2017
November 20 2017
I think, if you take a look through the archives of this tomb, sorry tome, no, wait, tomb, you will find I have had reason before to moan about the modern use of the word “celebrity”. It probably comes from the Latin word “celebratis”, which means a celebration. Therefore, surely, anyone who is referred to as a celebrity should be someone who we celebrate for some notable achievement.
Being the father of Boris Johnson does not give you celebrity status. I believe that to achieve such a status one must have done something out of the ordinary or be at the very peak of whatever profession you have chosen. I think you can see where this is going. I don't know more than two of the people who are now somewhere in the jungle being part of “I'm a celebrity, get me out of here”. I am fairly sure I can therefore claim that none are celebrities. The programme is pushing the trade descriptions act to its ultimate.
This all came about because Kezia Dugdale, of whom I had heard and although not perhaps at the top of her chosen profession certainly a very good politician, has agreed to appear on the programme, or at least, veiled on total secrecy, the media know she has. However, while she may, or may not, have agreed, the Scottish Labour party, of whom she is a sitting member in the Scottish Parliament, did not agree; it would seem.
Ms Dugdale has apparently agreed to forgo her salary as an MP while she is away and also give part of her large pay cheque for doing the show to charity. Yippee. I would love to see my boss's face, some 30 years ago when I had one, if I had told him I know you don't agree but I'm taking a holiday but you don't need to pay me when I'm away. The fact is if he had agreed to this then I would have realised I wasn't really necessary to the company. In fact, when I came back I might have discovered this to be true, P45 and all that.
Someone has said, I understand, that appearing on such a show demeans the role of a politician. I cannot agree with this. It demeans any human being who has anything to do with such trash. From what I know the show seems to set out to bully and humiliate the “celebrities, although in a fairly subtle way. It is, to me, the gutter end of modern entertainment.
By the way, “celebratis” is of the third declension but I feel the celebrities on this show have declined far lower than that. Hostis, imber, nubes were the basic third declension nouns in my Latin text book. A multitude, a shower, an enemy; sounds about right.
November 21 2017
Shoot me down in flames if I'm stupid but the Brexit divorce bill seems very strange. If we are to pay our fair dues, as Florence said in her May speech, then how can we be offering to increase anything. Our fair dues are our fair dues. They are a financial amount. They must be able to be calculated. They cannot be a carrot-type figure, of no stated amount, to make the EU begin to talk about trade. That is not a way to move on. That is not an offer to move on.
One Conservative PM decided to hold a stupid referendum with an even more stupid single question. It would appear that his successor is stupid enough to think an offer to pay more than a figure that has never been revealed is moving forward. I think Florence may be stuck on her magic roundabout. I don't think Mr Rusty will be impressed. Er Brian, or any anagram thereof.
November 22 2017
Eight years ago, you were the managing director of a company. You had your plans. Maybe, it didn't work. A new managing director was brought in. Wouldn't it be ridiculous for him to keep telling people what you would have done now based on what you did then?
Why does the present government keep talking about the last Labour government and what they would do now. Apart from anything else, they have a new leader and are going in a completely different direction. Why not just concentrate on what you are going to do?
Politicians are, I'm sure, divorced from normality and reason. Because I wanted to hear the budget I listened to PMQs today. I assume it is standard practice for our leader to preface every answer with the words “my honourable friend makes a good point”. But is it normal to hear a question and then completely fail to answer it as happened almost every time she was asked something by the leader of the opposition. If a child is caught doing something wrong and asked a question, they will usually try to avoid giving the answer that confirms their naughtiness or disobedience. I would have hoped the leader of our country was slightly above the behaviour of a naughty child? I think I may be disappointed.
November 23 2017
Tomorrow is Black Friday, whatever that means. Well, I know what it means. It means retailers discount their items an amazing amount hoping that you will buy.
My problem is that it would appear Black Friday deals may have been happening for the past week or so thereby rather destroying the idea of calling it Black Friday.
The other problem is more one of logic. Except for the very or medium rich, the rest of us have a certain amount of money to spend on non-essentials. Therefore, if we buy them all on Black Friday, are not the retailers just upping their sales figures and profits for a short period of time and, having spent all we have got, we will now buy less over the rest of the year. Wouldn't it be better to have Black Friday as the day when they put prices up and the other 360 or so days of the year a time when prices are lower.
It's a little bit like the people of Pisa claiming their tower is actually vertical because now they have every other building in Pisa as a fantastic tourist attraction because they all lean.
If economists are to be trusted our marginal propensity to consume depends on an increase in our income not a one-day (almost) decrease in all prices. And of course those of us who were not born as a lemming don't for one moment think that these Black Friday prices mean anything other than the fact we are being charged too much for the rest of the year. Although, on reflection, a lemming will spend all winter searching through snow for bulbs. That reminds me, can I find a bargain on Christmas lights.
November 24 2017
I'm fed with having to watch things that I don't want to see. If I choose to watch a clip on YouTube I do not need to see a 25 second advert first. It is even worse than ads on TV. I can avoid them. As far as I can see, I can't avoid these.
People may tell me how wonderful modern technology is and all the advantages we have but we have lost one vital quality; choice. Ebay email me to tell I must want this, Tumblr email me to tell me I'll love at least one of these blogs. How do they know? Stupid question as obviously they don't. So why tell me I will?
Money. Money. Money. None of these sites could operate without advertising and so they drown us in it. But I see today some brands, some major brands, are stopping their ads on YouTube as it has been reported that paedophiles are operating on the site and evading protection mechanisms. The Independent reports that “according to investigations by BBC News and The Times, there are estimated to be tens of thousands of predatory accounts leaving indecent comments on videos of children.”
Next week I want to talk more about the effect of social media as I see it but it is yet more worry for parents and indeed grandparents about what their children could be exposed to in this modern world.
November 27 2017
Prince Harry and Megham Markle have just got engaged. You may have missed it. You won't by tomorrow morning when all the papers will tell you everything they don't know as though they did. If you didn't miss it earlier you will have seen Fiona Bruce's cheesy grin, everybody and anybody analysing everything about everything, you will know all the details about Ms Markle's background, her likes and dislikes as described by people who don't know her. We know exactly what she will bring to the Royal family and how they will live together because we, the pathetic media, know it all.
P.S. We, the pathetic media, didn't know they had secretly got engaged earlier this month. Sorry, missed that.
November 28 2017
Buckingham Palace have called to say that I was PROBABLY going to be made an OBE but I would have to agree to an interview and a general photoshoot. I said probably is no good and made a pass. Thanks a bunch.
Oh here's a picture I faked too.
BTW, my father, of whom I was and am extremely proud, did get an OBE so the only fake bit is me pretending it was mine which may be better than someone
else pretending someone was going to do something they weren't. PROBABLY. I also admitted my fake too. Trump that someone.
November 29 2017
In the UK we have laws on selling alcohol or tobacco products to young people. The following is taken from the government's own website.
Selling to children
Selling alcohol to anyone under the age of 18 is illegal in England and Wales.
However, it is not an offence to buy or supply alcohol for a person under 18 where:
- the person doing so is 18 or over
- the recipient is 16 or 17
- the alcohol is beer, cider or wine
- the 16 or 17 year old is accompanied by an adult
- the purchase is for drinking with a meal on licensed premises
The maximum fine for selling or supplying alcohol to children is £5,000. Personal licences can be suspended or forfeited on a first offence. The fine increases to £20,000 for persistently selling alcohol to children. This is the sale twice in three months from the same premises. Alternatively, the premises may be prevented from selling alcohol for a period of 48 hours to 2 weeks.
Why then, when there are harsh penalties to retailers, quite rightly in my view, do the owners of social media sites get away with total disregard for age limits. Oh yes, they come out with all the right words about enforcing their limits. The BBC quoted Facebook as saying “When we become aware that someone is under 13 and they have therefore lied about their age, we remove their account and we use cookies to prevent them from signing up again." Fine but they don't take any steps to make themselves aware beforehand.
Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, Tumblr, Reddit, Snapchat and Secret all have a minimum age of 13, they say. Some ask for an age when you sign up others, like Twitter, don't. The minimum age on LinkedIn is 14 (don't ask) while YouTube has a minimum age of 18, although kids between 13-17 can sign up with a parent's permission.
Wonderful, if it all worked or these platforms were taken to task and fined every time a parent or anyone discovered an under age person had an account. Not simply taken down by the supplier but that supplier being fined. £5,000 for a first offence seems good
Ofcom has released some figures this week which say that half of children aged between 11 and 13 have a social media account. The actual figures were that 46% of 11-year-olds, 51% of 12-year-olds and 28% of 10-year-olds now have a social media profile. That's a lot of £5,000's. Even more worrying is that some 90% of 12 to 15-year-olds used YouTube, watching music videos and those showing pranks and challenges. If rules are being adhered to, they do this without an account.
The fact that these platforms also provide children with news is yet another concern although only 32% .believed that news accessed on such platforms was reported truthfully.
Eighty percent of parents who let their children use Instagram or Snapchat were unaware of the age restrictions and more than twenty-five percent said they would allow their child to use social media before reaching the actual age restriction.
The NSPCC feel that social networks are clearly turning a blind eye when it comes to children under 13 signing up for their services. They added that "For too long sites like Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat have failed to protect children on their platforms and government urgently needs to step in." They suggest that the government force social networks to design child protections into their services via an amendment to the Data Protection Bill, which is due to be voted on in two week's time.
I have a suggestion. Every social media site requires the user to sign in with a £1 fee paid by credit card. Credit cards are not available to under 18's so problem solved. If parents wish to enrol their kids, their choice but it would stop kids signing themselves up without parental knowledge. Any over 18 who wishes to sign up can verify their age some other way but genuine over 18s would still be able to sign up. Yes, it makes more work for the social media companies but that is how it should be.
Some of the material available on these platforms is wholly unsuitable for young children. I am not, and never have been, in favour of censorship with regard to adult-based material that is legal but I am in favour of protecting young people from such material. Maybe porn sites could have the same sign in procedure as well.
November 30 2017
This is not fake news but fact. We need to stop focussing on the President of the United States. He has given this advice to our Prime Minister and I feel we would all be advised to take it.
Obviously if you focus too clearly on his record in office you might notice he has actually achieved very little in nearly a year although, to be fair, he has tweeted a lot. But then again, focus on these and you might spot one or two problems here with tweeting to the right person, about the right event etc.
So my advice to the great British public is, take his advice. Should he ever make his state visit to Britain next year and, heaven help us, be carried along the Mall in a State Coach, if you feel the need to go out and wave at him, feel free to do so. Except, as he gets close to where you are standing, turn and face the other way so as not to focus on him. Have your back to him and, I don't know, look at a wall, he likes those anyway.
If we send him to The Midlands to see how normal people in our country interact, let's all go to Cornwall where he isn't. If we try to make him feel more at home by arranging a visit to the National Shooting Centre at Bisley, let's all go to Cheltenham to watch one of our mean sports like Croquet.
And of course, as you fail to focus on him or turn your back, have your painted slogan ready “DONT FOCUS ON THE POTUS”. I think I now understand how he intends for the Untied States to be great again; by plummeting such depths under him that his successor, whether it be Homer Simpson or Kermit the Frog cannot fail to improve things but, please, don't say I wrote this as I may have just focussed on him a bit too long.
DONT FOCUS ON THE POTUS
