Into the Bowells of the NHS... Part 1

On Tuesday the 28th of November, I embarked on a journey filled with anguish and pain and despair. This journey was of course metaphoric; it was more an 'experience' (maybe involuntary confinement would be a better way to describe it) and it led me into the inner bowells of the England's failing National Health Service; a topic that has sparked much controversy over the past few years.

Before I begin my tale of enlightenment, I must admit that I have never been hospitalised before in my life. I have never had the pleasure of spending time in a dreary hospital so imagine my surprise when the doctors told me I wouldn't be going home that night (or the night after). I did not know what to expect and was curious of my first hand experience with the notorious NHS.

So anyway, to the story...

It all began at school. What started out as nothing turned into laboured breathing and a dull pain spreading through my chest. It was endurable but left me extremely worried; What disease could inflict chest pains but no coughing? I thought of Pneumonia, Tuboculosis, AIDS (don't ask me why. I eventually associate every inexplicable disease to AIDS). I made sure all my friends knew just how much I was suffering.

"You're such a hypercondriac!" Robin complained, before hitting me on the back (to 'relieve' the pain apparently). "If it really hurts so much go to the Office. Atleast then you'd stop bothering me."

I admit, I am a hypercondriac at times. But because I know I'm a hypercondriac, any inexplicable pains are attributed to hypercondria. This pain was horribly real and ominously in the area of my chest. I couldn't take any chances with this.

I excused myself from my maths lesson and went to the Office. The secretaries there were totally unsympathetic and they didn't show the least bit concerned when they told me to wait and I was struggling to breathe. My dad ferried me to the Liverpool Royal Hospital (I was too old for Alder Hay, Liverpool childrens hospital and leading infant organ harvester). This is where my story really begins.

I was admitted into the the emergency unit and told to wait. There were three people waiting with me; Two men and a woman.

Both men were tracksuited and one looked like the father of the other. Occasionally the younger would cry and his father would reassure him (as if he'd just been diagnosed with cancer). The boy was treated like a ten year old and was told to leave his fathers side by the doctors (for reasons I will never know). The woman (I assume) was an alcoholic. Her speech was slurred, her reactions were slow and at times she would just stare blankly, even when the doctor talked to her. The doctor was unimpressed when she claimed she suffered a heart attack and he threatened to call security. Eventually the woman ambled off, possibly in a drunken stupor. I pitied them but I pitied myself more.

Already I'd encountered these two cases they both depressed me immensely. It didn't help that every now and then, crying relatives were ushered past me into a room (I never saw a single person leave).

Eventually, the doctor got to me and I was given a temporary bed where they could examine me. I waited for about three hours. I asked for a sandwich twice and the nurses promised me it would be delivered. I never saw a single sandwich that night.

When the doctor came, he delivered the devastating new that I was to stay the night, "under surveillence". I'd probably have registered less shock if you were to tell me God was real, the apocalyse is next week or that LFC had won the treble.

"I can't. I've got GCSE mocks!" I protested weakly. I knew it was in vain. Since I wasn't old enough to discharge myself, and my condition was serious enough to stay the night, the only people who had control of my situation were the doctors. They were to decide when I was to leave and when not. It was like prison (except with less luxuries).

As I was wheeled to my bed (I had waited three hours and I was put in a room with four free beds. I couldn't understand why I needed to wait so long for an empty room.) The idea of staying the night filled me with dread. I tried to console myself but it was no use. In fact, the only things that kept me going was the guilt my friends would be feeling at this moment, and that I would be able to write about my experiences as soon as I was discharged. Those alone gave me strength to endure the night.

Stay tuned for Part 2.

Scotland: Independant Country?

For some unknown reason, I decided to watch Braveheart sometime ago (there was nothing else on, I swear). Having endured Mel Gibson and his poor Scottish accent long enough I began wondering, if the Scots hate England so much, why be part of the UK?

And now recently, Gordon Brown (a scot) has told the Scottish Labour party independance isn't such a good idea, reiterating what Tony Blair has said about a vote of independance for Scotland and responding to criticism that he is responsible for "Scottish economic underperformance".

Not meaning to sound jingoistic, but if they're going to pin all their problems on England then they can bloody well piss off. What is the point of the United Kingdom if Scotland will just be vying for independance? They wouldn't even agree to a Great Britain football team! How unsupportive can you get?

The only reason Blair/Brown want Scotland to stay is the large share of Labour voters that keep the duo in power. They gave Scottish politicians the right to vote on matters that will not affect their constituencies, how is that fair? Blair gave Scotland its own Parliament and now he's feeling the consequences.

Reasons for Scottish independance:

1. Hatred of the English
2. The English love a joke at Scotlands expense
3. Not in support of GB football team
4. Celtic and Rangers (the dreaded Old Firm)
5. Braveheart
6. Scottish Nationalist Party
7. The country is full of sheep
8. It's a wet and cold place (despite what the "Visit Scotland" advert says)

Strong arguments I think you will find.

How does Scotland actually benefit England? Other than provide Labour with valuable voters? If Scotland wants to become a minor European country than so be it. Give the Scottish a chance to run their own country; Blair gave them a government so why not?

There are two outcomes if independance is given:

Country fails
Scotland is no longer supported by England and fails miserably at the running of their country. Trade and economy become stagnant and basically the whole country goes to pot. Every Englishman laughs. Scottish become butt of all jokes.

Country succeeds
Scotland becomes prosperous and does an Ireland (3rd richest country in the world after independance). Every Englishman becomes incredibly jealous and anti-Scottish sentement rises. But the Scottish have the last laugh as England is left in a dire state (NHS, rising crime etc.)

But to be honest nothing's going to change. All I know is that Braveheart is an awful movie and that Scottish football is dire. If the country can't sort out its football how can it sort out its politics?

Casino Royale - A Review

I have put off writing a review for the new James Bond movie, mainly because I have mixed feelings about the film and I'm not sure whether I like it or not. Or whether Daniel Craig deserved the highly prestigious Bond role.

Having said that, the new Bond film was a vast improvement to the previous James Bond portrayed by Pierce Brosnan (who looks more like an office manager than a tough British agent). Casino Royale has broken from the stereotype of Bond as some womanising, smarmy git with the powers of invincibility; choosing instead to explore Bond's earlier days when he was young and reckless, and most importantly, someone who is indeed vulnerable.

We no longer see the Bond of old, who could cartwheel through an army of machine-gunners, karate chop them all and still look impeccable enough to order a martinee and seduce the fabulously attractive girl sitting opposite. Daniel Craig's Bond shows weaknesses, misjudgements and gets bruised a lot (when has Pierce Brosnan ever had a cut lip let alone a bruise?), he even suffers emotional damage which makes the whole film more interesting and enjoyable.

We won't be seeing this smarmy git anytime soon

Having pointed out the new improvements to Bond, we come the negative aspects of the film.

Despite Daniel Craig's decent portrayal of a more human Bond, I still have my doubts about him. Firstly, he just seems to old. Considering this is a remake of the first Bond movie (and he has just been made 007) he looks remarkably old, which seemed to annoy me a great deal (but most people will get over it I guess).

Secondly, some of his dialogue was totally uninspiring. At times he just droned on and on in his monotone drawl which sickened me greatly. The guy has proved he can do action but I feel that he should give his mouth a rest from time to time, especially when there's dialogue as boring as shown in Casino Royale.

Also, the plot was weak until the end where it became badly cluttered and confusing. They seemed to cram all the twists into the end and none of it was to be expected; the plot gave no clues whatsoever which was a letdown.

Having said that, Casino Royale marks a new era for Bond films and I look forward to the next one. I have no regrets about booting Pierce Brosnan.

On a side note, I actually expected my co-author to write a post on this topic (he is Bond-crazy and probably fantasises about Bond or being Bond). Unfortunately, he was meant to watch it but his dad stood him up, the poor bastard.

A lucrative scheme

After what seems like hundreds of rejections, PayPerPost have finally admitted defeat and accepted me into their amazing lucrative system. Therefore I will start shilling links as soon as possible.

Why have I done this? Am I not selling my soul? Will I be condemned to Blogging Hell for misinforming my readers and posting untruthful comments about the awesomeness of certain products and services? The whole point of this blog was to vent out my hatred for the system and inform the world, how can I do this now if my judgement is clouded with fiscal incentives?

I fear the retribution of my fellow bloggers... What will they think if I shill a link like this: viral marketing ? Will they no longer respect me?

But before you judge me for shamelessly selling out, remember this. I have University to think about.

The measly $10 I get from this post means that:

• I can put off finding a job for about an hour
• It will contribute to 1/10000 of the funds needed for Uni
• I could use it to motivate the blog's co-author, Torquer (or atleast buy a stick to beat him with.)
• my livelihood is supported
• Contributes to my inevitable departure of this "fair" city Liverpool (help me get the hell outta here)

And what do you care anyway? PayPerPost are paying for this blog, something I don't see you doing.

So go to PayPerPost if you wan't to get paid for writing your blog. I love it because it pays me.

Cruel and Unusual Names

The cruelest thing a parent can do, and the easiest way of alienating your child for the rest of their life, is by giving them an unusual name. It is guarenteed that once the child is literate and old enough to understand their parents silly notions, they will attribute every miserable moment of their life to the day their parents decided: "We have ideas above our station, let's name our kids after sci-fi characters and cities and other crazy things just to be different" . Do parents ever consider this, when naming their children "Gandalf"?

Of course, it's not always to be different; it's totally acceptable to name you children after your idols (e.g. calling your child Steven because you are a fan of LFC and like Steven Gerrard). But what happen if your hero has an odd name that people could make fun of? For example Nwankwo Kanu, I love the guy but I wouldn't name any of my kids after him; kids would chase after him chanting n-WANK-wo, n-WANK-wo.

A friend of mine was walking through Toxteth once (how he came out alive I'll never know) and he had overheard a mother, who called to her two girls: "Come back Beyonce! Shakira!" He found it hilarious and when I heard the story I found it vaguely funny as well. Naming one of them after a superstar would be ok, but two.... It just conjures up funny images in peoples minds.

Peaches Honeyblossom Pixie Frou-Frou, Fifi Trixiebell, Heavenly Hiraani Tiger Lily... What was Bob Geldof thinking? They're not yappy little dogs, their your children!

Personally, I blame the celebrities for this naming phenomenon (Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin's daughter Apple... wtf?). These people should be setting an example in naming their children, instead of trying to be different. Surely they must know that whatever they name their children, others will copy it in blind idol worship?

Orlando Bloom... fine I guess. Lourdes Leon (Mad-onna's daughter)... pushing it. What next? Liverpool Johnson?

Sarah Malone, of findmypast.com had this to say about the subject:

"It seems that many of us are happy to take hero worship to a while new level, naming our children adter the stars we admire. It would appear that the British sense of humour is alive and well with Gandalf, Harry Potter and Superman"

Parents should try and exercise this "British humour" more often. I'd love to meet a few Harry Potters (I can just about imagine the fangirls-cum-mothers...). What a laugh that would be!

But the funniest name was that of a James Bond fan (who inspired this post), who recently and officially changed his name to:

James Dr No From Russia With Love Goldfinger Thunderball You Only Live Twice On Her Majesty's Secret Service Diamonds Are Forever Live And Let Die The Man With The Golden Gun The Spy Who Loved Me Moonraker For Your Eyes Only Octopussy A View To A Kill The Living Daylights Licence To Kill Golden Eye Tomorrow Never Dies The World Is Not Enough Die Another Day Casino Royale Bond

How much of a kick could he possibly get from from introducing himself as "Bond, James Bond"? Everyone would think he's a gimp and it'd be a bugger to fill out tax forms.

In conclusion, when I have children I'll give them good, unmockable names. I'll leave the weird names for my pets.

Junkies sent to prison paid for not getting drugs

In what seems to be a momentary lapse of sanity, The British government has decided to to settle out of court by giving drug addicts forced to go 'Cold Turkey' in prison payouts of around £750,000 because of a breach of human rights. Apparently, this will cost the taxpayer less if it weren't drawn out in court.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but did they not forfeit their human rights once they broke the law and took drugs? They can't possibly expect us to treat them humanely if they're in prison. If prison was such a wonderful place; free food, accomodation, drug addiction treatment, library (or so I am told) then we'd be queuing to go there.

The problem is we are spending too much taxpayers money turning our prisons into luxury hotels. Prisoners shouldn't expect to be pampered, they should be reminded that what they did was morally wrong and should therefore be punished. If refusing them of the drugs they so crave (which is what got them in jail in the first pace) is painful for the individual then so be it; you can't say they didn't warn them when they took the drugs in the first place.

These recent events make us question the whole legal system really. Why should they have had the right to take to court something so trivial? Why does it cost so much to tackle the case in court? It seems like the only people benefiting from the human rights acts are criminals and their legal teams.

If you ask me, I should be the one getting the compensation. Valuable money has been spent on these degenerate junkies and I haven't benefited one bit from it (other than the increase in drug related crime and the chavs roaming our streets; which are both associated with drugs and have directly affected me at one point or another). Compensation for all that taxpayer money that has been wasted on losers who take drugs, and the rehab clinics to treat them.

It's time we re-thought the whole human rights act. It seems the only people that benefit from it are the guilty, while the money of the innocent is being spent.

A progess report (that you should probably ignore)

It's been a few months now and the blog certainly seems to be going places. Impressive traffic, rave ratings, a loyal and massive fan base (notice the exaggeration). It seems meaningless just to alert the world of my lacklustre achievements with this blog; however, there was another reason why I wrote this dull post.

the truth is dear bloggers, I have been neglected the main duty of being a blogger, which is to enlighten the world with meaningless gibberish about my loser life. Admittedly, it's hardly worth anything in terms of entertainment value (it fills me with more excitement than watching Newsnight, but only just), but several important events are coming up that are impossible for me to avoid, so I had no choice but to write it all down.

So several events are going to occur in the near future which might render me unable to write, or motivate me to write more (I'm not sure how it's going to turn out at the moment). Here are the several factors that will prevent me writing often from now on:

As you may or may not know, the blog has a guess writer. The lazy bastard hardly wrie anything at all (2 posts in like a month) which has dissapointed me greatly. He clearly does not share the vision I possess so this has depressed me greatly. (I'm not sure what relevance this has the the post but it had to be mentioned, just to shame the lazy git)

The GCSE Mocks are looming. This will probably tie me up for a few weeks time due to revision. Before that time, I will probably put up a half-decent post and keep that on for a about a week. (I may write a post about the Mocks now that I think about it)

PayPerPost have rejected me for the umptienth time... What motivation do I have to write if I'm not getting paid for it?

Medieval 2: Total War - The game has consumed my life. I have lost all will to write and have instead found it far more entertaining to go online and pwn n00bs. Usual service will resume once I get bored of the game.

I'm still not quite sure what the point of this post was, since no one will be interested enough (or have enough understanding) to bother reading it. It reminds me why I post on current affairs and stuff and not my fun-filled life; because no one cares and it's shit.

A new Bible is required

Yesterday, Sir Elton John revealed the shocking revelation that he wanted all organised religions to be banned. When I read the headline, the first thing that went through my mind was: "Is he for real? What new complaint does the loser have now?"

With a face like that, how can you not feel sorry for him?

But having read through the articles, I feel some sympathy towards him.

I know sir Elton is loony and a few pies short of a picnic but for once he has a point. As I was listening to the 5Live phone-in they had some insanely religious fundamentalist Christian woman (you know the type) who was just spreading what can only be described as anti-homosexual propaganda through the airwaves.

What is it with America and their dangerously high number of crazy religious people that follow the bible to each exact word? There's something not right about someone (who's not a priest) who can quote every line from the bible.

I digress. Elton John's idea of banning all religions is ridiculous. It's not like homophobia will go away if there was no religion. Religion is the justification and not the cause, it's crazy right-wing people (from the southern states no doubt) that are the cause (sorry to stereotype... but you have to admit. That's where they all seem to be from). If the last episode of South Park has taught us anything it's that there will always be hatred/violence etc. even without religion. It's human nature.

And the Bible's outdated; we just can't relate to it anymore. The bible preaches to love your neighbour but what if he's gay? A paradox is it not?

My solution to making Elton John shut up and solving the problems of America's fanatic religious population would be to publish a new updated bible.

It'd need to be shorter, easier to interpret and filled with a lot less confusing crap. Also cut out all the genesis crap, can't be just come to a compromise and say God created evolution? Let's be cool about this people.

We could change it gradually, so no one notices.

If it'll make American zealots shut up, isn't it worth it?

Mid-Term Elections: A British Perspective

I'll be frank, I could find nothing satirical about the Mid-Term elections to write about. But being such a huge topic at the moment, it seemed impossible to ignore (what with the landmark victory for the Democrats, new era for America etc.). But also, being British, I know huge amounts about the negative aspects of American politics and very little about the positive aspects of it.

Therefore imagine my shock when something seemingly good for American politics actually occurs.

I use the word seemingly because there are a number of things that don't seem quite right. It makes no sense that Bush should still be President after the elections. He lost didn't he? So why aren't the Democrats in power? It doesn't seem logical. And if the Democrats own both the House and the Senate, does that mean Bush and his cronies face an army of liberals when making policies?


Then there's foreign policy. What will this do to Anglo-American relations? Will we see less arse-licking from Blair? I vaguely remember someone saying something about the Democrats changing the Iraq policy. I'm not sure if that's a good or bad thing; on one hand it might mean the beginning of the end of American occupation, on the other hand it could mean England are left to deal with the shit-storm of unrest by themselves.

The Democrats aren't exactly a bundle of joy either. The thought of Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy and John "Couldn't Beat Bush" Kerry in positions of power do not fill me with much enthusiasm. They are all extremely boring people, atleast with Bush he'd give the world something to laugh at (and take the heat from America), while John Kerry is a boring twat with the personality of stale cheese.

So to summarise... the nasty evil right-wing Republican bastards have been replaced with the kickass super awesome right-wing Democrats... Somehow I don't envisage much change in the future.

It kinda reminds me of British politics really.

Which is the one on the right?

Poppy: Red or White?

Apparently a question that has been raging for years. A religious think-tank has recently claimed that that red poppies sold to commemorate those who died in WWI are "less religious" to the white poppies being sold and that people should be able to choose between white and red ones. This has added fuel to the fire of the debate over wearing religion items (veils/crosses etc.).

The director of Ekklesia, Jonathan Bartley, said people should be able to choose between red or white ones.

He added red poppies implied redemption through war, but Christianity seeks redemption through non-violence. White ones were created to symbolise peace.

I didn't even know that white poppies existed and even if I did, I would still choose the red poppy. Not because of any religious implications but because the red poppies grew on Flanders fields and inspired Rememberance Day.


John Bartley clearly does not know what he's talking about. Red was the colour of the poppies on Flanders field, it has nothing to do with redemption whatsoever. The poppy has never been religious symbol (this is the first time I've heard of anyone considering it as one). It seems like Mr. Bartley has completely plucked this idea out of the air.

We would be missing the point if we read anything into the colour. The poppy has always been a reminder of the war so what does the colour matter? Mr. Bartley seems to be forgetting that the poppy is to help those that fought in the war and not some religious item to flaunt. The white poppy promotes peace but raises no money for those that fought in the war so why should people be wearing it for a day that remembers the soldiers that fought in the war?

If the colour of the poppy is why we wear it then we have definitely lost our way. From what I understand of the white poppy, it was created as an anti-war symbol to divert money from the veterans; which is totally inappropriate and immoral, especially since it will be for Rememberance Day. The white poppy is totally ridiculous and it would be a mockery to the veterans if it were sold.

Less globally, my school had a Rememberance Day assembly. Like the white poppy, it was incredibly stupid. Had any veterans turned up to watch they would be seething with rage at the disrespect my school showed with its lack of effort. No one sang or bothered to look as if they cared. Not that my school doesn't like war veterans; they just hate assemblies.

Human-Cow Embryos

Scientists from Newcastle (of all places) have recently applied for permission to develop stem cell research and fuse human DNA with Cow eggs. Since there's so much controversy over stem cells as it is, was it really such a good idea to bring up plans to create living things (if only for a few days) that are half-human half-cow?

At first, the idea horrified me. It all made sense once I had soaked in the facts and reassured myself that the world will not be taken over by armies of mutant humanoid-bovine freaks enslaving the human populance.


But what if the research were to fall into the hands of some crazy scientics who were to develop the cells further? Before you know it we'll have modern day minotaurs floating in sealed glass containers filled with luminous green liquids. They'll have the strength of an oxe, the intelligence of a chimp (we are being realistic here) and horns to gorge us with (and win head-butting competitions).

We'll think we have them under our control then before you know it they'll have burst out of their transparent cages, killed their makers and escape, leaving a path of distruction in their wake.


Then we'll have a Frankensteinesque situation on our hands. The new creations won't understand why we have brought them into society and once they find out our purpose for them was simply to harvest their stem cells to cure our incurable diseases, they'll be extremely pissed and start smashing things. Be warned, these things are known to happen (in movies) so if the situation does occur, you heard it here first.

If you think the idea of cow-men a bit too unrealistic, you must agree there is a possibility of unknown diseases developing. Since we are harvesting the bovine-human stem cells and eventually implanting them into humans is it not possible that people with the cells begin developing bovine traits? If you don't believe me click here.

And what about Bovine Flu? I heard it has the potential to be ten times as deadly as avian bird flu with the added edge of mad cow disease and/or foot and mouth disease. Since bird flu caused such mass hysteria why not bovine flu? It does exist doesn't it?

If you want evidence of the devastating effects of hydrid diseases you should watch Mission Impossible III.

But perhaps, as far-fetched as it sounds, the cells will function just as normal as any other stem cells do and won't create monsters capable of taking over the world. Since the cells are in such short supply, I think we can risk developing hybrid supercows for now.

Social Degeneration: Chavs

Definition of Chav: Burberry-wearing, bling-loving, Lacoste-tracksuited degenerate tossers. (If you're American, think a wigga obsessed with Burberry and fake tan)

It was only a few years ago when Chavs did not roam the earth and we were free to walk down dark back-alleys, hold our heads up high and not be intimidated by gangs of youths with nothing better to do than chain-smoke, vandalise and procreate in the streets before binge-drinking and passing out on the curb. Then when morning breaks, society will pick their disgusting forms out of the gutter and fix them up again for another night filled with violence and vices.

So it is definitely fair to say these low-lifes are the scum of the earth, and deserve to be forced to work camps to repay society for the damage caused by their random acts of violence and vandalism. However, what seems like an incredibly simple solution (lock them up and make pay back their debt to us) has been horribly dealt with by the government. So much so that the Chav population is actually rising.

But have no fear. Our saviour, David Cameron has reacted to protest at rising young offenders:

Young offenders should be shown "a lot more love" in an effort to encourage good behaviour, Conservative leader David Cameron has said.

He called for a more understanding approach as to why youths committed crimes in the first place. They must have counselling, education and training, he told the Youth Justice Board's annual convention in Cardiff.

The Tory leader suggested that children should receive "tough love" and, in turn, have "high standards" asked of them.

This was not the same as "sentimental, childish love which sees no wrong in anyone", he added.

Handing out anti-social behaviour orders (Asbos) to young people or putting them in custody was "reacting" to crime, not "reducing" it, Mr Cameron said, and many institutions had become "social dustbins".

Oh I see... We should go around loving and embracing the Chavs! It seems ridiculous to pour taxpayers money into more counselling and education for a bunch of degenerates who clearly do not appreciate our help, and would rather be drinking cheap cider and vomitting on the pavement. It'd be a bigger money-waster than the NHS Blackhole.

But then again, I'm just a kid, what would I know about issues like politics and stuff? Dave Cameron clearly understands these things better than I do because he's such a "hip" and "cool" Tory.

If you ask me, the problem would be easily solved if there was a revamp in the youth justice system. If Chavs really think a ASBO was like a knighthood then the only solution is to scrap a system that doesn't work and replace it with a system that does. What I suggest is that anyone found passed out wearing Burberry should be rounded up and sent to a Brat Camp/juvenile delinquency center to work until they show some sense and willing to contribute to society (instead of dropping out of school and living off the dole). And if that doesn't work, use them as an alternative fuel to burn.

But at the moment, the situation will only worsen before it gets any better. Hopefully there will be a day when people can walk down the street without fear of being mugged by a twerp in a hoodie at knife point or happy-slapped on a double-decker bus. Until then, I shall think twice about walking walking alone in the dark.

Craven Cottage Prison?

Last weekend's Premiership game between Fulham and Everton was unfortunately marred by the throwing of a 10 pence piece by a member of the crowd at Claus Jensen when he was due to take a corner. Incidentally, the match ended 1:0 in Fulham's favour and they took all three points. After the match, Fulham coach Chris Coleman spoke out against fans who lob stuff onto the pitch, calling them to be immediately identified, fined and sent to prison.

Chris Coleman warns people to stop wasting their money on his cash-strapped club

Similarly, although with no link to the 'beautiful' game, an independent think-tank (blast their hides, always stirring up controversy) complained of the lack of life skills pupils get during their secondary education. They claimed that teenagers left to their own devices when leaving school could be at risk due to not being able to prepare simple food and complete menial household tasks. How hard can it be to open a tin of beans, or, for the more culinarily advanced such as myself, whack up a quick risotto. As for household tasks, there can only be one way to hold a vacuum cleaner, surely? This panel of so-called 'experts' also expressed their heart-felt concerns that children are being left without the necessary communication skills in an increasingly global environment. In my view, the Internet, MSN, mobile phones and email have left us increasingly communicative. Not necessarily a good thing if you like a bit of peace and quiet. This think-tank pushed for the introduction of longer school days with more of an emphasis on skills rather than qualifications. Not exactly what you need when faced with an increasingly ignorant nation.

Alarmingly, they also suggested that any parent or guardian who does not wish their child attend these after school 'lessons' should be fined and imprisoned. With the current jail overcrowding and pressure on the Home Office, this is probably not the best way to alleviate the problems of poor communication and 'bored' teenagers with more ASBOs than years. Alternatively, perhaps John Reid is considering converting Craven Cottage in a new super-prison for vicious coin-throwers and deadly after-school club avoiders? This would solve three problems with one extensively delayed and expensive contracted mess. On the positive side, it would have a capacity of nearly 40,000 and as for the criminals, surely the best exercise yard in the whole of Europe?

Saddam: Death Sentence Unfair?

Another day, another tyrant brought to justice by the Americans. Only this morning, the BBC announced that Saddam Hussien was guilty for crimes against humanity and was sentenced to death by hanging. Although he was a dictator and killed hundreds of his people (but the Americans have killed more), the whole trial was a fiasco and he was convicted for totally the wrong reasons.

First the Americans, in fear of communism, "assisted" the Ba'ath Party who overthrew the Quassim's party in a military coup. Saddam Hussien had been part of an assasination attempt on Prime Minister Quassim, backed by (who else but) the Americans. If anything it should be the Americans that should be punished for putting the Iraqi people under Saddam and the Ba'ath Party's regime.

In 2003, after 9/11 America wanted a foothold in the Middle East so accused Saddam of links with Al-Quaeda (although we later found out Saddam was too snobbish to collaborate with them) and accused the country of developing weapons of mass destruction. The mission, suitably codenamed "Operation Iraqi Freedom" (ironic considering it was the Americans that took it away) was to bring down Saddam Hussein and strip him of the massive stash of biological and chemical weapons he possessed.

So after lots of bombing of innocent people, lots of deaths of British/American soldiers the Americans find Saddam hiding out in a cave and drag him out to face true American justice.

The US then set up a court with no credibility whatsoever (anyone found sympathetic towards Saddam was taken off the court). Saddam himself claimed he had been tortured but this was denied by the Americans who claimed there was no evidence (but of course).

And that brings us to today. Saddam has been convicted, conveniently just before the mid-term elections. Huzzah and hurrah to the Republicans who brought him to justice!

Double Standard: Tyrant convicted of crimes against humanity sentenced to hanging, a crime against humanity.

Saddam did commit many atrocities in his time but he did not recieve a fair trail. The Americans went into Iraq and arrested him on trumped up charges (to this day no weapons of mass distruction were ever discovered. Except for a few bags of fertiliser), put infront of a kangaroo court and convicted solely for the Republican election campaign.

But Iraq is now in turmoil without Saddam, the only one who can control them. Democracy has really triumphed over there, with looting, violence, no law and order. The Americans cared too much about Iraq's precious oil to be bothered to set up a system to keep the peace.

If I remember correctly, the Americans dismantled the police in Iraq and also the military. So no law and order but lots of angry Iraqis with access to military weapons? Great idea Bush.

But as the Americans will say. Justice has been done. They've got their precious oil and a boost in the mid-term elections, no one will care when they bugger off and leave Iraq in the state it's in now. So who will pick up the pieces?

Helium and PayPerPost

What are Helium and PayPerPost? What do they have in common with me?

Both claim to be able to pay me to write which is probably the closest I will ever get to becoming a journalist (so am I a freelance journalist now?). This is how it should be really since the thought of a life long career in journalism does not have me jumping for joy, considering how much I love to write.

I guess this is the perfect compromise: Since few people frequent this blog anyway it wouldn't really matter if I sold out and started shilling links. I get motivated and paid while you occasionally get to read something good.

So why do I feel so bad about doing it? Helium is perfectly fine since I'm posting on another website so doesn't affect this one (unless I post something really good and link to it) but it's PayPerPost that's the problem.

PayPerPost works in the way that bloggers are paid to write articles on their blog advertising products/services etc. The problem I have with this is would I be selling out and losing the soul of the blog? For a (relatively) lucrative salary would I be forsaking everything I stand for? Would I no longer be able to command the respect of my fellow bloggers?

But then I thought, who cares? What's the point of having a popular blog if I'm not going to make any money out of it? All great TV channels have ads (except the BBC but then there's TV license, I can't exactly charge all my readers to read this blog. It isn't good enough yet) and I've got University to think about.

So expect some extremely biased posts in the future. A word of warning, I would give any post a miss that has the label "product".

BitTorrent - The Modern Day Robin Hood

Probably the best invention after the Internet. Taker from the rich and giver to the poor, BitTorrent has enriched everyone's life with free entertainment. Mostly poor quality mp3's that cause your speakers to explode and your ipod inplode, or perhaps shaky footage films with shadows of people walking out of the cinema. My personal favourite are the games that are five gigabites and wouldn't occupy anyones interest for more than five minutes.

Let's not forget the risk of a computer riddled with viruses; subscribing you to endless pornographic sites, emailing your billing information to Nigeria and setting fire to your hardware. But like Robin Hood there are risks to what they do.

It's a tough world, peddling illegal goods over cyberspace. It seems strange that total strangers would risk life and limb (with no benefits to themselves other than thousand pound fines) to give ungrateful bastards like us the chance to swindle musicians, actors, game developers out of their livelihood.

You might get the impression I am against theft over the internet such as this. Well you're wrong.

It seems unfair that we should pay for the mediocrity produced by the entertainment industry, most of whom are incredibly rich and famous. Who cares if Bono can't afford another diamond studded guitar if I download "How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb"? Or if Madonna can't buy herself another baby if I don't buy one of her shitty songs?

These people don't need your money. Infact, the only people I do feel slight sympathy towards are the game developers (who do not lead superstar lifestyles. If anything I pity their lonely nerdy lives). But the feeling quickly passes.

But many people don't want us to enjoy the wonders of this uncontrollable, illegal, and possibly dangerous system so that money stays with the industry and lines the pockets of the fat cats (and funds a new Armarni suit for Jay-Z).

These people have clearly never enjoyed the wonders of enjoying mediocre stuff without the regret of paying for something so ordinary. Had there been no BitTorrent, I would not be playing Football Manager 2007 right now.

So if you excuse me, I have some files to download.

The Secret Policemans' Ball

Yesterday Amnesty International revived The Secret Policemans' Ball... How could it live up to the standard set by Cleese and co.? The truth is it didn't.

The show started off strong with a good performance of stand up from Eddie Izzard. Jon Culshaw and Ronny Ancora did some excellent impressions (as usual) and a cameo performance from Natalie Imbruglia in a routine with Dave Armand was surprisingly entertaining. New-comer Andrew Maxwell was incredibly funny although his stand-up was sadly short-lived.

But who ever cares about the things that go right? The following acts were a serious let-down:

Al Murray - He performed his very British (shitty) Pub Landlord act but added a pantomine twist to it. Since he's a crap comedian to begin with it doesn't really matter.

Russel Brand - I grudgingly admit that his stand-up was pretty decent last night. However, he still sounds like a prat and looks like a prat.

There was also a really poor manor houses sketch where they basically paraded some semi-famous British comedians and some no-mark actors (mostly from Greenwing).

But it was the Americans that were the real let-down:

Chevy Chase - What's he famous for? His sketch was a total dissapointment, especially since it was meant to be one of the highlights of the show. Even Seth Green couldn't improve it.

Jimmy Falon - Another no-mark American loser. After watching Jon Culshaw and Ronni Ancora, his impressions were unimpressive. Even Barry off Eastenders was funnier (and he only got about 5 lines).

Sarah Silverman - Highly anticipated act gone horribly wrong (another "famous" name I've never heard of). Her stand-up probably generated the least laughs, mainly because she failed when talking about controversial issues like racism, rape, abuse (some of the easiest topics to make funny). If she wants to succeed at stand-up she should take lessons from Eddie Izzard.

What Silverman thought of her act last night

Since all the American acts sucked, this could only mean American humour is shit (which is a relief since Britain are finally good at something).

Oh and the musical acts were surprising. They weren't bad but the Zutons and Magic Numbers? You would expect U2, oasis or some other big name bands to grace the show.

So The Secret Policemans' Ball was an utter letdown. But also American comedians are rubbish.