack on the USA.
The script is fairly fast-paced and the basic concept is presented in such a way that the events are believable. Mathison veers back and forth between driven, paranoid and, possibly, slightly unhinged (she is recovering from a mood disorder). She is certainly determined to find the truth.
Brody's wife has moved on, assuming that her husband was dead, and suddenly has to snap back into the role of supportive wife as Brody is treated, on the one hand, as a national hero and, on the other, as a source of information about possible terrorist groups.
Mathison watches him closely and spots a pattern of finger movements that Brody does whenever he is on camera. Is he sending a coded message to someone?
Lewis and Danes give brilliant performances and are supported by an ensemble of fine acting. So far, at least, everything seems very realistic.
The first episode manages to avoid "first episode syndrome" - taking too long to set up the whole premise and seeming a bit dull as a result.
It looks like an excellent series. Very much looking forward to episode two to see how this develops.
The story follows Marine Sergeant Nicholas Brody (played by Damian Lewis) who returns home after eight years having been missing in Iraq. Carrie Mathison (Clare Danes) is a CIA officer who suspects there's more to Brody's story than meets the eye. She thinks he might be plotting an attack on the USA.
The script is fairly fast-paced and the basic concept is presented in such a way that the events are believable. Mathison veers back and forth between driven, paranoid and, possibly, slightly unhinged (she is recovering from a mood disorder). She is certainly determined to find the truth.
Brody's wife has moved on, assuming that her husband was dead, and suddenly has to snap back into the role of supportive wife as Brody is treated, on the one hand, as a national hero and, on the other, as a source of information about possible terrorist groups.
Mathison watches him closely and spots a pattern of finger movements that Brody does whenever he is on camera. Is he sending a coded message to someone?
Lewis and Danes give brilliant performances and are supported by an ensemble of fine acting. So far, at least, everything seems very realistic.
The first episode manages to avoid "first episode syndrome" - taking too long to set up the whole premise and seeming a bit dull as a result.
It looks like an excellent series. Very much looking forward to episode two to see how this develops.
COMMENT: Happy Birthday, Gordon
Today is Gordon Brown's birthday, and on Twitter some people have been celebrating this with huge amounts of praise for Gordon and his political career.
Yes, really!
Gordon Brown, possibly the worst Prime Minister the UK has ever had, being praised and celebrated.
Not only did he miss several opportunities to reign in the bankers in the City of London, and sit back and do nothing about the bonus culture that is now being criticised from a sides of the political divide, but he oversaw one of the worst financial crises the world has ever seen, and simply buried his head in the sand and did little to solve the problem. Gordon has always been good at blaming others. It's never Gordon's fault. Except a lot of the problems in the UK today are his fault.
He and Blair did nothing about phone hacking back when the first rumours surfaced and, of course, he did nothing about accusations against Murdoch and News International because he risked losing the support of his nate Rupert and, therefore, his cushy job , benefits and salary.
Then, of course, there's the hundreds of thousands if deaths that he and Blair are responsible for in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The blood of many innocent civilians lies at the feet of Gordon Brown, and, sadly, while some call for Blair to be tried for war crimes they forget that the UK's involvement in illegal wars wouldn't have been possible with Gordon Brown's support and approval.
And now, having been rightly dumped by the UK electorate, he continues to screw the taxpayer by taking his MP salary while hardly ever turning up in Westminster, using rooms there to help get private work for himself and getting lots of bookings for talks, etc. Yes, in the past year he's found it hard to find time to turn up in the House of Commons but has had enough time to earn more than £1.5 million giving talks and making appearances. I wonder how his constituents haven't revolted at this.
Yes, I'd wish Gordon Brown a Happy Birthday too, but I'm sure he's perfectly happy laughing at how he's conned the UK public.
Yes, really!
Gordon Brown, possibly the worst Prime Minister the UK has ever had, being praised and celebrated.
Not only did he miss several opportunities to reign in the bankers in the City of London, and sit back and do nothing about the bonus culture that is now being criticised from a sides of the political divide, but he oversaw one of the worst financial crises the world has ever seen, and simply buried his head in the sand and did little to solve the problem. Gordon has always been good at blaming others. It's never Gordon's fault. Except a lot of the problems in the UK today are his fault.
He and Blair did nothing about phone hacking back when the first rumours surfaced and, of course, he did nothing about accusations against Murdoch and News International because he risked losing the support of his nate Rupert and, therefore, his cushy job , benefits and salary.
Then, of course, there's the hundreds of thousands if deaths that he and Blair are responsible for in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The blood of many innocent civilians lies at the feet of Gordon Brown, and, sadly, while some call for Blair to be tried for war crimes they forget that the UK's involvement in illegal wars wouldn't have been possible with Gordon Brown's support and approval.
And now, having been rightly dumped by the UK electorate, he continues to screw the taxpayer by taking his MP salary while hardly ever turning up in Westminster, using rooms there to help get private work for himself and getting lots of bookings for talks, etc. Yes, in the past year he's found it hard to find time to turn up in the House of Commons but has had enough time to earn more than £1.5 million giving talks and making appearances. I wonder how his constituents haven't revolted at this.
Yes, I'd wish Gordon Brown a Happy Birthday too, but I'm sure he's perfectly happy laughing at how he's conned the UK public.
COMMENT: Has Ken Livingstone gone mad?
Ken Livingstone has always been controversial and, over the years, has said some outrageous things but, during in the campaign to regain the position of Mayor of London , he seems to have totally lost the plot and has now called for bankers to be summarily executed. Yes, really.
Here are 6 recent examples of Livingstone having lost the plot:
1) 18 August 2011 - Livingstone compares Boris Johnson to Adolf Hitler when he claims that the mayoral election is “a simple choice between good and evil. I don’t think [the choice] has been so clear since the great struggle between Churchill and Hitler.”
2) 18 August 2011 - Livingstone claims that anyone who doesn't vote for him will be punished by the Angel Gabriel, will “burn for ever” and have their “skin flayed for all eternity.”
3) 2 November 2011 - Livingstone tells Tory councillors in Hammersmith & Fulham that they will “burn in hell” and have their flesh “flayed by demons for all eternity” because they redeveloped a council estate.
4) 17 November 2011 - Livingstone asked a public meeting “How many people think we should hang George Osborne?”
5) 8 February 2012 - Livingstone claims the Tory party is “riddled with” people “indulging in” homosexuality. He also claimed that a number of Labour MPs only got their jobs because they were homosexual.
6) 17 February 2012 - Livingstone says that Britain should “hang a banker a week until the others improve.”
How on earth can this man be elected as Mayor of London, one of the world's great cities? Arguably, it would make him the second most powerful person in the country. He's so clearly barking mad!
And why (a) did Labour select him and (b) haven't Labour dropped him as their candidate?
One final thought, is Ken Livingstone actually safe being loose in public or shoud he be detained for his own sake and the safety of others?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Ken's bigotry will end Miliband's leadership
Here are 6 recent examples of Livingstone having lost the plot:
1) 18 August 2011 - Livingstone compares Boris Johnson to Adolf Hitler when he claims that the mayoral election is “a simple choice between good and evil. I don’t think [the choice] has been so clear since the great struggle between Churchill and Hitler.”
2) 18 August 2011 - Livingstone claims that anyone who doesn't vote for him will be punished by the Angel Gabriel, will “burn for ever” and have their “skin flayed for all eternity.”
3) 2 November 2011 - Livingstone tells Tory councillors in Hammersmith & Fulham that they will “burn in hell” and have their flesh “flayed by demons for all eternity” because they redeveloped a council estate.
4) 17 November 2011 - Livingstone asked a public meeting “How many people think we should hang George Osborne?”
5) 8 February 2012 - Livingstone claims the Tory party is “riddled with” people “indulging in” homosexuality. He also claimed that a number of Labour MPs only got their jobs because they were homosexual.
6) 17 February 2012 - Livingstone says that Britain should “hang a banker a week until the others improve.”
How on earth can this man be elected as Mayor of London, one of the world's great cities? Arguably, it would make him the second most powerful person in the country. He's so clearly barking mad!
And why (a) did Labour select him and (b) haven't Labour dropped him as their candidate?
One final thought, is Ken Livingstone actually safe being loose in public or shoud he be detained for his own sake and the safety of others?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Ken's bigotry will end Miliband's leadership
Labels:
Ken Livingstone,
Labour,
Labour Party,
london mayor,
Mad,
mayor
COMMENT: Boxers threatened with bans.... for fighting
Last weekend boxing hit a new low with, it seems, as much violence before and after the "big fight" as during it.
But what do people expect?
This so-called "sport" is controlled thuggery. Quite how it remains in the Olympics, indeed actually expanded in the Okympics with the inclusion of female boxing, is a mystery.
The. "sport" is run by dodgy wheeler-dealers, controlled by managers and trainers wo appear to have dubious backgrounds, and competed by virtually brain dead idiots who think that thumping someone, trying to hurt another human being, is a reasonable way to earn money - sadly, huge amounts of money.
I just don't get boxing. Haye and Chisora look likely to be charged for violence that, in the ring, the crowd would have applauded.
Some, desperately trying to defend boxing, say it gives structure and discipline and a way out of poverty and crime to men (and now women) who would otherwise probably end in jail. As far as I'm concerned they may as well end in jail because, while boxing remains legal, it is a stain on all society.
Dog fighting, badger baiting, etc. are all criminal in the UK and yet we allow two men, often with a restricted intelligence, to fight each other for entertainment. It might not always end in death but that's not the point. Look at the deaths, the brain damage, the other injuries...
Who can look at the state that Muhammud Ali is in today and say that boxing is a good thing? Only the most idiotic dullard.
Defenders of boxing say about the amount of effort that has been put into making the "sport" safer. They refer to amateur boxing having head guards and restricted numbers of rounds. And their excuses go on and on. They miss the point, though. Boxing is trying to hurt an opponent through punching them. How can that ever been acceptable? Isn't it monstrous that society still allows these modern day gladiators to fight for money?
Yes, banning boxing would drive it underground but now, with it legal, there is already illegal fighting taking place.
The British Medical Association has long called for a ban on boxing but successive governments ignore them. This is a dereliction of duty.
Boxing must be banned. The London Olympics are shamed by having it. Thuggery and violence has no place in the modern world.
But what do people expect?
This so-called "sport" is controlled thuggery. Quite how it remains in the Olympics, indeed actually expanded in the Okympics with the inclusion of female boxing, is a mystery.
The. "sport" is run by dodgy wheeler-dealers, controlled by managers and trainers wo appear to have dubious backgrounds, and competed by virtually brain dead idiots who think that thumping someone, trying to hurt another human being, is a reasonable way to earn money - sadly, huge amounts of money.
I just don't get boxing. Haye and Chisora look likely to be charged for violence that, in the ring, the crowd would have applauded.
Some, desperately trying to defend boxing, say it gives structure and discipline and a way out of poverty and crime to men (and now women) who would otherwise probably end in jail. As far as I'm concerned they may as well end in jail because, while boxing remains legal, it is a stain on all society.
Dog fighting, badger baiting, etc. are all criminal in the UK and yet we allow two men, often with a restricted intelligence, to fight each other for entertainment. It might not always end in death but that's not the point. Look at the deaths, the brain damage, the other injuries...
Who can look at the state that Muhammud Ali is in today and say that boxing is a good thing? Only the most idiotic dullard.
Defenders of boxing say about the amount of effort that has been put into making the "sport" safer. They refer to amateur boxing having head guards and restricted numbers of rounds. And their excuses go on and on. They miss the point, though. Boxing is trying to hurt an opponent through punching them. How can that ever been acceptable? Isn't it monstrous that society still allows these modern day gladiators to fight for money?
Yes, banning boxing would drive it underground but now, with it legal, there is already illegal fighting taking place.
The British Medical Association has long called for a ban on boxing but successive governments ignore them. This is a dereliction of duty.
Boxing must be banned. The London Olympics are shamed by having it. Thuggery and violence has no place in the modern world.
Labels:
2012 olympics,
ban,
boxing,
Chisora,
David Haye,
Haye,
thuggery
OPINION: Sun on Sunday
So Rupert Murdoch can't wait any longer. He's announced that this coming weekend will see the launch of his new Sunday tabloid, the Sun on Sunday.
Even before News International took the decision to close the News of the World last year, there were rumours that it would be replaced with a Sunday version of the Sun, the popular weekday and Saturday tabloid which Rupert Murdoch has owned for more than forty years.
But surely this is too soon?
Surely with all those who have been horrified by the phone hacking scandal at the News of the World, and with more recent allegations and arrests linked to The Sun, people aren't going to buy this new red top?
Sadly, I expect they will.
Earlier today I heard a woman on the radio saying she'd buy the Sun on Sunday because her weekend had been lacking the fun that the News of the World used to supply. That's a shocking admission of how superficial and mind numbing her existence must be. Someone else said they hoped the new title would do some if the campaigning journalism that the News of the World had done. I presume they meant like the anti-pedophile campaign that saw vigilante groups attack paediatricians - I guess because many of the readers of the News of the World had such low IQs and reading abilities.
Sadly, I fully expect those same thickies will ignore that News International is behind the Sun on Sunday, and will ignore the fact that many former News of the World journalists now work for The Sun and Sun on Sunday.
More tragically, I suspect advertisers will flock to the new title and not realise they are tainting their own brand by association with a business that is, it seems, institutionally corrupt.
I hope the Sun on Sunday fails. I hope, soon, that Murdoch and his son and various other senior execs and journalists get their day in court and their time in prison. I fear they'll get away with it and the pathetic and idiotic British public will buy the Sun on Sunday in their millions.
Even before News International took the decision to close the News of the World last year, there were rumours that it would be replaced with a Sunday version of the Sun, the popular weekday and Saturday tabloid which Rupert Murdoch has owned for more than forty years.
But surely this is too soon?
Surely with all those who have been horrified by the phone hacking scandal at the News of the World, and with more recent allegations and arrests linked to The Sun, people aren't going to buy this new red top?
Sadly, I expect they will.
Earlier today I heard a woman on the radio saying she'd buy the Sun on Sunday because her weekend had been lacking the fun that the News of the World used to supply. That's a shocking admission of how superficial and mind numbing her existence must be. Someone else said they hoped the new title would do some if the campaigning journalism that the News of the World had done. I presume they meant like the anti-pedophile campaign that saw vigilante groups attack paediatricians - I guess because many of the readers of the News of the World had such low IQs and reading abilities.
Sadly, I fully expect those same thickies will ignore that News International is behind the Sun on Sunday, and will ignore the fact that many former News of the World journalists now work for The Sun and Sun on Sunday.
More tragically, I suspect advertisers will flock to the new title and not realise they are tainting their own brand by association with a business that is, it seems, institutionally corrupt.
I hope the Sun on Sunday fails. I hope, soon, that Murdoch and his son and various other senior execs and journalists get their day in court and their time in prison. I fear they'll get away with it and the pathetic and idiotic British public will buy the Sun on Sunday in their millions.
Labels:
James Murdoch,
Murdoch,
news international,
Rupert Murdoch,
Sun on Sunday,
the sun
OPINION: Selling cigarettes in plain packaging
The government is to hold a consultation to find the public's opinion about whether cigarettes should be sold in plain, unbranded packaging.
The Australian government has recently passed legislation that will make them the first country in the world to ban cigarette branding and, it seems, the UK government is interested in following suit.
The logic is that unbranded packets don't appeal to young non-smokers and so fewer will start to smoke. Anti-smoking campaigners look at recent branding that has seen cigarettes being marketed in packets that look like perfume and make up. The anti-smoking lobby claim such packaging is deliberately targeted at youngsters, finding the next generation of smokers.
As it is all cigarette packets sold in the UK have to carry large and prominent health warnings but this doesn't seem to be making any sugnificant impact on the numbers who take up smoking annually.
Statistics suggest that one in every two smokers will die of an illness caused by smoking - and yet the numbers smoking stay solid.
Those opposed to plain packaging highlight three downsides:
1: There is no evidence to suggest that branding does anything to encourage smoking. It is there to identify different brands but not to entice people into the habit.
2: Plain packaging will make the job of counterfeiters much easier. They will no longer have to make different, and sometimes complex, packets for different brands. The same size and colour of box will just require a few words of print on it.
3: The more that the tobacco companies are restricted in advertising, sponsorship and the branding of their product the more their profits increase, unless the restrictions have the effect of cutting consumption.
Personally, I think governments need to do whatever it takes to stop the illnesses and deaths attributed to smoking. Sadly, because of the hefty wack of tax revenue the exchequer collects from the sale of cigarettes, the one thing that should be done, the total outlawing of cigarettes, hasn't been done by any of the weak-willed governments we've had in recent decades. Until a government does the right thing and outlaws cigarettes, though, it is worth trying anything in the hope of protecting stupid people from the evils of cigarettes.
The Australian government has recently passed legislation that will make them the first country in the world to ban cigarette branding and, it seems, the UK government is interested in following suit.
The logic is that unbranded packets don't appeal to young non-smokers and so fewer will start to smoke. Anti-smoking campaigners look at recent branding that has seen cigarettes being marketed in packets that look like perfume and make up. The anti-smoking lobby claim such packaging is deliberately targeted at youngsters, finding the next generation of smokers.
As it is all cigarette packets sold in the UK have to carry large and prominent health warnings but this doesn't seem to be making any sugnificant impact on the numbers who take up smoking annually.
Statistics suggest that one in every two smokers will die of an illness caused by smoking - and yet the numbers smoking stay solid.
Those opposed to plain packaging highlight three downsides:
1: There is no evidence to suggest that branding does anything to encourage smoking. It is there to identify different brands but not to entice people into the habit.
2: Plain packaging will make the job of counterfeiters much easier. They will no longer have to make different, and sometimes complex, packets for different brands. The same size and colour of box will just require a few words of print on it.
3: The more that the tobacco companies are restricted in advertising, sponsorship and the branding of their product the more their profits increase, unless the restrictions have the effect of cutting consumption.
Personally, I think governments need to do whatever it takes to stop the illnesses and deaths attributed to smoking. Sadly, because of the hefty wack of tax revenue the exchequer collects from the sale of cigarettes, the one thing that should be done, the total outlawing of cigarettes, hasn't been done by any of the weak-willed governments we've had in recent decades. Until a government does the right thing and outlaws cigarettes, though, it is worth trying anything in the hope of protecting stupid people from the evils of cigarettes.
Labels:
branding,
Cigarettes,
government,
marketing,
packets,
plain packaging
366/51 - Shopping trolley
Click here for today's Project 366 posting.
Sunday, 19 February 2012
OPINION: The Telegraph's attack on Richard Dawkins
It seems that the War on Reason, which has been becoming more and more vocal over recent weeks, knows no limits to which its proponents won't sink.
Richard Dawkins
Today the Telegraph, formerly a trusted right thinking broadsheet, became the latest Commander in the battle against science and atheism by attacking Richard Dawkins.
Now I'm sure that Richard Dawkins is used to being attacked by the loony right who reject climate change, maintain evolution is just a theory and support the nonsense of religious faith as if it is scientific proof. Oddly though, the Telegraph's attack on Richard Dawkins wasn't for anything he'd said or done or published. Instead it seems they had spent some considerable time researching the Dawkins family tree and managed to find that 400 years ago a member of the family had owned and sold slaves.
Well, who'd have thought it? Rich people, many centuries ago owning slaves. It's.... history!
This, according to the Telegraph, and their imbecilic journalist, meant that Richard Dawkins should apologise.
Really. It's not a joke, even though it is daft enough to have been an April Fool of the silliest kind.
They continues and suggested that because Richard Dawkins' great-great-great-great-great grandfather (that's five greats) had owned slaves he should pay compensation (though they're not clear about who this compensation should be paid to).
This is the sort of ridiculous nonsense that various governments have been doing in recent years. People who had nothing to do with an historical misdemeanour apologises to other people who also had nothing to do with the event. Utter nonsense. It's historical and sometimes history isn't easy to digest.
Maybe the Telegraph would like us all to spend our entire lives apologizing for all the wrong things our forefathers have done? After all, it could take some time.
Adam Lusher - disgraced journalist
Yes, it was unfortunate that, the other day, Dawkins failed to recall the full title of Darwin's Origin of Species (It's full title is On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life - snappy title eh? Thanks for that Charles!), but I wonder how many Christians can name, say, all the books of the New Testament in order. And the right wing, pro-faith press went to town with this. Clearly Dawkins is their target and they're determined to undermine what he says and what he stands for - even if that means trying to undermine him by researching the skeletons in the cupboard from his family tree.
By the Telegraph's reckoning the sins of the father principle would mean that nothing is ever forgiven and descendants inherit the guilt. So, all Germans are still Nazis and must keep apologizing, the Russians should be apologizing to the Polish for the Massacre of Praga in 1794, the Campbells should be apologizing to the MacDonalds for the Glencoe massacre, and all Christians are responsible for the Crusades. Oh whoops! I expect the evils done in the name of religion are acceptable. I suspect that the Telegraph's sins of the father selective?
Twitter has been buzzing with this story today. I've yet to see any support for the Telegraph or Adam Lusher, but I have seen plenty of people saying that they're not big fans of Richard Dawkins but feel that the "newspaper" (I use that in the loosest possible sense) and the disgraced journalist had acted idiotically. Let's hope they've learnt their lesson (I'm not holding my breath).
Richard Dawkins replied in a typically robust fashion and managed to totally belittled the snivelling little shit of a reporter whose career is surely now over?
But I do wonder what the next attack will be. Who will the religious loonies target in their battle to defend their bigoted belief system that has no place in the modern world?
Today the Telegraph, formerly a trusted right thinking broadsheet, became the latest Commander in the battle against science and atheism by attacking Richard Dawkins.
Now I'm sure that Richard Dawkins is used to being attacked by the loony right who reject climate change, maintain evolution is just a theory and support the nonsense of religious faith as if it is scientific proof. Oddly though, the Telegraph's attack on Richard Dawkins wasn't for anything he'd said or done or published. Instead it seems they had spent some considerable time researching the Dawkins family tree and managed to find that 400 years ago a member of the family had owned and sold slaves.
Well, who'd have thought it? Rich people, many centuries ago owning slaves. It's.... history!
This, according to the Telegraph, and their imbecilic journalist, meant that Richard Dawkins should apologise.
Really. It's not a joke, even though it is daft enough to have been an April Fool of the silliest kind.
They continues and suggested that because Richard Dawkins' great-great-great-great-great grandfather (that's five greats) had owned slaves he should pay compensation (though they're not clear about who this compensation should be paid to).
This is the sort of ridiculous nonsense that various governments have been doing in recent years. People who had nothing to do with an historical misdemeanour apologises to other people who also had nothing to do with the event. Utter nonsense. It's historical and sometimes history isn't easy to digest.
Maybe the Telegraph would like us all to spend our entire lives apologizing for all the wrong things our forefathers have done? After all, it could take some time.
Yes, it was unfortunate that, the other day, Dawkins failed to recall the full title of Darwin's Origin of Species (It's full title is On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life - snappy title eh? Thanks for that Charles!), but I wonder how many Christians can name, say, all the books of the New Testament in order. And the right wing, pro-faith press went to town with this. Clearly Dawkins is their target and they're determined to undermine what he says and what he stands for - even if that means trying to undermine him by researching the skeletons in the cupboard from his family tree.
By the Telegraph's reckoning the sins of the father principle would mean that nothing is ever forgiven and descendants inherit the guilt. So, all Germans are still Nazis and must keep apologizing, the Russians should be apologizing to the Polish for the Massacre of Praga in 1794, the Campbells should be apologizing to the MacDonalds for the Glencoe massacre, and all Christians are responsible for the Crusades. Oh whoops! I expect the evils done in the name of religion are acceptable. I suspect that the Telegraph's sins of the father selective?
Twitter has been buzzing with this story today. I've yet to see any support for the Telegraph or Adam Lusher, but I have seen plenty of people saying that they're not big fans of Richard Dawkins but feel that the "newspaper" (I use that in the loosest possible sense) and the disgraced journalist had acted idiotically. Let's hope they've learnt their lesson (I'm not holding my breath).
Richard Dawkins replied in a typically robust fashion and managed to totally belittled the snivelling little shit of a reporter whose career is surely now over?
But I do wonder what the next attack will be. Who will the religious loonies target in their battle to defend their bigoted belief system that has no place in the modern world?
Labels:
Dawkins,
family tree,
Richard Dawkins,
slavery,
telegraph
COMMENT: why shouldn't Amanda Knox write a book?
Reports this week suggest that Amanda Knox is to be paid $4 million (£2.5 million) for a book telling her side of the story that lead to the murder of British student Meredith Kercher, Knox's trial, initial conviction, appeal and acquittal.
Some say this is wrong and that nobody should benefit from crime, but, hang on a minute, Amanda Knox isn't benefitting from crime. She was found not guilty on appeal. She was released. She is innocent.
Why shouldn't she sell her story? After all, chances are it's quite an interesting story.
At this point those who oppose the decision of Harper Collins, the publishing house that has offered Amanda Knox this large sum of money, tend to lose the plot. They seem to know better than the Italian judges who overturned the guilty decision, and who, quite categorically, said that she should be released because she did not commit the crime.
Then they refer to OJ Simpson and his trial for murder back in 1995. They say that he was really guilty of his crimes, despite the decision of the court. We may all have opinions on OJ, or Knox, or anyone else who is found guilty in a trial, or through an appeal, but whether we like it or not, if they are acquitted they are innocent in the eyes of the law and no amount of Daily Mail-esque tubthumping is going to stop that.
Now, unless your were in court for the whole of the appeal trial, or read every inch of the court report, unless you looked closely at every scrap of evidence, I don't think it's fair or reasonable to say she is really guilty and the court got it wrong.
Some, it seems, think she is guilty because they don't approve of her sexual morality, the sex games she is reported to have been part of. And because they don't like that they consider her a loose woman and so, obviously, guilty of murder and therefore shouldn't profit from the events.
It's a ridiculous argument.
Well, it's a ridiculous argument if the person is innocent. If the person has been found guilty it is, of course, another matter entirely.
What if Ian Huntley or Rose West had written a book about their life, detailing their crimes and giving their version of events? If that was the case I agree it would be wrong for them to benefit from any book, television programme or movie that they were involved in.
Having said that, I have no problem with people such as Huntley or West writing a book. Surely it is the right of every man, woman or child to present their story and if it is interesting the public will read it. But I do think the profits from any such book should be compulsorily given to charity, or in a kitty for the victims of crime.
And let's not forget that one of the greatest pieces of literature in the English language, The Ballad of Reading Gaol, was written by Oscar Wilde, a convicted felon about his time in prison.
The law in the UK was changed about 6 years ago, so that criminals cannot profit from the proceeds of crime. In fact, the law went further and made it possible for monies earnt after time had been served, even through non-criminal means, could be used for compensation to the victims of crime. A man who became known as the "Lottery Rapist" who money through the National Lottery many years after his crime. He had already served time in prison for his crimes but, when he won a small fortune on the lottery, the court said his victims were entitled to the money, even though he didn't have that money when he carried out his offences. To me that seems very odd indeed, but it was the sort of knee-jerk, tabloid approving law of which the last Labour government was fond.
So why would Amanda Knox decide to write this book? Sure, $4 million is a lot of money and will set her up for life but shouldn't she be moving on now? Shouldn't she be trying to put this behind her and getting on with her life? She is, after all, still very young and, as an innocent person, could still have a profession.
And what about the reaction to it? She was vilified in the press. Many column inches have expressed hatred for her based on the original trial and initial conviction and, sadly, as I have said, some people simply don't want to accept that the appeal court judges made it perfectly clear that she was guilty. Does she really want to go raking up the whole story again? Is it really worth the hassle of trying to set the record straight? Is telling her side of the story really that important to her?
And then there's the Kercher family. They've lost their daughter. They've been through the trial and thought that their daughter's killers were behind bars only to have to sit through an appeal trial and find that the police have the wrong person. Their daughter's killer is still not known, and could still be at large.
I cannot see any good reason why, if she wants to tell her story and make $4 million, Amanda Knox shouldn't write the book that Harper Collins have asked her to write but, at the same time, I think it is important, for the sake of justice and the sake of the Kercher family, that the police investigation is stepped up. And, of course, if the person who did actually murder Meredith Kercher were to be imprisoned it would help Amanda Knox get on with her life, with less of a shadow hanging over her.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Those of you who are saying that the murderer has been convicted and is in jail. Yes, Rudy Guede DID admit to having been in Kercher's room, and there was plenty of DNA evidence that proved this. However, he also said there was someone else there too. This, of course, tallied with the convictions of Knox and her boyfriend but now they have been acquitted the question of who the other man is needs addressing. Yes, it's very easy to say the murderer has been caught but his conviction was strongly linked to the convictions that have now been overturned. I maintain there is more to be established and the Kercher's do not know who killed their daughter.
Some say this is wrong and that nobody should benefit from crime, but, hang on a minute, Amanda Knox isn't benefitting from crime. She was found not guilty on appeal. She was released. She is innocent.
Why shouldn't she sell her story? After all, chances are it's quite an interesting story.
At this point those who oppose the decision of Harper Collins, the publishing house that has offered Amanda Knox this large sum of money, tend to lose the plot. They seem to know better than the Italian judges who overturned the guilty decision, and who, quite categorically, said that she should be released because she did not commit the crime.
Then they refer to OJ Simpson and his trial for murder back in 1995. They say that he was really guilty of his crimes, despite the decision of the court. We may all have opinions on OJ, or Knox, or anyone else who is found guilty in a trial, or through an appeal, but whether we like it or not, if they are acquitted they are innocent in the eyes of the law and no amount of Daily Mail-esque tubthumping is going to stop that.
Now, unless your were in court for the whole of the appeal trial, or read every inch of the court report, unless you looked closely at every scrap of evidence, I don't think it's fair or reasonable to say she is really guilty and the court got it wrong.
Some, it seems, think she is guilty because they don't approve of her sexual morality, the sex games she is reported to have been part of. And because they don't like that they consider her a loose woman and so, obviously, guilty of murder and therefore shouldn't profit from the events.
It's a ridiculous argument.
Well, it's a ridiculous argument if the person is innocent. If the person has been found guilty it is, of course, another matter entirely.
What if Ian Huntley or Rose West had written a book about their life, detailing their crimes and giving their version of events? If that was the case I agree it would be wrong for them to benefit from any book, television programme or movie that they were involved in.
Having said that, I have no problem with people such as Huntley or West writing a book. Surely it is the right of every man, woman or child to present their story and if it is interesting the public will read it. But I do think the profits from any such book should be compulsorily given to charity, or in a kitty for the victims of crime.
And let's not forget that one of the greatest pieces of literature in the English language, The Ballad of Reading Gaol, was written by Oscar Wilde, a convicted felon about his time in prison.
The law in the UK was changed about 6 years ago, so that criminals cannot profit from the proceeds of crime. In fact, the law went further and made it possible for monies earnt after time had been served, even through non-criminal means, could be used for compensation to the victims of crime. A man who became known as the "Lottery Rapist" who money through the National Lottery many years after his crime. He had already served time in prison for his crimes but, when he won a small fortune on the lottery, the court said his victims were entitled to the money, even though he didn't have that money when he carried out his offences. To me that seems very odd indeed, but it was the sort of knee-jerk, tabloid approving law of which the last Labour government was fond.
So why would Amanda Knox decide to write this book? Sure, $4 million is a lot of money and will set her up for life but shouldn't she be moving on now? Shouldn't she be trying to put this behind her and getting on with her life? She is, after all, still very young and, as an innocent person, could still have a profession.
And what about the reaction to it? She was vilified in the press. Many column inches have expressed hatred for her based on the original trial and initial conviction and, sadly, as I have said, some people simply don't want to accept that the appeal court judges made it perfectly clear that she was guilty. Does she really want to go raking up the whole story again? Is it really worth the hassle of trying to set the record straight? Is telling her side of the story really that important to her?
And then there's the Kercher family. They've lost their daughter. They've been through the trial and thought that their daughter's killers were behind bars only to have to sit through an appeal trial and find that the police have the wrong person. Their daughter's killer is still not known, and could still be at large.
I cannot see any good reason why, if she wants to tell her story and make $4 million, Amanda Knox shouldn't write the book that Harper Collins have asked her to write but, at the same time, I think it is important, for the sake of justice and the sake of the Kercher family, that the police investigation is stepped up. And, of course, if the person who did actually murder Meredith Kercher were to be imprisoned it would help Amanda Knox get on with her life, with less of a shadow hanging over her.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Those of you who are saying that the murderer has been convicted and is in jail. Yes, Rudy Guede DID admit to having been in Kercher's room, and there was plenty of DNA evidence that proved this. However, he also said there was someone else there too. This, of course, tallied with the convictions of Knox and her boyfriend but now they have been acquitted the question of who the other man is needs addressing. Yes, it's very easy to say the murderer has been caught but his conviction was strongly linked to the convictions that have now been overturned. I maintain there is more to be established and the Kercher's do not know who killed their daughter.
Labels:
amanda knox,
appeal,
book,
court,
harper collins,
kercher,
knox,
meredith kercher,
murder,
OJ Simpson,
oscar wilde
Saturday, 18 February 2012
366/49 - St. Pancras Grand Champagne Bar
Click here for today's Project 366...
St. Pancras Grand Champagne Bar
Elgar's Cockaigne Overture
Trumpery
St. Pancras Grand Champagne Bar
Elgar's Cockaigne Overture
Trumpery
Labels:
champagne bar,
cockaigne,
elgar,
photography,
project 365,
Project 366,
st pancras,
trumpery,
word of the day
Friday, 17 February 2012
366/48 - Up
Click here for today's photo, music and word of the day!
REVIEW: Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close (12A)
9/11, the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington DC, took place less than a month before our first child was born. My wife and I wondered what sort of a world we were bringing a child into or even if there was going to be a world to bring them into as we watched images of the Twin Towers being attacked, on fire and, eventually, tumbling into piles of rubble.
It's unusual for Tom Hanks to be in a controversial movie, but Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close has received a lot of criticism from those who say that it is too soon to explore the emotions of that day in September 2001, and yet it isn't the first movie about the events that shook the world and changed everyone's lives since. Even with critics of the timing and suitability of the subject matter, and some other very negative reviews, the movie has been nominated for Best Movie at the Oscars, which take place on February 26th.
Stephen Daldry's movie is an adaptation of a novel, written in 2005, by Jonathan Safran Foer. The movie begins with a body falling from the sky - one of the "jumpers" who leapt from the WTC.
Oskar Schell (played by Thomas Horn in his first ever movie role, having been spotted as a winner on a kids' special of the quiz show Jeopardy) is the son of Thomas Schell (Tom Hanks), who died in the Twin Towers on 9/11.
Oskar recalls the scavenger hunts his father set up for him to help him deal with the real world as Oskar is, it is implied, borderline Asperger's. The hunts are meant to be a learning experience so that Oskar can learn that "if things were easy to find, they wouldn't be worth finding". The scavenger hunt starts at a playground swing in Central Park, where Thomas says he played as a child. Oskar, though, is afraid of swings.
Oskar school closes early on September 11th and when he gets home he finds six messages on the answer machine from his father. His mother (Sandra Bullock) is at work, so Oskar listens to the messages which say that his father is in the World Trade Center on the 105th floor of the North Tower. Oskar switches on the television and watches the TV news coverage of the events. As the Twin Towers collapse, Oskar realises his father has been killed and goes to hide underneath his bed.
A few weeks later Oskar tells his grandmother what happened and as they become closer Oskar's relationship with his mother worsens as she is unable to explain why the events of 9/11 and the death of Oskar's father happened.
One year on, Oskar decides to look through his father's closet and, in doing so, smashes a blue vase in which there is a key inside an envelope. On the envelope is the word "Black". Oskar decides to track down what the key fits will open. He looks up the name "Black" in the phone book and finds there are 417 people with that surname. And so Oskar sets about meeting all 417 people called Black to ask if they knew his father.
Well into his hunt, Oskar notices that an elderly man had moved into his grandmother's apartment. His grandmother describes him as a "stranger".
Calling on his grandmother, he meets the stranger (Max Von Sydow) and the two strike up a touching friendship. The stranger, known only as "The Renter" doesn't talk, perhaps because of a childhood trauma in the Second World War, so he communicates by writing messages on a notebook.
Eventually, Oskar does find where the key belongs and learns to confront many of his fears of the world.
Now, there are some lovely moments, and, yes, I admit it, there were a couple of times when I blubbed (but then I am known to cry at all sorts of films from Up! and Toy Story 3 to West Side Story and Scott of the Antarctic (yes, really)). The friendship between Oskar and The Renter is genuinely touching, and Max von Sydow's performance is beautifully expressive despite him not speaking (indeed, he is one of three actors nominated for an Oscar who says nothing!), but so much of the movie is overly long and clunky.
The basic premise of the movie, a young boy moving around Manhattan alone while his mother stays at home being depressed, is justified by a tortuous, unbelievable and clunky plot device late on.
Now, I'm normally someone who prefers movies to books, but maybe, just maybe, I can see that this might be better as a book. The web of small stories of all the people Oskar meets on his hunt just seem rambling and pointless in the movie but could each be explored more in a book. (I've not read the book, maybe that rambles and doesn't make complete sense either!).
And there's no real explanation of the title, which, after Martha Marcy May Marlene has to be the trickiest title to get right in many a year.
It's not an awful film, I've seen much worse, and worse films have ended up winning Best Movie at the Oscars, but, for me, this wasn't the movie I was hoping for, it didn't live up to the trailer which, I thought, looked inspiring, emotional and coherent.
It's unusual for Tom Hanks to be in a controversial movie, but Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close has received a lot of criticism from those who say that it is too soon to explore the emotions of that day in September 2001, and yet it isn't the first movie about the events that shook the world and changed everyone's lives since. Even with critics of the timing and suitability of the subject matter, and some other very negative reviews, the movie has been nominated for Best Movie at the Oscars, which take place on February 26th.
Stephen Daldry's movie is an adaptation of a novel, written in 2005, by Jonathan Safran Foer. The movie begins with a body falling from the sky - one of the "jumpers" who leapt from the WTC.
Oskar Schell (played by Thomas Horn in his first ever movie role, having been spotted as a winner on a kids' special of the quiz show Jeopardy) is the son of Thomas Schell (Tom Hanks), who died in the Twin Towers on 9/11.
Oskar recalls the scavenger hunts his father set up for him to help him deal with the real world as Oskar is, it is implied, borderline Asperger's. The hunts are meant to be a learning experience so that Oskar can learn that "if things were easy to find, they wouldn't be worth finding". The scavenger hunt starts at a playground swing in Central Park, where Thomas says he played as a child. Oskar, though, is afraid of swings.
Oskar school closes early on September 11th and when he gets home he finds six messages on the answer machine from his father. His mother (Sandra Bullock) is at work, so Oskar listens to the messages which say that his father is in the World Trade Center on the 105th floor of the North Tower. Oskar switches on the television and watches the TV news coverage of the events. As the Twin Towers collapse, Oskar realises his father has been killed and goes to hide underneath his bed.
A few weeks later Oskar tells his grandmother what happened and as they become closer Oskar's relationship with his mother worsens as she is unable to explain why the events of 9/11 and the death of Oskar's father happened.
One year on, Oskar decides to look through his father's closet and, in doing so, smashes a blue vase in which there is a key inside an envelope. On the envelope is the word "Black". Oskar decides to track down what the key fits will open. He looks up the name "Black" in the phone book and finds there are 417 people with that surname. And so Oskar sets about meeting all 417 people called Black to ask if they knew his father.
Well into his hunt, Oskar notices that an elderly man had moved into his grandmother's apartment. His grandmother describes him as a "stranger".
Calling on his grandmother, he meets the stranger (Max Von Sydow) and the two strike up a touching friendship. The stranger, known only as "The Renter" doesn't talk, perhaps because of a childhood trauma in the Second World War, so he communicates by writing messages on a notebook.
Eventually, Oskar does find where the key belongs and learns to confront many of his fears of the world.
Now, there are some lovely moments, and, yes, I admit it, there were a couple of times when I blubbed (but then I am known to cry at all sorts of films from Up! and Toy Story 3 to West Side Story and Scott of the Antarctic (yes, really)). The friendship between Oskar and The Renter is genuinely touching, and Max von Sydow's performance is beautifully expressive despite him not speaking (indeed, he is one of three actors nominated for an Oscar who says nothing!), but so much of the movie is overly long and clunky.
The basic premise of the movie, a young boy moving around Manhattan alone while his mother stays at home being depressed, is justified by a tortuous, unbelievable and clunky plot device late on.
Now, I'm normally someone who prefers movies to books, but maybe, just maybe, I can see that this might be better as a book. The web of small stories of all the people Oskar meets on his hunt just seem rambling and pointless in the movie but could each be explored more in a book. (I've not read the book, maybe that rambles and doesn't make complete sense either!).
And there's no real explanation of the title, which, after Martha Marcy May Marlene has to be the trickiest title to get right in many a year.
It's not an awful film, I've seen much worse, and worse films have ended up winning Best Movie at the Oscars, but, for me, this wasn't the movie I was hoping for, it didn't live up to the trailer which, I thought, looked inspiring, emotional and coherent.
Thursday, 16 February 2012
OPINION: Is your child fit for purpose?
Reports suggest that increasing numbers of pupils arrive at the school gate still wearing nappies, unable to use a knife and fork, incapable of changing themselves into a PE kit, and some, unbelievably, don't actually know what their name is.
How can this be the case in the UK in 2012?
This generation of semi-feral children can't be blamed but the generation of bad parents can. Why haven't they spent the time to teach their children such basic life skills? I wonder how much time these bad parents (yes, that's where they are, there's no getting around it) have spent with their offspring? Did they just ignore them as they grew up? Were the parents just too busy drinking or going out?
Sure, many people work long hours and have difficult lives but that is no excuse for child neglect. Presumably these children were being looked after by someone who might have noticed that the child was socially retarded. Or is this abuse of the youngest members of society a generational thing? In some families is it actually not the parents fault but the grandparents fault?
I think schools should require children to be able to do certain things before they're allowed to start school. I'd suggest being toilet trained is pretty fundamental but I think, before they are accepted into school, all children should be able to eat with a knife, fork and spoon; use a cup to drink (not a baby's bottle with a test); be able to change clothes without being helped; recognise their own name; be able to hold a pen/pencil/crayon appropriately; be able to sit properly on a chair... there's probably more.
Yes, if parents haven't done these things then school need to pick up the pieces but while the teacher, or classroom assistant, is busy changing some 5-year old's nappy, they're not able to give the attention the other 30+ kids in the class need and deserve. Why should one (maybe two or three) semi-feral children harm the education of the other 30+ children in the class?
And how embarrassing is it for the child when, as will surely be the case, that have that epiphany and realise they are socially retarded? And that their patents are bad parents?
It strikes me that we've had decades of social workers, social care, billions spent on people to help, oversee and identify problems in families.... we've got GPs and Health visitors who are meant to do checks on the development of children... we've got communities, neighbours, families, friends, babysitters, nurseries.... Where and why has it gone so wrong?
I agree that it's not just the parents' fault - so many others in our complex social network should be able to identify that there is a problem and for every child arriving at school unable to go to the loo properly there's a whole web of people who have failed but, surely, the bulk of the blame lands at the feet of the parents?
Bad parents are a niggling cancer on our society. Their actions, often their inactions, cast an ever longer shadow on the face of our civilisation. Their abuse of their poor patenting, which is really just a form of child abuse, causes problems for everyone including their own children who they fail to give a fair chance in life.
Something drastic needs to be done to stop bad parents, to bring a halt to generations of bad parenting, do that this cyclone of social destruction is ended.
In the meantime, I'd support any government who introduced minimum requirements to allow a child to start mainstream school and a clamp down on the various institutions that should be spotting these problems and doing something about it.It's time we made sure all children arrived at school fit for purpose.
How can this be the case in the UK in 2012?
This generation of semi-feral children can't be blamed but the generation of bad parents can. Why haven't they spent the time to teach their children such basic life skills? I wonder how much time these bad parents (yes, that's where they are, there's no getting around it) have spent with their offspring? Did they just ignore them as they grew up? Were the parents just too busy drinking or going out?
Sure, many people work long hours and have difficult lives but that is no excuse for child neglect. Presumably these children were being looked after by someone who might have noticed that the child was socially retarded. Or is this abuse of the youngest members of society a generational thing? In some families is it actually not the parents fault but the grandparents fault?
I think schools should require children to be able to do certain things before they're allowed to start school. I'd suggest being toilet trained is pretty fundamental but I think, before they are accepted into school, all children should be able to eat with a knife, fork and spoon; use a cup to drink (not a baby's bottle with a test); be able to change clothes without being helped; recognise their own name; be able to hold a pen/pencil/crayon appropriately; be able to sit properly on a chair... there's probably more.
Yes, if parents haven't done these things then school need to pick up the pieces but while the teacher, or classroom assistant, is busy changing some 5-year old's nappy, they're not able to give the attention the other 30+ kids in the class need and deserve. Why should one (maybe two or three) semi-feral children harm the education of the other 30+ children in the class?
And how embarrassing is it for the child when, as will surely be the case, that have that epiphany and realise they are socially retarded? And that their patents are bad parents?
It strikes me that we've had decades of social workers, social care, billions spent on people to help, oversee and identify problems in families.... we've got GPs and Health visitors who are meant to do checks on the development of children... we've got communities, neighbours, families, friends, babysitters, nurseries.... Where and why has it gone so wrong?
I agree that it's not just the parents' fault - so many others in our complex social network should be able to identify that there is a problem and for every child arriving at school unable to go to the loo properly there's a whole web of people who have failed but, surely, the bulk of the blame lands at the feet of the parents?
Bad parents are a niggling cancer on our society. Their actions, often their inactions, cast an ever longer shadow on the face of our civilisation. Their abuse of their poor patenting, which is really just a form of child abuse, causes problems for everyone including their own children who they fail to give a fair chance in life.
Something drastic needs to be done to stop bad parents, to bring a halt to generations of bad parenting, do that this cyclone of social destruction is ended.
In the meantime, I'd support any government who introduced minimum requirements to allow a child to start mainstream school and a clamp down on the various institutions that should be spotting these problems and doing something about it.It's time we made sure all children arrived at school fit for purpose.
Labels:
child development,
children,
education,
government,
GPs,
health visitors,
nappies,
politics,
primary school,
schools,
social network,
society
Wednesday, 15 February 2012
100WCGU: "...it wasn't my fault..."
100 Word Challenge for Grown Ups - Week 30 - ...it wasn't my fault...
... it wasn't my fault ...
by
Robert Steadman
"It wasn't my fault, Miss, honest," said Ryan, rather sadly.
"Who said it was?" asked the teacher.
"Well, the head coming off my sister's Barbie... that was my fault. Mum's blue mug getting smashed... that was my fault. The dog escaping because the front door had been left wide open... that was my fault. But that earthquake in America this weekend, that wasn't my fault," Ryan said tearfully.
"I'm sure nobody is blaming you for the earthquake, " said the teacher.
"I know," said Ryan. "I was watching the news and the man on there said it was San Andrea's fault..."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
100 Word Challenge for Grown Ups - Week 30 - ...it wasn't my fault...
... it wasn't my fault ...
by
Robert Steadman
"It wasn't my fault, Miss, honest," said Ryan, rather sadly.
"Who said it was?" asked the teacher.
"Well, the head coming off my sister's Barbie... that was my fault. Mum's blue mug getting smashed... that was my fault. The dog escaping because the front door had been left wide open... that was my fault. But that earthquake in America this weekend, that wasn't my fault," Ryan said tearfully.
"I'm sure nobody is blaming you for the earthquake, " said the teacher.
"I know," said Ryan. "I was watching the news and the man on there said it was San Andrea's fault..."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
100 Word Challenge for Grown Ups - Week 30 - ...it wasn't my fault...
Labels:
100 word challenge,
100 words,
100WCGU,
creative writing,
grown ups,
writing
Tuesday, 14 February 2012
Valentine
This year I decided to write Tracy a piece of music for Valentine's Day.
Click here to hear the piece scored for orchestra
Or...
Click here to to hear the original piano version
And if you'd like to have a go at playing it, send me a message!
Click here to hear the piece scored for orchestra
Or...
Click here to to hear the original piano version
And if you'd like to have a go at playing it, send me a message!
Labels:
composing,
Music,
orchestra,
Piano,
robert steadman,
valentine,
Valentine's day
REVIEW: The Woman in Black (12A)
I remember, years ago, going to see the play of The Woman in Black in the West End and being told by everyone that it was the most terrifying thing EVER! I left the theatre disappointed, feeling rather short changed that, yes, it had scary moments but it was, to my mind, far from being the scariest thing EVER!
Today I went to see The Woman in Black in its movie version. It has, of course, generated a lot of publicity as you'd expect from the first movie adaptation of a best selling novel that's also been a hugely successful West End play. Oh, and of course, it's Daniel Radcliffe's first movie since the Harry Potter franchise came to an end last year. In recent weeks it's been difficult to avoid Mr. Radcliffe while he does the publicity rounds - in fact, the only people with a higher public profile in recent weeks are disgraced footballers and Muppets (insert your own joke here!).
The movie has been adapted by Jane Goldman from the original Susan Hill novel and is very different from the play, which is a two-hander, though the bulk of the acting is done by Radcliffe and Ciaran Hinds who plays Daily, the wealthy local landowner who takes it upon himself to help Kipps.
The story tells of Arthur Kipps, a young lawyer, who travels to a remote village in the North East of England in order to sort out the estate of a deceased woman. He isn't welcomed by the locals, who make the locals in American Werewolf in london seem friendly but he, nonetheless, begins work at the old house which is situated on a tidal island. Gradually, as he gets to work, strange things start happening and he sees visions of the Woman in Black.
It's a tremendous ghost story, and it's great to see the legendary Hammer brand being relaunched like a phoenix from the flames of oblivion. The scares come, on the whole, from your own imagination. There's lots of suggestion and things are implied without things being particularly graphic or gruesome. I'm really not one of gory slasher movies! There's always something sinister when you combine clockwork toys, shadows, candles and an old, deserted house - this uses these brilliantly and, I have to admit, I got goosebumps and chills on several occasions through the film.
There were some genuine squeals of fright from others in the cinema too. If you don't get to see it at the cinema, and I suggest you do try to see it on the big screen, it'll be a great movie to watch on DVD at Hallowe'en.
Today I went to see The Woman in Black in its movie version. It has, of course, generated a lot of publicity as you'd expect from the first movie adaptation of a best selling novel that's also been a hugely successful West End play. Oh, and of course, it's Daniel Radcliffe's first movie since the Harry Potter franchise came to an end last year. In recent weeks it's been difficult to avoid Mr. Radcliffe while he does the publicity rounds - in fact, the only people with a higher public profile in recent weeks are disgraced footballers and Muppets (insert your own joke here!).
The movie has been adapted by Jane Goldman from the original Susan Hill novel and is very different from the play, which is a two-hander, though the bulk of the acting is done by Radcliffe and Ciaran Hinds who plays Daily, the wealthy local landowner who takes it upon himself to help Kipps.
The story tells of Arthur Kipps, a young lawyer, who travels to a remote village in the North East of England in order to sort out the estate of a deceased woman. He isn't welcomed by the locals, who make the locals in American Werewolf in london seem friendly but he, nonetheless, begins work at the old house which is situated on a tidal island. Gradually, as he gets to work, strange things start happening and he sees visions of the Woman in Black.
It's a tremendous ghost story, and it's great to see the legendary Hammer brand being relaunched like a phoenix from the flames of oblivion. The scares come, on the whole, from your own imagination. There's lots of suggestion and things are implied without things being particularly graphic or gruesome. I'm really not one of gory slasher movies! There's always something sinister when you combine clockwork toys, shadows, candles and an old, deserted house - this uses these brilliantly and, I have to admit, I got goosebumps and chills on several occasions through the film.
There were some genuine squeals of fright from others in the cinema too. If you don't get to see it at the cinema, and I suggest you do try to see it on the big screen, it'll be a great movie to watch on DVD at Hallowe'en.
Monday, 13 February 2012
COMMENT: Rangers FC goes into administration
With the ongoing financial worries for many clubs it was, perhaps, thought that the major problems were restricted to the likes of Portsmouth and Darlington. No one, it seems, was prepared for a big club to get into trouble and go into administration, but that's exactly what's happened today.
Rangers has a long and successful history in the Scottish League and many would see them and their fierce rivals Celtic as clubs who were surely safe from financial woes. The past couple of years have, though, been financially problematic for Rangers, despite big crowds and revenue being generated. Today they have announced that they're going into administration. This could save them or it could end with the club going out of business.
Surely, Rangers are too big a club to go bust?
It's time football sorted itself out. The UK can only really sustain 16, maybe 20, fully professional clubs. Players have to play their part and accept that their excessive wage demands are at the heart of many team's worries. And we need a UK league.
A UK league has been discussed many times before and, in all reality, it would be an Anglo-Scottish league, but that could the one saving grace for Rangers.
Alex Salmond won't like this because it shows how fragile many Scottish businesses already are. How many will go to the wall if he manages to win independence?
Personally I'd favour a franchise system for UK football, as in American sports, so that each part of the UK was guaranteed a team. Sure, it bucks with history but a new approach is what is needed. After all, if Rangers go bust, how long til Celtic follow? Liverpool? Manchester United?
Rangers would, in all likelihood, struggle in the English Premier League but the television money might help savd their scalp.
The FA and SFA need to act now to stop the implosion of lots of clubs on dodgy financial footing, or being propped up by one wealthy benefactor who could turn their back on a whim. HMRC would be doing the future of football a lot of favours if they forced some of the clubs with huge tax bills hanging over them out of business. It's time for a professional game fit for the 21st century.
Rangers has a long and successful history in the Scottish League and many would see them and their fierce rivals Celtic as clubs who were surely safe from financial woes. The past couple of years have, though, been financially problematic for Rangers, despite big crowds and revenue being generated. Today they have announced that they're going into administration. This could save them or it could end with the club going out of business.
Surely, Rangers are too big a club to go bust?
It's time football sorted itself out. The UK can only really sustain 16, maybe 20, fully professional clubs. Players have to play their part and accept that their excessive wage demands are at the heart of many team's worries. And we need a UK league.
A UK league has been discussed many times before and, in all reality, it would be an Anglo-Scottish league, but that could the one saving grace for Rangers.
Alex Salmond won't like this because it shows how fragile many Scottish businesses already are. How many will go to the wall if he manages to win independence?
Personally I'd favour a franchise system for UK football, as in American sports, so that each part of the UK was guaranteed a team. Sure, it bucks with history but a new approach is what is needed. After all, if Rangers go bust, how long til Celtic follow? Liverpool? Manchester United?
Rangers would, in all likelihood, struggle in the English Premier League but the television money might help savd their scalp.
The FA and SFA need to act now to stop the implosion of lots of clubs on dodgy financial footing, or being propped up by one wealthy benefactor who could turn their back on a whim. HMRC would be doing the future of football a lot of favours if they forced some of the clubs with huge tax bills hanging over them out of business. It's time for a professional game fit for the 21st century.
Labels:
administration,
Alex Salmond,
FA,
finances,
football,
ibrox,
Rangers,
scotland,
scottish independence,
SFA,
soccer,
SPL
366/44 - Rose
Labels:
delibes,
exoteric,
flower duet,
lakme,
photography,
project 365,
Project 366,
rose,
word of the day
Sunday, 12 February 2012
BAFTAS 2012: My predictions (and the results...)
Best Film
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
(winner: The Artist)
Film Not in the English Language
A Separation
(winner: The Skin I Live In)
Outstanding British Film
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
(winner: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy)
Director
Hugo - Martin Scorsese
(winner: The Artist - Michel Hazanavicius)
Original Screenplay
Midnight in Paris
(winner: The Artist)
Adapted Screenplay
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
(winner: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy)
Cinematography
War Horse
(winner: The Artist)
Editing
Hugo
(winner: Senna)
Production Design
The Artist
(winner: Hugo)
Make Up & Hair
My Week with Marilyn
(winner: The Iron Lady)
Costume Design
My Week with Marilyn
(winner: The Artist)
Special Visual Effects
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
(winner: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part Two)
Documentary
Senna
(winner: Senna)
Sound
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
(winner: Hugo)
Original Music
The Artist
(winner: The Artist)
Animated Film
Arthur Christmas
(winner: Rango)
Leading Actor
Gary Oldman (George Smiley) - Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
(winner: Jean Dujardin (George Valentin) - The Artist)
Leading Actress
Michelle Williams (Marilyn Monroe) – My Week with Marilyn
(winner: Meryl Streep (Margaret Thatcher) - The Iron Lady)
Supporting Actor
Kenneth Branagh (Sir Laurence Olivier) – My Week with Marilyn
(winner: Christopher Plummer (Hal Fields) - The Beginners)
Supporting Actress
Judi Dench (Dame Sybil Thorndike) – My Week with Marilyn
(winner: Octavia Spencer (Minny Jackson) - The Help)
Rising Star
Eddie Redmayne
(winner: Adam Deacon)
Outstanding Debut
Tyrannosaur
(winner: Tyrannosaur)
Short animation
winner: A Morning Stroll - Grant Orchard and Sue Goffe
Short film
winner: Pitch Black Heist - John Maclean and Geraldine O'Flynn
Outstanding British Contribution to Cinema
John Hurt
Fellowship of the Academy
Martin Scorsese
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
(winner: The Artist)
Film Not in the English Language
A Separation
(winner: The Skin I Live In)
Outstanding British Film
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
(winner: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy)
Director
Hugo - Martin Scorsese
(winner: The Artist - Michel Hazanavicius)
Original Screenplay
Midnight in Paris
(winner: The Artist)
Adapted Screenplay
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
(winner: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy)
Cinematography
War Horse
(winner: The Artist)
Editing
Hugo
(winner: Senna)
Production Design
The Artist
(winner: Hugo)
Make Up & Hair
My Week with Marilyn
(winner: The Iron Lady)
Costume Design
My Week with Marilyn
(winner: The Artist)
Special Visual Effects
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
(winner: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part Two)
Documentary
Senna
(winner: Senna)
Sound
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
(winner: Hugo)
Original Music
The Artist
(winner: The Artist)
Animated Film
Arthur Christmas
(winner: Rango)
Leading Actor
Gary Oldman (George Smiley) - Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
(winner: Jean Dujardin (George Valentin) - The Artist)
Leading Actress
Michelle Williams (Marilyn Monroe) – My Week with Marilyn
(winner: Meryl Streep (Margaret Thatcher) - The Iron Lady)
Supporting Actor
Kenneth Branagh (Sir Laurence Olivier) – My Week with Marilyn
(winner: Christopher Plummer (Hal Fields) - The Beginners)
Supporting Actress
Judi Dench (Dame Sybil Thorndike) – My Week with Marilyn
(winner: Octavia Spencer (Minny Jackson) - The Help)
Rising Star
Eddie Redmayne
(winner: Adam Deacon)
Outstanding Debut
Tyrannosaur
(winner: Tyrannosaur)
Short animation
winner: A Morning Stroll - Grant Orchard and Sue Goffe
Short film
winner: Pitch Black Heist - John Maclean and Geraldine O'Flynn
Outstanding British Contribution to Cinema
John Hurt
Fellowship of the Academy
Martin Scorsese
Labels:
2012,
bafta winners,
baftas,
predictions,
results,
winners
OBITUARY: Whitney Houston (1963-2012)
In many ways, few can be surprised that Whitney Houston, the mega singing star of the 1980s and '90s, has died. The last decade or so has been a lesson in how not to manage a career and how not to live, with a very public drug addiction, as well as a troubled and abusive marriage to singer Bobby Brown.
Her fall from grace was immense. She sang some of the most iconic songs of the previous two decades including I Wanna Dance With Somebody (Who Love Me), I Will Always Love You, Saving All My Love For You and One Moment in Time.
Houston was related to show biz royalty; Dionne Warwick and Dee Dee Warwick were cousins, and Aretha Franklin was her Godmother. She grew up singing in a Baptist church in New Jersey, and progressed into a gospel choir. She also learned to play the piano.
It was the mid-80s when she rocketed to stardom topping the charts with hit after hit, and going on huge world tours. many saw her as the female Michael Jackson. Awards followed; she won Grammy awards, Emmy awards, etc. and her debut album was included in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Definitive 200 list and Rolling Stone magazine's 500 Greatest Albums. St one point she had seven consecutive US number ones, breaking a record previously held by The Beatles and The Bee Gees.
Houston was, arguably, best known for her ballads which were a fantastic vehicle for her hugely powerful voice that provided a soundtrack for a generation that has influenced countless performers and wannabees since.
She was also an actress, most notably in The Bodyguard which met with commercial, but not critical success but which, of course, gave the world her OTT performance of Dolly Parton's I Will Always Love You (for me one of the worst records ever - her breathing is all over the place).
Houston was due to attend this weekend's Grammy awards. Still an icon to a generation of singers, she had made many guest appearances including on talent shows and there had been several false start comebacks.
She had admitted to crack cocaine use and addictions to alcohol, pills and other drugs. The exact circumstances of her death are yet to be revealed, though it is understood her body was found in a bath in an hotel room in Los Angeles.
A tainted star who lead a tumultuous life that took her from a pinnacle to which few can aspire
to the depths none can ever imagine but with a back catalogue that will live on beyond her.
My favourite Whitney Houston track? It has to be One Moment in Time - the song recorded for the 1988 Olympic and Paralympic Games in Seoul, South Korea.
Her fall from grace was immense. She sang some of the most iconic songs of the previous two decades including I Wanna Dance With Somebody (Who Love Me), I Will Always Love You, Saving All My Love For You and One Moment in Time.
Houston was related to show biz royalty; Dionne Warwick and Dee Dee Warwick were cousins, and Aretha Franklin was her Godmother. She grew up singing in a Baptist church in New Jersey, and progressed into a gospel choir. She also learned to play the piano.
It was the mid-80s when she rocketed to stardom topping the charts with hit after hit, and going on huge world tours. many saw her as the female Michael Jackson. Awards followed; she won Grammy awards, Emmy awards, etc. and her debut album was included in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Definitive 200 list and Rolling Stone magazine's 500 Greatest Albums. St one point she had seven consecutive US number ones, breaking a record previously held by The Beatles and The Bee Gees.
Houston was, arguably, best known for her ballads which were a fantastic vehicle for her hugely powerful voice that provided a soundtrack for a generation that has influenced countless performers and wannabees since.
She was also an actress, most notably in The Bodyguard which met with commercial, but not critical success but which, of course, gave the world her OTT performance of Dolly Parton's I Will Always Love You (for me one of the worst records ever - her breathing is all over the place).
Houston was due to attend this weekend's Grammy awards. Still an icon to a generation of singers, she had made many guest appearances including on talent shows and there had been several false start comebacks.
She had admitted to crack cocaine use and addictions to alcohol, pills and other drugs. The exact circumstances of her death are yet to be revealed, though it is understood her body was found in a bath in an hotel room in Los Angeles.
A tainted star who lead a tumultuous life that took her from a pinnacle to which few can aspire
to the depths none can ever imagine but with a back catalogue that will live on beyond her.
My favourite Whitney Houston track? It has to be One Moment in Time - the song recorded for the 1988 Olympic and Paralympic Games in Seoul, South Korea.
Saturday, 11 February 2012
OPINION: Suarez and Evra's non-handshake
After the fuss, the ban, the calls for a line to be drawn under it and for everyone to focus on the football, Luis Suarez, returning for Liverpool today after an 8-match ban following him racially abusing Manchester United's Patrice Evra, opted to not shake hands with Evra before today's match between the two old rivals.
The pre-match handshake is a recent innovation in Premier League games, having been adopted from internationals and the Champions' League. Last weekend, when John Terry and Anton Ferdinand faced each other in a match, the FA told Chelsea and QPR to not shake hands - but that case, with police charges and a court case due n July, is still very much live. The Evra/Suarez issue is, supposedly, over and settled. far from it, it seems.
As he moved along the line, Suarez shook hands with the match officials and then opted to miss Evra out. Evra grabbed for Suarez's hand, but Suarez withdrew it, spurning the offer of peace from Evra. It was a good job the match officials were close otherwise this could have turned even more nasty.
Surely, though, Suarez ungentlemanly conduct should resulted in a booking?
Quite what effect this will have on the game, who knows! By the time most read this, the result will be known, but, clearly, Suarez still feels victimised by the charges and the suspension, even though he was found guilty by the FA of racially abusing Evra. Liverpool's insistence that he should never have been banned, the players wearing provocative t-shirts supporting him a few weeks ago, and Kenny Dalglish's utterances on the matter won't have helped Suarez realise that his racism is unacceptable in society.
Let's hope the match is a good one, but let's hope the FA look at the handshake before and have another little word with Suarez.
The pre-match handshake is a recent innovation in Premier League games, having been adopted from internationals and the Champions' League. Last weekend, when John Terry and Anton Ferdinand faced each other in a match, the FA told Chelsea and QPR to not shake hands - but that case, with police charges and a court case due n July, is still very much live. The Evra/Suarez issue is, supposedly, over and settled. far from it, it seems.
As he moved along the line, Suarez shook hands with the match officials and then opted to miss Evra out. Evra grabbed for Suarez's hand, but Suarez withdrew it, spurning the offer of peace from Evra. It was a good job the match officials were close otherwise this could have turned even more nasty.
Surely, though, Suarez ungentlemanly conduct should resulted in a booking?
Quite what effect this will have on the game, who knows! By the time most read this, the result will be known, but, clearly, Suarez still feels victimised by the charges and the suspension, even though he was found guilty by the FA of racially abusing Evra. Liverpool's insistence that he should never have been banned, the players wearing provocative t-shirts supporting him a few weeks ago, and Kenny Dalglish's utterances on the matter won't have helped Suarez realise that his racism is unacceptable in society.
Let's hope the match is a good one, but let's hope the FA look at the handshake before and have another little word with Suarez.
Labels:
Dalglish,
Evra,
FA,
ferguson,
football,
Liverpool,
Luis Suarez,
man utd,
Manchester united,
Patrice Evra,
Suarez
Breakfast at Fresh Basil
I'd recently read good things about Fresh Basil, a deli and eaterie in Belper, and so, without the normal Saturday morning commitments due to it being half term, I decided to go there for breakfast this morning.
Belper is an odd town, at the heart of a World Heritage Site but with a disturbing number of charity shops. It has an independent cinema, The Ritz, two supermarkets, and a rail station that you can almost miss (the rail line, and the station, runs in a cutting through the middle of the town).
Fresh Basil can be found in a lovely building on Strutt Street that used to be depot for horse drawn fire engines. Internally, it is on two floors, with the deli and a few tables and armchairs on the ground floor and additional tale seating upstairs. canvas bags and wicker baskets hang from hooks on a bar across the ceiling to add to the informal and, perhaps, slightly rustic feel.
The deli counter has plenty of meats and cheeses (the vast majority of which are locally sourced) and olives. The Independent listed it in its Top 50 delicatessens in the UK. The eaterie, too, has a menu that is impressive in its range of options with wraps, sandwiches, breakfasts...
Fresh Basil won the award for Best Breakfast in the Derbyshire Food & Drink Awards last year. I had the vegetarian breakfast which comprised vegetarian haggis, grilled halloumi, fried egg, mushrooms, tomato, fried potatoes and toast. All for £5.90 (the same price as the Full English breakfast for meat eaters).
The atmosphere is relaxed and friendly and the staff amiable and helpful (they knew many of the "regulars" by name). Sunlight streamed through the windows and Fresh Basil was a place that anyone would want to be, whether for breakfast coffee, a snack..
I have only two criticisms:
1. There was no free public wifi - surely, all cafés/eateries these days should provide free wifi?
2. They don't accept cards for payment under £10 (yes, I understand the reasons but I don't like cash and look forward to a time when all payment is via card)
Having said that, I had a great breakfast and hope it's not too long until I get the chance to return.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Fresh Basil
Strutt Street
Belper
DE56 1UN
Website: www.freshbasil.co.uk
Belper is an odd town, at the heart of a World Heritage Site but with a disturbing number of charity shops. It has an independent cinema, The Ritz, two supermarkets, and a rail station that you can almost miss (the rail line, and the station, runs in a cutting through the middle of the town).
Fresh Basil can be found in a lovely building on Strutt Street that used to be depot for horse drawn fire engines. Internally, it is on two floors, with the deli and a few tables and armchairs on the ground floor and additional tale seating upstairs. canvas bags and wicker baskets hang from hooks on a bar across the ceiling to add to the informal and, perhaps, slightly rustic feel.
The deli counter has plenty of meats and cheeses (the vast majority of which are locally sourced) and olives. The Independent listed it in its Top 50 delicatessens in the UK. The eaterie, too, has a menu that is impressive in its range of options with wraps, sandwiches, breakfasts...
Fresh Basil won the award for Best Breakfast in the Derbyshire Food & Drink Awards last year. I had the vegetarian breakfast which comprised vegetarian haggis, grilled halloumi, fried egg, mushrooms, tomato, fried potatoes and toast. All for £5.90 (the same price as the Full English breakfast for meat eaters).
The atmosphere is relaxed and friendly and the staff amiable and helpful (they knew many of the "regulars" by name). Sunlight streamed through the windows and Fresh Basil was a place that anyone would want to be, whether for breakfast coffee, a snack..
I have only two criticisms:
1. There was no free public wifi - surely, all cafés/eateries these days should provide free wifi?
2. They don't accept cards for payment under £10 (yes, I understand the reasons but I don't like cash and look forward to a time when all payment is via card)
Having said that, I had a great breakfast and hope it's not too long until I get the chance to return.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Fresh Basil
Strutt Street
Belper
DE56 1UN
Website: www.freshbasil.co.uk
Labels:
belper,
deli,
delicatessen,
Derbyshire,
eaterie,
food,
Fresh basil
Friday, 10 February 2012
OPINION: Time to change the National Anthem
Today's ruling that councils cannot have prayers as part of their official business has seen a number of rabid dog loonies defending Christian's "right" to pray when and where they want and bleating on about the oppression of their "faith" (mental illness).
One particular Christian on BBC Radio Five said that if the ruling is applied it would mean that councils wouldn't be able to ever sing the national anthem. Hurrah! Oh wouldn't it be good to get rid of this deeply offensive, divisive dirge which, quite likely, isn't even of British origin (it's more than likely an adaptation of a French folk hymn!).
God save the Queen isn't suitable as the national anthem of a democracy in the 21st century - even if we do carry on paying £200+ million per year to allow the Windsors to be the biggest benefit scroungers in the country.
What a load of absolute bollocks!
This verse, if you're Scottish things get worse and much more offensive in later verses (it says that "rebellious Scots" should be crushed), isn't a national anthem at all - it's a paean to a fictional superbeing to look after one person. What has that got to do with national identity?
I have no problem with a national anthem - if we HAVE to have nationalities (something I've often questioned), then there's nothing wrong with a song but it should be inclusive, positive and be about the nation, not just the parasite with privileges at the top.
I disagree that our current monarch is "gracious" or "noble" = she is the head of a business which, in order to operate, restricts the freedoms and rights of the vast bulk of the rest of the people who live in the same country, and who is propped up through pointless, outdated titles and baubles and other bribery.
And why do we want her to be "victorious" - I'd rather we lived in a peaceful world, not one that had wars to be won and battles and victories.
And why, even if we wanted a song about the nation's figurehead, should we be praying to a "god" - which god? Why any god at all? The vast majority don't attend church regularly and aren't "religious" in any meaningful way. Although many still put "C of E' on the census or on forms in hospital they are cultural Christians, or social Christians, whose only links to the church are for weddings, funerals, attending the odd Christening and, of course, a carol service at Christmas.
It is time the "national anthem" was abandoned and replaced with something which has words that are inclusive, non-denominational, non-sectarian, positive and, come on, with a good rousing tune.
There are some fantastic national anthem melodies around the world - the French and American ones are particularly rousing, but our one is just snoresville. Maybe we look at other, existing melodies and songs and see if there is something that could be adopted as a new anthem, or maybe we hold a competition for a new anthem.
Whatever we do, we need a new national anthem - and soon!
One particular Christian on BBC Radio Five said that if the ruling is applied it would mean that councils wouldn't be able to ever sing the national anthem. Hurrah! Oh wouldn't it be good to get rid of this deeply offensive, divisive dirge which, quite likely, isn't even of British origin (it's more than likely an adaptation of a French folk hymn!).
God save the Queen isn't suitable as the national anthem of a democracy in the 21st century - even if we do carry on paying £200+ million per year to allow the Windsors to be the biggest benefit scroungers in the country.
God save our gracious Quuen,
Long live our noble Queen,
God save the Queen.
Send her victorious,
Happy and Glorious,
Long to reign over us,
God save the Queen.
What a load of absolute bollocks!
This verse, if you're Scottish things get worse and much more offensive in later verses (it says that "rebellious Scots" should be crushed), isn't a national anthem at all - it's a paean to a fictional superbeing to look after one person. What has that got to do with national identity?
I have no problem with a national anthem - if we HAVE to have nationalities (something I've often questioned), then there's nothing wrong with a song but it should be inclusive, positive and be about the nation, not just the parasite with privileges at the top.
I disagree that our current monarch is "gracious" or "noble" = she is the head of a business which, in order to operate, restricts the freedoms and rights of the vast bulk of the rest of the people who live in the same country, and who is propped up through pointless, outdated titles and baubles and other bribery.
And why do we want her to be "victorious" - I'd rather we lived in a peaceful world, not one that had wars to be won and battles and victories.
And why, even if we wanted a song about the nation's figurehead, should we be praying to a "god" - which god? Why any god at all? The vast majority don't attend church regularly and aren't "religious" in any meaningful way. Although many still put "C of E' on the census or on forms in hospital they are cultural Christians, or social Christians, whose only links to the church are for weddings, funerals, attending the odd Christening and, of course, a carol service at Christmas.
It is time the "national anthem" was abandoned and replaced with something which has words that are inclusive, non-denominational, non-sectarian, positive and, come on, with a good rousing tune.
There are some fantastic national anthem melodies around the world - the French and American ones are particularly rousing, but our one is just snoresville. Maybe we look at other, existing melodies and songs and see if there is something that could be adopted as a new anthem, or maybe we hold a competition for a new anthem.
Whatever we do, we need a new national anthem - and soon!
Labels:
anthem,
atheism,
god save the queen,
Monarchy,
national anthem,
religion,
republic
REVIEW: A Monster in Paris - 3D (U)
A Monster in Paris is lovely. It is, on just one viewing, probably my favourite animated movie ever.
The movie is set in Paris in 1910. Emile is a shy movie projectionist, and Raoul, a confident and extrovert inventor. They find themselves joining with Lucille, a cabaret singing star, a mad scientist, and his monkey, who communicates through flash cards, to save the monster, which turns out to be a 7 foot tall harmless flea (who has a divine singing voice and plays guitar), from the city's misguided police chief.
The stylized Paris is gorgeous to look at, and the characterisations brilliant. I thought the use of 3D added to the appeal and didn't seem to be there just as a gimmick - something that can't be said about many other 3D animations.
This is un-Disneyfied animation so we don't have lots of American comedians doing their party piece. Instead, Vanessa Paradis voices Lucille and Sean Lennon provides the voice of Franceour, the flea. Apart from that I have to confess I didn't recognise any names - but I feel this was a plus point.
The movie was origin in French but the English version doesn't look odd in the matching of words to mouths.
Music plays a key role in the movie, and their are plenty of catchy, toe-tapping songs (perhaps, being pedantic, not actually historically accurate given the year the movie is set).
I went with my 10-year old son who had chosen A Monster in Paris over what I had thought would be his choice, Journey 2: the Mysterious Island but he loved it too.
A movie about a 7 foot, singing flea might not seem an obvious choice but, if you can get out with your kids over half term, I'd thoroughly recommend it.
The movie is set in Paris in 1910. Emile is a shy movie projectionist, and Raoul, a confident and extrovert inventor. They find themselves joining with Lucille, a cabaret singing star, a mad scientist, and his monkey, who communicates through flash cards, to save the monster, which turns out to be a 7 foot tall harmless flea (who has a divine singing voice and plays guitar), from the city's misguided police chief.
The stylized Paris is gorgeous to look at, and the characterisations brilliant. I thought the use of 3D added to the appeal and didn't seem to be there just as a gimmick - something that can't be said about many other 3D animations.
This is un-Disneyfied animation so we don't have lots of American comedians doing their party piece. Instead, Vanessa Paradis voices Lucille and Sean Lennon provides the voice of Franceour, the flea. Apart from that I have to confess I didn't recognise any names - but I feel this was a plus point.
The movie was origin in French but the English version doesn't look odd in the matching of words to mouths.
Music plays a key role in the movie, and their are plenty of catchy, toe-tapping songs (perhaps, being pedantic, not actually historically accurate given the year the movie is set).
I went with my 10-year old son who had chosen A Monster in Paris over what I had thought would be his choice, Journey 2: the Mysterious Island but he loved it too.
A movie about a 7 foot, singing flea might not seem an obvious choice but, if you can get out with your kids over half term, I'd thoroughly recommend it.
Labels:
3D,
a monster in paris,
animation,
best movie,
Portas review,
sean lennon,
vanessa paradis
Wednesday, 8 February 2012
OPINION: Capello's replacement?
So who will replace Capello as England football manager?
Mid-season isn't a good time for many candidates.
Harry Redknapp
The popular choice and, only hours earlier, cleared by the courts, but with Spurs riding high in the table will they let him go? In fact, would he he walk out on what could be his greatest season as a lib manager? FA have always rejected part time option but, to end of season, that might be a possibility.
Stuart Pearce
Currently coach of the Under 21 team and do part of the FA set up. Clearly being groomed as a potential future full international manager but is it too soon and does he really have the tactical wherewithal to lead England into the European championships?
Ray Wilkins
Yes, really! Why not?! Very experienced as an England international though known to be tactically rather negative. Didnt have much success as a club manager. A good tactician as a tv pundit but not Mr. Personality. Surely he'd be a safe pair of hands with the media.
Sam Allardyce
"Big Sam" is currently the West Ham manager who are top of the championship and grading for promotion. Would they let him go? Doubtful. Not always popular with fans due to rather basic and physical game.
Steve McClaren
Bizarrely, he's got to be in the reckoning following success in The Netherlands but, surely, his previous stint (and his time as Sven's number two) can never be forgotten.
Gareth Southgate
Er.... NO!
Roy Hodgson
To be honest, I'd forgotten all about him. Hugely experienced and, until his disastrous spell at Liverpool, I would have said a safe pair of hands. If Harry says no....
Who else? A return for Keegan? Go for another foreign manager?
Mid-season isn't a good time for many candidates.
Harry Redknapp
The popular choice and, only hours earlier, cleared by the courts, but with Spurs riding high in the table will they let him go? In fact, would he he walk out on what could be his greatest season as a lib manager? FA have always rejected part time option but, to end of season, that might be a possibility.
Stuart Pearce
Currently coach of the Under 21 team and do part of the FA set up. Clearly being groomed as a potential future full international manager but is it too soon and does he really have the tactical wherewithal to lead England into the European championships?
Ray Wilkins
Yes, really! Why not?! Very experienced as an England international though known to be tactically rather negative. Didnt have much success as a club manager. A good tactician as a tv pundit but not Mr. Personality. Surely he'd be a safe pair of hands with the media.
Sam Allardyce
"Big Sam" is currently the West Ham manager who are top of the championship and grading for promotion. Would they let him go? Doubtful. Not always popular with fans due to rather basic and physical game.
Steve McClaren
Bizarrely, he's got to be in the reckoning following success in The Netherlands but, surely, his previous stint (and his time as Sven's number two) can never be forgotten.
Gareth Southgate
Er.... NO!
Roy Hodgson
To be honest, I'd forgotten all about him. Hugely experienced and, until his disastrous spell at Liverpool, I would have said a safe pair of hands. If Harry says no....
Who else? A return for Keegan? Go for another foreign manager?
Labels:
Capello,
England,
football,
Harry Redknapp,
manager,
ray wilkins,
Sam Allardyce,
Stuart Pearce
COMMENT: Ken's bigotry will end Miliband's leadership
It seems that Ken Livingstone has commuted electoral suicide today and, as a result, handed the role of London mayor to Boris Johnson for four more years.
His gaffe, the latest in a long list of gaffes that have seen him offend many minority groups in the capital and beyond, was to refer to the Conservatives as being riddled with gays.
No, this isn't "PC gone mad" - that popular phrase of the Daily Mail and Daily Express - it is a truly distasteful comment that could have wider repercussions than the position of London mayor for the Labour Party.
Surely Ed Miliband, the ineffective and increasingly disastrous leader of the Labour Party, will be further wounded by the guaranteed loss of London. It was likely that his leadership was going to be challenged after the expected fails in the local elections in May and, quite probably, the only reason a challenge didn't materialise before Christmas was because it would have damaged Ken's mayoral campaign. Without Ken, as is surely the case now, Ed Miliband is cut adrift from any possible success, and the attention his brother, David, has been gaining for recent speeches can't help Ed's situation
Ken probably shouldn't have been given the nod to run as Labour's candidate again after losing the election last time round and various earlier gaffes. This year he'll turn 67 and, without wanting to be ageist, he has lost the plot. I can only assume he was given the chance to recapture the mayorship through a misguided sentimentality - or because nobody else wanted to have the embarrassment of losing to Boris.
Who could Labour parachute in to stand in May? There aren't many options, but, surely, they wouldn't leave it uncontested?
Ken Livingstone was a political hero to many when he was the leader of the GLC, and when he stood up to Margaret Thatcher. It was, somehow, destiny (if you believe in such things) that he became the first Mayor of London when the role was created by Blair's government, but, in recent times, he has increasingly shown himself to be unpredictable, unpleasant and, quite frankly, bigoted human being.
Labour are due some major reorganisation and desperately need to decide where in the political spectrum they sit. This needs to happen without Ken Livingstone or Ed Miliband.
It's time for change. It's time for the Labour Party to remember its socialist roots.
His gaffe, the latest in a long list of gaffes that have seen him offend many minority groups in the capital and beyond, was to refer to the Conservatives as being riddled with gays.
No, this isn't "PC gone mad" - that popular phrase of the Daily Mail and Daily Express - it is a truly distasteful comment that could have wider repercussions than the position of London mayor for the Labour Party.
Surely Ed Miliband, the ineffective and increasingly disastrous leader of the Labour Party, will be further wounded by the guaranteed loss of London. It was likely that his leadership was going to be challenged after the expected fails in the local elections in May and, quite probably, the only reason a challenge didn't materialise before Christmas was because it would have damaged Ken's mayoral campaign. Without Ken, as is surely the case now, Ed Miliband is cut adrift from any possible success, and the attention his brother, David, has been gaining for recent speeches can't help Ed's situation
Ken probably shouldn't have been given the nod to run as Labour's candidate again after losing the election last time round and various earlier gaffes. This year he'll turn 67 and, without wanting to be ageist, he has lost the plot. I can only assume he was given the chance to recapture the mayorship through a misguided sentimentality - or because nobody else wanted to have the embarrassment of losing to Boris.
Who could Labour parachute in to stand in May? There aren't many options, but, surely, they wouldn't leave it uncontested?
Ken Livingstone was a political hero to many when he was the leader of the GLC, and when he stood up to Margaret Thatcher. It was, somehow, destiny (if you believe in such things) that he became the first Mayor of London when the role was created by Blair's government, but, in recent times, he has increasingly shown himself to be unpredictable, unpleasant and, quite frankly, bigoted human being.
Labour are due some major reorganisation and desperately need to decide where in the political spectrum they sit. This needs to happen without Ken Livingstone or Ed Miliband.
It's time for change. It's time for the Labour Party to remember its socialist roots.
OPINION: 10 years since Gary McKinnon's arrest
Today the Gary McKinnon passes its 10th anniversary. 10 years ago he was arrested but he hasn't yet faced court. This is ridiculous and must be resolved quickly for the sake of justice.
Mr. McKinnon is charged with hacking into US defence systems, something which he admits but he claims he was looking for evidence of aliens and UFOs and wasn't there for any other reason. he's now spent 10 years trying, successfully so far, to not be extradited to the USA to face trial.
Since being charged he has been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome, part of the autistic spectrum, and this has been at the heart of his defence and is regularly referred to by his vociferous support team who, online, often come across more as a baying mob than a reasoned and intelligent group arguing a point of law.
The US authorities claim that not only did McKinnon hack into the systems, he damaged systems, switched off defences and left insulting and xenophobic messages in various places.
McKinnon's defenders, and especially his mother who is the chief spokesperson for his "team", claim that the damage is a lie and that his behaviour, a fixation on finding information beyond what most people would do, is as a result of his Asperger's.
A growing number of those with Asperger's find the McKinnon defence insulting. They say that they know the difference between right and wrong and don't want the syndrome to be used as an excuse for criminal activity.
Then his "team", go on about the evils of the US legal system, how awful prisons in the US are and that the extradition treaty between the US and the UK is unbalanced and unfair. these are, of course, red herrings but, sadly, red herrings that the Little Englander media lap up and, consequentially, this self-confessed criminal gets much more support than might have been expected. Quite how his campaign is taken seriously, when it is founded on so much blatant, and unpleasant, xenophobia and anti-Americanism, is beyond me.
The McKinnon "team" also go on about how awful it is that his maximum penalty could be 70 years or more in jail. On closer examination this isn't true. As with many of the McKinnon "team"'s claims this is a gross exaggeration but, hey, if it were the case maybe he shouldn't have committed the crime in the first place.
They also claim that he was in the UK when he did his crime, so should be tried in the UK. Again, another red herring. The crime, the actual hack, took place in the US, via the Internet, and so it s perfect toy reasonable that he is tried in the USA.
And that is the point, he is avoiding being tried. It's more than likely that, if medical assessment aupport his claims to have Asperger's (of which he was only diagnosed after he had been charged and which many claim looks rather "convenient"), the court will take this not consideration, but why should he be able to avoid trial?
It's time for this to be sorted;It's time for McKinnon to face court; and there is no sensible reason for that day in court not to be in the USA.
He's admitted the crime, though claims exaggeration by the US authorities about damage caused, I hope this is resolved soon and, when found guilty, he is left to rot in a US jail for as long as possible.
Mr. McKinnon is charged with hacking into US defence systems, something which he admits but he claims he was looking for evidence of aliens and UFOs and wasn't there for any other reason. he's now spent 10 years trying, successfully so far, to not be extradited to the USA to face trial.
Since being charged he has been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome, part of the autistic spectrum, and this has been at the heart of his defence and is regularly referred to by his vociferous support team who, online, often come across more as a baying mob than a reasoned and intelligent group arguing a point of law.
The US authorities claim that not only did McKinnon hack into the systems, he damaged systems, switched off defences and left insulting and xenophobic messages in various places.
McKinnon's defenders, and especially his mother who is the chief spokesperson for his "team", claim that the damage is a lie and that his behaviour, a fixation on finding information beyond what most people would do, is as a result of his Asperger's.
A growing number of those with Asperger's find the McKinnon defence insulting. They say that they know the difference between right and wrong and don't want the syndrome to be used as an excuse for criminal activity.
Then his "team", go on about the evils of the US legal system, how awful prisons in the US are and that the extradition treaty between the US and the UK is unbalanced and unfair. these are, of course, red herrings but, sadly, red herrings that the Little Englander media lap up and, consequentially, this self-confessed criminal gets much more support than might have been expected. Quite how his campaign is taken seriously, when it is founded on so much blatant, and unpleasant, xenophobia and anti-Americanism, is beyond me.
The McKinnon "team" also go on about how awful it is that his maximum penalty could be 70 years or more in jail. On closer examination this isn't true. As with many of the McKinnon "team"'s claims this is a gross exaggeration but, hey, if it were the case maybe he shouldn't have committed the crime in the first place.
They also claim that he was in the UK when he did his crime, so should be tried in the UK. Again, another red herring. The crime, the actual hack, took place in the US, via the Internet, and so it s perfect toy reasonable that he is tried in the USA.
And that is the point, he is avoiding being tried. It's more than likely that, if medical assessment aupport his claims to have Asperger's (of which he was only diagnosed after he had been charged and which many claim looks rather "convenient"), the court will take this not consideration, but why should he be able to avoid trial?
It's time for this to be sorted;It's time for McKinnon to face court; and there is no sensible reason for that day in court not to be in the USA.
He's admitted the crime, though claims exaggeration by the US authorities about damage caused, I hope this is resolved soon and, when found guilty, he is left to rot in a US jail for as long as possible.
Labels:
Asperger's,
Asperger's syndrome,
autism,
extradition,
Gary McKinnon,
hacker,
hacking,
McKinnon,
USA
OPINION: Just get rid of the Falklands
30 years on from the Falklands Conflict, the UK and Argentina are getting hot under the collar again about the desolate rocks in the South Atlantic.
When Margaret Thatcher sent a large task force to the Falkland Islands back in 1982, following Argentina's invasion of the islands and South Georgia, it had more to do with pulling the heart strings of Little Englanders, playing the patriotism card, in order to help her chances of reelection following a bad couple of years in the opinion polls and an economy that was struggling and the deaths of several hundred Argentine sailors, and some (*cue fake tears) British heroes achieved its goal - she was re-elected by a landslide a year later.
Today things are different. I'm sure that Cameron quite fancies the poll boost that a war PM tends to get (Tony Blair can only puzzle as to why his cynical wars backfired) and it would serve as a wonderful distraction from his flatlining economy and other political woes, but now there is a far bigger issue.
Oil and gas fields have been discovered beneath the waters around the islands. It's been long suspected that there was a large amount of oil and gas there, someone just had to find it. So now the battle for the Falklands has another purpose - the pursuit of climate destroying oil.
Because of the Falkland Islands legal status, however, the UK won't benefit from the oil and gas found there. The UK spends millions of pounds each year protecting the islands, including having two warships permanently there, for which the islanders pay nothing, but the monies generated from discovery of oil and gas are the islanders. Every single one of them, men, women and children, could, it seems, become multi-millionaires but the UK won't receive a penny, or peso, of it. We, the UK taxpayers, pay to protect the islands, build them infrastructure, etc. but won't benefit from any oil windfall. How can that be right?
It, of course, makes no sense but raises the question, why do we continue paying out huge amounts of money to protect a set of bleak, inhospitable islands with a tiny population?
In the late 1970s the UK was trying to get rid of the Falklands and, had the Argentine junta not tried to gain popularity by invading the islands, there is every chance the islands would have been given away by the mid-1980s.
I'm all for self-determination but, surely, that is to decide between independence and being ruled over. If the Falkland Islanders can choose who they want to pick up their security bill and not their independence it's like Southampton declaring that they are now a French port.
And it's not as if the Falkland Islands have always been under some sort of British flag. It was only in the 1820s that the UK stole them from Argentina! Hardly a long history.
So what will happen?
The Argentine government have accused the UK of upping the stakes and "militarising" the South Atlantic. The UK say they are simply changing ships (to a much bigger and more armed one) and that William Windsor, second in line to the British throne is there as a routine duty. They'll be lots of huffing and puffing (including, announced this week, the renaming of the Argentine football league as the "Cruiser General Belgrano Premier League") and eventually someone will do something stupid, quite probably for personal electoral gain.
I fear another conflict and the inevitable loss of life. I fear this will increase narrow-minded Little Englanders patriotism and that, if he times it right, an overall election win for David Cameron at the next general election. I fear the British taxpayer will be asked to pay more and more money for islands we don't really want and which it would make more sense to get rid of. And I fear that, with huge amounts of oil and gas being discovered, it will delay the inevitable development of alternative technologies and we'll have more decades of polluting carbon-based fuels.
My solution? Give the Falkland Islands to Argentina - it makes much more sense for them to look after the Malvinas, as they call them, and allow any Falkland Islanders who want to be "British" to settle on UK soil (though I guess they won't do that if there's a chance their snouts can be buried in the oil trough).
MILITARISATION OF THE DALKLANDS? (HUMOUR)
When Margaret Thatcher sent a large task force to the Falkland Islands back in 1982, following Argentina's invasion of the islands and South Georgia, it had more to do with pulling the heart strings of Little Englanders, playing the patriotism card, in order to help her chances of reelection following a bad couple of years in the opinion polls and an economy that was struggling and the deaths of several hundred Argentine sailors, and some (*cue fake tears) British heroes achieved its goal - she was re-elected by a landslide a year later.
Today things are different. I'm sure that Cameron quite fancies the poll boost that a war PM tends to get (Tony Blair can only puzzle as to why his cynical wars backfired) and it would serve as a wonderful distraction from his flatlining economy and other political woes, but now there is a far bigger issue.
Oil and gas fields have been discovered beneath the waters around the islands. It's been long suspected that there was a large amount of oil and gas there, someone just had to find it. So now the battle for the Falklands has another purpose - the pursuit of climate destroying oil.
Because of the Falkland Islands legal status, however, the UK won't benefit from the oil and gas found there. The UK spends millions of pounds each year protecting the islands, including having two warships permanently there, for which the islanders pay nothing, but the monies generated from discovery of oil and gas are the islanders. Every single one of them, men, women and children, could, it seems, become multi-millionaires but the UK won't receive a penny, or peso, of it. We, the UK taxpayers, pay to protect the islands, build them infrastructure, etc. but won't benefit from any oil windfall. How can that be right?
It, of course, makes no sense but raises the question, why do we continue paying out huge amounts of money to protect a set of bleak, inhospitable islands with a tiny population?
In the late 1970s the UK was trying to get rid of the Falklands and, had the Argentine junta not tried to gain popularity by invading the islands, there is every chance the islands would have been given away by the mid-1980s.
I'm all for self-determination but, surely, that is to decide between independence and being ruled over. If the Falkland Islanders can choose who they want to pick up their security bill and not their independence it's like Southampton declaring that they are now a French port.
And it's not as if the Falkland Islands have always been under some sort of British flag. It was only in the 1820s that the UK stole them from Argentina! Hardly a long history.
So what will happen?
The Argentine government have accused the UK of upping the stakes and "militarising" the South Atlantic. The UK say they are simply changing ships (to a much bigger and more armed one) and that William Windsor, second in line to the British throne is there as a routine duty. They'll be lots of huffing and puffing (including, announced this week, the renaming of the Argentine football league as the "Cruiser General Belgrano Premier League") and eventually someone will do something stupid, quite probably for personal electoral gain.
I fear another conflict and the inevitable loss of life. I fear this will increase narrow-minded Little Englanders patriotism and that, if he times it right, an overall election win for David Cameron at the next general election. I fear the British taxpayer will be asked to pay more and more money for islands we don't really want and which it would make more sense to get rid of. And I fear that, with huge amounts of oil and gas being discovered, it will delay the inevitable development of alternative technologies and we'll have more decades of polluting carbon-based fuels.
My solution? Give the Falkland Islands to Argentina - it makes much more sense for them to look after the Malvinas, as they call them, and allow any Falkland Islanders who want to be "British" to settle on UK soil (though I guess they won't do that if there's a chance their snouts can be buried in the oil trough).
MILITARISATION OF THE DALKLANDS? (HUMOUR)
Tuesday, 7 February 2012
GRAMMAR: Less or fewer?
I enjoy watching BBC1's Pointless at tea time but Alexander Armstrong drives me nuts with his incorrect use of 'less' when he should be using 'fewer' - here's some tips to help you remember which to use.
FEWER should be used when the items can be counted.
LESS should be used for general, not coutable, descriptions.
*There was less sand which meant there were fewer grains of sand.
*There were fewer raindrops, so there was less rain.
FEWER is used when referring to things in plural.
*As more people read the news online, people are buying fewer newspapers.
*Fewer than 20 children returned their reply slip on time.
LESS is used if items can't be counted or can't be pluralized.
*I spend less time reading these days.
*I seem to have less money spare at the end of the month.
LESS is also used with numbers that are on their own and with expressions of measurement or time.
*Their relationship lasted less than two years.
*His diet was a great success, he went from 15 stone to less than 11.
So, Mr. Armstrong, the contestants need to score fewer points than the other contestants, not less points!
FEWER should be used when the items can be counted.
LESS should be used for general, not coutable, descriptions.
*There was less sand which meant there were fewer grains of sand.
*There were fewer raindrops, so there was less rain.
FEWER is used when referring to things in plural.
*As more people read the news online, people are buying fewer newspapers.
*Fewer than 20 children returned their reply slip on time.
LESS is used if items can't be counted or can't be pluralized.
*I spend less time reading these days.
*I seem to have less money spare at the end of the month.
LESS is also used with numbers that are on their own and with expressions of measurement or time.
*Their relationship lasted less than two years.
*His diet was a great success, he went from 15 stone to less than 11.
So, Mr. Armstrong, the contestants need to score fewer points than the other contestants, not less points!
Labels:
Alexander Armstrong,
BBC1,
fewer,
grammar,
less,
pointless,
Richard Osman
REVIEW: Martha Marcy May Marlene (15)
Martha Marcy May Marlene may not be the snappiest of movie titles I've ever come across, and, I must confess, I had to read it from the wall behind the cashier when buying my ticket, but the movie, a tense, dark, emotional piece of indie cinema, is far more memorable than the title!
Martha (Elizabeth Olsen) runs away from a cult in the Catskills where she has been physically and psychologically abused over a period of about two years, losing all contact with her family. She phones her sister, Lucy (Sarah Paulson), who takes her to the lakeside holiday home she rents with her husband, Ted (Hugh Dancy) who is a successful, wealthy and priggish Brit!
It is instantly obvious that Martha is deeply troubled and scarred by her experience at the cult and the abuse dealt out by high sinister Patrick (John Hawkes), a terrifyingly authoritative cult leader who renames all his followers (Martha is renamed "Marcy May").
The action zips back and forth between the present, at the lakeside house, to her time at the cult's farm and gives several moments of ambiguity as a result of the sudden juxtaposition that is occurring in Martha's confused and damaged mind.
The movie is scary and creepy and unsettling and, at times, uncomfortable viewing but, having said that, it is gripping and a riveting watch which has won a number of awards including Best Director for Sean Durkin at the Sundance Festival.
Martha (Elizabeth Olsen) runs away from a cult in the Catskills where she has been physically and psychologically abused over a period of about two years, losing all contact with her family. She phones her sister, Lucy (Sarah Paulson), who takes her to the lakeside holiday home she rents with her husband, Ted (Hugh Dancy) who is a successful, wealthy and priggish Brit!
It is instantly obvious that Martha is deeply troubled and scarred by her experience at the cult and the abuse dealt out by high sinister Patrick (John Hawkes), a terrifyingly authoritative cult leader who renames all his followers (Martha is renamed "Marcy May").
The action zips back and forth between the present, at the lakeside house, to her time at the cult's farm and gives several moments of ambiguity as a result of the sudden juxtaposition that is occurring in Martha's confused and damaged mind.
The movie is scary and creepy and unsettling and, at times, uncomfortable viewing but, having said that, it is gripping and a riveting watch which has won a number of awards including Best Director for Sean Durkin at the Sundance Festival.
Monday, 6 February 2012
COMMENT: Ian Paisley
I often say that all death is sad for someone, but I will struggle to find anything to mourn should Ian Paisley pass away, as expected, in the next few days.
A man of hatred, who made the situation much worse with his evil diatribe and bigotry.
A man who gave himself the title Rev in order to be able to stir the religious divide in Northern Ireland and whose ignorance and inste violent tendencies embarrassed the UK in the European Parliament.
A man, promoted by Cameron to the House of Lords, who is a fundamentalist, creationist loon with an irrational hatred of Roman Catholicism because it doesn't fit with his own dogmatic bigotry. It seems HIS bigotry, including outspoken opposition to gay rights, is good, but the Pope is the anti-Christ.
I am sure Ian Paisley's family will mourn his inevitable passing, but I wonder how many lives his words cost and how much damage his entrenched and moronic views caused to the people of Northern Ireland.
Good riddance, Ian Paisley. Your type will hopefully not be seen again. You are a truly evil and ignorant man.
A man of hatred, who made the situation much worse with his evil diatribe and bigotry.
A man who gave himself the title Rev in order to be able to stir the religious divide in Northern Ireland and whose ignorance and inste violent tendencies embarrassed the UK in the European Parliament.
A man, promoted by Cameron to the House of Lords, who is a fundamentalist, creationist loon with an irrational hatred of Roman Catholicism because it doesn't fit with his own dogmatic bigotry. It seems HIS bigotry, including outspoken opposition to gay rights, is good, but the Pope is the anti-Christ.
I am sure Ian Paisley's family will mourn his inevitable passing, but I wonder how many lives his words cost and how much damage his entrenched and moronic views caused to the people of Northern Ireland.
Good riddance, Ian Paisley. Your type will hopefully not be seen again. You are a truly evil and ignorant man.
Labels:
creationist,
dup,
Ian paisley,
northern Ireland,
religion
OPINION: Abu Qatada should not be released
The radical Muslim cleric, Abu Qatada, who is accused of posing a grave threat to Britain's national security, will be released within a matter of days after a court granted him bail. This is despite the Home Office arguing he remains a risk to national security.
Qatada has spent six and a half years in prison and his defence team successfully argued that, as there was no sign of an imminent deportation to Jordan, where he is wanted to stand trial for alleged terror offences, his continued imprisonment was unlawful.
The UK won't extradite him unless the Jordanian authorities guarantee that no evidence gained through the use of torture will be used in his trial.
So, Qatada, once described as Osama bin Laden's "right hand man" and with links to many terrorist atrocities, will be released.
Sometimes the law is an ass. This is one such instance.
Qatada clearly shouldn't be let loose. He's far too dangerous for that, and his involvement in major terrorist activity is undeniable. Perhaps, if Jordan isn't a sufficiently civilised country (doesn't the UK sell tgem lots of arms?) international courts need to be used to try and, ultimately, incarcerate this evil man.
It's not just Qatada. Surely the same principle should be applied to all criminals; if they still pose a threat to society, if they are likely to reoffend, they shouldn't be released. Some people are just too evil and should never be released.
Seriously, if the crime is bad enough to warrant a prison sentence, and the authorities consider it more than likely that the crime will be repeated, why should they be allowed out?
I strongly suspect that most incarcerated criminals are repeat offenders and, while the cost of keeping the behind bars would fall on the taxpayer, the cost of further police investigations and court cases, plus the effect on victims of crime, would be reduced.
Qatada has spent six and a half years in prison and his defence team successfully argued that, as there was no sign of an imminent deportation to Jordan, where he is wanted to stand trial for alleged terror offences, his continued imprisonment was unlawful.
The UK won't extradite him unless the Jordanian authorities guarantee that no evidence gained through the use of torture will be used in his trial.
So, Qatada, once described as Osama bin Laden's "right hand man" and with links to many terrorist atrocities, will be released.
Sometimes the law is an ass. This is one such instance.
Qatada clearly shouldn't be let loose. He's far too dangerous for that, and his involvement in major terrorist activity is undeniable. Perhaps, if Jordan isn't a sufficiently civilised country (doesn't the UK sell tgem lots of arms?) international courts need to be used to try and, ultimately, incarcerate this evil man.
It's not just Qatada. Surely the same principle should be applied to all criminals; if they still pose a threat to society, if they are likely to reoffend, they shouldn't be released. Some people are just too evil and should never be released.
Seriously, if the crime is bad enough to warrant a prison sentence, and the authorities consider it more than likely that the crime will be repeated, why should they be allowed out?
I strongly suspect that most incarcerated criminals are repeat offenders and, while the cost of keeping the behind bars would fall on the taxpayer, the cost of further police investigations and court cases, plus the effect on victims of crime, would be reduced.
Labels:
Abu Qatada,
criminals,
evil,
international courts,
law,
Muslim cleric,
Osama bin laden,
Qatada,
terrorism
366/37 - Horse
Click here for today's Project 366:
A horse
One of the greatest TV themes ever written
and
TWO Words of the Day!!
A horse
One of the greatest TV themes ever written
and
TWO Words of the Day!!
OPINION: Old woman's father died 60 years ago today
Today, much of the British media is going overboard with tributes to the Queen whose accession happened 60 years ago on the death of her father.
So what?
"Old woman's father died 60 years ago today" - that's all the story amounts to.
Liz Windsor is now 85. Again, so what? Lots of people live to that age and beyond even if they don't have the pampered, easy living to which the Windsor dynasty have become accustomed.
It just isn't news and yet BBC News is doing "special reports" every few minutes, it seems.
And then there's the sycophantic and fawning politicians all saying how "wonderful" Mrs. Windsor is and what a "great job" she has done. What job? Beyond wasting vast amounts of tax payers money her role involves very little if worth.
And don't pretend the monarchy brings in tourists! That is one of the biggest myths ever. Is France tourist free? No.
Remembering the death of a lived one should be a private matter. Today Liz Windsor should be having a few quiet thoughts recalling her father.
I dread to think how ridiculous the coverage of the Diamond Jubilee will become in May and June when most of the big celebrations are scheduled.
I may have to hibernate.
So what?
"Old woman's father died 60 years ago today" - that's all the story amounts to.
Liz Windsor is now 85. Again, so what? Lots of people live to that age and beyond even if they don't have the pampered, easy living to which the Windsor dynasty have become accustomed.
It just isn't news and yet BBC News is doing "special reports" every few minutes, it seems.
And then there's the sycophantic and fawning politicians all saying how "wonderful" Mrs. Windsor is and what a "great job" she has done. What job? Beyond wasting vast amounts of tax payers money her role involves very little if worth.
And don't pretend the monarchy brings in tourists! That is one of the biggest myths ever. Is France tourist free? No.
Remembering the death of a lived one should be a private matter. Today Liz Windsor should be having a few quiet thoughts recalling her father.
I dread to think how ridiculous the coverage of the Diamond Jubilee will become in May and June when most of the big celebrations are scheduled.
I may have to hibernate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)