Crushes. Attractions we have to others but rarely act upon. Flirtations perhaps. Why do we have them? What makes us form them? At the very base of it, what are they?
Let's start by trying to define what a romantic crush is a bit more tightly. It's a form of romantic attraction. Certainly part of it is physical but I'm willing to bet that, if you're honest, there will be a lot of fantasy involved too. Generally the object of one's attention/affection is one's "type" but unavailable either because they have a pre-existing partner (usually irritatingly perfect or complete fuckwit, no middle ground) or because they are out of your league (although only just - frustrating).
I would say that to be a bona fide crush, the person in question has to be known to you. Two categories present themselves here. The first is someone you know. You have perhaps known them for years and probably found them extremely attractive for a decent part of that. Because you know them, you are well aware of all their good points and either blind to their bad points or don't know them well enough for the bad points to reveal themselves. If fate is being particularly cruel then you will know them sufficiently well to be party to their stories of their partner's failings or their deep desire to get a partner... usually with all the qualities you think you can offer. A good example of this kind of crush is Simon in the Inbetweeners with Carli next door.
The second type is a bit less tangible. Again they are know to you but not nearly as well. They may be a friend of a friend or someone you are in a class with. You see them from afar but never really get to know them beyond the occasional, brief, conversational exchange. To compensate for this lack of knowledge, one compensates by filling in the gaps with one's imagination. As a result, they become little short of perfect; no bad habits, irritating friends, interfering mothers, etc. Of course they will find you utterly wonderful and adore you unquestioningly.
In short, both are pictures of perfection so close but just beyond reach and it's probably because they are just out of reach that they are so enticing.
So what's the point in them? Most people, if they're honest would never dream of acting on a crush either because we know, deep down, that it isn't meant to happen or for fear unnerving the object of our affection. I think people form crushes because humans are naturally romantics at heart and crushes form an outlet for this. A treat for the mind when one's romantic real life is less than rosy and a distraction from reality is needed.
Well that's my take anyway!
JR
Sunday 30 September 2012
Friday 28 September 2012
Living the James Bond Lifestyle
It's almost upon us. Skyfall is a mere weeks away from being released. The James Bond franchise has been with us for fifty years. All in all this is something of a momentous year in history. As you can probably guess, I'm rather excited by the whole thing.
Now to the point of the post; a quick guide to living the James Bond lifestyle. There have been several books written on this subject by terribly knowledgeable authors. They are all well worth a read. Each one offers a slightly different perspective and slightly different advice. None are what I would call definitive; but then again the following paragraphs won't be either. The main reason for this is that Bond himself was written to be a blank canvass. Someone to project yourself on to rather than the other way round and as such the interpretation of his lifestyle is almost endlessly variable. But let's have a go anyway.
It would be easy to say that in order to live the Bond lifestyle one simply has to go for the best of everything. This is true to a point but is also a bit of an over-simplification. To start with, these days it's not quite as easy to work out what the best is. Back when Bond existed only between the pages of book and his early forays into film Rolex made the best watches, Turnbull and Asser the best shirts, Gieves and Hawkes the best suits and Rolls Royce the best cars. It was, to an extent, that simple. Dapper gentlemen such as Bond would sport these items like a uniform. Of course deviation was possible but there was limited scope and even more limited desire.
Nowadays identifying the best is getting a lot more complicated. A very simplistic idea could be to go for the most expensive but that, I think, would go against the spirit of what is trying to be achieved. Bond was in the fortunate position of never really being short of money. That said, he was most certainly not what could be called wealthy. Therefore the most expensive option may well not have been the most sensible option for him. Not only that, but expensive these days can often mean ostentatious: something which both Bond and Fleming hated.
The films could always be used as a guide however I'm sure we are all wise to the concept of product placement. That's not to say that the products used aren't good ones - they usually are - but they often lack "Bondness" for want of a better term. For example, I find it rather hard to believe Bond would write with a Parker Jotter (although conversely I think the choice of a ball pen rather than a fountain pen was a good one). Equally his choice of a BMW Z3/Z8 in the late '90s was a bit far fetched even then. Before I sound like I am having a go at the Pierce Brosnan era, the safari suits and digital watches of the Roger Moor era stretched credibility a bit too. Even if product placement is excluded, recently items have been chosen for availability rather than because they're the best. The strongest example of this is the suits worn by Bond from Goldeneye onwards. Most come from the Italian firm Brioni. Now they undoubtedly make excellent suits but the main reason they were chosen was because they had the capacity to make sufficient numbers of garments for filming. The numbers vary for each film but essentially, Bond needs several copies of the same suit to withstand the rigours of filming.
Right, that's how not to do it. How does one create one's own Bond lifestyle then?
My first piece of advice is know yourself. Bond is a man who knows what he likes and isn't afraid to ask for it (while still being open to trying new things). Therefore, you need to get to develop your own preferences based on your tastes and budget. This applies to pretty much everything from how you take your coffee (and indeed which coffee you drink) to which watch you wear and everything you can think of in between. It doesn't have to be expensive, it doesn't even have to be the one Bond himself uses it needs to be your personal preference. An integral part of Bond's character is that he takes pleasure from detail and having things 'just so'. By developing this attribute in yourself, I think you are then well on the way to creating your Bond-esque existence.
All that sounds a bit wooly and nebulous? Let me try and boil down a few key points.
Clothing. Always opt for the smarter end of the dress code whatever the event. Don't be afraid of wearing a tie (you can always take it off and put it in your pocket). Go for classic style rather than fashion a) it has more Bondness and b) it allows you to invest slightly more knowing that items purchased will have a longer lifespan. Develop your own style be that single/double breasted, cufflinks, tie pins or a host of other little flourishes. Trainers however can stay in the shop. If you're on an extremely tight budget, have a look in both charity shops and vintage shops. Often high-end items can be picked up for fractions of their original price; go for classic styles and the fact that they are older won't show.
Accessories. As a rule go for functional elegance. Bond's gunmetal cigarette case is a case and point. It's not going to be shiny or particularly pretty but it will get the job done and it won't look out of place either in a suit pocket or in less formal settings. The same is true of his watch. Throughout the books and the first few films he wears a Rolex Oyster initially on a military canvass strap then later on a metal strap (usually stainless steel). This again lacks ostentation but is still elegant. Avoid bling at all costs. however conversely, bear in mind that just because it is useful, doesn't mean it can't look good. Think about investing in good every day items such as wallet, pen and watch which will reflect your personality (and no doubt your elegant, suave self!).
Food and drink. This is where knowing what you like and dislike will really come into play. It is also where you have to be most open to trying new things. I think the main key to this is learning the basics. For example, learning the basics of flavour combinations will allow you to look at a menu and understand a bit about what the dish will be like. This will then allow you to order confidently and, if you know the company you're in or are a good judge of people, order on behalf of others too. Similarly, knowing the basics of wine will allow you to navigate a wine list with confidence. By this I mean have a rough understanding of different regions and different grape characteristics. Learning a few key words and their real world meanings will allow you to order wines to go with situations with aplomb. Do the same for other drinks and you can be confident that you will come across as knowledgeable and sophisticated. Being aware of which drinks are appropriate in which occasions will also help meaning you avoid any faux pas. When making choices, be prepared to justify them and explain them; this will mean you don't look like you're pulling things out of mid-air and hoping for the best. The other key element here is being prepared to try suggestions made by others. Even if you don't think you will like them, give it a go and see. You might be pleasantly surprised, you might not be but try it anyway.
Right, that covers a lot of major lifestyle areas and conveys the main points. To recap, you want to look elegant and sophisticated without appearing bawdy or ostentatious and you want to appear knowledgeable and sophisticated without being geeky or overbearing. Ultimately, you want to be able to either have a valid opinion to give or be confident enough in your own tastes to form one swiftly. These principals can be carried forward to almost all situations, the key is doing some research before hand so you can go into the situation with a bit of knowledge about you. When Bond was first created a great general knowledge would have been essential together with an ability to learn things quickly. Today we are lucky... we have Wikipedia!
Hope you enjoyed.
R... JR!
Now to the point of the post; a quick guide to living the James Bond lifestyle. There have been several books written on this subject by terribly knowledgeable authors. They are all well worth a read. Each one offers a slightly different perspective and slightly different advice. None are what I would call definitive; but then again the following paragraphs won't be either. The main reason for this is that Bond himself was written to be a blank canvass. Someone to project yourself on to rather than the other way round and as such the interpretation of his lifestyle is almost endlessly variable. But let's have a go anyway.
It would be easy to say that in order to live the Bond lifestyle one simply has to go for the best of everything. This is true to a point but is also a bit of an over-simplification. To start with, these days it's not quite as easy to work out what the best is. Back when Bond existed only between the pages of book and his early forays into film Rolex made the best watches, Turnbull and Asser the best shirts, Gieves and Hawkes the best suits and Rolls Royce the best cars. It was, to an extent, that simple. Dapper gentlemen such as Bond would sport these items like a uniform. Of course deviation was possible but there was limited scope and even more limited desire.
Nowadays identifying the best is getting a lot more complicated. A very simplistic idea could be to go for the most expensive but that, I think, would go against the spirit of what is trying to be achieved. Bond was in the fortunate position of never really being short of money. That said, he was most certainly not what could be called wealthy. Therefore the most expensive option may well not have been the most sensible option for him. Not only that, but expensive these days can often mean ostentatious: something which both Bond and Fleming hated.
The films could always be used as a guide however I'm sure we are all wise to the concept of product placement. That's not to say that the products used aren't good ones - they usually are - but they often lack "Bondness" for want of a better term. For example, I find it rather hard to believe Bond would write with a Parker Jotter (although conversely I think the choice of a ball pen rather than a fountain pen was a good one). Equally his choice of a BMW Z3/Z8 in the late '90s was a bit far fetched even then. Before I sound like I am having a go at the Pierce Brosnan era, the safari suits and digital watches of the Roger Moor era stretched credibility a bit too. Even if product placement is excluded, recently items have been chosen for availability rather than because they're the best. The strongest example of this is the suits worn by Bond from Goldeneye onwards. Most come from the Italian firm Brioni. Now they undoubtedly make excellent suits but the main reason they were chosen was because they had the capacity to make sufficient numbers of garments for filming. The numbers vary for each film but essentially, Bond needs several copies of the same suit to withstand the rigours of filming.
Right, that's how not to do it. How does one create one's own Bond lifestyle then?
My first piece of advice is know yourself. Bond is a man who knows what he likes and isn't afraid to ask for it (while still being open to trying new things). Therefore, you need to get to develop your own preferences based on your tastes and budget. This applies to pretty much everything from how you take your coffee (and indeed which coffee you drink) to which watch you wear and everything you can think of in between. It doesn't have to be expensive, it doesn't even have to be the one Bond himself uses it needs to be your personal preference. An integral part of Bond's character is that he takes pleasure from detail and having things 'just so'. By developing this attribute in yourself, I think you are then well on the way to creating your Bond-esque existence.
All that sounds a bit wooly and nebulous? Let me try and boil down a few key points.
Clothing. Always opt for the smarter end of the dress code whatever the event. Don't be afraid of wearing a tie (you can always take it off and put it in your pocket). Go for classic style rather than fashion a) it has more Bondness and b) it allows you to invest slightly more knowing that items purchased will have a longer lifespan. Develop your own style be that single/double breasted, cufflinks, tie pins or a host of other little flourishes. Trainers however can stay in the shop. If you're on an extremely tight budget, have a look in both charity shops and vintage shops. Often high-end items can be picked up for fractions of their original price; go for classic styles and the fact that they are older won't show.
Accessories. As a rule go for functional elegance. Bond's gunmetal cigarette case is a case and point. It's not going to be shiny or particularly pretty but it will get the job done and it won't look out of place either in a suit pocket or in less formal settings. The same is true of his watch. Throughout the books and the first few films he wears a Rolex Oyster initially on a military canvass strap then later on a metal strap (usually stainless steel). This again lacks ostentation but is still elegant. Avoid bling at all costs. however conversely, bear in mind that just because it is useful, doesn't mean it can't look good. Think about investing in good every day items such as wallet, pen and watch which will reflect your personality (and no doubt your elegant, suave self!).
Food and drink. This is where knowing what you like and dislike will really come into play. It is also where you have to be most open to trying new things. I think the main key to this is learning the basics. For example, learning the basics of flavour combinations will allow you to look at a menu and understand a bit about what the dish will be like. This will then allow you to order confidently and, if you know the company you're in or are a good judge of people, order on behalf of others too. Similarly, knowing the basics of wine will allow you to navigate a wine list with confidence. By this I mean have a rough understanding of different regions and different grape characteristics. Learning a few key words and their real world meanings will allow you to order wines to go with situations with aplomb. Do the same for other drinks and you can be confident that you will come across as knowledgeable and sophisticated. Being aware of which drinks are appropriate in which occasions will also help meaning you avoid any faux pas. When making choices, be prepared to justify them and explain them; this will mean you don't look like you're pulling things out of mid-air and hoping for the best. The other key element here is being prepared to try suggestions made by others. Even if you don't think you will like them, give it a go and see. You might be pleasantly surprised, you might not be but try it anyway.
Right, that covers a lot of major lifestyle areas and conveys the main points. To recap, you want to look elegant and sophisticated without appearing bawdy or ostentatious and you want to appear knowledgeable and sophisticated without being geeky or overbearing. Ultimately, you want to be able to either have a valid opinion to give or be confident enough in your own tastes to form one swiftly. These principals can be carried forward to almost all situations, the key is doing some research before hand so you can go into the situation with a bit of knowledge about you. When Bond was first created a great general knowledge would have been essential together with an ability to learn things quickly. Today we are lucky... we have Wikipedia!
Hope you enjoyed.
R... JR!
Wednesday 26 September 2012
Update from the Animal Sanctuary
I know I've written a lot about the animal sanctuary where I volunteer but here is yet another post about it. I haven't been for nearly a week due to a combination of job applications and a trip up home. Now that I've made it back, things have changed quite a bit.
Firstly some bad news. Henry, the yellow lab I wrote about in 'A Sad Story' has died. He was found to have kidney failure and cancer. From the moment he came in I knew he wasn't long for this world. As I wrote before, he was obviously old and poorly however since he came in to the sanctuary, he blossomed and his true character shone through. He was quite a personality and quite the man about the courtyard. I am deeply sorry he has gone and I shall miss him greatly. It is however some comfort to know that he lived out his last few weeks in the sanctuary where he was universally adored and fussed over (even if he did sometihemes mistake my fingers for treats!). He is the first dog I've encountered at the sanctuary that isn't either still there or been re-homed.
Now for some better news. Jack and Barney, the Jack Russell and Corgi cross who I have developed a particular soft-spot for have been re-homed. The lady in question decided on Jack then was sold on Barney not long afterwards. Jack is another old boy (he is 15) and is unlikely to survive all that much longer although you could never tell from the way he acts. I am so pleased that he will be able to see out his days in a loving and caring home. He will be a spectacular pet for his lucky owner and I hope his owner gets as much pleasure from him as he will get from them. Barney has form for being a bit of a hand-full. Butter wouldn't melt most of the time but sometimes he can just turn and become snappy. Fortunately the lady who adopted him is experienced in handling difficult dogs (although I still wouldn't call Barney difficult, tricky at best) and I have no doubt he will be called to heel soon. When that happens he will be a lovely pet. He's fun, fluffy and, for the most part, loving and I thing has the potential to give years of fun, amusement and love. I'm just really, really sad I didn't get to see them and say goodbye before they left. (I know complete sop).
Two of my other favourites are still around though. There's Westie, the giant boxer cross who is the biggest softie on the planet. A bald-patch and eye condition combine to make him a bit of an ugly brute but he is such a loving dog and has a wonderfully warm and friendly personality. He is a truly gentle giant and loves to be fussed over. I saw him today and fed him some treats through his pen. I did get the impression that, much as he was pleased about the treats, he would have far preferred to be out and being made a fuss of. The other one is Maddie; part-huskie, part-horse. She's huge, fluffy and packed with personality. She loves going out for long, long, long, long, LONG walks and generally being the centre of attention.
Once again, the work the sanctuary does is amazing. All the animals are fantastically well looked-after and, beyond that, although they are housed in kennels they are loved as individuals and looked after as part of a big family.
JR
Firstly some bad news. Henry, the yellow lab I wrote about in 'A Sad Story' has died. He was found to have kidney failure and cancer. From the moment he came in I knew he wasn't long for this world. As I wrote before, he was obviously old and poorly however since he came in to the sanctuary, he blossomed and his true character shone through. He was quite a personality and quite the man about the courtyard. I am deeply sorry he has gone and I shall miss him greatly. It is however some comfort to know that he lived out his last few weeks in the sanctuary where he was universally adored and fussed over (even if he did sometihemes mistake my fingers for treats!). He is the first dog I've encountered at the sanctuary that isn't either still there or been re-homed.
Now for some better news. Jack and Barney, the Jack Russell and Corgi cross who I have developed a particular soft-spot for have been re-homed. The lady in question decided on Jack then was sold on Barney not long afterwards. Jack is another old boy (he is 15) and is unlikely to survive all that much longer although you could never tell from the way he acts. I am so pleased that he will be able to see out his days in a loving and caring home. He will be a spectacular pet for his lucky owner and I hope his owner gets as much pleasure from him as he will get from them. Barney has form for being a bit of a hand-full. Butter wouldn't melt most of the time but sometimes he can just turn and become snappy. Fortunately the lady who adopted him is experienced in handling difficult dogs (although I still wouldn't call Barney difficult, tricky at best) and I have no doubt he will be called to heel soon. When that happens he will be a lovely pet. He's fun, fluffy and, for the most part, loving and I thing has the potential to give years of fun, amusement and love. I'm just really, really sad I didn't get to see them and say goodbye before they left. (I know complete sop).
Two of my other favourites are still around though. There's Westie, the giant boxer cross who is the biggest softie on the planet. A bald-patch and eye condition combine to make him a bit of an ugly brute but he is such a loving dog and has a wonderfully warm and friendly personality. He is a truly gentle giant and loves to be fussed over. I saw him today and fed him some treats through his pen. I did get the impression that, much as he was pleased about the treats, he would have far preferred to be out and being made a fuss of. The other one is Maddie; part-huskie, part-horse. She's huge, fluffy and packed with personality. She loves going out for long, long, long, long, LONG walks and generally being the centre of attention.
Once again, the work the sanctuary does is amazing. All the animals are fantastically well looked-after and, beyond that, although they are housed in kennels they are loved as individuals and looked after as part of a big family.
JR
Monday 24 September 2012
Scary
I've finally got a job interview... at last there's some hope!
As I knew my interviewer's name, I decided to do some research on him so I could go in vaguely prepared and knowing my audience.
In the good old days this research would probably be limited to looking them up in 'Who's who'. Nowadays the parameters have changed slightly. The internet has become a tool to finding out vast amounts of information about others.
My research started obviously enough on facebook and linkedin. A general google search followed up and opening any article that sounded promising. I had an additional advantage in that I knew what they look like so doing a google image search then look at the websites for pictures of them so I had a bit of a short cut.
As the title suggests, I was a bit scared about how much detail I found out about him. I have managed to glean a fairly complete and comprehensive history from simply putting their name in google. Graduation date, hometown, age, partner's name; all of that was on line and easy to find in a few minutes.
Now on the one hand I'm probably being a bit over-enthusiastic with my research. On the other, this information is freely available to anybody on the internet; there's possibly even more if you know where to look. To me this is terrifying, not because I have anything to hide, just because I like my privacy and not thinking that anything I do will appear on the internet.
Anyway, enough ranting from me. Back to the actual business of mugging up.
JR
As I knew my interviewer's name, I decided to do some research on him so I could go in vaguely prepared and knowing my audience.
In the good old days this research would probably be limited to looking them up in 'Who's who'. Nowadays the parameters have changed slightly. The internet has become a tool to finding out vast amounts of information about others.
My research started obviously enough on facebook and linkedin. A general google search followed up and opening any article that sounded promising. I had an additional advantage in that I knew what they look like so doing a google image search then look at the websites for pictures of them so I had a bit of a short cut.
As the title suggests, I was a bit scared about how much detail I found out about him. I have managed to glean a fairly complete and comprehensive history from simply putting their name in google. Graduation date, hometown, age, partner's name; all of that was on line and easy to find in a few minutes.
Now on the one hand I'm probably being a bit over-enthusiastic with my research. On the other, this information is freely available to anybody on the internet; there's possibly even more if you know where to look. To me this is terrifying, not because I have anything to hide, just because I like my privacy and not thinking that anything I do will appear on the internet.
Anyway, enough ranting from me. Back to the actual business of mugging up.
JR
Friday 21 September 2012
Music
Music and I have always had a slightly complicated relationship. Despite playing (/torturing) two musical instruments with varying degrees of success throughout my childhood I have never felt the seemingly visceral connection others seem to feel to music. To me it has always been closer to acoustic wallpaper than anything else; something to have on rather than hear the oppressive sound of silence. Even then I would usually far prefer Radio 4 most of the time.
On the plus side, this reticence has meant I've saved a fortune in portable listening devices over the years. I have owned a walkman and discman over the years but they were principally used to listen to talking books and standup comedy. I have owned an ipod in the past but for a large part of the time it sat at the bottom of a drawer. I accidentally put it through the washing machine a couple of years ago and have never really found the need to replace it.
Before I sound like a total philistine I should clarify that there are some pieces of music I do passionately like and I do listen to from time to time. However most of these have a significance beyond the songs themselves. Listing them would take too long but suffice to say, for varying reasons they were played a lot during significant events in life and so serve as contextual cues to memories of those events.
Other groups I like because they are funny. Tom Lehrer would be a good example of this. Also the Otherguys who I have talked about previously (although the St. Andrews connection probably helps there). Amateur Transplants is another favourite; they re-word well known songs with their own rude, smutty and hilarious lyrics. The only problem with them is that I frequently have no idea what the original song was!
I am also more fond of classic disco cheese than is socially acceptable to admit to. I will generally view a club is rather good if it belts out the Macarena or something similar... I don't go clubbing much probably for that reason! When faced with music that is deemed "cool" in clubs I can usually be heard (or as close to hearing one comes in these establishments) muttering that music should have notes in a similar way to Giles in Buffy.
At the moment I'm going through a bit of a phase of bagpipe music. I'm probably being a typically nostalgic Scotsman abroad but I genuinely love the sound of the pipes (as long as it's not in an enclosed space). I'm not quite at the stage of stopping and listening, teary-eyed, to buskers but I will generally mutter the name of the tune to nobody in particular. I have also set myself the challenge of learning the pipes when I have a) the time and b) the money. Being able to play them, I think, would be a really rewarding experience. Plus, it would be an excuse to get the kilt on and drink copious volumes of whisky... what's not to love?
I have always rather enjoyed opera too. Recently I have been horribly spoiled by being able to attend a lot of operas at the Royal Opera House in Covent Garden. It was one of the major perks of volunteering with St. John Ambulance; I got in for free on the proviso that I treated anyone that fell ill. Now given the demographic of the people in the auditorium, that was playing with fire a bit but luckily incidents only happened in boring performances or the second or third time I saw a particular show. By far my best experience was seeing Aida in the opera house in Verona. The only word that really does it justice is "magical".
Having spilled out a stream of ambivalence I'm going to change tack and talk about one musician who I like for the music and not much else. She is called Lizzy Parks and is a jazz/soul singer. Neither of those were genres I'd had much to do with prior to encountering her and, to be honest, I've not had much to do with them since.
I first heard her at a jazz festival in Canary Wharf about three years ago. Initially I was quite reluctant to go since I don't particularly like Canary Wharf but eventually I relented (I was promised there would be beer). It turned out to be a great afternoon. Not only was there beer but there was also sunshine and some rather excellent hot dogs. Most of the music washed over me in a pleasant way. I didn't not enjoy it but I certainly wasn't blown over. It was enjoyable for the instant it played then I forgot it just as quickly. However just as we were beginning to consider making a move Ms Parks came on. We agreed among ourselves to stay for one more set/round. None of us were quite ready to make a move and we thought we would make the most of the last of the sunshine.
So on came this (extremely pretty) girl and let forth. Within the first few bars I was captivated. Her voice was wonderful. It had a gentle, ethereal quality to it which had me spellbound. She also had an impressive vocal range without sounding screechy or croaky at either end. Her performance was gentle but passionate and by the time she finished I realised that I wasn't the only one that was impressed. The whole party I was with (all four of us) was sat there absolutely spellbound.
Since then I have bought both of the albums she has released and although I don't listen to them often, they are still every bit as good when I do listen to them.
I would highly recommend you look her up either on youtube or spotify. Even if your reaction isn't the same as mine, I'm sure you won't regret it.
JR
On the plus side, this reticence has meant I've saved a fortune in portable listening devices over the years. I have owned a walkman and discman over the years but they were principally used to listen to talking books and standup comedy. I have owned an ipod in the past but for a large part of the time it sat at the bottom of a drawer. I accidentally put it through the washing machine a couple of years ago and have never really found the need to replace it.
Before I sound like a total philistine I should clarify that there are some pieces of music I do passionately like and I do listen to from time to time. However most of these have a significance beyond the songs themselves. Listing them would take too long but suffice to say, for varying reasons they were played a lot during significant events in life and so serve as contextual cues to memories of those events.
Other groups I like because they are funny. Tom Lehrer would be a good example of this. Also the Otherguys who I have talked about previously (although the St. Andrews connection probably helps there). Amateur Transplants is another favourite; they re-word well known songs with their own rude, smutty and hilarious lyrics. The only problem with them is that I frequently have no idea what the original song was!
I am also more fond of classic disco cheese than is socially acceptable to admit to. I will generally view a club is rather good if it belts out the Macarena or something similar... I don't go clubbing much probably for that reason! When faced with music that is deemed "cool" in clubs I can usually be heard (or as close to hearing one comes in these establishments) muttering that music should have notes in a similar way to Giles in Buffy.
At the moment I'm going through a bit of a phase of bagpipe music. I'm probably being a typically nostalgic Scotsman abroad but I genuinely love the sound of the pipes (as long as it's not in an enclosed space). I'm not quite at the stage of stopping and listening, teary-eyed, to buskers but I will generally mutter the name of the tune to nobody in particular. I have also set myself the challenge of learning the pipes when I have a) the time and b) the money. Being able to play them, I think, would be a really rewarding experience. Plus, it would be an excuse to get the kilt on and drink copious volumes of whisky... what's not to love?
I have always rather enjoyed opera too. Recently I have been horribly spoiled by being able to attend a lot of operas at the Royal Opera House in Covent Garden. It was one of the major perks of volunteering with St. John Ambulance; I got in for free on the proviso that I treated anyone that fell ill. Now given the demographic of the people in the auditorium, that was playing with fire a bit but luckily incidents only happened in boring performances or the second or third time I saw a particular show. By far my best experience was seeing Aida in the opera house in Verona. The only word that really does it justice is "magical".
Having spilled out a stream of ambivalence I'm going to change tack and talk about one musician who I like for the music and not much else. She is called Lizzy Parks and is a jazz/soul singer. Neither of those were genres I'd had much to do with prior to encountering her and, to be honest, I've not had much to do with them since.
I first heard her at a jazz festival in Canary Wharf about three years ago. Initially I was quite reluctant to go since I don't particularly like Canary Wharf but eventually I relented (I was promised there would be beer). It turned out to be a great afternoon. Not only was there beer but there was also sunshine and some rather excellent hot dogs. Most of the music washed over me in a pleasant way. I didn't not enjoy it but I certainly wasn't blown over. It was enjoyable for the instant it played then I forgot it just as quickly. However just as we were beginning to consider making a move Ms Parks came on. We agreed among ourselves to stay for one more set/round. None of us were quite ready to make a move and we thought we would make the most of the last of the sunshine.
So on came this (extremely pretty) girl and let forth. Within the first few bars I was captivated. Her voice was wonderful. It had a gentle, ethereal quality to it which had me spellbound. She also had an impressive vocal range without sounding screechy or croaky at either end. Her performance was gentle but passionate and by the time she finished I realised that I wasn't the only one that was impressed. The whole party I was with (all four of us) was sat there absolutely spellbound.
Since then I have bought both of the albums she has released and although I don't listen to them often, they are still every bit as good when I do listen to them.
I would highly recommend you look her up either on youtube or spotify. Even if your reaction isn't the same as mine, I'm sure you won't regret it.
JR
Thursday 20 September 2012
A Sad Story
It happened a few weeks ago and I really wasn't expecting it. In fact I was feeling rather pleased with myself at the time. I had just taken out Maddie, a dog I describe as a cross between a huskie and a horse (she is a specific pedigree but I can't for the life of me what she is). She has been in the animal centre for a while and she and I have developed quite a rapport. That particular day I had successfully taught her the command "stay" and she seemed to have taken it to heart.
Then I saw it. At first only out of the corner of my eye. I thought I was mistaken but when I turned around, sure enough, there he was. A golden labrador. If you haven't already guessed, I have an enormous soft spot for lab's. Although I've never owned one, I've grown up around them and just think they're the most magnificent dogs. Of course I had to go over and say hello. As I got closer I could see he was an old boy. His back legs looked very unsteady and he was very slow in his movement. I also think his eyesight was on the turn. When I tried to feed him a treat through the wire mesh of his enclosure he obviously realised there was a treat there but was having great difficulty locating it. He was also not liking kennels at all. His tail was tucked firmly between his legs and he was shaking slightly.
Apparently he was found wondering near a road. The man who brought him in said he almost hit him. As there was no sign of an owner, he took the dog home overnight and then brought him into the rescue centre the next day. Well it went a way to restoring some of my faith in humanity.
Anyway, I found the person responsible for that section of the sanctuary and checked it was ok to go in and get to know Henry (as he was later christened by the centre) better. He was very nervous to start with. The application of numerous treats and some gentle soothing sounds meant his confidence built up and soon he was looking much more comfortable and confident. I sat with him in his enclosure for about 20 minutes just stroking him and talking to him. He was still far from a happy dog when I left but the tail was beginning to twitch in something resembling a wag and his body language was far more relaxed.
I wish I could give you a fairytale ending for this story but at the moment I can't. His owners haven't come forward despite attempts by the sanctuary staff to raise awareness of his presence. He does seem much happier in himself now. He has been put on medication for his legs and is now much more sprightly in his movement. He also seems to have settled down in the centre much more and become one of the local characters doted on by everyone. Henry is now a much more confident and happy dog but he could still do with a loving home. If he isn't already available for adoption from the centre then he will be soon. When that happens I will publish details as best I can. He really is a lovely dog with a wonderful nature and would bring someone a lot of happiness.
JR
Then I saw it. At first only out of the corner of my eye. I thought I was mistaken but when I turned around, sure enough, there he was. A golden labrador. If you haven't already guessed, I have an enormous soft spot for lab's. Although I've never owned one, I've grown up around them and just think they're the most magnificent dogs. Of course I had to go over and say hello. As I got closer I could see he was an old boy. His back legs looked very unsteady and he was very slow in his movement. I also think his eyesight was on the turn. When I tried to feed him a treat through the wire mesh of his enclosure he obviously realised there was a treat there but was having great difficulty locating it. He was also not liking kennels at all. His tail was tucked firmly between his legs and he was shaking slightly.
Apparently he was found wondering near a road. The man who brought him in said he almost hit him. As there was no sign of an owner, he took the dog home overnight and then brought him into the rescue centre the next day. Well it went a way to restoring some of my faith in humanity.
Anyway, I found the person responsible for that section of the sanctuary and checked it was ok to go in and get to know Henry (as he was later christened by the centre) better. He was very nervous to start with. The application of numerous treats and some gentle soothing sounds meant his confidence built up and soon he was looking much more comfortable and confident. I sat with him in his enclosure for about 20 minutes just stroking him and talking to him. He was still far from a happy dog when I left but the tail was beginning to twitch in something resembling a wag and his body language was far more relaxed.
I wish I could give you a fairytale ending for this story but at the moment I can't. His owners haven't come forward despite attempts by the sanctuary staff to raise awareness of his presence. He does seem much happier in himself now. He has been put on medication for his legs and is now much more sprightly in his movement. He also seems to have settled down in the centre much more and become one of the local characters doted on by everyone. Henry is now a much more confident and happy dog but he could still do with a loving home. If he isn't already available for adoption from the centre then he will be soon. When that happens I will publish details as best I can. He really is a lovely dog with a wonderful nature and would bring someone a lot of happiness.
JR
Wednesday 19 September 2012
Human Nature
We've all felt it. That horrible feeling when the world stands still and all eyes turn to you. Even the air around you seems to stand completely still. You hold your breath, hoping against hope that the inevitable won't happen. Willing yourself to shrink, disappear, anything to get yourself out of the current situation. It doesn't work. Suddenly reality hits you and there's nowhere to hide.
What I've described above has been felt by everyone at some stage or other. The feeling of being told off in public in front of a large group of people either by your parents or a teacher. Go on, admit it. No matter how much of a goody-two-shoes you were, you have been at the business end of a bollocking at some stage of your life. Now what was the worst bit? Was it the feeling of being caught, knowing you didn't get away with whatever misdemeanour it was in the first place? Probably not. I doubt anyone really expects to get away with it. Was it the fact that you had been shouted at? Again probably not. This could be taken on the chin and brushed off. What, to me at least, was by far the worst was when everyone was watching and blatantly loving it.
Enjoying watching people getting told off isn't unique to children. Adults love it too, they just tend to be slightly more discreet about it. How many people slow down when they see the police in action in the street or by the roadside, hoping against hope to catch a glimpse of the action and see some reprobate being banged to rights? How many people try to listen discreetly to a domestic on the train and hear some poor sod getting an ear-full? I'm fairly certain this is why police procedural programmes are so popular; you know the kind, "Cops in their own words, with cameras!" Sure it's great PR for the forces involved but how many people watch for education rather than voyeurism? Not many I'm willing to bet.
So what prompts this desire to watch others get told off? Concern to see justice done? Probably not. Concern for the welfare of society or the victim of the indiscretion? Again, doubtful. I'm willing to bet that a large part of the reason people stop and stare is for the feeling of superiority one gets. The knowledge (and slight relief) that it's someone else being told off, not oneself. In this situation you cant sit back, relax and feel rather smug about the fact it's all happening to someone else. A bit of humility will perhaps make you remember what you felt like in similar situations but equally that could just feed the flames of self-congratulation.
This behaviour is, as far as I can tell, fairly normal but it seems to me to be highly unseemly. People naturally seek to distinguish themselves from others. Not just distinguish, we like to feel better. Some are fairly passive about it; watching others get lowered in status (cop shows, Jeremy Kyle, etc) while others are more active; seeking out high status occupations and actions. Put so starkly it does seem to be a slightly unpleasant characteristic of people but it won't stop that dreadful hush falling over a classroom when one unfortunate has been caught out doing something wrong and the horrible pregnant pause as the teacher draws breath and the rest of the class rubs it's hands in gleeful anticipation!
JR
What I've described above has been felt by everyone at some stage or other. The feeling of being told off in public in front of a large group of people either by your parents or a teacher. Go on, admit it. No matter how much of a goody-two-shoes you were, you have been at the business end of a bollocking at some stage of your life. Now what was the worst bit? Was it the feeling of being caught, knowing you didn't get away with whatever misdemeanour it was in the first place? Probably not. I doubt anyone really expects to get away with it. Was it the fact that you had been shouted at? Again probably not. This could be taken on the chin and brushed off. What, to me at least, was by far the worst was when everyone was watching and blatantly loving it.
Enjoying watching people getting told off isn't unique to children. Adults love it too, they just tend to be slightly more discreet about it. How many people slow down when they see the police in action in the street or by the roadside, hoping against hope to catch a glimpse of the action and see some reprobate being banged to rights? How many people try to listen discreetly to a domestic on the train and hear some poor sod getting an ear-full? I'm fairly certain this is why police procedural programmes are so popular; you know the kind, "Cops in their own words, with cameras!" Sure it's great PR for the forces involved but how many people watch for education rather than voyeurism? Not many I'm willing to bet.
So what prompts this desire to watch others get told off? Concern to see justice done? Probably not. Concern for the welfare of society or the victim of the indiscretion? Again, doubtful. I'm willing to bet that a large part of the reason people stop and stare is for the feeling of superiority one gets. The knowledge (and slight relief) that it's someone else being told off, not oneself. In this situation you cant sit back, relax and feel rather smug about the fact it's all happening to someone else. A bit of humility will perhaps make you remember what you felt like in similar situations but equally that could just feed the flames of self-congratulation.
This behaviour is, as far as I can tell, fairly normal but it seems to me to be highly unseemly. People naturally seek to distinguish themselves from others. Not just distinguish, we like to feel better. Some are fairly passive about it; watching others get lowered in status (cop shows, Jeremy Kyle, etc) while others are more active; seeking out high status occupations and actions. Put so starkly it does seem to be a slightly unpleasant characteristic of people but it won't stop that dreadful hush falling over a classroom when one unfortunate has been caught out doing something wrong and the horrible pregnant pause as the teacher draws breath and the rest of the class rubs it's hands in gleeful anticipation!
JR
Monday 17 September 2012
Food Cravings
I like living in England. It's an extremely pleasant place with lots going for it. That said, there are elements of Scottish cuisine that a greatly miss:
Firstly chip shop white puddings. Don't ask me what's in them, I have no idea but they're delicious with nice, crispy batter, some good chip shop chips and lots of sauce. Yum.
Next up is square sausage. There's nothing quite like it, especially with a proper breakfast after a heavy night or as a hearty snack in a fluffy white roll.
After that is chip shop meat pies. They certainly contain meat but it's probably best not to enquire what kind of meat. Served in a delicious shortcrust pastry case they go brilliantly with tomato ketchup or baked beans and of course the ubiquitous chips.
A variation of the above is the macaroni pie - only ever seen in Scottish bakers and corner shops. Surprisingly, it's a shortcrust pastry pie crust filled with macaroni cheese, topped with grated cheese and finished off in the oven. These were staples of my lunch break as a schoolboy and was a great way to fend off the cold winters.
I also miss Arbroath smokies. Although I've never had a lot of them, they are a fantastic ingredients. Suggestions for dishes using them include pate and cullen and skink soup. They have a deeper and richer flavour than most smoked haddock I can source. They also lack that hideous fluorescent colouring in other ones.
Finally, although not technically a foodstuff (and available in England), I miss real Irn Bru. It just doesn't taste the same down here. Not only that, but in order to enjoy it properly it needs to be served in litre glass bottles (which can be exchanged for a 20p refund). That was my Friday night drink of choice in my mid-teens after sailing and with a white pudding supper (supper being served with chips).
Come to think of it, is it any surprise that heart disease is so prevalent amongst Scots. Then again, we do need a heart lining on our arteries to keep the heat in during the cold winters.
JR
Sunday 16 September 2012
Hillsborough
Hillsborough was not a subject I really intended to write about; mainly because it was something I haven't really formed an opinion on it. When it happened, I was barely able to walk so it didn't register much on my consciousness. Since then I have become aware of it from my legal studies - it is the source of a lot of case law which may now need to be re-thought - but again, I didn't think about the event itself too much.
However my mind changed this morning when I heard an interview with Tony Edwards. Mr Edwards was part of the ambulance crew that drove on to the pitch. It was one of the most moving pieces of radio I have heard in a long time and has made me think quite a lot.
Before I go any further, let me make it clear I haven't read any of the reports published on the events that occurred that day nor have I read the newspaper reports in any great detail. My sole knowledge comes from what I have hear/seen in news bulletins.
My first thoughts go out to Mr Edwards who has been badly traumatised by the events of that day. It's not something that has occurred much in the news coverage but it must have been dreadful for those involved professionally. We assume that emergency service personnel will cope with whatever is thrown at them. That their uniform provides some sort of armour against the terrible things that they see however this is simply not true. In this instance, it has cost someone that was passionate and proud to be a paramedic their job and more than that their vocation.
I have some very modest experience of providing pre-hospital care through St. John Ambulance and I can say with some confidence that most people, when they put on the uniform, put on a bit of a mentality. A carapace to make the role easier. In our case, hopefully the worst we will see is blood and other body fluids but it is a similar mentality. However the interview has also reminded me of a few incidents that have left me a bit shaken. There have been a couple of times I have been left shaking after treating someone. During the treatment, the training kicked in and I dealt with the situation. It was the reflection afterwards that I got scared. I was lucky, a cup of tea and chat with colleagues was all it took to evaluate the events, decide that I acted appropriately and be reassured by others that they would have done the same. That reassurance was hugely valuable. For smaller duties and for volunteers who offer assistance off duty, St. John have an on call duty officer who can be called upon at any time to offer a debriefing on events and, if necessary, organise further support. Again a valuable system.
My father wasn't quite as lucky. He came out on duty with my unit at a large London event. It was hugely busy and he ended up in the major injury section of the mobile treatment centre dealing with some very poorly people. He came down reasonably fresh out of basic training from St. Andrews First Aid (the Scottish equivalent) and was expecting to do no more than watch all of us in action. I think he also was under the impression that the most we would be doing was doling out plasters and ice packs. To keep a short story short, he did have quite a tough time afterwards. Despite having a debriefing from me and my commanding officer, he spent quite a lot of time analysing what he did and questioning if he couldn't have done more (his treatment was textbook but it's not always easy to see that from the inside). He also had a couple of flashbacks and bad dreams about the events. Now neither my father and I are uncommonly sensitive. In fact, I would say that we are both fairly resilient but these events affected us.
Therefore it comes as no surprise that Mr Edwards and no doubt a fair few of his colleagues have suffered long lasting effects of that day. He alluded to frustration and guilt about being prevented from getting properly stuck in and about the horror of people literally piling bodies on to his vehicle. He described having to live with the certain knowledge that, if things had been done differently, more people would have survived.
In the interview Mr Edwards talked candidly about mismanagement of the whole process by senior officers at the scene. On the one hand this is shocking and appalling. If people are appointed to strategic roles then they should have received appropriate training for the job and be able to cope with what it throws at them. That's well and good but how exactly does one train for something like this? Simulations are good but, in the back of one's mind, there is always the knowledge that it's a simulation so the adrenaline doesn't start pumping quite as much. Beyond that, they are expensive and complicated to organise so any one officer will have limited exposure to them. I suspect that most training will be done on paper in a classroom. Although this is valuable in giving individuals the opportunity to think through events and come to logical conclusions, the fact that it doesn't mirror the fear and the adrenaline of real life means that there's no guarantee the same thought process will be applied in action. It also raises the question of how senior officers are selected for promotion. I will refrain from saying any more because anything I do say will be nothing more than speculation and I don't particularly want to add to the conspiracy theories floating about on the net.
It has made me wonder how I would have reacted in similar circumstances. On duty, I have spent more hours than I would really care to count both at football matches and at large-scale public events. Some of this time has been spent not just as a first aider but as various levels of duty officer. Therefore there have been times that, if it all went wrong, it would have been up to me to run things until further help arrived. Although this help would never have been far away (both senior St. John and London Ambulance officers) there would have still been a short period where my choices could have had a potentially huge impact. I have never really thought about it in these terms before. I have always been buffered by the thought that back up would be on the scene quickly and that, in the mean time, I would be surrounded by an excellent team who not only had good ability as first aiders but also a lot of operational experience they could share with me if needed. More to the point I, as well as many others undoubtedly, was aware how vanishing small the possibilities of the worst case scenario actually happening were. No doubt that's what those of the scene of Hillsborough also thought. It certainly isn't an excuse for poor conduct at the scene, nor any subsequent cover-ups but it certainly offers a measure of explanation.
Before I sound like an apologist for bad management let me clarify; I am certainly not. Those that were at the scene should have been capable of managing it or at least of taking the advice of others. Even if they haven't had experience of events such as this (and let's hope they don't for obvious reasons) then they should at least be able to keep a level head and make rational choices.
Hopefully the recent revelations about Hillsborough will provide a degree of closure and comfort for the victims, the families of the victims and those that attended the scene and have suffered as a result. Now one of the most important things we can do is look at what happened and learn from it. Use the experience to develop better systems for dealing with events like this and for training those that will have to manage them on the ground. If we do this then hopefully, if the worst should happen again, the human tragedy can be significantly reduced.
JR
However my mind changed this morning when I heard an interview with Tony Edwards. Mr Edwards was part of the ambulance crew that drove on to the pitch. It was one of the most moving pieces of radio I have heard in a long time and has made me think quite a lot.
Before I go any further, let me make it clear I haven't read any of the reports published on the events that occurred that day nor have I read the newspaper reports in any great detail. My sole knowledge comes from what I have hear/seen in news bulletins.
My first thoughts go out to Mr Edwards who has been badly traumatised by the events of that day. It's not something that has occurred much in the news coverage but it must have been dreadful for those involved professionally. We assume that emergency service personnel will cope with whatever is thrown at them. That their uniform provides some sort of armour against the terrible things that they see however this is simply not true. In this instance, it has cost someone that was passionate and proud to be a paramedic their job and more than that their vocation.
I have some very modest experience of providing pre-hospital care through St. John Ambulance and I can say with some confidence that most people, when they put on the uniform, put on a bit of a mentality. A carapace to make the role easier. In our case, hopefully the worst we will see is blood and other body fluids but it is a similar mentality. However the interview has also reminded me of a few incidents that have left me a bit shaken. There have been a couple of times I have been left shaking after treating someone. During the treatment, the training kicked in and I dealt with the situation. It was the reflection afterwards that I got scared. I was lucky, a cup of tea and chat with colleagues was all it took to evaluate the events, decide that I acted appropriately and be reassured by others that they would have done the same. That reassurance was hugely valuable. For smaller duties and for volunteers who offer assistance off duty, St. John have an on call duty officer who can be called upon at any time to offer a debriefing on events and, if necessary, organise further support. Again a valuable system.
My father wasn't quite as lucky. He came out on duty with my unit at a large London event. It was hugely busy and he ended up in the major injury section of the mobile treatment centre dealing with some very poorly people. He came down reasonably fresh out of basic training from St. Andrews First Aid (the Scottish equivalent) and was expecting to do no more than watch all of us in action. I think he also was under the impression that the most we would be doing was doling out plasters and ice packs. To keep a short story short, he did have quite a tough time afterwards. Despite having a debriefing from me and my commanding officer, he spent quite a lot of time analysing what he did and questioning if he couldn't have done more (his treatment was textbook but it's not always easy to see that from the inside). He also had a couple of flashbacks and bad dreams about the events. Now neither my father and I are uncommonly sensitive. In fact, I would say that we are both fairly resilient but these events affected us.
Therefore it comes as no surprise that Mr Edwards and no doubt a fair few of his colleagues have suffered long lasting effects of that day. He alluded to frustration and guilt about being prevented from getting properly stuck in and about the horror of people literally piling bodies on to his vehicle. He described having to live with the certain knowledge that, if things had been done differently, more people would have survived.
In the interview Mr Edwards talked candidly about mismanagement of the whole process by senior officers at the scene. On the one hand this is shocking and appalling. If people are appointed to strategic roles then they should have received appropriate training for the job and be able to cope with what it throws at them. That's well and good but how exactly does one train for something like this? Simulations are good but, in the back of one's mind, there is always the knowledge that it's a simulation so the adrenaline doesn't start pumping quite as much. Beyond that, they are expensive and complicated to organise so any one officer will have limited exposure to them. I suspect that most training will be done on paper in a classroom. Although this is valuable in giving individuals the opportunity to think through events and come to logical conclusions, the fact that it doesn't mirror the fear and the adrenaline of real life means that there's no guarantee the same thought process will be applied in action. It also raises the question of how senior officers are selected for promotion. I will refrain from saying any more because anything I do say will be nothing more than speculation and I don't particularly want to add to the conspiracy theories floating about on the net.
It has made me wonder how I would have reacted in similar circumstances. On duty, I have spent more hours than I would really care to count both at football matches and at large-scale public events. Some of this time has been spent not just as a first aider but as various levels of duty officer. Therefore there have been times that, if it all went wrong, it would have been up to me to run things until further help arrived. Although this help would never have been far away (both senior St. John and London Ambulance officers) there would have still been a short period where my choices could have had a potentially huge impact. I have never really thought about it in these terms before. I have always been buffered by the thought that back up would be on the scene quickly and that, in the mean time, I would be surrounded by an excellent team who not only had good ability as first aiders but also a lot of operational experience they could share with me if needed. More to the point I, as well as many others undoubtedly, was aware how vanishing small the possibilities of the worst case scenario actually happening were. No doubt that's what those of the scene of Hillsborough also thought. It certainly isn't an excuse for poor conduct at the scene, nor any subsequent cover-ups but it certainly offers a measure of explanation.
Before I sound like an apologist for bad management let me clarify; I am certainly not. Those that were at the scene should have been capable of managing it or at least of taking the advice of others. Even if they haven't had experience of events such as this (and let's hope they don't for obvious reasons) then they should at least be able to keep a level head and make rational choices.
Hopefully the recent revelations about Hillsborough will provide a degree of closure and comfort for the victims, the families of the victims and those that attended the scene and have suffered as a result. Now one of the most important things we can do is look at what happened and learn from it. Use the experience to develop better systems for dealing with events like this and for training those that will have to manage them on the ground. If we do this then hopefully, if the worst should happen again, the human tragedy can be significantly reduced.
JR
Friday 14 September 2012
Kate Middleton Topless
I thought that might get your attention!
So it seems that someone has managed to get some photographs of the Duchess of Cambridge sunbathing topless while on holiday in France. They are set to be published in a French gossip magazine.
Now much as I very much like the idea of seeing Kate Middleton without any clothes on (which straight male - and some females - wouldn't?) all I can say is leave the poor girl alone. If she was cavorting around undressed somewhere very public then, to a certain extent, she should expect to get attention and photographs taken (even if she wasn't destined to be our next Queen). That may even be the point. However here it's quite different. She is a young lady sunbathing and under the impression that the only other person around is her husband. I'm willing to bet that the villa in question was chosen principally because it was secluded and offered a degree of privacy. Instead someone has got some seriously hardcore photography equipment and managed to reel off a couple of snaps. And why? What purpose does it serve?
Incidents like this make a strong case for the return of Britannia or something similar. This would serve a dual purpose. Firstly, it would give senior royals somewhere private to entertain people on their terms. It would be emphatically their property therefore they could set their own rules; no mobiles, no cameras, etc. Secondly, it would be a damn site more difficult to take compromising photos of a ship in the middle of the sea. There could be a family only area that is secluded and segregated from the rest of the ship where nobody could see them or interfere. No doubt some muppet would try and charter a helicopter or plane to try and obtain areal photos. Either that or try and hack into satellites to get photos that way.
There will no doubt be some people that say the Royals are heavily publicly funded and therefore are public property. This is true to an extent. Royals on official duty to represent the British population at home or abroad. And when they do that they generally do an extremely good job. However we cannot and must not forget that they are human beings too. Yes they are charged with representing the U.K. and her interests but that doesn't mean that they forfeit all rights to privacy and a personal life. Such an idea is ludicrous. What next? Webcams in the Queen's shower? A live twitter feed from Prince Charles' car? We neither can nor should expect the Royals to be on duty all the time so when they're off duty, leave them alone. Would anyone else like (or accept) their employers, workmates and everyone else minutely following everything they do when they're in private? Didn't think so. The sad fact is, animals in zoos have a greater expectation of privacy; most animal enclosures have privacy areas where the animals can hide away from being gawked at.
Of course some will say that if they didn't want this kind of attention then we should just disband the monarchy and be done with it. Maybe so but I genuinely think that the Monarchy is a force for good for the U.K. They are an apolitical organisation who's sole purpose is to promote our best interests. They know they will be there in the weeks, months and years to come so they can concentrate on doing the best for the country rather than worry about re-election. They also still have huge novelty value. People are excited about meeting senior Royals: this is true across the board from senior politicians to kids and pretty much everyone in between. Not only will this hopefully make decision makers more open to suggestion and negotiation, on a much more gentle note, it will brighten people's days. What's wrong with that? On an even more subjective note, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have more than a whiff of a Disney film about them (Prince William did feature in the film Princess Diaries 2) so rather than try to spoil it, why not just either let them be or enjoy the story.
If you were hoping to get copies of the pictures here then sorry, no chance. Hope you enjoyed the read none the less.
JR
So it seems that someone has managed to get some photographs of the Duchess of Cambridge sunbathing topless while on holiday in France. They are set to be published in a French gossip magazine.
Now much as I very much like the idea of seeing Kate Middleton without any clothes on (which straight male - and some females - wouldn't?) all I can say is leave the poor girl alone. If she was cavorting around undressed somewhere very public then, to a certain extent, she should expect to get attention and photographs taken (even if she wasn't destined to be our next Queen). That may even be the point. However here it's quite different. She is a young lady sunbathing and under the impression that the only other person around is her husband. I'm willing to bet that the villa in question was chosen principally because it was secluded and offered a degree of privacy. Instead someone has got some seriously hardcore photography equipment and managed to reel off a couple of snaps. And why? What purpose does it serve?
Incidents like this make a strong case for the return of Britannia or something similar. This would serve a dual purpose. Firstly, it would give senior royals somewhere private to entertain people on their terms. It would be emphatically their property therefore they could set their own rules; no mobiles, no cameras, etc. Secondly, it would be a damn site more difficult to take compromising photos of a ship in the middle of the sea. There could be a family only area that is secluded and segregated from the rest of the ship where nobody could see them or interfere. No doubt some muppet would try and charter a helicopter or plane to try and obtain areal photos. Either that or try and hack into satellites to get photos that way.
There will no doubt be some people that say the Royals are heavily publicly funded and therefore are public property. This is true to an extent. Royals on official duty to represent the British population at home or abroad. And when they do that they generally do an extremely good job. However we cannot and must not forget that they are human beings too. Yes they are charged with representing the U.K. and her interests but that doesn't mean that they forfeit all rights to privacy and a personal life. Such an idea is ludicrous. What next? Webcams in the Queen's shower? A live twitter feed from Prince Charles' car? We neither can nor should expect the Royals to be on duty all the time so when they're off duty, leave them alone. Would anyone else like (or accept) their employers, workmates and everyone else minutely following everything they do when they're in private? Didn't think so. The sad fact is, animals in zoos have a greater expectation of privacy; most animal enclosures have privacy areas where the animals can hide away from being gawked at.
Of course some will say that if they didn't want this kind of attention then we should just disband the monarchy and be done with it. Maybe so but I genuinely think that the Monarchy is a force for good for the U.K. They are an apolitical organisation who's sole purpose is to promote our best interests. They know they will be there in the weeks, months and years to come so they can concentrate on doing the best for the country rather than worry about re-election. They also still have huge novelty value. People are excited about meeting senior Royals: this is true across the board from senior politicians to kids and pretty much everyone in between. Not only will this hopefully make decision makers more open to suggestion and negotiation, on a much more gentle note, it will brighten people's days. What's wrong with that? On an even more subjective note, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have more than a whiff of a Disney film about them (Prince William did feature in the film Princess Diaries 2) so rather than try to spoil it, why not just either let them be or enjoy the story.
If you were hoping to get copies of the pictures here then sorry, no chance. Hope you enjoyed the read none the less.
JR
Dog Training
Following on from my post on the gundog training school in Perthshire I had the opportunity to have a go at working with gundogs. This was not with the Scottish outfit but with Hampshire's equivalent.
This chap is a family friend of my girlfriend's parents. As well as training gundogs for local estates he breeds labradors and spaniels, trains police dogs for the local force, offers daycare for pet dogs and runs training classes for pets. It was the latter that we participated in. We were down staying in her parent's house looking after her granny while her parents were away on holiday but managed to squeeze this in as well.
Instead of working with my girlfriend's parent's dog, we were given dogs from the kennels to work with. We got a couple of black labs that are experienced on shooting. Although what we were doing was essentially basic obedience, we were reinforcing learned behaviour and gave them experience of being handled by other people.
That said, it's safe to say that between me and the dog, I had the far steeper learning curve. Although I've sought out as much time as possible, I've never really "worked" with them. Nor have I had any experience of training them. Although I have tried to look into the theory and "psychology" of dog training I am acutely aware that being booksmart and being able is vastly different. One thing I really took away from it was exactly how dominant you have to be to get best results. I knew that one had to set oneself up in pack leader role but the level required surprised me. Another thing that was pointed out was that verbal commands are of fairly limited; dogs don't speak English and have a limited ability to differentiate the sounds that form words so often it helps to be quite physical when giving commands so they learn to associate the sound with the action.
I loved every second of it. Despite the fact that it involved getting up early on a Sunday morning and standing around in the rain, it was fantastic. I have always maintained that I want to learn about dog training prior to getting a dog of my own. That way I can avoid making basic mistakes and end up with a happy and settled dog. This was an ideal opportunity to learn from an expert and watch him in action. Other experienced trainers were also at the class so it was good to be able to watch them in action and see how they dealt with various actions of their dogs. Best of all, I got to work with a wonderful black labrador called Fabio. He was an absolute star. Naturally, being one of the trainers' dogs, he was extremely well behaved and responded well to me. He was also a complete sop and loved being made a fuss of (and my habit of unconsciously scratching behind his ears when I was listening to the trainer talk). It got to the point that towards the end of an off the lead exercise, he rolled over on his back to get his belly tickled while I was still ten metres away. I had to battle hard not to nick him!
I did feel sorry for him though. One of the trainer's other dogs was out; a black lab bitch called Pippa. Pippa was just about in season so Fabio was taking quite a bit of interest in her and had to be escorted away on multiple occasions. I empathise, after all a large chunk of the heterosexual male population lust after a glossy-haired brunette called Pippa - that said, the Pippa in question has only two legs!
Having tried it once, I can't wait to have another go. I feel much more confident handling dogs and getting the results I want from them. I now can't wait for it to be my lovely black lab that I'm training.
JR
This chap is a family friend of my girlfriend's parents. As well as training gundogs for local estates he breeds labradors and spaniels, trains police dogs for the local force, offers daycare for pet dogs and runs training classes for pets. It was the latter that we participated in. We were down staying in her parent's house looking after her granny while her parents were away on holiday but managed to squeeze this in as well.
Instead of working with my girlfriend's parent's dog, we were given dogs from the kennels to work with. We got a couple of black labs that are experienced on shooting. Although what we were doing was essentially basic obedience, we were reinforcing learned behaviour and gave them experience of being handled by other people.
That said, it's safe to say that between me and the dog, I had the far steeper learning curve. Although I've sought out as much time as possible, I've never really "worked" with them. Nor have I had any experience of training them. Although I have tried to look into the theory and "psychology" of dog training I am acutely aware that being booksmart and being able is vastly different. One thing I really took away from it was exactly how dominant you have to be to get best results. I knew that one had to set oneself up in pack leader role but the level required surprised me. Another thing that was pointed out was that verbal commands are of fairly limited; dogs don't speak English and have a limited ability to differentiate the sounds that form words so often it helps to be quite physical when giving commands so they learn to associate the sound with the action.
I loved every second of it. Despite the fact that it involved getting up early on a Sunday morning and standing around in the rain, it was fantastic. I have always maintained that I want to learn about dog training prior to getting a dog of my own. That way I can avoid making basic mistakes and end up with a happy and settled dog. This was an ideal opportunity to learn from an expert and watch him in action. Other experienced trainers were also at the class so it was good to be able to watch them in action and see how they dealt with various actions of their dogs. Best of all, I got to work with a wonderful black labrador called Fabio. He was an absolute star. Naturally, being one of the trainers' dogs, he was extremely well behaved and responded well to me. He was also a complete sop and loved being made a fuss of (and my habit of unconsciously scratching behind his ears when I was listening to the trainer talk). It got to the point that towards the end of an off the lead exercise, he rolled over on his back to get his belly tickled while I was still ten metres away. I had to battle hard not to nick him!
I did feel sorry for him though. One of the trainer's other dogs was out; a black lab bitch called Pippa. Pippa was just about in season so Fabio was taking quite a bit of interest in her and had to be escorted away on multiple occasions. I empathise, after all a large chunk of the heterosexual male population lust after a glossy-haired brunette called Pippa - that said, the Pippa in question has only two legs!
Having tried it once, I can't wait to have another go. I feel much more confident handling dogs and getting the results I want from them. I now can't wait for it to be my lovely black lab that I'm training.
JR
Thursday 13 September 2012
Quote for the day
I was reading an article in the Daily Mail (forgive me) about the Queen's corgi who died the other day.
Amongst a brief biography of the pooch and come commentary about the Queen's breeding history was the quote, "[The Dog] will no longer be lolling around the Queen's private sitting room or gorging himself on fillet steak, hot buttered scones and the occasional chambermaid."
Is it just me or does that sound like a rather nice existence? Admittedly I think our respective definitions of gorging on chambermaids may differ slightly but let's not let that get in the way.
JR
Amongst a brief biography of the pooch and come commentary about the Queen's breeding history was the quote, "[The Dog] will no longer be lolling around the Queen's private sitting room or gorging himself on fillet steak, hot buttered scones and the occasional chambermaid."
Is it just me or does that sound like a rather nice existence? Admittedly I think our respective definitions of gorging on chambermaids may differ slightly but let's not let that get in the way.
JR
Tuesday 11 September 2012
Andy Murray is STILL British
Well done Andy Murray. First grand-slam title under the belt. Hopefully many more to come. An achievement to be proud of.
However let me concentrate on an event a couple of days before the final which I found highly amusing (and heart warming).
During the press-conference following his win in the semi-finals, Murray was joined by two of his fellow countrymen. Sir Sean Connery and Alec Ferguson to be precise. Having watched the match, they wished to offer their congratulations. Fair enough. And given one of them is essentially James Bond, who is going to stand in their way?
According to a later interview, both of the older gentlemen smelled strongly of wine. To use the vernacular, they were a wee bit fu. Good on them! They obviously had a good time (in various ways) when watching the match and were feeling outgoing.
Newspapers reported that not long after Sir Sean turned up, Murray's mother joined the . That's hardly a surprise. I think my mother could move quicker than the speed of light if it came to getting close to Sir Sean. Irritatingly, I know several (extremely beautiful) girls my age would gladly do some extremely rude things to Sir Sean now - yes I am jealous!
Anyway, I thought the whole incident added a degree of warmth and humour to an otherwise fairly formal occasion. Podium invasions should certainly not be the norm but once in a while they can be forgiven.
JR
However let me concentrate on an event a couple of days before the final which I found highly amusing (and heart warming).
During the press-conference following his win in the semi-finals, Murray was joined by two of his fellow countrymen. Sir Sean Connery and Alec Ferguson to be precise. Having watched the match, they wished to offer their congratulations. Fair enough. And given one of them is essentially James Bond, who is going to stand in their way?
According to a later interview, both of the older gentlemen smelled strongly of wine. To use the vernacular, they were a wee bit fu. Good on them! They obviously had a good time (in various ways) when watching the match and were feeling outgoing.
Newspapers reported that not long after Sir Sean turned up, Murray's mother joined the . That's hardly a surprise. I think my mother could move quicker than the speed of light if it came to getting close to Sir Sean. Irritatingly, I know several (extremely beautiful) girls my age would gladly do some extremely rude things to Sir Sean now - yes I am jealous!
Anyway, I thought the whole incident added a degree of warmth and humour to an otherwise fairly formal occasion. Podium invasions should certainly not be the norm but once in a while they can be forgiven.
JR
Friday 7 September 2012
Wine
Despite my droning on in previous posts about loving whisky and beer and beginning to appreciate the differences in tea I know next to nothing about wine. I know I generally prefer red to white, fish should NEVER be mixed with red wine (it showed up the villain in From Russia with Love) and that rose tastes like alcoholic Ribena. I know most countries categorise their wine according to the varieties of grapes that go into the wine... except France who do things almost exclusively by region. I also know that if I'm buying wine, I generally follow the ABC rule... anything but chardonnay. Or go for the bottle with the biggest discount within my budget.
Ok I'm slightly overplaying my ignorance here. I know a wee bit more than that but I've still barely dipped my proverbial toe in the pool of knowledge.
It's quite a shame really. I take a tremendous pleasure from what I eat and drink (Bond quote there) and I think I have a fairly decent palette. When my hayfever isn't playing up I have a decent nose too so I have a decent backing for wine tasting. Furthermore, being used to puzzling out the flavours of whisky means that, on the occasions I do drink wine, I can pick out the aromas and flavours of the wine with fair accuracy.
However there are a few things that put me off. They all revolve around the fact that the whole process is ludicrously complicated. To decant or not to decant? Which vintage? How long should it be aged for? Will it be better the next morning when it's breathed a bit? Which country to I start with? The list is seemingly endless.
The other problem is that, from experience, I know the best way to gain knowledge and experience of something like a drink is to taste copious amounts and compare them against each other. This could easily get expensive. Ok I got to taste a lot of whisky at Uni. but wine tasting, being that bit more mainstream and popular, will be considerably more expensive. Trying them myself is also not on given the cheaper bottles cost around a fiver. This is a serious stumbling block given that, even with whisky, I can only identify some of the elements of one malt when comparing with another so drinking individual bottles would be of limited use.
There is also the fact that wine can be, and often is, insanely pretentious. James May makes this point regularly in the Oz and James series and I have to agree. Oz Clarke is evidently not only deeply knowledgeable on the subject but also fearsomely passionate and it shows... but there's still a lot of bollocks. Even with my taste for tradition and grandeur it's a bit much.
Worst of all is the convention of spitting out samples. At whisky tastings it breaks my (and the distiller's) heart to see people not finishing their drinks; spitting them out goes against every fibre of my being. It's designed to be consumed, not doing so is frankly taking the piss.
Perhaps this is something I can investigate when I have more time and disposable income to devote to it.
JR
Ok I'm slightly overplaying my ignorance here. I know a wee bit more than that but I've still barely dipped my proverbial toe in the pool of knowledge.
It's quite a shame really. I take a tremendous pleasure from what I eat and drink (Bond quote there) and I think I have a fairly decent palette. When my hayfever isn't playing up I have a decent nose too so I have a decent backing for wine tasting. Furthermore, being used to puzzling out the flavours of whisky means that, on the occasions I do drink wine, I can pick out the aromas and flavours of the wine with fair accuracy.
However there are a few things that put me off. They all revolve around the fact that the whole process is ludicrously complicated. To decant or not to decant? Which vintage? How long should it be aged for? Will it be better the next morning when it's breathed a bit? Which country to I start with? The list is seemingly endless.
The other problem is that, from experience, I know the best way to gain knowledge and experience of something like a drink is to taste copious amounts and compare them against each other. This could easily get expensive. Ok I got to taste a lot of whisky at Uni. but wine tasting, being that bit more mainstream and popular, will be considerably more expensive. Trying them myself is also not on given the cheaper bottles cost around a fiver. This is a serious stumbling block given that, even with whisky, I can only identify some of the elements of one malt when comparing with another so drinking individual bottles would be of limited use.
There is also the fact that wine can be, and often is, insanely pretentious. James May makes this point regularly in the Oz and James series and I have to agree. Oz Clarke is evidently not only deeply knowledgeable on the subject but also fearsomely passionate and it shows... but there's still a lot of bollocks. Even with my taste for tradition and grandeur it's a bit much.
Worst of all is the convention of spitting out samples. At whisky tastings it breaks my (and the distiller's) heart to see people not finishing their drinks; spitting them out goes against every fibre of my being. It's designed to be consumed, not doing so is frankly taking the piss.
Perhaps this is something I can investigate when I have more time and disposable income to devote to it.
JR
Wednesday 5 September 2012
Pub Grub
Pub grub. This unique style of "cuisine" has a special place in British life. But what is it? What defines good pub grub? Having spent a significant amounts of time eating in pubs over the last wee while, now is as good a time as any to try and work it out.
First things first, it is most emphatically not "cuisine", this belongs in the gastropub. I have mixed feelings about gastropubs. On the one hand, it makes high-quality dining accessible and reasonably priced. This will hopefully get people interested in food and eating opening a limitless world of pleasure and providing a stepping stone into the restaurant world. However pretty much the last thing a gastropub could be described as is a pub. By that I mean you couldn't go in and order a pint. There is a constant expectation to order food which inevitably becomes the main event. To be a proper pub, the focus must be on the ambiance, the atmosphere and the general conviviality of your surroundings. If food is involved, it should be a supplement.
The first, and main, thing a pub meal should be is good. Bad pub grub is diabolical and will not be discussed further!
Good pub grub is tasty and well made... but not over the top otherwise it will be a gastropub! Essentially what you're looking for is simple, traditional cooking that is well executed and hearty. A typical pub menu will include dishes like Sheppard's pie, scampi and chips, fish and chips, steak pie, burgers, macaroni cheese, a ploughman's lunch (the contents of which are a whole different post), a range of sandwiches and for token exotic dishes a chilli con carne and lasagne.
This is a bit of a double edged sword. On one hand these dishes are traditional and well-known to the point of being mundane. This means that people know what to expect and the dishes have to be spot on to live up to expectation. On the other, it means that people won't be distracted from the social setting by trying to puzzle over the food.
Examples of good include chips: not too big but not too small and nice and crispy. Batter should be nicely crispy, not soggy (a very big must, soggy batter can only be excused from a fish and chip shop) and the macaroni cheese can't bee too stodgy. Essentially, what is needed is the proverbial "mum's cooking" at it's peak.
One pub I've eaten in recently got the quality of the cooking perfect but they spoiled it a wee bit by having dishes that were erring on the pretentious side; gnocci bolognase and thai fishcakes with wasabi sauce. It made the whole pub seem like it was trying too hard. Perversely, another pub I was at recently served beef bourginon (god knows if that's how you spell it) and one or two other exotic dishes still hit the pub grub marker perfectly. This is probably because you pass the kitchen on the way in from the carpark and can look in on the ladies in the kitchen cooking their heart out. It's a farmhouse kitchen scaled up a bit (fitting in perfectly with the thatched roof and the picturesque garden). The food is excellent, well cooked, nicely seasoned, well proportioned and yet you don't feel too guilty about slipping a couple of chunks of the meat to the pub dog that's ambling around. What more could you want?
Portion size is another important factor. Where pub food is concerned, more is more and more still is appreciated. Save the small portions for expensive french places with rude waiters and bring me a portion of onion rings while you're at it.
Accompaniments are essential too. Chips are pretty much a must, mashed potatoes as a distant second. Salad is there for decorative purposes only. Peas are arguable either way. Onion rings and garlic bread as side orders add depth (but reduce your chances of getting off with anyone).
It also can't be too expensive. The upper end of the menu shouldn't be much over a tenner. In most cases I would say that you should have enough change from your main course to buy a pint afterwards.
Before I get completely lost in some rambling essay on pub food, let me encapsulate what pub food is all about. It's a bit of a treat but one that can be had without feeling guilty. Can't be bothered cooking? Let's nip down to the local. Sunday lunch? Drive into the country and get a good-sized roast and a pint in the garden overlooking the countryside. It's an indulgence that can be done during the week to lessen the drudgery of office life (and the onion rings cover the smell of the pint on your breath) but doesn't feel so indulgent that it can't be justified. Really, what's not to love?
JR
First things first, it is most emphatically not "cuisine", this belongs in the gastropub. I have mixed feelings about gastropubs. On the one hand, it makes high-quality dining accessible and reasonably priced. This will hopefully get people interested in food and eating opening a limitless world of pleasure and providing a stepping stone into the restaurant world. However pretty much the last thing a gastropub could be described as is a pub. By that I mean you couldn't go in and order a pint. There is a constant expectation to order food which inevitably becomes the main event. To be a proper pub, the focus must be on the ambiance, the atmosphere and the general conviviality of your surroundings. If food is involved, it should be a supplement.
The first, and main, thing a pub meal should be is good. Bad pub grub is diabolical and will not be discussed further!
Good pub grub is tasty and well made... but not over the top otherwise it will be a gastropub! Essentially what you're looking for is simple, traditional cooking that is well executed and hearty. A typical pub menu will include dishes like Sheppard's pie, scampi and chips, fish and chips, steak pie, burgers, macaroni cheese, a ploughman's lunch (the contents of which are a whole different post), a range of sandwiches and for token exotic dishes a chilli con carne and lasagne.
This is a bit of a double edged sword. On one hand these dishes are traditional and well-known to the point of being mundane. This means that people know what to expect and the dishes have to be spot on to live up to expectation. On the other, it means that people won't be distracted from the social setting by trying to puzzle over the food.
Examples of good include chips: not too big but not too small and nice and crispy. Batter should be nicely crispy, not soggy (a very big must, soggy batter can only be excused from a fish and chip shop) and the macaroni cheese can't bee too stodgy. Essentially, what is needed is the proverbial "mum's cooking" at it's peak.
One pub I've eaten in recently got the quality of the cooking perfect but they spoiled it a wee bit by having dishes that were erring on the pretentious side; gnocci bolognase and thai fishcakes with wasabi sauce. It made the whole pub seem like it was trying too hard. Perversely, another pub I was at recently served beef bourginon (god knows if that's how you spell it) and one or two other exotic dishes still hit the pub grub marker perfectly. This is probably because you pass the kitchen on the way in from the carpark and can look in on the ladies in the kitchen cooking their heart out. It's a farmhouse kitchen scaled up a bit (fitting in perfectly with the thatched roof and the picturesque garden). The food is excellent, well cooked, nicely seasoned, well proportioned and yet you don't feel too guilty about slipping a couple of chunks of the meat to the pub dog that's ambling around. What more could you want?
Portion size is another important factor. Where pub food is concerned, more is more and more still is appreciated. Save the small portions for expensive french places with rude waiters and bring me a portion of onion rings while you're at it.
Accompaniments are essential too. Chips are pretty much a must, mashed potatoes as a distant second. Salad is there for decorative purposes only. Peas are arguable either way. Onion rings and garlic bread as side orders add depth (but reduce your chances of getting off with anyone).
It also can't be too expensive. The upper end of the menu shouldn't be much over a tenner. In most cases I would say that you should have enough change from your main course to buy a pint afterwards.
Before I get completely lost in some rambling essay on pub food, let me encapsulate what pub food is all about. It's a bit of a treat but one that can be had without feeling guilty. Can't be bothered cooking? Let's nip down to the local. Sunday lunch? Drive into the country and get a good-sized roast and a pint in the garden overlooking the countryside. It's an indulgence that can be done during the week to lessen the drudgery of office life (and the onion rings cover the smell of the pint on your breath) but doesn't feel so indulgent that it can't be justified. Really, what's not to love?
JR
Monday 3 September 2012
50 Shades of Children's Books
There was an interesting article on the BBC news website the other day regarding the access children have to books in light of the success of fifty shades of grey. In summary, it illustrates how most forms of media have definite categories of audience age restriction based on content be it printed age limits or the watershed however books have no such restrictions. Yes there are bits of legislation for the protection of kids but none specifically apply to books. More worryingly, as far as I can tell, none set down clear and concise guidelines on what is and isn't appropriate to sell to children. This means that in practice, a kid of any age can go into a bookshop and buy a copy of something sexually or violently explicit. Although most book sellers say they would refuse to sell something inappropriate to kids, this is entirely self-imposed. In any case, how young is too young and how do you tell?
First of all, is classification of the media really worth it? I would say so. Undoubtedly, there are some things that feature in films and television shows which are not suitable for younger people to watch either because they are particularly upsetting or because they are particularly violent or sexual in nature. This seems to be increasingly true as less and less is left to our imaginations. Although, to my knowledge, there have been no conclusive studies; intuition suggests that watching some of this stuff will not do kids any good (although I accept that sneaking into a film rated above your age is something of a right of passage and a fun rush too).
Where classification becomes more important still is in games where one is asked not only to watch the action but actively participate in it too. Although not a gamer, I understand that many are highly violent and some are getting increasingly sexually explicit too. On the one hand, you could argue that games offer a parallel universe to express the more unpleasant side of one's personality so it doesn't come out in real life. I'm not convinced however. I would also stake money on games having a part to play in the surge in violent crimes and the weapons culture around some groups of kids. Simply restarting the game to come back to life when you have been shot surely must distort one's perspective. Age is most certainly not an indicator of maturity however I can't think of a better method to arbitrarily apply.
Now what about books? In a world of increasingly technological entertainment it would be easy to overlook them. It would be equally easy to say that, these days, as long as kids are reading that's a good thing. Personally, I think both attitudes are rather complacent. Books can be extremely explicit. What's more, in my experience, books contain far more detailed and explicit accounts of sex than comparable films although violence tends to be toned down.
My first encounter with anything explicit in a book came in my early teens in the form of Ben Elton's "This Other Eden". The account was graphic and eye opening to say the least (I think it was also my first encounter with the concept of bikini waxing!). It was also bloody hilarious and is probably a much better reflection of most people's experiences than is portrayed in film (or maybe that's just me). Unlike adult films which would probably be watched on a low volume, late at night at a sleepover with mates; this encounter happened at about half nine on a Tuesday morning in my English class during personal reading time. The book in question had been retrieved from the school library I think pretty much exclusively because I had seen other books by Elton on my parents' shelves. Was it a bad thing? Probably not but it does illustrate the difference between books and the rest of the media... we would certainly never have been shown anything more than a PG film in class.
Part of the issue back then, in my opinion, was that there were children's books and adult's books. As soon as you had finished with the Secret Seven and Famous Five you were on to the grown up stuff. These days, there are attempts being made to cater for the 'young adult' market (Charlie Higson's books about the young James Bond being a good example).
I don't particularly think the transition I faced was a particularly bad thing. I read a lot of fantastic books when I was in my early teens that could only be considered as adult in their content. If anything, it was possibly a good thing. Reading adult books allows youngsters to get a (fairly safe) toe hold in the adult world. It allows one to explore one's personality and interests. Successfully recommending books to others is an excellent way of bonding and gently morphing relationships, especially those with one's parents. Or perhaps I'm being a little romantic!
A commentator on the BBC article argued that we will always be limited by our imaginations so allowing kids to read the explicit stuff is a lot less damaging than allowing them to watch it in all it's glory on the screen. I started writing this disagreeing with this statement. I thought, and still do, that a writer's craft is partly taking us beyond our imagination and where we thought our minds could go. I still think this is the case but reflecting on the Ben Elton anecdote I think understand what he means a bit more. Reading the sex scene there, my main reaction was amusement. It was written to be funny and funny it was. I could certainly understand and visualise the description of the naked woman involved (well as a young teenage boy, like most others, one of my main pass times was picturing naked women) but the details of the sex washed over me because I had virtually nothing to relate it to. You could argue that something similar is true of films and television but there it's so much more graphic and unavoidable.
That said, I still think that a degree of caution should be exercised with young people encountering explicit material in books. It may become less of an issue with the rising number of books written for younger people but until then, parents should keep a very close eye on what their kids are reading: even if they don't read it themselves, a few minutes on wikipedia or amazon should give enough detail. At this stage, I don't think a formal system of classification would either be helpful or possible. The variety within the book world is so great it would be impossible to slap arbitrary and all-covering classifications on books. It would also make the process of incremental experimentation, discovery and growth much more difficult which may well be a retrograde step.
In short, no simple answer to this issue. Well not one I can come up with. I think it's just a simple case of parents, guardians, et al beware.
JR
First of all, is classification of the media really worth it? I would say so. Undoubtedly, there are some things that feature in films and television shows which are not suitable for younger people to watch either because they are particularly upsetting or because they are particularly violent or sexual in nature. This seems to be increasingly true as less and less is left to our imaginations. Although, to my knowledge, there have been no conclusive studies; intuition suggests that watching some of this stuff will not do kids any good (although I accept that sneaking into a film rated above your age is something of a right of passage and a fun rush too).
Where classification becomes more important still is in games where one is asked not only to watch the action but actively participate in it too. Although not a gamer, I understand that many are highly violent and some are getting increasingly sexually explicit too. On the one hand, you could argue that games offer a parallel universe to express the more unpleasant side of one's personality so it doesn't come out in real life. I'm not convinced however. I would also stake money on games having a part to play in the surge in violent crimes and the weapons culture around some groups of kids. Simply restarting the game to come back to life when you have been shot surely must distort one's perspective. Age is most certainly not an indicator of maturity however I can't think of a better method to arbitrarily apply.
Now what about books? In a world of increasingly technological entertainment it would be easy to overlook them. It would be equally easy to say that, these days, as long as kids are reading that's a good thing. Personally, I think both attitudes are rather complacent. Books can be extremely explicit. What's more, in my experience, books contain far more detailed and explicit accounts of sex than comparable films although violence tends to be toned down.
My first encounter with anything explicit in a book came in my early teens in the form of Ben Elton's "This Other Eden". The account was graphic and eye opening to say the least (I think it was also my first encounter with the concept of bikini waxing!). It was also bloody hilarious and is probably a much better reflection of most people's experiences than is portrayed in film (or maybe that's just me). Unlike adult films which would probably be watched on a low volume, late at night at a sleepover with mates; this encounter happened at about half nine on a Tuesday morning in my English class during personal reading time. The book in question had been retrieved from the school library I think pretty much exclusively because I had seen other books by Elton on my parents' shelves. Was it a bad thing? Probably not but it does illustrate the difference between books and the rest of the media... we would certainly never have been shown anything more than a PG film in class.
Part of the issue back then, in my opinion, was that there were children's books and adult's books. As soon as you had finished with the Secret Seven and Famous Five you were on to the grown up stuff. These days, there are attempts being made to cater for the 'young adult' market (Charlie Higson's books about the young James Bond being a good example).
I don't particularly think the transition I faced was a particularly bad thing. I read a lot of fantastic books when I was in my early teens that could only be considered as adult in their content. If anything, it was possibly a good thing. Reading adult books allows youngsters to get a (fairly safe) toe hold in the adult world. It allows one to explore one's personality and interests. Successfully recommending books to others is an excellent way of bonding and gently morphing relationships, especially those with one's parents. Or perhaps I'm being a little romantic!
A commentator on the BBC article argued that we will always be limited by our imaginations so allowing kids to read the explicit stuff is a lot less damaging than allowing them to watch it in all it's glory on the screen. I started writing this disagreeing with this statement. I thought, and still do, that a writer's craft is partly taking us beyond our imagination and where we thought our minds could go. I still think this is the case but reflecting on the Ben Elton anecdote I think understand what he means a bit more. Reading the sex scene there, my main reaction was amusement. It was written to be funny and funny it was. I could certainly understand and visualise the description of the naked woman involved (well as a young teenage boy, like most others, one of my main pass times was picturing naked women) but the details of the sex washed over me because I had virtually nothing to relate it to. You could argue that something similar is true of films and television but there it's so much more graphic and unavoidable.
That said, I still think that a degree of caution should be exercised with young people encountering explicit material in books. It may become less of an issue with the rising number of books written for younger people but until then, parents should keep a very close eye on what their kids are reading: even if they don't read it themselves, a few minutes on wikipedia or amazon should give enough detail. At this stage, I don't think a formal system of classification would either be helpful or possible. The variety within the book world is so great it would be impossible to slap arbitrary and all-covering classifications on books. It would also make the process of incremental experimentation, discovery and growth much more difficult which may well be a retrograde step.
In short, no simple answer to this issue. Well not one I can come up with. I think it's just a simple case of parents, guardians, et al beware.
JR
Sunday 2 September 2012
Password
Dear Internet
This is a genuine and hear-felt request so listen up. Please, please, please, please, PLEASE stop trying to remember my passwords. Believe it or not, the point of a password is to restrict access to certain areas or information. Saving a password rather negates the point. This is particularly frustrating when I go to some (small) effort thinking up passwords which are seemingly random yet still memorable.
Let me illustrate some of the issues that can potentially arise from saved passwords. First are the minor little niggles. You know, the "funny" facebook statuses posted on your behalf by friends. Not to mention the "friending" of people you don't like. There is also the issue of one's personal email being visible which is a bit awkward if someone has sent you something they don't wish to become public. And again there is the issue of others sending "hilarious" emails purporting to be from me. Finally, people could access this very blog and edit existing posts, put up new ones and generally be a bit of a pest. Apart from the issue of confidentiality of correspondents, the above examples are more irritating than bad. On a good day, some can even be rather funny but that's not really the point. Just because a ghostwritten facebook status can be amusing doesn't mean we want one.
Now let's move up a gear to moderately severe consequences. These usually happen ins the realm of internet shopping. I don't really want an inflatable girlfriend (with realistic moving parts) from ebay. Nor do I particularly want an ice cube tray that makes ice in the shape of willies. Both of these are possible if a password is saved on internet shopping sites. Worst of all, someone could endeavour to purchase fifty shades of grey on my behalf!
Finally there is the really serious stuff. The internet banking, service contracts such as phones and internet and other such areas where both personal details (of consequence) and significant amounts of money are at risk.
Now I trust my friends (well apart from the realms of practical jokes) so you could argue that it shouldn't matter that passwords are saved on my personal computer however, as regards to the internet banking etc, that just doesn't work. I wouldn't tell them my ATM PIN, why would I therefore bypass my internet banking password. Now what about shared computers; internet cafes, office workstations and the like? Now obviously leaving them unattended isn't a great idea and they do generally log out after a relatively short period of inactivity so it shouldn't be too much of an issue. But are you seriously telling me I should log out to go to the loo in the office? Really? And wouldn't the IT department have some bypass password anyway, not to mention a fairly detailed internet history. Why should I distrust the IT department? Well I don't, they certainly get the benefit of the doubt but again, would you tell them your bank PIN? I wouldn't, therefore why should they have access to all my personal areas on the internet.
In conclusion internet, I know this may not be the most coherent of logic but that doesn't really make much difference. The message is still this, please don't try and save our passwords. If there is a password for the site then chances are it's there for a reason not just to irritate us.
Yours sincerely
JR
This is a genuine and hear-felt request so listen up. Please, please, please, please, PLEASE stop trying to remember my passwords. Believe it or not, the point of a password is to restrict access to certain areas or information. Saving a password rather negates the point. This is particularly frustrating when I go to some (small) effort thinking up passwords which are seemingly random yet still memorable.
Let me illustrate some of the issues that can potentially arise from saved passwords. First are the minor little niggles. You know, the "funny" facebook statuses posted on your behalf by friends. Not to mention the "friending" of people you don't like. There is also the issue of one's personal email being visible which is a bit awkward if someone has sent you something they don't wish to become public. And again there is the issue of others sending "hilarious" emails purporting to be from me. Finally, people could access this very blog and edit existing posts, put up new ones and generally be a bit of a pest. Apart from the issue of confidentiality of correspondents, the above examples are more irritating than bad. On a good day, some can even be rather funny but that's not really the point. Just because a ghostwritten facebook status can be amusing doesn't mean we want one.
Now let's move up a gear to moderately severe consequences. These usually happen ins the realm of internet shopping. I don't really want an inflatable girlfriend (with realistic moving parts) from ebay. Nor do I particularly want an ice cube tray that makes ice in the shape of willies. Both of these are possible if a password is saved on internet shopping sites. Worst of all, someone could endeavour to purchase fifty shades of grey on my behalf!
Finally there is the really serious stuff. The internet banking, service contracts such as phones and internet and other such areas where both personal details (of consequence) and significant amounts of money are at risk.
Now I trust my friends (well apart from the realms of practical jokes) so you could argue that it shouldn't matter that passwords are saved on my personal computer however, as regards to the internet banking etc, that just doesn't work. I wouldn't tell them my ATM PIN, why would I therefore bypass my internet banking password. Now what about shared computers; internet cafes, office workstations and the like? Now obviously leaving them unattended isn't a great idea and they do generally log out after a relatively short period of inactivity so it shouldn't be too much of an issue. But are you seriously telling me I should log out to go to the loo in the office? Really? And wouldn't the IT department have some bypass password anyway, not to mention a fairly detailed internet history. Why should I distrust the IT department? Well I don't, they certainly get the benefit of the doubt but again, would you tell them your bank PIN? I wouldn't, therefore why should they have access to all my personal areas on the internet.
In conclusion internet, I know this may not be the most coherent of logic but that doesn't really make much difference. The message is still this, please don't try and save our passwords. If there is a password for the site then chances are it's there for a reason not just to irritate us.
Yours sincerely
JR
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)