This is in response to Melinda Webb’s column, (Monday) where she concludes that the smoking ban is a bad idea because a) it doesn’t encourage people to give up smoking b) pubs “are not health spars” so landlords’ should be able to choose their own smoking policy and c) smoking is not illegal. My response to this is: a) Sure, smokers all know its bad for them and that doesn’t cause them to give up. We know the long term heath risks are not motivation for a lot of people. When I gave up smoking my mind was squarely on the short term benefits of more cash in my pocket, an increased feeling of wellbeing and the convince of not relying on smoking. It is this last point that will encourage smokers’ to give up. When doing something becomes intolerably inconvenient one may start thinking about jacking it in. b) Agreed, pubs are inherently not good for you. But the difference here is that when at I am at the pub, it doesn’t matter how may of the other patrons are eating crisps and drinking beer, I can choose to have a glass of water and an alfalfa salad with no negative effect to me. If, on the other hand, they are smoking I have no choice about breathing their smoke short of leaving the premises. c) Agreed, smoking is not, of itself, illegal. In that case, do you think that we should bring back smoking in the workplace? Or perhaps we should allow other non-illegal, antisocial activities in pubs? I do not believe this is a relevant argument. One important point to bear in mind with the smoking ban is that it was not specifically designed to ban smoking in pubs, but in “the workplace”. Pubs are the workplace of bar staff. Bar staff should be able to expect to work in an environment where they will be able to breath without risking their health. If you worked in an office where the ceiling tiles or the carpet was giving of carcinogenic fumes, wouldn’t you expect something to be done about it? With regard to the potential negative effect it will have on business (and please forgive inflammatory example I am about to use); I am sure that that banning of slavery was very bad for the slave trade, does that mean that it should still be happening today? Personally, I don’t want the government getting in involved in my life telling me what I can and can’t do to my own body. I think it’s entirely possible that you could have pubs where being a 20 a day smoker was a required qualification to get a bar job which could potentially resolve the problem. But as an ex smoker (allegedly the worst kind of person for opinions on smoking), I think smoking is such a negative and fruitless habit that, on this occasion, I am on the side of the nanny state.
I just read a feature in the Post relating to the new Tesco’s that is going to open up down the Oxford rd. There is going to be a big one where Battle Hospital used to be, and a little “Tesco’s Express” just across the road from Oxford Road School and the Jet garage.
The “exclusive” (like anyone else is going to give a turd, I cant imagine that the Observer is kicking itself that they go scooped by the Reading Evening Post) report is an interview with the Babar Butt who is one of the partners who run Butts Convenience Store on the corner of Oxford Rd and Prospect Hill (it was called Anand Stores when I was a kid,). He is saying that this is going to be a David and Goliath style battle, stating that Tesco will undercut local businesses to drive them to bankruptcy then put the prices up. I don’t know how true this is, but I don know one way in which the Tesco’s Express will have the upper hand on Butts, you will be able to purchase all the items required to make a meal.
I have been in Butts convenience store a few times. Its typical corner shop fare, far too many chest freezers so you have to walk sideways at some points. An entire gondola end dedicated to 3 litre bottles of strong white cider. Plenty of porn. Notably, no garlic bread. I know garlic bread is not a staple, but it’s the kind of thing that you want from a “convenience” store as apposed to a glorified off-licence.
Their problem is that they are about to lose their monopoly of a catchments area that just about sustains them at the moment with their focus on frozen ready meals “tramp-juice” alcohol. They (and every other badly stocked corner shop in the area) should be very worried about a business moving in from where you will be able to purchase actual, and in some cases not even frozen, food.
The choice is, Raise your game or diversify to provide something that Tesco’s doesn’t or go out of business. And if you do go out of business, for gods sake don’t do another half page spread in the Post about how unfair it was a better business model put you in the poor house, its not like you have had no choice about what sort of shop (hybrid walk-in-freezer-off-licence-sex-shop) your are running.
sliding Sounds innocent enough, but at our school the term 'sliding' was invented after Mark Myers climbed up the ladder of a playground slide, and did a shit at the top. He then pissed around the shit, causing the excretia to descend the slide like a kind of warm piss and shit log* flume.
In a vain attempt to achieve equal glory, Craig Campbell-Ace crapped onto the lower part of the slide, but only managed to produce tidy little nuggets and immediately demanded toilet paper.
Not quite the urine soaked, rock 'n' roll finish we gave Mark credit for.
This rant fits neatly in to two categories. Military Arrogance and the Rightwing and its Associated Beliefs (religious and otherwise).
To start, Military Arrogance.
This relates to a news story that I heard this morning about how some NATO members are not pulling their weight in Afghanistan. Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan is a fully international effort and any member country of NATO should be pulling their weight. Either that or we should all pull out. Otherwise, what’s the point of NATO. Pretty clear.
On the Today program on Radio 4 they had some US military\political pundit type (I don’t know who he was, I only had half an ear on it). He was making some fairly balanced comments about the situation up until he said something along the lines of:
“[because of their actions (or inaction) in Afghanistan] Europe will find it much harder to get the USA to save the day next time we have a war”
I take it from that comment that he thinks Europe found it easy to get the USA on side in the last two wars. I don’t know how he remembered it, but a War in Europe with very clear goody’s and baddies breaks out in 1939. They finally get involved two years later in 1941 when half of Europe had fallen and they, finally, had been attacked by someone.
Or, lets take a look at World War 1. The war started in 1914. I guess there must have been a really good reason that the USA waited until 1917 to get involved, seeing as how they are world police and all. Oh yes, the Germans sent loads of U-boats to the coast of the USA when they had promised that they wouldn’t and then sunk Lusitania.
Not exactly the kind of philanthropic antics that this pundit apparently remembers it to be.
To put it another way, yes, it will be difficult to get the USA involved if we ever have another war in Europe, but that is nothing new. It’s hard to get them involved in any wars that they didn’t start themselves.
Now, on to The Rightwing and its Associated Beliefs’ (religious and otherwise).
Recently I have been having a look at the gallery section on the brilliant Snopes rumour analysis website. I am guessing that Snopes in an American run website, so it has a real American slant, this is to be expected, UK sites have a UK slant.
If you have received a e-mail with some fantastical story or amazing photograph that you think smacks of an urban legend you can send it in to Snopes and they will analyse it and post it on their page.
What has amazed me is how many of the pictures that I have looked at appear to be designed specifically for pro-war-pro-god conservative America. Lets look at some:
This is a Photoshoped pic of what appears to be sailors on the deck of an aircraft carrier standing in a formation to spell out the words “fuck Iraq”. I imagine that one generated many woops and hollers form the inboxes of rednecks all across the land. Until you think they are supposed to be “liberating” the place not “fucking” it.
This is a story of a, allegedly, US helicopter in Afghanistan painted by its crew to look like and Eagle. I guess they could call it the “Ameri-copter” and have Uncle Sam fly it to bring peace to the world. Fucking Mornons. A) no military pilot in his right mind is going to fly that in to a battle zone where people are firing rockets at him in that thing, the idea is to not draw attention to yourself. B) That helicopter is a Hind, a very famous Russian built machine, not flown by the US. C) That picture is not taken in Afghanistan D) It was a helicopter used by the Hungarian Air force for display purposes.
Yup, that’s it. The sun shines on a flag and made a bit of a cross shape in just the right place when this photograph was taken. What the hell is that supposed to mean. In the text it says “Goes to show, Persons may try to get God out of the government, but he will still shine through”. That kind of talk scares the crap out of me.
Because it’s a Photoshop dick for brains. This is a Photoshoped picture of a US soldier with a patch on his right arm saying “doing the work of “ the three patches representing the flags of Netherlands, Germany and France. They don’t point out what work is he is doing or why it should be their work, but that’s irrelevant because its fake, but I am sure a few “lets-make-a-big-glass-crater-out-of-the-whole-of-the-middle-east” type shit for brains’s got a stonking hardon over it.
And just for good measure
This has nothing to do with beliefs or religion. I just can’t believe that anyone thought for a nanosecond that this was anything other then an amusing Photoshop and sent it in to Snopes of analysis.
While I was cycling in to work to day I was listing to Radio 4. I do this for the Today program to catch up on news on my way in, but because I was late I heard a little bit of Midweek which starts at 09:00 and is dire, but I was cycling and couldn’t be bothered to turn the radio off.
Anyway
Midweek is a kind of rubbishy chat show where they get “ever so interesting” toffs on to talk about crap. For whatever reason they where talking about art and commenting on how, while there are a lot of successful female artists now, there where not in the last century. One of the female guests offered a potential explanation to this. I can’t remember it word for word, so I will have to paraphrase a little bit.
“There where not great female artists because all of the female artists where married to male artists and men’s ego’s (particularly men-artist’s egos) require so much massaging that they cannot stand their wife’s being good at painting or whatever”.
Figures. There where no great female artists in the last century because men where stopping them because men are like children.
Now, I don’t know what the actual cause was for this phenomena. But what this woman said sounded a lot like the stereotypical representation of men in the media that is now totally accepted. Stupid, childish, unthinking, unfeeling, I could go on.
I have another suggestion why there where no great female artists’ during this period. Its because women are all crap at art and the only reason that there are female artists now is because of feminism and we have to buy their stuff otherwise we are sexist.
Now, I dot actually believe that, but I think it’s just about as valid, and offensive, as the comment made on midweek.
And while I am on the subject.
Why is it that if there is a thing that lots of men like or do but is not that popular with women, lets say, the Internet in the late 90’s, the reason that women don’t use it is because there is some sort of conspiracy to keep women off of it. This one has particularly been shown to be rubbish with the introduction of shopping and social networking there are more women on the internet then men.
Another example. Women MP’s. Now, I do believe that women have the odds stacked against them to an extent in a male dominated organisation in the same way that I think men would in a female dominated organisation. But I think one of the reasons that there are not many women MP’s is because, and I know this is going to sound controversial, not that many women want to be MP’s. In the same way, if I where to go on a course at collage to be a nursery nurse (or whatever they are called) I would, most likely, be the only bloke on the course. This is not due to a conspiracy, I am not getting threatening letters telling me that if I start working with children I am going to be dropping in the Thames with a pair of concrete loafers on, its because I cant imagine a worse job then having to deal with other peoples little children all day. And I’m not a pedo (woops, slipped in to Daily Mail mode again)
Do I think there should be more women MP’s? Yes. Do I think that there are not that many because of a male conspiracy? Lets wait until there are equal numbers of mail and female’s standing in elections before we even try and work that one out.
To give this rant a little balance, and so I don’t come off sounding like a total Daily Mail “the-most-oppressed-people-in-the-country-today-are-white-men”-nutter, I would like to point out that I have worked with people with what I would call, a slightly old fashioned outlook in the workplace. I have heard comments made about female (as well as gay and foreign or ethnically diverse) staff that made my jaw hit the floor. I am totally against this. I am in favour of equality, not some sort of pendulum swing where one half of society has it bad for x amount of time, then it’s the other half has a go.
Well, that that rant went to all sorts of places that I wasn’t expecting.
I am now officially having an argument with someone on the letters page of the Reading Post. Bellow is his response to the letter which I sent in, responding to his letter
I’m afraid I have to respond to Stuart Winter (evening post Thursday October 4) – although I had hoped I wouldn’t have to
True Gordon Brown has little or nothing to do with the Olympic committee , but he is if I’m not mistaken the prime minister so hopefully one would this he has a say within the government
Shouldn’t be any confusion with the military and the red arrows being one of the same
I also didn’t infer that the British Muslim community had anything to do with the Red Arrows being omitted from the opening of the 2012 Olympics.
What I am saying, and I assure you I am no alone on this subject, is that wheat you like it or not our armed forces are fighting a conflict on two fronts –Iraq and Afghanistan – which are predominantly Muslim countries.
So in my view that decision has been made to appease the Muslims, not just in the country but worldwide. I am not a member of UKIP or the BNP just incise you ask.
But I am British and proud of it. And the Red Arrows , the home guards, the royal marries or the Girl Guides should be able to open the Olympics or the local flower show without having to wonder if it upsets one group or another. Like I said, political correctness gone completely mad.
And while we are on the political subject, decisions like this one taken will and up driving vertian (larger then you might think) natives of this country into the arms of parties like the BNP and drive an even bigger wedge between predominantly Christian British people and the Muslim community in this country. God Forbid
Adriean Keep, Via e-mail.
and now, for my response
This is in response to Adrian Keep’s letter (Tuesday 9th October) with regard to the Red Arrows performing at the opening of the 2012 Olympics.
Adrian,
I would like to start by addressing a few of the points in your letter. You say “shouldn’t be any confusion with the military and the Red Arrows being one and the same”. The Wikipedia says “The Red Arrows, officially known as the Royal Air Force Aerobatic Team, is the aerobatics display team of the Royal Air Force”. The Red Arrows websites (http://www.raf.mod.uk/reds/ which is part of the RAF’s website) says, “Many of the Red Arrows’ pilots and support staff have recently returned from Afghanistan and Iraq and many will be temporarily detached on operations overseas during their time with the Red Arrows.”. I don’t think I have any confusion with the military and the Red Arrows, I am very clear that the Red Arrows are military fighter pilots flying planes that the military own. If I have got something wrong here, perhaps you can explain it to me.
You also say “I also didn’t infer that the British Muslim community had anything to do with the Red Arrows being omitted from the opening of the 2012 Olympics”. In that case I hope you will forgive my misunderstanding of your statement in your previous letter “we are actually only worried what the Muslims in our country think.” To clear up my obvious confusion, can you explain which country “our country” refers to?
From your next statement I think I am begging to understand your point. We are not having the Red Arrows at the Olympics because we believe it will offend the people in to two countries that in which we are presently fighting , and the wider Muslim community. Is that a fair summary of you points?
Now, to get to the real point. What you have done is taken rumour to be fact and got your kickers in a knot about nothing. I will now quote from the London 2012 website (http://www.london2012.com/news/archive/2007-10/no-truth-in-red-arrows-rumour.php) “London 2012 has responded to reports that the Red Arrows have been banned from the Opening Ceremony of the Games, describing the rumours as 'utter nonsense'. The London 2012 Organising Committee will decide what to include in all celebrations and they will be a showcase of the best the UK has to offer. But with five years to go, decisions are yet to be made on what the celebrations will look like. The Red Arrows have in fact been used before in connection to London and the Games. They did a spectacular fly over of Trafalgar Square in London to celebrate winning the bid in July 2005, and also flew over the Mall when the Athens Torch Relay was in London in 2004.”
If I told you that the EU had told that the Queen that she was not allowed to eat sausages or drink tea on St. George’s day because it was “too British”, would you have immediately written in to the paper to express your rage? Or would you want to check that I wasn’t just winding you up?
What you have demonstrated is the kind of knee jerk reaction to perceived “political correctness gone mad” that, in this case at least, didn’t exist. It is letters such as yours that fuel some widely held misconceptions which do more to “drive a wedge” between groups of our society then the story to which you took such umbrage.
I had to leave a whole bunch of paragrahs out, I was trying to keep it as ashort as possible. but I think you will agree with me when I say "back of the net".
I can like Linux without pathologically hating Windows
I like tea.
I can say “I like tea” without immediately saying “I don’t like coffee”.
I can talk about tea and how much I like it without sounding like I am the follower of some weird religion.
When I write about coffee I don’t write it “kofeee” or some other purpose miss spelling to make sure everyone knows that I hate it.
I don’t think that all those that like coffee are evil\stupid.
I can see that coffee is not to everyone’s tastes and has stuff wrong with it. This does not make tea any nicer, nor dose it give tea magical properties.
I can do this with tea and coffee, I can also do this with Linux and Windows.
In my house I run several Ubuntu PC’s. I also run a few Windows PC’s. At some point in the future I imagine that I will no longer run any windows PC’s. Even when this happens, even if Ubuntu has become as end-to-end user friendly as Windows, even if windows still has the security problems that are forcing me off of it, even if Ubuntu is just as good for gaming as Windows I will not call it “M$ Windoze”.
I will not be found to make a statement like “I just did this cool thing with this new software on my Ubuntu PC….. YOU CANT DO THAT ON VISTA BECAUSE VISTA IS BAD AND INHERENTLY EVIL AND YOU GET BAD AIDS IF YOU USE IT AND, AND, AND IT SMELLS OF POO *foam at the mouth*”
This is because I am a grown man and not a child. As a child I had a Sega games console which meant I had to hate Nintendo. Luckily I went through this process called “growing up” whereby you get to do cool things like not being 100% polarized on issues such as brands that I like.
It’s an operating system, use it, enjoy it, then get out of the house and enjoy your life. It makes me ashamed to call myself a geek.
I wrote a letter to the post which was a response to a letter sent in by another reader. I have copied the letter out so that my response will make some sense and hopfully you will see what inspired me to write in:
I see the idiotic Government along with the equally idiotic Olympic committee has decided to axe the world famous Red Arrows form the opening of the Olympic Games in 2021. Most people from most countries would love to see the Red Arrows perform – that’s why there so popular in many parts of the worlds I , along with countless others, am sick to death of political correctness gone mad. If Brown wants my vote he can get stuffed. We have brave man and women fighting and dying for this country and not many people give a damn. Our military do a fantastic job ain very difficult conditions – often with one arm tide behind their backs. Lets not beat around the Bush (no pun intended), but we are actually only worried what the Muslims in our country think. I doubt that you will print this as its probably not politically correct. But I bet you a years subscription to the Evening Post that it’s what most normal people will be thinking. Its time we woke up and had a sniff of the coffee Adrian Keep Via email.
You can almost hear him foaming at the mouth as he typed it. It would have been a much better idea to send this in to the daily mail. I am sure their readership would have loved to foam at the mouth while reading it.
Anyway, here is my response.
This is a response to Adrian Keep’s letter (Tuesday).
I would like to try and address a few of the many and varied topics you touched on in your letter. Firstly your comment that the Red Arrows will not be appearing at the Olympics due to political correctness. I agree with you that this is silly, but I can kind of see where they are coming from. It could be seen a little like opening the Olympics with a military tattoo of some sort. From this point on your letter confuses me a bit. Fair enough, you are not going to vote for Gordon Brown, but I fail to see what this has to do with the Olympics (I don’t think he is on the Olympic committee is he?). I also agree that our military to a fantastic job and I am aware that they are currently fighting a war. I assume this is with some relation to the Red Arrows, but again, I am somewhat confused as to the references. It’s the last part of your letter that really has be baffled “we are actually only worried with what Muslims think”. Does this have a reference to the Red Arrows and the Olympics? I fail to see the connection. From what I can gather we don’t wish to seem militaristic to other countries competing in the Olympics, the vast majority of which are not Muslim. As far as I am aware the British Muslim community do not have a particular issue with the Red Arrows (perhaps you can correct me on this). You go on to say “it’s what most normal people will be thinking”. I class myself as a pretty normal person (or as normal as you can get when you write letters in to your local paper), and I am pretty sure that “we” worry about what other people think too, I am defiantly sure that you do and I hope that you make up the “we” that you are talking about. While I am sure you had some valid points in there, I am afraid your letter has come of somewhat like a condensed version of a Robert Kilroy Silk UKIP party conference speech. And before you say it, my response is not driven by political correctness, but by confusion and intrigue as to exactly what points you where trying to make.
![[Powered by Blogger]](http://buttons.blogger.com/bloggerbutton1.gif){kind=small}
