Sick and Twisted?

Sometimes you find yourself doing or saying something that reveals you as having a sense of humour regarded as 'sick' or 'twisted' by your friends and acquaintances. An example: the other week I was in the pub when someone asked whether anyone knew what those things you get in Christmas crackers that you blow and the curled up end straightens out, are called, (they're apparently called party blowouts). His eight year old niece had asked him over Christmas and he didn't know. I suggested that he told her it was called a 'tallywhacker'. He called me a sick bastard, but I was too busy laughing at the mental images flashing through my head to care. I could just imagine an eight year old telling her friends in the school playground how, over Christmas, she'd blown a tallywhacker - "I just put my lips around the end and gave it a good blow and it went long and rigid."

The consequences of this imagined conversation were - to me - even more hilarious. I had visions of shocked teachers frantically calling social services and hordes of social workers and police descending on the poor child's house. I could just see her unsuspecting and uncomprehending parents being dragged into the street in handcuffs, as their gathered neighbours shouted "You sick bastards", or "Filthy perverts like you need stringing up". OK, I know that getting someone falsely accused of paedophilia shouldn't be the cause of such mirth - I was holding my sides, I was laughing so much at my private comedic fantasy - but I just can't help it. If it happened for real it certainly wouldn't be funny. But that's the point - it didn't happen. It was just a comic construct, a humourous fantasy trip, and it's surely OK to laugh at a hypothetical situation in such a context. Indeed, it is the way in which some of us can deal with the unthinkable - by making fun of it. Then again, maybe I'm just a sick bastard.

A Whiter Shade of Confusion

It seems that I'm not the only one prone to mishearing or misreading news reports and imagining a whole alternative story. Last weekend my younger brother told me that he had found himself confused by reports from Nigeria, which seemed to claiming that sixties proto-prog rockers Procol Harum had turned to terrorism and were engaged in a bombing campaign against Nigerian churches. He eventually realised that the reports were actually referring to the Islamic sect Boko Haram. Mind you, it's an easy mistake to make, confusing Procol Harum with Boko Haram, as I realised when watching a report about the Nigerian President's reaction to the bombings. For instance, he claimed that Boko Haram had links with other groups - just like Procol Harum, with its constantly-changing line-up, recruited from other groups. He also said of the terror group: "They operate without a face, they operate without a clear identity, so it is difficult to interface with such a group." Again, a fair description of Procol Harum in their heyday.

Of course, there are plenty of differences, too. I don't recall Boko Haram ever supporting Jimi Hendrix on tour, for instance. Moreover, to the best of my knowledge no Islamacist terror group has ever had a top ten hit, let alone a number one single. One also has to ask as to whether it is at all credible that 1960s pop act would be engaged in a campaign of terror in Africa. Well, one has to say that their most recent output hasn't exactly set the world on fire and they haven't released an album since 2003. If I didn't think that I might be sued, I could speculate that the bombings are part of a publicity campaign gone badly wrong. I might also point out that the lyrics of their first and best known hit, 'A Whiter Shade of Pale', could be construed as having racist connotations. But that would be ridiculous, so I won't do either of those things. If nothing else, this whole Procol Harum/Boko Haram business has reassured me that this sort of semantic confusion isn't unique to me. It clearly runs in the family.

Tory Bastards - Again!

I've got to hand it to this shambles of a government we're having to suffer under, they're very adept at diverting everyone's attention from the real issues. Right now they are, successfully it seems, shifting the blame for the current economic disaster from the very rich, to the poor. Yes, that's right, in Cameronland it is actually the victims who are to blame for their own plight! I'm referring, of course, to the current benefit cap that the government is trying to impose and which, for the time being, is having blocked by the House of Lords, mainly thanks to the intervention of the Bishops who sit there. The implication of the government's proposals to cap benefit payments at a maximum of £26,000 for a single family is quite clear: It's these idle scrounging bastards, taking taxpayers cash who are to blame for the situation we're in - is it any wonder we're having to cut public spending elsewhere if we have to support these work-shy shits? And the public eats it up. Not least because, on paper, it all seems so reasonable. After all, can it be right that some people on benefits claim more than many people in work earn?

Except that it isn't that simple. People living on benefits are not a homogeneous group. Their circumstances vary considerably. Many non-working households are the result of one adult member having to become a full-time carer to a sick or disabled partner, often with child dependents as well. Others are single parents left, by bereavement or other circumstances beyond their control, to look after small children. Frequently, much of what they claim goes in rent on the larger properties they require for their families and/or disabled dependents. Thanks to the running down of stocks of social housing, they often have no choice but to rent from private landlords at the current exorbitant market rates. I'm not naive enough to think that there aren't some people who abuse the benefits system for their own gain. But they are the exception rather than the rule and an indiscriminate and arbitrary cap on benefits won't stop them. It will only hurt the majority of genuine claimants.

But Dave and his lynch mob know all this and don't care. They are only interested in shifting the blame for the economic mess we're in away from the real culprits: the rich who just keep getting richer. The amount being claimed in benefits pales into insignificance compared to the amount of taxpayers money the banks have received (and not paid back) in the form of bail outs. And their executives just keep giving themselves pay rises and huge bonuses. It's the same across the private sector: bosses pay skyrockets whilst workers are laid off, or have their pay frozen and pension funds raided. These are the bastards who are robbing us blind, lining their own pockets whilst the rest of us suffer. But Cameron doesn't care because they're his friends. More than that, they're the Tory party's paymasters. So, instead of addressing the real problem, he gives us a few platitudes about needing to reform capitalism, then turns to attacking the poor again. And the public eats it up.

Dog Bites Child...

I may not be able to bring you the scheduled edition of The Sleazecast for the reasons I've explained in the previous post, but I can offer a brief aside on a recent news story. I was watching the news report yesterday about the small child who had been savaged by a dog in an unprovoked attack in a Chingford park, when a couple of things occurred to me. One was the way in which the opening and closing shots of the report were framed by the BBC, focusing on a mildewed street sign with the park's name on, which had clearly been knocked over by a car, or vandals - the message seemed clear: you shouldn't be surprised at such an appalling turn of events in an obviously run down, crime ridden and deprived area. Of course, for all I know, it could be a wonderful area with a low crime rate, the street sign simply being an aberration, but that wouldn't be such a good story. The second thing that occurred to me was that the whole complexion of the story could be further changed if a video of it was to emerge on YouTube. Especially if it showed the child being attacked by a golden retriever, whilst its owner ran into shot shouting "Fenton! Fenton! Oh, Jesus Christ!", before the dog ran off toward the children's playground and attacked a group of five year olds. It would be bound to go viral, people are so fucking stupid.

Due To Technical Difficulties...

I was planning to bring you another edition of our podcast, The Sleazecast, today. However, I'm afraid that there have been some technical difficulties. The whole thing has been recorded with no problems, but unfortunately I can't get the recording off of my voice recorder due to the fact that the USB cable has, quite literally, fallen apart. Of course, being a cheap generic Chinese voice recorder cum MP3 player, the B end of the cable seems to be of a design unique to these devices. Certainly, none of the other USB cables with a mini-B type plug at one end will fit the socket on the recorder. So, you'll imagine my relief at finding an online seller who could apparently supply a replacement cable. Except, it turns out, they can't. Despite listing the cable on their site, and despite being able to order one, I've now had my payment refunded with no explanation. A check on the supplier's site shows the item removed. All of which leaves me severely pissed off - if you can't supply something, then don't bloody have it on your site!

Obviously, I'm left with the problem of the inaccessible files. Despite the fact that none of the USB cables I've seen online seem to have the right type of B plug, I'm going to take a chance on a couple of cheap cables from Amazon. As far as I can see from the poor photos, these might just fit. If they don't, well at least they are very cheap. Some of the other cables I looked at cost more than I paid for the voice recorder itself. The only other alternative I can see is to buy another cheap Chinese voice recorder, as they all appear to use the same type of USB connector, (probably because they are all made in the same factory, I assume). Another advantage of this alternative is that I could actually 'upgrade' my voice recording capability, as some of the devices currently available at low prices have rechargeable batteries and far better laid out displays and controls than my current cheap recorder. Anyway, the long and the short of it is that the already delayed sixth dose of The Sleazecast will be further delayed.

Street Names of Shame

It became clear to me today that, here in Crapchester, the council is running out of names for new streets. In the past we've had estates with road name themes including composers, poets, islands, birds, rivers, artists, even cricketers. However, today I had cause to visit part of a new estate which I hadn't previously ventured into and found possibly the worst street name theme I've ever come across, inspired, it seems, by the fact that the roads in question back onto our main post sorting office. Here are some of the street names I managed to record:









I think that the last one, Parcel Drive, is possibly the very worst residential street name ever. There were a couple I didn't get pictures of - Pillar Box Avenue and Penny Black Lane. It's quite clear that Crapchester Borough Council will have to stop the building of any more housing estates due to their lack of imagination when it comes to street naming policy. Why have they never used fish as a theme? It seems like an obvious one to me - there are so many species of fish you could have a huge estate and still not run out of names. But no, they prefer the likes of Recorded Delivery Road. Idiots.

Baker Street Beat

Is it just me, or was the ending of Sherlock the other night remarkably similar to that of the most recent series of Doctor Who? Genius hero forced to fake own death to get hordes of enemies off back and enable them to go back 'undercover' after becoming too high profile. That just about sums both endings up. Of course, some similarities were inevitable. Quite apart from the fact that key creative personnel - Steven Moffat, Mark Gatiss - were involved with both series, Holmes himself is clearly one of many characters from British fantastic fiction, (I use that term in the widest possible sense), that inspired The Doctor. Indeed, The Doctor even has his own Moriarty equivalent in The Master, a character who, like the Professor, is his polar opposite. Not that I'm criticising Sherlock for these similarities in plot details - it is just an observation.

There was much to enjoy in the episode for committed Baker Street geeks like me, from the brief cameo by Douglas Wilmer, (who had played Holmes for the BBC back in 1964-65 and in the Gene Wilder movie The Adventure of Sherlock Holmes' Smarter Brother in the seventies), as the old gent Watson encounters at the Diogenes Club, to the oblique references to Nicholas Meyer's Seven Per Cent Solution. (In the latter the real Moriarty is revealed to be Sherlock's former maths tutor, only becoming an evil genius in Holmes' cocaine-induced paranoid fantasies; in Sherlock Moriarty convinces a newspaper reporter that he's really an actor hired by Holmes to play an evil criminal genius). The real genius of the series is that, through its skilled use of contemporary settings and references and witty reinterpretation of the Conan Doyle originals, it also appeals to a far wider audience than just us Holmes fans. The 'in jokes' and references I've noted are an added bonus for the likes of me but aren't essential for non-hardcore fans to understand in order to enjoy the series. Great stuff.

A Call to Arms

It's time we took things into our own hands. It is clearly the only option. I feel I've now no choice but to grow a beard, wear a beret and set up a guerrilla training camp behind the bandstand in my local park. The two Eds depressing display at the weekend has made clear that Labour just can't be bothered to mount any kind of opposition to this shambolic government, instead cravenly embracing an economic policy of cutting spending and services which has already been shown not to work. Their reasoning - if we can grace such a betrayal of core political values with such a term - seems to be that the Tories have 'won' the economic argument in the media and that people will perceive Labour as lacking credibility if it disagrees. In other words, they appear to be whining that it is just too difficult to present an alternative economic strategy and convince the electorate of its validity.

So they've just given up, handing the political initiative, incredibly, to a floundering government. This really is pathetic stuff, with Miliband compounding this disastrous change in approach today by basically saying that public sector workers should accept effective cuts in pay if it would save their jobs. Yeah, we should just think ourselves lucky to have a job, should we, Ed? What happened to that 'living wage' you were banging on about when you became Labour leader? I am just flabbergasted that Labour are effectively surrendering in this way - by alienating most of their core vote (which they surely have with these announcements) they've already lost the next election. Which is ludicrous - they should be walking it right now. Faced with an obviously incompetent and unelected government, which lurches from one crisis to another and whose own economic policy is in tatters, Labour should be racing ahead in the polls. Of course, Miliband and the Blairites will tell you the reason they aren't is because they've been in 'deficit denial', opposing spending cuts and therefore losing public credibility. The reality is that they have been hobbled by a complete lack of effective leadership and a lack of courage in actually putting forward a coherent alternative economic plan.

However, rather than address these issues, the Labour 'leadership' has now completely hobbled its own campaigners who, as many commentators have pointed out, now have no answer for potential voters who complain to them about the cuts. Apparently, they now have to say that they agree with savage cuts in services! We now have a situation where we, as voters, have no alternative - all the main parties now seem to be saying the same thing. So, what are we supposed to do? With no apparent democratic means of opposing the ruling regime, does that mean that other avenues - civil unrest, revolution, armed insurrection - would now be considered legitimate expressions of opposition? As I said at the beginning, if our political classes aren't prepared to represent the interests of the electorate they are supposed to serve, instead preferring to prop up a discredited and unelected economic system, we would seem to have no choice but to take things into our own hands.

And I'll tell you where we should start - those bloody credit ratings agencies: Moodys and Standard and Poor. They represent everything that is wrong with the current system - unelected, unaccountable bodies not just dictating economic policy to elected governments, but also making large profits of the back of a global recession they played no small part in precipitating. Make no mistake, this is crucial battle which has to be fought and won. The very concepts of democracy and national sovereignty are at stake. So, brothers and sisters, I urge you to take up your pitchforks, cudgels and flaming torches and march on the offices of these ratings agencies, chanting 'Kill the monster', (for they truly are monsters, just ask the Greeks) as you advance on them. Now is not the time for peaceful protest - these bastards will just ignore you or have you evicted. Occupying Wall Street and the City of London is all very well, but we're fast approaching the moment when there'll be no alternative but to burn them to the ground if we're to curb their evil influence on our governments. Of course, there might be an alternative, (in the UK at least): the Labour Party could remember who it is supposed to be serving and find an effective leader. Right now we need a street-fighter to counter the public school bullies filling the cabinet. Instead we've got Ed Miliband, But it isn't too late for a change. That said, I'm not holding my breath and, in the meantime, I'm sharpening my pitchfork...

The Last of Christmas

Well, that's it. I've just eaten the last piece of the Christmas cake my mother baked for me, and with it has gone the last remaining vestiges of Christmas 2011. I know it all ended officially on twelfth night and I did, indeed, pack away the decorations then, but I never quite feel the festive season is truly over until I've finished that cake. I can finally move on and face the new year! Actually, it was always something that bothered me as a child - the indecent haste with which we always seemed to leave Christmas behind. Back then it seemed a magical time of year and, as a child, you wanted it to last for as long as possible. Yet, come January, just as the weather always seemed to be even colder and miserable than it had been in December, we were expected to forget about the recent time of joy and warmth. It seemed that you weren't even allowed to mention Christmas, even though it had occurred only a week or two earlier.

In recent years, I've felt those feelings returning, with the abrupt return to work straight after New Year feeling ever more jarring. The strength of the feeling is undoubtedly proportionate to my increasing dislike of my job. It also probably has something to do with my encroaching years - forcing my aching bones back out into the hostile environment of January seems less appealing with every passing year. Sadly, they keep putting back the age I can retire at, so there's no relief in sight on that front! Don't get me wrong - I'm not one of those people who gets depressed at the prospect of another January and I definitely don't buy any of this 'Blue Monday' crap. It's just that I'd rather not be working during it any more! Maybe if I had a more fulfilling job I'd be less reluctant to let go of Christmas. In the meantime, I'll just have to look forward to Easter.

Hoots Mons, Old Chap

You have to imagine the following being said in an English public school accent by some toff: "Hoots mons, chappies and och aye the noo, old boy!" That's pretty much the level of David Cameron's attempts to woo the Scots into staying in the Union. "Look at me, och aye, I'm Scottish - I'm wearing tartan underpants, old fruit. You can trust me!" he might as well have said., as he tries to convince them that he isn't anti-Scottish. It simply confirms, to me at least, that the man is utterly incompetent. If he really wants to head off Scottish independence, then the way to do it isn't by risking alienating the Scottish people by being seen to threaten and bully its government. Because that's what all this posturing from Cameron over the fact that it is Westminster, not Holyrood which has the power to schedule a referendum looks like. It comes over as a direct challenge to the (limited) sovereignty of the Scottish parliament.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no particular fan of Alex Salmond and the SNP and wouldn't like to see the break up of the United Kingdom. However, I also believe that you can't deny people the right of self-determination: if the Scots want independence, then we would be wrong to try and stop them. But the reality is that there isn't a majority for independence in Scotland right now, and it is highly unlikely that there would be in 2014, (when the SNP wants to hold a referendum), either. That said, one thing which could mobilise opinion in its favour is some English toff of a Prime Minister appearing to bully the legitimately-elected Scottish government. Of course, what Cameron is really afraid of isn't Scottish independence, but the more likely prospect of a referendum returning support for what's been termed 'devolution max', under which the Scottish parliament would assume more or less full powers for Scottish domestic policy, leaving things like defence and foreign policy to Westminster. This would create a powerful, democratically elected body within the Union, which could conceivably challenge Westminster on some issues and act as a focus of opposition to an unpopular Westminster government. The fact is that Westminster jealously guards its powers and resents potential rivals - just look at the way Thatcher emasculated local government in the 1980s. Which is why, dismayingly, we've had a parade of prominent politicians from across the spectrum broadly supporting Cameron. Personally, I feel that 'devolution max' is concept well worth exploring. I'm in favour of anything that increases democratic representation for people. As their proposed constitutional reforms show, (fewer MPs, bigger constituencies), this government most certainly isn't.

Keep Taking The Pills

Apparently my brother's Christmas was ruined by the presence of Jedward on every TV chat show and panel show. He's one of the millions of people driven to the brink of insanity by the gibberings of the Irish twins. Personally, I have nothing against them. I'm not sure what they're for, or why they're considered celebrities, but they seem nice enough, albeit excitable, lads. The main reaction they invoke from me is to shout at the television or radio, "For God's sake, take your bloody medication!" Because that's my theory about Jedward - that they're suffering from some sort of behavioural problem, hyperactivity or attention deficit syndrome maybe, and they've stopped taking their pills. If they were to go back on their medication they'd probably have greasy flat hair, wear drab sports jackets with leather patches on the elbows and sport thick-lensed glasses with black plastic frames. But they wouldn't be famous, because to be a celebrity these days, it seems, you have to indulge in the kind of 'outrageous' behaviour ordinarily associated with psychological disorders.

Whilst Jedward don't tend to irritate me that much, someone who did last week was Zooey Deschenal in the first episode of her sitcom New Girl on Channel Four. I only tried watching it because of the number of poor reports about it I'd read online. It surely couldn't be that bad, could it? Within the first ten minutes I was shouting at my TV, begging for someone to give her a slap, her character was so irritating. Once again, I was screaming for her to take her medication and spare us all the 'kookiness', or, as I like to call it, psychotic behaviour. The fundamental problem with the series' scenario is that, having cast Deschenal in the lead, the makers have to explain why she has such problems attracting men, after all, she's an obviously attractive woman. So, they make her weird. Clearly, somebody must have pointed out that actually, many men aren't put off by slightly odd women. The makers' answer was simply to ramp up the character's weirdness to the point that she comes over as either having extreme learning difficulties and behavioural problems, or being crazy serial killer type woman who probably stalks her victims, before kidnapping and castrating them. Which probably isn't the effect they're going for - I'm sure they think she comes over as 'cute and kooky', rather than 'crazy and homicidal'. Anyway, the end result is that I have no intention of watching another episode, otherwise I'll be the one forced to pop pills, to keep my blood pressure down, if nothing else.