More Ranting

As far as this writer is concerned there are always suitable subjects for rage, angst, grief etc.

First, how I loathe the clichés used by politicians viz: "In real terms since 1979/1997/2010;" in response to any question: "What is important..." and currently, the infuriating expression "Hard-working families."  Grrr.

Second, bloody religion.  The Sunni versus Shia battles - these people are even worse than the Prods and Caatholics in Ireland.  Stupid, stupid people.  Grrr.

Third, the decline and progressive emaciation of the English language.  The Daily Telegraph seems no longer to be able to distinguish between the noun "licence" and the verb "to license," and also the difference between "complimentary" and "complementary."  Pathetic.  Grrr.

Fourth, with the wonderful exception of the excellent Catherine Edwards ("Roman Women" BBC4) the apparent enthusiasm of the BBC to recruit and employ persons who are incapable of speaking clearly.  Dreadful accents abound and also other solecisms - e.g. some "live" correspondent referred the other day to "several cup-of-teas."  Such people are as unsuited to appearing on broadcast media as say, Lord (John) Prescott.  

We have:

• the appalling Americanism "impact" meaning "affect" (why?) 
• the irritating expression "leverage" pronounced incorrectly (meaning what?)
• weather forecasters who warn us about "claads" and "shaas," others referring to "yeees."
• the horrid term "going forward"

Fifth, sentimental treatment of little furry animals - e.g. the badger cull row.  I do enjoy "Springwatch" on the television (despite the grating accents of the very highly expert presenters) but their glamorisation of foxes makes my blood boil.  Had I land of my own, I would certainly devote a meadow to wild flowers to encourage the bees etc. and take care of my woodland, but I would also have a shot-gun and any fox that stuck its murderous head up would have it blown off.  Sadly that traitor Blair banned hunting.  I have never forgiven these horrible creatures for the slaughter of my beloved hens in France.

Grrr, grrr, grrr, grrr, grrr.

Until the next time.

Always News In England

Of course the title refers to the great British subject, the weather.

Yes, an impartial observer could be forgiven for thinking that here in Britain the weather - at any time of the year - seems to take us by surprise; and the newspapers are well aware of the fact and love to exploit it with headlines such as 'Phew what a scorcher!' and 'The Big Freeze.' etc.

Well quelle surprise! It's January and temperatures have dropped, concern has been expressed that old people may suffer - fair enough - but in truth it's unlikely to be much less than -4 degrees.  There's nothing new in low temperatures in January, so why the panic?

Even worse are the general pathetic attitudes that seem to prevail here: a year or two ago buses were not running because the roads were a bit icy; really - this in a city where buses ran throughout the second world war...

For six years I lived in France at an altitude of 800 metres - about 2600 feet; it was normal in the winter for the temperature to drop to -15 degrees and I recall a week when the highest temperature was -5, this accompanied by up to two feet of snow.  Nobody was surprised: it was the winter; trains and buses ran, the farmers kept the roads clear. I ask again, why is the winter a surprise here?

And in today's Daily Telegraph it is reported that 29% of parents will ban their children from playing outside in the cold weather as it is seen as 'too dangerous.'

As pathetic as the photograph I once saw of children wearing safety goggles whilst playing conkers.

I genuinely fear for the future.

Until the next time.

They Say...

That they're protesting about the ban on the niquab - the silly headgear that unfortunate women are required to wear under the rules of their 6th century religion.

I rather like to think that it makes the oppressive uniform look pretty silly too:

Thanks to the Daily Telegraph for this one. 

Until the next time

Jacksonballs III

Luxurious: Image: Daily Telegraph

Well, it seems that I misunderstood the Telegraph's article to which I referred in my article last Saturday. Today the Jacksongraph says that Jackson's coffin cost £15,000, so I suppose they meant $25,000 in the previous piece.

Still an enormous waste of money - unless of course one is in the entertainment business!

Until the next time.

Jacksonballs II - A Question of Taste

London's Daily Telegraph, is it seems, continuing its trend - and no doubt fulfilling its editor's ambition - to becoming the most "dumbed-down" newspaper in Great Britain; it should rename itself The Daily Jacksongraph.

It is possible that in the paragraph above, I have maligned unfairly the current editor: perhaps he is required to act at the behest of the rather sinister owners, the strange Barclay twins. Nevertheless it would be something if they could make an effort to correct all the appalling typos (and poor grammar) that appear at least on the website.

Bizarre: The Barclay Twins. Picture source: This London

Yesterday the Telegraph reported that Jackson is to be buried in a "$25,0000" (sic) coffin. As this coffin, which rejoices in the name "Promethean," is made of bronze, gold-plated and lined with blue velvet to boot, I suppose that the price is $250,000.

The "Promethean" Coffin. Image: Daily Telegraph

This revolting extravagant display puts me in mind of two anecdotes.

First, following a visit to the home in Nashville of Ike and Tina Turner, a journalist was asked his opinion of the place. He replied "Incredible, I would not have thought it possible to spend three million dollars at Woolworths."

Second is a report I once read in a newspaper, of a man who left in his will £25 to "anyone who after my cremation, will deposit my ashes in the nearest convenient dustbin."

Now THAT was style.

Until the next time

Another look at North Korea

In my recent piece about this secretive, pariah nation, the last Stalinist State in the world, I observed that North Korea is starving its population to build nuclear weapons and missiles.

Recent research however suggests that the "Dear Leader," Kim Jong-Il and the elite of the régime are managing to live very luxurious lives - whilst the remainder of the population relies on food aid. These facts are revealed by an organisation called North Korea Uncovered which has done a great deal of research about this mysterious state. I came across this via an article in the Daily Telegraph. The Telegraph piece includes a slide show which is well worth a look.

In my recent article I referred to the "deeply unattractive Kim Jong-Il, and so he is, but how about this fine fellow? He is the Dear Leader's eldest son, Kim Jong-nam and a possible candidate for the succession. A delightful prospect.

Picture source: Reuters-JNN via Daily Telegraph

Of course looks aren't everything are they? Perhaps he isn't a paranoid maniac?

Until the next time

More Rubbish

It is reported today in the Daily Telegraph that a former BMI (British Midland Airways) stewardess, one Miss Lisa Ashton, has been sacked by the airline.

She lost her job because, outrageously in my view, she was required by her employer to wear a demeaning garment called an abaya (in plain black too) and walk behind all men regardless of their rank, when on duty in Saudi Arabia. An abaya in this case is a robe that covers the entire body except the face, so at least it is not as absurd as a "burkha," however there are abayas that cover the face, leaving only the eyes visible.  When I lived in West London, I used to see women dressed in these - enough to give one nightmares frankly.  In my search for the image reproduced below, I found that there are abayas whose appearance is improved by decorative embroidery.  Perhaps BMI should issue them decorated with the airline's logo?!

An abaya.  Image source: The Muslim Boutique

There are two points here. First, it is awful I think that such orders be issued by an employer; second, there is no law in Saudi Arabia that requires the wearing of this bizarre costume and neither is there a regulation requiring women to walk behind men.

Even more depressing, a British employment tribunal has upheld the company's decision.  The Telegraph article reports: It ruled there was no evidence that women would regard BMI's requirements on wearing the abaya, or walking behind men, as "placing them under any disadvantage."

The article quotes Miss Ashton as saying: "It's not the law that you have to walk behind men in Saudi Arabia, or that you have to wear an abaya, and I'm not going to be treated as a second-class citizen," she said.  "It's outrageous. I'm a proud Englishwoman and I don't want these restrictions placed on myself." 

Miss Ashton has contacted the human rights organisation, Liberty and may also seek a judicial review.

I for one, wish her the best of luck.

Until the next time.