Seven Hours.
Seven fucking hours.
That is the total amount of time I have spent travelling to and from Manchester this weekend. Let me just point out that, according to schedules, that seven (count ‘em, 7) hours should be 2 and a half. I just got nearly three times my money’s worth. Bargain? Hmmm.
Anyway, that’s by-the-by because, despite delays, I actually thoroughly enjoyed them.
The first delay was on the way down to Manchester, when the train came to a stop jsut after Chorley because the previous train had disrupted the ‘points’ or some such technical train-like term. So we stopped, for the best part of an hour, in what I like to consider a No Man’s Land of the train world.
Yet, it was remarkably refreshing. Sat at the end of the carriage as I was, we were a cluster of maybe 6 or 7 people. And after a short while being stopped everyone started to open up. There was no frustration, no excessive tutting and shaking of heads, just light-hearted amusement. Simple jokes, shrugging the situation off, and genuinely just making the most of an unfortunate situation. People opened up, started talking about where they were heading, a few of us had drink on us that we were toying with cracking open if we were delayed much longer, and the like. It was how I imagine the war-time atmosphere was (granted, the bombs weren’t falling). It restored my faith in the public.
Anyway, before we knew it (and before we resorted to drink) we were movijng again and arrived at Bolton, where it terminated because of the delays. Lots of concerned people ushering their children everywhere and tutting wildly. I laughed a little. To myself. And then jumped on a train to Victoria instead, as it looked like it’d be quicker. Soon enough, I’d arrived.
The return was funnier still.
I did the quick walk to Picadilly in my remotely hungover state, got a good ol’ Pasty to help me on my way, then got on the 12:25 train destined for Blackpool via Preston, where I was hoping to change to Lancaster.
It started with a decidedly dodgy edge when the train we got on was originally Stockport-bound, but got terminated for us to jump on. It got as far as Oxford Road before stopping, the crew jumping off, and no replacement crew being available. I could do little else but chuckle as I continued to read.
Then the engines stopped. Sighs all round, but, once more, smiley faces making the best of it. Public confidence restored, once more. After a little while, general pleasantries were swapped and I got talking to the lady sat opposite me who, as it happened, was also trying to get to Lancaster. Others left, jokes were told, and amusement was had by all as we finally started moving again and finally got into Preston and rushed to get much needed refreshment. During this process, we managed to miss the connection to Lancaster, so opted for beer whilst awaiting the next train. The bar tender did an excellent job and also joined in the banter spawned from random events. Most amusing, and more or less settled my ailing body.
Finally got the train, and got into Lancaster at 16:00, a mere 3 hours late. Super stuff.
But the important thing that came out of all this? The banter, the chat, the getting along with strangers and genuinely just meeting nice, nice people. Lovely stuff.
Sophie - thanks for the chatter - it was much appreciated and lightened my day after feeling pretty terrible from drink after effects. Genuinely very nice to have met and thanks for a fun couple of hours chatting shite. I hope you enjoyed the brief spell in sunny Lancaster and enjoy your course / being back in Manchester.
To the others I didn’t catch the names of - thanks for just being nice and restoring my faith. Dramatic? Probably. But it was lovely.
The strange part is that I almost certainly will never see any of those people again but… it doesn’t matter. I feel better because we had the banter and were nice to strangers. It would be nice to make and keep friends with everyone you meet, but it doesn’t have to happen that way. Lovely jubbly.
As to why I was in Manchester, I was there for Craig’s birthday. And I failed terribly at drinking.
To the people who met me at Craig’s, and to Craig and Lehna - I apologise. I have no excuse for seemingly being as drunk as I was as quick as I was, and I certainly have no excuse for locking myself away and sleeping on the bathroom floor. I’m still at a loss as to what actually caused my downfall. I’m sure I could sit here all night and come up with excuses, but that is all they’d be and it wouldn’t actually fixed anything. Sorry anyway for playing the drunken fool, it was lovely to meet you all.
And, Craig, happy birthday, you old bastard. 
LOL.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7580261.stm
That is all.
In all seriousness, so much could be said of this story but - I’ll be honest - right now, I’d rather laugh my tits off reading it.
I have a fairly lengthy drive to work each morning, and pass through a few little towns / villages on the way.
Over the last couple of weeks I’ve spotted a noticeable sprouting of (largely) orange signs declaring proudly:
Liberal Decocrats - Winning Here!
Now, ignoring the blatantly obvious graffiti opportunities of daubing ‘And only here’ or ‘but nowhere else’ underneath*, these signs irritate me. Even the highly conservative blue Conservative ones (see what I did there..?) that I saw strategically placed in neighbouring gardens and carrying similarly optimistic messages manage to annoy me.
Why? Because I question what their point is. The only thing I can come up with the more I think about it and run it over in my head is that it’s to encourage other people to vote your way… or intimidation. “Oh, everybody else is voting that way, we might as well do the same.”
Of course, the flipside is that, I hope, there’s many people like me who simply don’t care which way you’re voting. That’s why we have private ballots, surely? So that nobody needs to know which way you’ve decided to vote.
Maybe I’m just turning ever more cynical in my old age, but it did just strike me as one huge waste of time and resources that seems to go into these things. On the flip side, if I ever live somewhere where this sort of thing is prevalent, I need ideas as to what hugely ironic, incredibly invasive, and downright ballsy signs I can stick in my garden. I’m thinking something to be done in Neon, perhaps with flashy bits. And lots of shiny stuff. That’ll learn ‘em.
* - I don’t have anything against the Lib Dems but, let’s face it, they’re neither Republican nor Democrat (sic) so they’re not going to win long term.
Original Item:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7289051.stm
What an absolute msierable bastard this fellow is. Please, read the article, it’s not too lengthy.
In short, a London accountant is trying to sue Marks&Spencer after slipping over and tearing a tendon in their car park in 2004.
The reason he believes he fell over is because he found a grape stuck to the bottom of his shoe that could have become attached either inside or outside the store… so therefore it’s their fault…
Thankfully M&S are contesting this and I sincerely hope they win it and bring the scrounging little prick back down to earth with a bump.
The reason he’s suing? ‘Loss of Earnings’. Good one… nobody ever tries that, do they? Something confuses me though… he’s a sodding accountant. How critical is a tendon in his right leg to his work? It’s not as if he’s a footballer, rugby player, cyclist or any other ‘active’ job that sort of requires the full and proper use of his right leg. Would it have made things more difficult while he was recovering? ‘Course it would, but it’s not bloody impossible.
This little section particularly gripped me
Mr Martin-Sklan, who is representing himself, is claiming for lost earnings on top of his general damages, because “loss of confidence” and depression following his injury led to him being unable to recruit new clients and contacts for his business.
… Stunning. He hurts his leg and suffers loss of confidence and depression as a result. To me, that screams that he needs psychiatric attention, not financial. I am not doubting that tearing a tendon works, but if something that simple knocks your confidence and induces depression which in turn affects your ability to do your job then you’ve always been an accident waiting to happen good sir, and should be thankful it happened know rather than later. In fact, you should be paying M&S as a little ‘thank you’ for bringing your clear instability to your attention before it got too far.
Either way, you need to grow a pair of testicles and move on, you whiny mother trucker.
EDIT: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7292657.stm ROFLCOPTER. You fail. Now dig deep to repay those fees…
News Source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7258437.stm
I’m genuinely curious to see how they try to implement this. And the inevitable workarounds that will appear the next day.
Also, this comment:
“ISPs are in a unique position to make a difference and in doing so to reverse a culture of creation-without-reward that has proved so damaging to the whole music community over the last few years,” said John Kennedy, head of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI).
Yeh, because the music industry’s on it’s arse… *sigh*
It really does get tiring hearing the same fat cats argue that the music industry has been damaged by so-called piracy. Apparently though, it’s not obvious enough, so people like the RIAA have to try and make it look like all media ‘pirates’ are up-and-coming terrorists.
Of course, what the various groups are avoiding from admitting in this sort of lobbying is that… wait for it… DRM does not work. But, of course, they can’t say that, because the other hand is still trying to push DRM.
For those not full aware, DRM is that little thing that means if you buy music through the iTunes store, you can’t play it on your Sony Walkman. Or if you buy music from nearly any other store* you can’t play it on your iPod. In some parts of the world, that would be considered an attempt at creating a monopoly, or at the very least, consumer lock-in. Apparently though, it’s not. It’s for national security… Erm, right.
* Full credit to Play.com who ahve recently opened their completely unrestricted digital downloads store, with quiet a healthy selection of music on there. My advice is, if you want to buy music online, buy it through Play. If you can’t find it there, buy the CD f(as long as it doesn’t have that super-smart copyright protection on it that doesn’t play on some CD Players, or under Linux boxes, usually, and only sometimes work with Macs.
Play.com, I salute you. And all that.
I have to be honest, I don’t endorse piracy. But I also like the right to at least have _some_ control over the items I have legally bought, whether it be making a copy so I don’t have to keep a £10 (minimum) CD Album in my car - where it’s at greater risk of being stolen - or putting a copy of a song on my PC or iPod (my PC runs Linux and my iPod runs Rockbox, so DRM is not an issue I can really consider, unless I want to use one of x number of limited CD burns I can make with it, or download it again from another PC after I’ve reached my limit for ‘Registered Computers’ etc etc grumble grumble.
piratebay.org has some interesting views on the subject as well, and some useful links.
Original Post:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7257695.stm
Do we really need to have such articles on worthless news like this? Does it really go anyway to being helpful? I think you’ll find the answer is a categoric ‘no’.
Besides the fact that a Whitehall inquiry stated that the school provided ’satisfactory education’, the headline is still chosen to be as it is.
Granted, the teacher in question, Mr Cheetham, may well have been dismissed unfairly - but that has fuck all to do with what the school teaches, seeing as, from the article, he claims he was sacked after ‘blowing the whistle on students cheating in public exams’. The school claim he was sacked for misconduct. The truth is though, under a headline like that, what he was or was not sacked for comes across as highly irrelevant. Feeding the fire and all that.
In fact, Mr Cheetham, by his own confession, states he was only ‘informed’ about the school ‘preaching race hate’ after his employment was terminated, and he can’t prove that the passages he was shown were ever actually used in lessons. Mr Cheetham said:
“Without any evidence to support it, it’s not worth a jot,”
No, it isn’t, you fucking moron. Because it’s not illegal to own a book. So why are you moaning about it? If a school dismissed you because you rattled on them for allowing cheating to occur, then bollock them for that - it’s bad enough and it’s what I’d rather hear about. I’d also want to hear about it _whatever_ the background of the school is. But that apparently isn’t very newsworthy these days.
‘What? A Muslim school accused without evidence of preaching race hate? Yeh, print that, they’ll fucking lap it up.’
It’s a shame as well, because I’ve always found the BBC site to be more or less ok in giving me the news I want to read in a fairly straight-forward manner. Of course, the actual text of the article was fine, it just proved that the headline was completely ridiculous tabloid-style stuff.
So, Mr Cheetham and the BBC - grow up.
Well, I’ve not written much for ages, and now three at once (more to follow closely)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7247160.stm
^^ THIS ^^
I can’t really think of a better way to sum up my support of this article, besides using bold and CAPS LOCK. Digital Generation? Hmmm, maybe.
.. This irritates me.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7245533.stm
Yes, it’s a shame, yes they should have the right equipment for the task, but at the end of the day, two basic facts remain:
- They are soldiers… one of those risks you take when signing up for that shit is that you can get shot… and bullets kill.
- The solider in question, and his superior (who I believe testified in court that they had insufficient equipment) are human beings… if you don’t feel the equipment is dequate, don’t follow through with the task.
Granted, this is the armed forces, but Afghanistan is highly unlikely to invade the UK. You denying the mission does _not_ (whatever your propagandha may tell you) endanger British lives. It’s the Ministry of (fucking) Defence for a reason. Given the modern age in regards legal matters, you would be hard pressed to be prosecuted for disobeying orders, except maybe by the Yanks who may take you to Guantanemo on terrorist charges ( ). *sighs*
Sorry, but I felt it had to be said. Yes, a soldier has died fighting ‘for his country’. Yes, it appears he had inadequate equipment (I haven’t read a full report that details exactly what he did or didn’t have - my guess is he had more than the Afghans). Yes, he should have been better equipped. Yes, he was a soldier. It’s one of those ‘Risks of the Trade’.
Shit happens. If you want to blame anyone, why not look to America, who claimed the war there was won 4 years ago.
I have various friends who have served in the forces, and I have the utmost respect for each and every one of them. But each and every one of them were plain about the risks they faced - and fair play to them. I wouldn’t have the balls to go out and serve as they did.
But if I did, I wouldn’t expect such a fucking hoo-hah when the possibility became reality.
… suck.
That is all.
Seriously though, they do. It was bad enough having to try and write about myself for my CV, now I have to paraphrase that for individual applications. I go red just thinking about what to write.
Bastard.
Anyway, back to the grind.
Original Items:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/7110758.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/7112480.stm
Spotted the first of these a couple of days ago, but didn’t get around to passing comment, so figured I’d do it now after spotting the follow-up article.
Whilst I have to admit it’s not a topic I want to spend a long time writing on, the short story is that I think the Union is right (or, at least, not wrong) to invite the two people mentioned, judging by what I’ve read about the event.
I can understand perfectly well why so many people would not think it right for such an organisation as the Oxford Union to invite such speakers, but a couple of comments I spotted just didn’t tally in my head.
Stephen Altmann-Richer, co-president of the Oxford University Jewish Society, said that while freedom of speech was important it was “overshadowed in this instance”.
“I don’t think these people should be invited to the Oxford Union, by having them speak, it legitimises their views,” he said.
Sorry, but no, it doesn’t. Giving them the platform to speak specifically about Holocaust denial, for example, or any other number of ‘interesting’ topics the BNP tends to bring up, legitimizes their views. Giving them the paltform as part of a larger event incorporating many different speakers with different viewpoints does not. If anything, it encourages the debate. I simply can’t see how it can be viewed as legitimizing their views by view of the fact that they are able to speak at an event “…to talk about the limits for free speech”.
I can say that because, for me at least, if I hear such people bringing up ideas that I don’t believe in or, put more simply, are wrong, I don’t suddenly change that opinion because of the venue in which they are making such points. Similarly, their presence at such an event does not transform it into a ‘rally’ or any such nonsense. If anything the event has the potential to humiliate them, in as much as it is a free speech event, incorporating some very intelligent speakers and based in what is arguably the hub of academic and intellectual excellence in the UK (sorry, Cambridge… 
). No matter how much trash the speakers may (or may not) speak, they are doing so in an environment where even if they disagree with their opposition, they will be outclassed and defeated by simple logic. If anything, I’d love to go to the event just to see the responses if either of them were foolish enough to start extolling their views.
It. Simply. Does. Not. Legitimize. Anything.
Like I said earlier, I can accept why this has caused such controversy, but in my mind we just have to step back and take a look at the bigger picture.
I’m not a fan of the BNP or their views, nor do I believe the various theories put forward by Holocausts deniers, but - in these circumstances - I do not think it is unreasonable for such speakers to be invited. Controversial, yes, but that’s why it’s a debate.
I think we just have to be very careful in how quick otherwise ‘liberal’ people jump up to shout for bans on people with differing viewpoints. At the end of the day, the BNP still exists as a political party, legitimizing their views many more times than allowing Nick Griffin to speak at an Oxford Union debate. Trying to stop him from being invited to the event, whilst such viewpoints exist and are scarily prevalent just strikes me as being comparable to sticking your fingers in your ears whilst saying “No! No! La-la-la-la-la-la-la-la!”.
The worst part of all this furore? The fact that a BNP spokesman can come out and say this:
Simon Darby, BNP spokesman, described the expected protests as “very misguided”.
“It is ironic you have got people shouting ‘fascism’ while campaigning in the face of the process of democracy,” he said.
in response to the situation and I find it hard to disagree with the sentiment, however much I might want to, and however much I might know it to be bullshit seizing-the-moment propaganda.
