My rather dull life has been lifted by the news that the lovely singer Adele is looking for someone to love, or as The Sun describes it "someone to sleep with". Well, they have to sell the article to their audience I suppose.
If the article is anything to go by, the main qualification for any potential lover is their ability to make her laugh. This is worrying, because I thought the only thing I needed to do was keep myself looking youthful and fresh. It turns out I need a personality transplant as well - and I do not know anyone who provides such a service. Life is unfair!
Thankfully I have been working on this skill myself - trying to be funny - and quite often succeeding at it unintentionally as well. I have no idea if that is a good thing. I had to work at my humour though because nearly every female I asked about desirable traits replied "sense of humour" first and foremost. With that in mind, The Sun has done well to create a story from some rather unsurprising news that a popular singer also likes someone with a sense of humour.
In any case I will make my pitch and hope I get a response. A lot of people criticise how Adele looks because she is not a stick-thin "beauty" but I have always thought the size of lady is the difference between her looking like a girl or a hot young woman, and the former does little for me. I like the way Adele looks and sounds. She appeals to me.
She sounds great in interviews as well, bubbly and full of personality. She has a grounded nature which belies the massive success she has achieved already in her life. I would adore her and ask nothing of her. In the unlikely event we were ever married, far from her asking me to sign a pre-nuptial agreement, I would insist on signing one myself.
Back to reality, the humour is still a work in progress. Anyone know any good jokes?
Monday, 15 August 2011
Thoughts about social backdrop of England riots
The English youth of today had many labels applied to them over the past week, including fickle, feckless, lazy, angry and violent. It has even been suggested, hopefully in jest, they lack the determination to sustain a riot for more than a couple of days. Whatever the labels, following last week's riots, the public have now taken a social role of judgement over the events.
As people try to make sense of what they witnessed, whether live or on the television, many questions are now being contemplated. Was there a cause behind the riots? Were the riots indicative of societal breakdown. Are particular age groups and races more implicated than others by what occurred? Many words have already been spilled, at times recklessly, trying to ascertain the answers.
The term 'riots' is being used as a blanket term, which covers a number of activities of variable severity. The riots followed a peaceful protest over a fatal police shooting. They included battles with riot police, the burning of cars, the burning of homes, the burning of small businesses, smashing shop windows, looting and murder. No doubt there were ringleaders, participants and those there to make up the numbers. It is not easy to sort the alienated in society from the scum.
Those who are definitely scum include thugs who murdered those protecting their property, who burned down retail outlets and smashed up homes. No amount of accusations that describing people as 'scum' dehumanises them will shift me from that position. These people are criminals, and their punishments must reflect their deeds.
The problem is what to do with those who committed lesser crimes of varying severity. One person has already been jailed for stealing bottled water, its seriousness being contextualised by the rioting that facilitated the theft. Then, the future needs to be dealt with and how to prevent more rioting.
Disorder has rarely had legitimacy in Britain as a means of bringing about change, even when the cause seems apparently clear, for example the vandalism that occurred on the same day as peaceful anti-cuts protests in London. When there is no definable cause, the chance of significant public sympathy may as well be zero.
Excuses for the disorder ranged from stealing from the rich, getting goods from wealthy people that can be sold on, loose definitions of 'respect' and 'having a laugh'. Without a unified cause, it is difficult to see how their actions can be looked upon with anything other than contempt.
In the absence of an overall cause, the only consistent theme is the acquisition of assets. Whether it is youths hoping to sell on their gains or people rioting through general anger regarding the rich/poor divide, the concept of what someone does not have is the one which recurs the most.
This is a capitalist society built on desired goods, ownership and possessions. Owning particular goods are viewed as a benchmark of success, which makes those in possession more attractive to potential peers and partners. The youngest in society, trying to write their futures, are inevitably going to be the most ambitious in pursuing material goods to achieve their ends. It should be no surprise that when there are no jobs for them and no scope to further their education they begin to live their lives outside of the law.
The tough standards which this society is constrained by create much unhappiness. One columnist described the riots as being an England he "didn't recognise." Sadly, I recognised it very well. I recognise it from the jobs I have had in a public facing role. I recognise it from the unpleasantness I have to witness as a user of public transport at various times of the day. England has more of its fair share of nice people, but we have to accept we have some very nasty citizens in our midst as well who will stop at nothing to enrich their own lives and make the lives of others a misery.
Other observers are trying to frame last week's trouble in terms of colour in a cheap attempt to package the riots as a black problem. This is nonsense. An attempt to arouse the public into a race conflict is both dangerous and unnecessary. Nobody needs to be told that a significant proportion of the rioters were black. Instead, people need to be told the reasons a significant proportion of the rioters were black.
There are two immediate theories that spring to mind. Firstly, the ever-difficult relationship between young black people and the police. Secondly, and even more illuminating, is that the location of the riots were in the most deprived areas of the country - and these areas of deprivation have a high percentage of black people living there. These hard facts will not prevent knuckledraggers from continuing to force-feed idiots a fallacy that criminality is determined by skin colour.
The government response can hardly be said to be any more intelligent either. David Cameron is typically talking tough and has brought in respected American 'super cop' William Bratton to advise on dealing with the rioting. This move has been widely criticised as being disrespectful to British police forces. To that, criticism can be added that the riots have happened, were brought under control, and at the very least equal attention must now be given to social solutions.
Is there a strategy for making young people more active in society? Will there be a reversal of closures to youth centres and the scrapping of Educational Maintenance Allowance? What can be done to create more employment for our excluded youth? The answer is there will probably be no such strategy when it is easier to strut around and give indirect satisfaction to the prejudiced and the racist with promises of tough sanctions.
As people try to make sense of what they witnessed, whether live or on the television, many questions are now being contemplated. Was there a cause behind the riots? Were the riots indicative of societal breakdown. Are particular age groups and races more implicated than others by what occurred? Many words have already been spilled, at times recklessly, trying to ascertain the answers.
The term 'riots' is being used as a blanket term, which covers a number of activities of variable severity. The riots followed a peaceful protest over a fatal police shooting. They included battles with riot police, the burning of cars, the burning of homes, the burning of small businesses, smashing shop windows, looting and murder. No doubt there were ringleaders, participants and those there to make up the numbers. It is not easy to sort the alienated in society from the scum.
Those who are definitely scum include thugs who murdered those protecting their property, who burned down retail outlets and smashed up homes. No amount of accusations that describing people as 'scum' dehumanises them will shift me from that position. These people are criminals, and their punishments must reflect their deeds.
The problem is what to do with those who committed lesser crimes of varying severity. One person has already been jailed for stealing bottled water, its seriousness being contextualised by the rioting that facilitated the theft. Then, the future needs to be dealt with and how to prevent more rioting.
Disorder has rarely had legitimacy in Britain as a means of bringing about change, even when the cause seems apparently clear, for example the vandalism that occurred on the same day as peaceful anti-cuts protests in London. When there is no definable cause, the chance of significant public sympathy may as well be zero.
Excuses for the disorder ranged from stealing from the rich, getting goods from wealthy people that can be sold on, loose definitions of 'respect' and 'having a laugh'. Without a unified cause, it is difficult to see how their actions can be looked upon with anything other than contempt.
In the absence of an overall cause, the only consistent theme is the acquisition of assets. Whether it is youths hoping to sell on their gains or people rioting through general anger regarding the rich/poor divide, the concept of what someone does not have is the one which recurs the most.
This is a capitalist society built on desired goods, ownership and possessions. Owning particular goods are viewed as a benchmark of success, which makes those in possession more attractive to potential peers and partners. The youngest in society, trying to write their futures, are inevitably going to be the most ambitious in pursuing material goods to achieve their ends. It should be no surprise that when there are no jobs for them and no scope to further their education they begin to live their lives outside of the law.
The tough standards which this society is constrained by create much unhappiness. One columnist described the riots as being an England he "didn't recognise." Sadly, I recognised it very well. I recognise it from the jobs I have had in a public facing role. I recognise it from the unpleasantness I have to witness as a user of public transport at various times of the day. England has more of its fair share of nice people, but we have to accept we have some very nasty citizens in our midst as well who will stop at nothing to enrich their own lives and make the lives of others a misery.
Other observers are trying to frame last week's trouble in terms of colour in a cheap attempt to package the riots as a black problem. This is nonsense. An attempt to arouse the public into a race conflict is both dangerous and unnecessary. Nobody needs to be told that a significant proportion of the rioters were black. Instead, people need to be told the reasons a significant proportion of the rioters were black.
There are two immediate theories that spring to mind. Firstly, the ever-difficult relationship between young black people and the police. Secondly, and even more illuminating, is that the location of the riots were in the most deprived areas of the country - and these areas of deprivation have a high percentage of black people living there. These hard facts will not prevent knuckledraggers from continuing to force-feed idiots a fallacy that criminality is determined by skin colour.
The government response can hardly be said to be any more intelligent either. David Cameron is typically talking tough and has brought in respected American 'super cop' William Bratton to advise on dealing with the rioting. This move has been widely criticised as being disrespectful to British police forces. To that, criticism can be added that the riots have happened, were brought under control, and at the very least equal attention must now be given to social solutions.
Is there a strategy for making young people more active in society? Will there be a reversal of closures to youth centres and the scrapping of Educational Maintenance Allowance? What can be done to create more employment for our excluded youth? The answer is there will probably be no such strategy when it is easier to strut around and give indirect satisfaction to the prejudiced and the racist with promises of tough sanctions.
Thursday, 11 August 2011
This is our scum - London riots examined
England has been on fire this week. The patience and tolerance of even the most liberal of people were stripped bare as young rioters vandalised, looted and burned the homes and businesses of some of the most deprived towns and cities in the country.
It was a disgraceful display of violence by a rabble of criminals, many of whom we are already discovering have 'previous' as their cases are fast-tracked through the courts. There was no cause. Many could not explain convincingly why they supported the rioting.
One girl attempted to argue she wants her taxes back (she sounded 12). Another said the riots were about about taking resources back from the rich people. One sage was on the BBC arguing the riots were justified because of all the people migrating into the country, i.e. people from Poland. Did he actually see any of the riots, or understand the issue that initiated the first one in Tottenham? In short, these imbeciles have no idea why they are rioting.
Every cloud has a silver lining though, for many proficient criminals are set to be taken off our streets. Great news, if not only for police forces but for law abiding citizens disgusted by what they witnessed in their living rooms.
These views may appear uncompromising, but I am no social conservative who elevates myself above the perceived inferiority below. I grew up on a council estate with others who struggled through the early years of our lives. We made the best out of the hands we were dealt, mostly consisting of similar low cards. And we did it lawfully. I like to think it is people like ourselves most disappointed by the activities of the scumbags, who unapologetically resort to criminality and blame others for their own failures. It has not been easy for any of us, but we avoided violating others.
However I have become intolerant of the views of those who want to see understanding and sympathy. Were they not watching the news? These rioters were not asking for sympathy. They did not want understanding. Many were shamelessly bragging about their actions for the TV cameras and microphones.
I have seen bloggers arguing that labels such as 'scum' dehumanise the offenders. As far as I am concerned, they dehumanise themselves with their behaviour, and by wearing dehumanising hoods and face masks.
Sentencing has to be fair though. Lengthy sentences for offences such as stealing bottles of water are simply unacceptable. Nobody should be locked up for six months for stealing a resource that can be acquired for free in our homes. The sentences must fit the deeds. Arsonists and vandals should be given more porridge in the cells than those who stole water and crisps.
We must also not ignore the social formation that facilitated these riots. Riots may have been arranged via Blackberry phones and Twitter, but we must remember it does not follow that the perpetrators are well off financially. The gap between rich and poor continues to widen, as British governments have spent over three decades sustaining a neo-liberal economic consensus built on private enterprise and market forces.
Also, these Blackberry phones have come down in value over recent months and years. They are frequently bundled in with £30 per month phone contracts, making them one of the few treats affordable to the impoverished as long as they can pass the necessary credit checks. The truth is, most of these people do not own their homes and many do not drive - their Nike Air trainers and fancy telecommunication devices are the only items of value they own - and they like to show them off.
Yet young people continue to be bombarded by messages of consumerism, and the importance of the ownership of goods. However, there is a major problem with youth unemployment in this country. This problem is set to be exacerbated by the number of young people who cannot continue their education because of the abolition of Educational Maintenance Allowance for college students. With no money, no jobs and no hope, it should be no surprise the chickens are coming home to roost. It has been confirmed in a news article most of those charged with riot offences are young, unemployed and male. Even though rioting by idiots is not the answer, wider society ignoring the problem is not an option either.
A good government needs to deal with the immediate problem, which involves mobilising police back on to the streets and ensuring those who work for the emergency services are not made the victims of cuts. Then, steps must be taken to refinance the education of young people. These are the first steps to help us move on from this awful week.
It was a disgraceful display of violence by a rabble of criminals, many of whom we are already discovering have 'previous' as their cases are fast-tracked through the courts. There was no cause. Many could not explain convincingly why they supported the rioting.
One girl attempted to argue she wants her taxes back (she sounded 12). Another said the riots were about about taking resources back from the rich people. One sage was on the BBC arguing the riots were justified because of all the people migrating into the country, i.e. people from Poland. Did he actually see any of the riots, or understand the issue that initiated the first one in Tottenham? In short, these imbeciles have no idea why they are rioting.
Every cloud has a silver lining though, for many proficient criminals are set to be taken off our streets. Great news, if not only for police forces but for law abiding citizens disgusted by what they witnessed in their living rooms.
These views may appear uncompromising, but I am no social conservative who elevates myself above the perceived inferiority below. I grew up on a council estate with others who struggled through the early years of our lives. We made the best out of the hands we were dealt, mostly consisting of similar low cards. And we did it lawfully. I like to think it is people like ourselves most disappointed by the activities of the scumbags, who unapologetically resort to criminality and blame others for their own failures. It has not been easy for any of us, but we avoided violating others.
However I have become intolerant of the views of those who want to see understanding and sympathy. Were they not watching the news? These rioters were not asking for sympathy. They did not want understanding. Many were shamelessly bragging about their actions for the TV cameras and microphones.
I have seen bloggers arguing that labels such as 'scum' dehumanise the offenders. As far as I am concerned, they dehumanise themselves with their behaviour, and by wearing dehumanising hoods and face masks.
Sentencing has to be fair though. Lengthy sentences for offences such as stealing bottles of water are simply unacceptable. Nobody should be locked up for six months for stealing a resource that can be acquired for free in our homes. The sentences must fit the deeds. Arsonists and vandals should be given more porridge in the cells than those who stole water and crisps.
We must also not ignore the social formation that facilitated these riots. Riots may have been arranged via Blackberry phones and Twitter, but we must remember it does not follow that the perpetrators are well off financially. The gap between rich and poor continues to widen, as British governments have spent over three decades sustaining a neo-liberal economic consensus built on private enterprise and market forces.
Also, these Blackberry phones have come down in value over recent months and years. They are frequently bundled in with £30 per month phone contracts, making them one of the few treats affordable to the impoverished as long as they can pass the necessary credit checks. The truth is, most of these people do not own their homes and many do not drive - their Nike Air trainers and fancy telecommunication devices are the only items of value they own - and they like to show them off.
Yet young people continue to be bombarded by messages of consumerism, and the importance of the ownership of goods. However, there is a major problem with youth unemployment in this country. This problem is set to be exacerbated by the number of young people who cannot continue their education because of the abolition of Educational Maintenance Allowance for college students. With no money, no jobs and no hope, it should be no surprise the chickens are coming home to roost. It has been confirmed in a news article most of those charged with riot offences are young, unemployed and male. Even though rioting by idiots is not the answer, wider society ignoring the problem is not an option either.
A good government needs to deal with the immediate problem, which involves mobilising police back on to the streets and ensuring those who work for the emergency services are not made the victims of cuts. Then, steps must be taken to refinance the education of young people. These are the first steps to help us move on from this awful week.
Wednesday, 3 August 2011
Where has all the money gone? (Part One)
It seems as though the world has been consumed by a vacuum, which has taken all our money from us. The UK is struggling to make ends meet. The USA legislatures have spent the week scrambling around to increase the country's credit limit. Greece, Portugal and Ireland are among a group of countries that have teetered on the brink of going under because of their debts. Who is owed all this money and where has all the money gone?
Are the debts owed to other countries? If so, which ones? If the USA cannot pay its bills, then I doubt many countries are doing any better. Or maybe these countries have borrowed from the banking sector? That cannot be the case either, as governments had to bail them out for their incompetence.
The problem is I am no economist, so I do not have the answer. It seems as though dollar bills and pound notes have just vanished off the face of the earth. Maybe an economist has an explanation for this. Is it possible for money to just vanish? More reflections to follow later in the week or at the weekend.
Are the debts owed to other countries? If so, which ones? If the USA cannot pay its bills, then I doubt many countries are doing any better. Or maybe these countries have borrowed from the banking sector? That cannot be the case either, as governments had to bail them out for their incompetence.
The problem is I am no economist, so I do not have the answer. It seems as though dollar bills and pound notes have just vanished off the face of the earth. Maybe an economist has an explanation for this. Is it possible for money to just vanish? More reflections to follow later in the week or at the weekend.
How much will the new football season cost?
The new football season is approaching and once again the clubs are ripping off fans with admission prices that would make eyes water across continental Europe. Even fans of League Two side Port Vale can expect to pay a minimum upwards of £20 for a ticket.
The BBC website researchers have been hard at work, producing a summary of ticket prices based on information given to them by the clubs in the four top English leagues and the one relevant league in Scotland. I will let you draw your own conclusions about the obvious methodological flaw, but needless to say in 2011 there are still some football clubs attempting to claim their lowest priced tickets are a mere £10, often based on concessions and special offers.
The issue of admission fees is a topical one. Miniature earthquakes could have been caused in west London by the amount of feet stamping by supporters of Queens Park Rangers because of the increase in their ticket prices. They have been raised to a minimum of £47 for an adult ticket. Ouch.
It could be argued the increased fare to climb aboard the QPR Premier League bandwagon comes with the premium product now being offered at Loftus Road. Last season their visitors in the league included Scunthorpe. Next season they will be hosting Manchester United.
The downside of course is the home team is still QPR, so no fixture will have the same appeal as a match between any two of Manchester United, Manchester City, Arsenal, Liverpool or Chelsea. £47 for QPR versus Wigan? You decide.
The price of football continues to rise because we mugs pay above the market value for tickets, and football clubs in turn pay above the market value for players, the latter being the only winners in all this. Some prices, especially £47 to watch a probable relegation battle, is outrageous. The day will come when fans of all clubs cannot do it anymore.
The BBC website researchers have been hard at work, producing a summary of ticket prices based on information given to them by the clubs in the four top English leagues and the one relevant league in Scotland. I will let you draw your own conclusions about the obvious methodological flaw, but needless to say in 2011 there are still some football clubs attempting to claim their lowest priced tickets are a mere £10, often based on concessions and special offers.
The issue of admission fees is a topical one. Miniature earthquakes could have been caused in west London by the amount of feet stamping by supporters of Queens Park Rangers because of the increase in their ticket prices. They have been raised to a minimum of £47 for an adult ticket. Ouch.
It could be argued the increased fare to climb aboard the QPR Premier League bandwagon comes with the premium product now being offered at Loftus Road. Last season their visitors in the league included Scunthorpe. Next season they will be hosting Manchester United.
The downside of course is the home team is still QPR, so no fixture will have the same appeal as a match between any two of Manchester United, Manchester City, Arsenal, Liverpool or Chelsea. £47 for QPR versus Wigan? You decide.
The price of football continues to rise because we mugs pay above the market value for tickets, and football clubs in turn pay above the market value for players, the latter being the only winners in all this. Some prices, especially £47 to watch a probable relegation battle, is outrageous. The day will come when fans of all clubs cannot do it anymore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)