Ding Dong Merrily on High and Dry.(See what I did there?)

A few years ago I worked at a major UK supermarket, we'll codename it ASDA as that was what it was called. ASDA used to be closed only four days a year, Christmas Day; Boxing Day*; New Years Day, and Easter Sunday. Well now it seems all the major supermarkets (except our local Morrisons) are now opening on Boxing Day, so the workers have one less holiday day at Christmas, and that it sad.

Christmas serves an important function in our society. Now I am big time atheist, Jesus was no more the son of God, as Arthur Askey was. The Nativity may be as factually valid as an episode of Buck Rogers, but that doesn't mean we should just do away with it. Now I'm a cynical misanthrope who lives in a dirty bin lid and swears incoherently at passers by, and even I manage to capture some of the Christmas spirit, you'd have to either be very miserable or currently Tyrone of Coronation Street not to even let a little of the festive spirit rub off. A good natured affirmative group celebration like Christmas is good for us all, a time to realise life isn't all work and practical stuff, that human existence should be life affirming. And getting presents is a bonus too! In short Christmas is everything the ultra free market isn't.

A young woman on Facebook has fallen foul of this extra opening day. And she was understandably put out. It just seems wrong opening the supermarkets on Boxing day, and you got that sense from her comments. I mean come on! Will these mega companies really go bust if they allow their staff (who often have young families, who are now deprived of the company a loved one at Christmas) two days off at Christmas. This is precisely what bugs me about ultra free market advocates (who incidentally often seem pretty protected from the arse end of this kind of society.) reasoning. It may generate wealth**, but it doesn't generate human wealth so to speak. These aren't inanimate units of production, but human workers with desires and lives and families, and a desire for emotional comforts and the comforts of home and hearth and whatever.*** That is perhaps why I have a soft spot for Christmas. It stands as a long standing bulwark against the free market fundamentalism that may have made us richer but not happier. But will the day itself come under threat? I have heard (but have no verification) that some US superstores do open for a few hours on the 25th now. Bugger.

*Pretty much every year I was there there were rumours that this was the year they'd take the plunge and open Boxing Day.

**No I'm not a communist by the way. The free market has its uses, but should not be a societal end in itself. To quote David Starkey "It remains true as always, people are motivated by more than just market forces."

** It has been argued that some people are so lonely at Christmas that they would welcome them all being open on the day as they would at least have a shop assistant to speak to that day. This always breaks my bloody heart when I hear it. Perhaps we should try to change the factors that allow people to become this cut off as an all year round project, rather than making it a reason to open stores on Christmas Day.

Comments on SFDebris "Prime Directive / Dear Doctor" Videos

PRIME DIRECTIVE REVIEW

DEAR DOCTOR REVIEW

SFDebris; or Chuck Sonnonberg is the Ebert and Siskel of Youtube Star Trek reviews. His insights to the series and his witty critiques of the various shows are really second to none. That odd looking lad blubbing about Britney Spears this ain't. Watch his videos now, get your friends to watch them, get your family to watch them as well, even your pets. Even if you haven't seen Star Trek watch them! They may not mean much in that context but hey. Now back to the crux of this post. SFDebris nails on the head exactly how a well intentioned and well known key philosophy of Star Trek lore went from a sound philosophical reaction to the mistakes made in our world to a hideous parody of its original self that ended up on occasions matching and suppressing the evil it was supposed to combat. That is the Prime Directive, Star Treks Federations non-interference directive. I want to see how this code that was supposed to portray an enlightened attempt to alleviate suffering actually resulted in suffering from inaction on several occasions by analysing SFDebris videos and commentary with some of my own thrown in. Intrigued? - well read on.

Anyone familiar with Chucks work will know that the Enterprise episode "Dear Doctor" is one of his most well known written reviews, and was one of the most requested Youtube reviews. Everyone has their "Yikes" moment with a Prime Directive story (well especially in the later ones) when the directive was taken to such extremes you just had to question the face value assumptions of the infallible "rightness" of the PD. I crossed the Rubicon with the TNG episode "Homeward" where some made up science caused a planet to lose it's atmosphere thus killing the pre -industrial population, (don't worry some get rescued) which under the PD would have to happen lest their culture be contaminated. Now you might have thought that these guys may have had bigger fish to fry, than someone dicking about with their culture, when - oh- THEIR FUCKING PLANETS ATMOSPHERE HAS VANISHED INTO THIN AI...., I MEAN; SPACE!" That's a level of philosophical devotion I find hard to relate to (to put it mildly). However in SFDebris case he highlights the ENT episode "Dear Doctor" as a prime example of all that went wrong with the application of the PD.

In summary "Dear Doctor" is about a bunch of pre -warp aliens called the Valakians who are dying of a genetic disease. The Enterprise crew discover a second sentient species on the planet called the Menk, they are less intelligent and are not afflicted. The ships doctor, Phlox discovers firstly that the genetic disease will render the Valakians extinct in 200 years, and in addition the Menk are on the verge of an evolutionary leap in intellectual growth.* Saving the Valakians (who are on an evolutionary path to extinction) may disrupt this leap. In the end Captain Archer and Phlox withhold the cure so nature can take its cause. Chuck objects to this episode on two fronts, the first being that for all Phlox and Archer protest about not playing god, they are doing just that! Withholding a vaccine to a people who are destined to die in some evolutionary grand plan anyway, and secondly that the episode treats evolution as something with a grand conscious plan for us all, and not just a blind process by which natural environmental processes alter gene frequencies. Let us be clear about this, Phlox has all but signed the Valakians death warrant on the basis of raw speculation about how things may turn out, and by applying pseudoscientific theories of evolutionary predestination into the bargain also! Sorry Valakians you are the weakest link. Goodbyeeee!

Like SFDebris I agree that the P D is in principle a good idea. As he said it probably arose from a mix of revulsion to the extremes of the Truman doctrine, when even the most vile of tinpot barbarians could get a load of cash and weapons if they got themselves called "anti - communist" , and how the conquest of the American continent was carried out. There are many instances where something like the PD would be both moral and enlightened a thing for explorers to heed. A non interference directive. Not unnecessarily dicking about with less advanced cultures, interfering in wars that don't concern them, not giving less advanced peoples technology they can't handle. These are sensible rules that both benefit explorer and explored. The problem with the application of the PD, which snowballed towards the VOY/ENT end of the franchise, was that it mutated from an enlightened philosophy grounded in pragmatism to theological dogma, and from that evil flows.

The latter examples of the PD gone awry are a textbook example of sensible rules being corrupted by rigidity and dogma. Like Chuck says, the PD must be enforced no matter what, no mitigating circumstances. The PD is good and just, because it is the PD, general order one! No involvement that [they] might cause harm, in any circumstances at all! This kind of mentality is why religious dogmas can be so harmful, when you apply absolutist rules to an arbitrary world. To quote SFDebris:

"this kind of thinking assumes that the Prime Directive was a divine being or something, that it has a plan, and who are mere mortals like Janeway and Paris to question it? It is, in fact, merely a rule created by human beings. Not to say that it isn't an important rule, since there is much justification for it (such as preventing exploitation of undeveloped systems). But that doesn't make it an absolute, that there's never a reason to ignore it."

We see this mentality in some religious dogmas today. I'll highlight one of them as an example. The refusal by Jehovah's Witnesses to give blood. In antiquity this aversion to "misuse" of blood was likely based on a misunderstanding of what blood was on the part of people who had no knowledge of advanced biology. Think of all the purity and hereditory metaphors associated with blood. They must have seen blood as some magic life giving fluid that when spilt from the body (a lot of violent death back then) is responsible for supping the god given life energy and death.This is wholly inaccurate but we can give them the benefit of the doubt. It was seen as wise back then not to handle blood willy nilly. However society has changed since then and this view of bloods properties is pretty inaccurate, however still JW's ignore this and insist on denying the effectiveness of blood transfusions, and worse still may allow someone to actually die than have a transfusion. This is when a law written by man is taken to such ludicrous extremes that an absolutist law is upheld even to the extent that it is based on an obsolete understanding that bares no resemblance to reality -just because it is a law, that is always virtuous, because by virtue it always is!

The second failing of the PD is summed up as:

"The biggest excuse, and the one Janeway trots out here, is that you don't know what the consequences would be. You could make things worse. Granted, going in and stopping a war could be a really sticky problem, but using this as a justification for allowing millions or billions to be incinerated alive? With that kind of logic, you should never get involved in anything. If a person is trapped under a piece of fallen masonry in an alley and calls for help, ignore them. After all, if you save them they could go on to marry and have children, and one of those children could wind up growing up and joining a group of whack-jobs and helps them plant a nuclear warhead in a major city, killing tens of millions of people. Or maybe they'll just live a long and happy life. You don't know, but under the reasoning of the Prime Directive disciples, it's better not to take that chance"

To take another real life analogy. If the Haiti earthquake had happened in the Star Trek universe and if we took the PD to the standards applied above, then there would have been no relief effort at all on the part of Starfleet. I mean what happens if this was a turning point in history? What if the poor people of Haiti, standing in the smoke and rubble of their homeland, are spurned on by adversity and the fact that an earthquake devastated them - to transform their island into a industrial powerhouse, then a global empire, then a natural disaster stopping galactic federation rapid response squad? Lest anyone anywhere ever suffers from geological disasters. Thus by helping them their destiny is screwed. In reality of course we know no-one seriously would take that point of view. How do you know any of that will happen? That is sheer speculation. Like Chuck says we would be paralysed be fear to do anything at all if we took the attitude above. We are humans who can only see the here and now, we don't have the prescience to take the stance above, and to think otherwise would be the height of hubris as Riker says. We have to be motivated by compassion and pragmatism and in reaction to current events, what else can we go by?

Chucks videos show how the PD became more zealously applied as the franchise progressed. As we see; both Kirk and Spock agree that telling the Yonadas they live on a fake looking asteroid is a lesser evil than letting them all be wiped out. Spock says it is logical to do so. It was certainly the moral thing to do. The Yonadas are a sentient people with hopes and dreams, and are irreplaceable if they are rendered extinct, being told they live on an asteroid may be upsetting, but it's better than being dead. Likewise when the original crew warned the (ostensibly) primitive Organians about the dangers of Klingon occupation, and how the Feds would help them to develop their society by providing schools and improved farming techniques, in exchange for joining an anti-Klingon alliance. It could be argued that this was chauvinistic and patronising, but it was [from their point and ours] preferable to slavery and brutal occupation under Klingon rule. Society is ephemeral and situations can change and this reflected that. Things are already going downhill when Picard and his crew have that hideous straw man argument about saving the doomed society, Riker's "height of hubris" comment is comically circular reasoning. Then we get Janeway and Archer taking the PD to its fundamentalist, absolutist conclusion. The logical end point of a law being so rigidly applied, it actually causes more harm than what it was set up to prevent. Man cannot (IMHO) proclaim to have an insight on this destiny / nature / the greater scheme of things / the cosmic plan - circle the appropriate one, indeed I'm personally doubtful there is any great plan at all (but that's just me and another topic entirely). In fact I do wonder did someone like Stalin think that "greater destiny" called for the Kulaks to disappear when he was lying awake in bed at night?

It's actually kind of ironic that such a rigorous interpretation of the Prime Directive actually goes against the spirit of exploration in Trek. If your going to seek out new civilisations on a manned ship you are going to have to interact with them at some point. I would have thought Starfleet would have taken a similar view to this as the puritanical Lady Whiteadder in Blackadder II did to parties. "Where there are people, there are people to fornicate with!" What about colonising or exploring planets? A disrupted bit of bacteria could be a civilisation in the making that has been snuffed out. If your going to take this kind of rigorous attitude, I'd really stay at home and hide!

We never learned what happened to the Valakians. I don't know if Chuck is right and they became the Breen, and the Menk the Pakleds. But I do remember Tacitus (well obviously not personally remember!) commenting on so called "civilised" people not putting their money where their mouth was, when he proclaimed that the Romans made a desert and called it peace. I wonder if a philosopher from those last remaining Valakians thought similar of Starfleet. "They let us go extinct and called it high mindedness"

A Brief Post on the "Genetic ADHD" Findings.

Which can be summarised as:

"ADHD Genetic Faults Link – One child in 50 is suffering from ‘attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity (ADHD), a problem whose causes are not well established and could be partially of genetic origin, according to a study released this week.

This condition, which leads to fidgeting, inattention, difficulty concentrating, impulsiveness, causing problems at school and affects more boys than girls. Symptoms appear within the first year of life.

The reasons advanced are varied: lax parents, food too sweet, biochemical disorders on neurotransmitters.

Genetic causes, are also mentioned since the risk that the child is hyperactive is increased if a parent is and that if an identical twin is hyperactive, the other has 75% chance of being well. A study published by the British journal Lancet shows for the first time direct evidence that goes in that direction.

Researchers led by Anita Thapar, Professor of Genetics at Cardiff University (Wales), compared the DNA of 366 children with hyperactivity and that of 1047 did not suffer. They then found that hyperactive children were more likely to have in their genome into small fragments of DNA double or absent.

These fragments, variations of copies of a gene, or CNV-role control valve on genes, their absence or duplication may alter gene expression.

They also found that these fragments were found in locations such as chromosome 16, which are involved in schizophrenia and autism, a disease that has some similarities with hyperactivity, such as difficulty in learning.

For researchers, one can imagine a biological basis common to both diseases.

“This is the first time we’ve found that children with ADHD have chunks of DNA that are either duplicated or missing,” explained Anita Thapar."

So we have a possible link between DNA oddities and ADHD that has evidence of positive correlation between both. But the article is keen to point out the following:

“Hyperactivity is not caused by a single genetic change, but probably several, including CNV, interaction with unidentified environmental factors,” said another researcher, Kate Langley."

This article has had a fair amount of coverage. ADHD is of course a concern for many parents so that isn't quite unexpected. It is also a controversial issue as there are those who believe ADHD is little more than a fictional disorder designed to exonerate bad parenting and just put a fancy label on naughty kids. But if the link has validity then this does raise interesting questions, and I do think it could (if there is a definite causal link) have a profound effect on societies thinking on both how disruptive individuals should be treated, and indeed our current consensus on ethics and understanding of human nature and the innate sense of good and bad humans have.

The potential consequences of discovering that the composition of the genome may be a dominating factor in the makeup of a persons character would throw our established notions of behaviour and the way we deal with "antisocial" traits quite literally out of the window. It is generally believed that a person, say a naughty child or a thuggish hoodie or a criminal deviant has chosen to be like that. They have decided to rebel from society. To not play by the rules. They are misguided at best, at worst downright evil. Parental issues and the person in questions background do generally come next in line in common consensus reasons for [negatively sanctioned] deviancy and antisocial behaviour. Our laws, both civil; workplace and school, criminal trials and general societal sensibilities reflect this. Diminished responsibility of course can be taken into account, but most trials assume at least some form of sound mind and active; freewill motivated cause of antisocial behaviour, and who is to say that at present that is our best understanding of how to deal with this sort of thing? But if inherited genetics was proven to be a big (and possibly the biggest role) in creating disruptive and antisocial behaviour what then? No-one chooses their own genome, like some organic computer program. That would render our established method of dealing with this sort of thing - completely obsolete. We would have to move from away from pure or largely free will; motivated theories of individual behaviour to one of a high degree of genetic influences. That is why if you think about the potential conclusions that can lead from these findings - this story could be so groundbreaking to our society. And contentious too.

If, hypothetically speaking, genetics was found to be the prime motivator for human behaviour and "bad" behaviour in particular, then we would see society having a hard time accepting it as nothing more than "do-gooder" shrinks and scientists making excuses for bad behaviour. Right wing columnists would go to town claiming it was all down to bad parents and feral youth, not arbitrary genetics. A genetically based prime motivator would also be extremely controversial and hard for the main religions to swallow. I think it would be as controversial as creationism, and could possibly be the next science / religion battle ground. "Free will" and "soul" are trumpeted by evangelicals and others, the former in particular being used to get God off the hook in regards to bad stuff people do under his "perfect" watch. Neither of these sit well with genetic theories of behaviour, and this is partly why; say Mel Phillips and Peter Hitchens are so "hostile" to things like ADHD.

There would also be the issue of being able to screen genes of embryos to spot these "troubled" genes. This of course brings the inevitable ethical questions of potential programs of "eugenic terminations", and the results that would follow. In Stephen Baxter and Aurthur C Clark's novel "The Light of Other Days" the characters [set in the future] notice that there are fewer hard discipline scientists and musicians than there used to be, as things like Aspergers and Manic Depression had been screened out and "treated" at birth. Could "purging undesirable" traits become closer to reality? And where could it lead?

I'm not for one minute saying that genetics is the sole factor in determining someones behaviour. I don't think that (neither do the researchers in the article), other stuff influences it also. But have put a hypothetical situation that could distort our held beliefs in such a radical way. A smallish research study that could have enormous consequences down the road.

Glad "Burn a Quran Day" Was Extinguished

Pastor Terry Jones of (what is it with Right Wing American Christians who are named after the Monty Pythons? Terry Jones, Sarah Palin.) and his plan to have a "Burn a Koran Day." on the 9th anniversary of 9/11 was one of the stupidest ideas anybody has ever had. I just cannot conceive of any PR stunt that could possibly be more retarded than "BOKD" All it would have done was make the few followers this prat has look even more stupid than they usually are. It would have also have given some of the ultra radical Islamist nutcases something else to pretend to get angry and shouty about,whilst burning a flag or two. And God knows we need more of that kind of thing. Thankfully Pastor Monty Python has called it off, so it perhaps didn't have the whole effect that it may have done (though I did hear on the radio that three soldiers were shot in Afghanistan, that may have been motivated by the plans.).

This whole story exemplifies the juxtaposition between the inherent silliness of fundamentalist adherence to the major religions and the deadly seriousness of the consequences that can follow from fundamentalists acting on adherence to their religion. I might (slightly) concede that it could be conceivably possible, but probably extremely unlikely (IMO) that a creator of some sort might have ... well created stuff. It makes sense that mankind would join the dots and create a mythos of deities who made all this stuff to satisfy a teleological explanation for the universe. So from that point I suppose the quintessential nature of gods in human cultures isn't too puzzling. But I'm sorry - anyone who thinks that the Bible and Qu'ran are 100 percent carrot truth the word of god, is frankly kidding themselves. It is self evidently obvious to any passive observer that they were just made up by a bunch of semi literate people a zillion years ago, and that they are so full of plot holes and inconsistencies, that they make Star Trek Generations look like a well thought out piece of fiction. God no more wrote or had a hand in those books, than he did to the instruction manual for a 53 reg; four door diesel Ford Focus. I mean where to start showing the reason they weren't written by god? The fact that the rules set down in Leviticus are so obviously for a bronze age bunch of peasants, and would have little relevance if reenacted to the governance of say modern Manchester (though I'm sure that even those ancient judges would make a better stab at running Bolton council than the ones we seem to have had in the past 20 years.) . That god loftily creates the world and then just keeps banging on about a bunch of Palestinian tribes. That if you wanted to incarnate yourself as a man to redeem mankind. Then perhaps getting yourself nailed to a plank of wood after about 30 years is a bit of a wasted opportunity. How much good could J.C have done if hew lived to about 95? To the fact that dictating your memoirs to an illiterate 7th century Arab merchant is pretty fricking stupid. He should have waited a few centuries and put them up on twitter or something. It is hard to disagree with Sam Harris when he said that if the entire human race woke up with collective amnesia, shorn of all cultural relevance and context, that these books would largely be discarded as nonsense. These books are the work of human beings. Flawed, often cruel by our standards but the work of human beings, and not some gold standard lifestyle guide by a superbeing, and that is the problem of treating them as such. Humans are often wrong, callous and just plain stupid, and that is why no persons opinions should be considered infallible, as ten thousand levels of trouble will inevitably follow if they are treated as such.



That was the thing that bothered me so much about what happened 9 years ago. It wasn't the sheer brutal audacity of the attacks. Or the inhuman callousness of what these brainwashed fuckwits pulled off. It was the sheer pointlessness of the attacks. What is so utterly heartbreaking and tragic about the attack is that those 3000 people who were burned, crushed and vapourised in the crime itself, was that they died for nothing, nothing at all. They were wiped out for a cause that had 0 percent salience. Nil. Most terrorists and wars ostensibly claim to have some material cause such as resources, or a homeland etc. But not with attacks like these. They are literally killing for fairy stories. They thought that a sky pixie wanted them to fly "the others" into wall at 500 mph. That this pastor thought that the creator of the entire universe wanted him to burn "the others" book, because obviously that is high on the list of priorities for the high lord of all space time itself. I can't think of anything as tragically stupid as killing human beings, or persecuting others - because a few badly written books tell you to. That is essentially all religiously motivated violence boils down to.


How fucking tragic.

French Don't Float Some Folks Boat.

There has been a plan put forward by the coalition, with their French counterparts to share the joint(ish) responsibility of running the three new flagships of the European nations aircraft carrier fleets. Two of the new carriers are ours, along with one of the French carriers. By pooling resources (the ships will always be under the command of their home countries.) the two nations defence forces can save a couple of bob. One of the new British carriers can't really be scrapped as it is three quarters complete, and would be very costly to get rid of,- ironically in order to cut costs. I mean you can't just take it to the tip for christ sake. There are strategic questions of potential conflicts of interest. Say Britain undertook a naval mission against French interests, or vice - versa. But the finer points of the pros and cons have been drowned out in the letters to the Mail and Daily Star I have seen. No the only downside there is the French themselves, for being ... like - French! The enemy!

How original.

I don't know too much about coordinating defence. If I were in charge of the military, we'd be negotiating the terms of surrender to the armed forces of Andorra. Where the most dangerous weapon is the generals parade baton. But I can see some benefits of sharing costs. Directly unrelated to this story, (for one thing, the plan involves sharing the cost of maintaining flag carriers. Not putting the entire MOD under the froggies commands, as some of the more hysterical responses imply.). a pan-European navy has actually been proposed in the past, in regards to things such as patrolling for illegal immigrant and human trafficking to Europe. As well as co-ordinating, or at the very least - co-operating in the defence of European waters, rather than each country doing their own thing. It is ironic that the former would probably be popular with the Star / Mail. It' s amusing to see them trying to see whose worser, when stuff they don't like are at odds with each other. I thought the Mail approved of prudence? Not if it involves Johnny foreigner getting a nosey in on the John Bulls armada they don't! Fuck thrift and stick it to the Frenchies!

The hysterical comments about Britain being taken over, and the loss of 1000 years of freedom - from people who have read the headlines and no further, and the jingoistic articles that have been written in relation to the story, about how we have been enemies since the dawn of time -are profoundly depressing. Not only do they dig up all the past antagonisms, and imply that a history of adversary is an immutable state of affairs. They also perpetuate the stereotype of Britain as some old fashioned jingoistic bunch of isolationists. Which is all rather depressing really.

A Few Cracks I Noticed in "Reality Show" X-Factor

X - Factor likes to claim that it is pure reality TV. That everything you; the viewer were shown on telly, is 100 percent, what really happened. This is complete bullshit, if anyone who knows even a little about how telly works -could tell you. There is very little that gets transmitted and very few acts shown on the show, that weren't highly choreographed beforehand. The "arguments" between judges. Those change of hearts. The sob stories of the "good" singers. These are not arbitrary snippets of human drama captured on film. (though the sad back stories of contestants are true.) But are scripted and pre planned to produce a coherent and dramatic narrative throughout the series. Virtually nothing you see on Saturday tea time is "reality TV". There are obvious logical problems that bely the producers claims that the show is authentic reality TV, if we think about them. How can the judges possibly devote enough time to see all 200,000 wannabees?* (how many applied in 2009.) Assuming they put in 10 hours a day, every day - to see them all. That would be 120 a day, or about four and a half years to see everyone. (it would take them just a squeak under 2 years, if that was all they did, non stop for 24 hours a day; until everyone had been auditioned.) If anyone can supposedly show up, why do you have to submit an application form? Why is the show not broadcast in real time, live, if it is a genuine slice of reality pie? These can't be got around, and the producers hope they won't be spotted (if anyone assumes the show is really as authentic to start with.). However, these don't really concern me. They are metaphysically impossible to avoid. But, sometimes if you watch carefully (or are just a loser like me, who has nothing else better to do than nitpick a popular TV show.), sometimes little bits of "evidence", get past the editors that all is not quite as "real" as the producers claim. I noticed a few this week. And perhaps some more might get broadcast. I'll keep an eye out whilst it is on and see what I can find. So here are two of last Saturdays "cracks" that unintentionally gave the game away.

The "Temple Fire" band. That monumentally shit boyband, that killed Whams "Wake Me Up Before you Go go." with those actions that are now seared on my visual cortex for all time, and will never leave ever. Yeah, Temple Fire lamented to whatsisface who presents it, that the reason they bombed (guys, you can't sing for a start.) was because they were told to sing that instead of what they wanted to sing. You see one of the terms of auditioning on the show, is that you are contractually obliged to sing what they tell you to, if they do so. Now call me cynical, but that could be used by, say -an unscrupulous editing team to set someone up for an embarrassing fall, or to disrupt their act at the eleventh hour, and capture the results on camera. Hmmmm

Mary Byrne, a Dublin Tesco till lady - has received quite a lot of coverage in this years show. She has been called the new "SuBo", a dowdy looking middle aged women who can sing a cover of a song fairly well. The creators of the show, know that for a show that "everyone" can enter and win, that everyone seems to defined as soft focus good looking young people, who could model nightclothes for Kays catalogue, if it went by the majority of contestants who make it to the finals. For a show designed to produce a mass marketed new star.(It is in reality a chance for Cowell to make loads of cash from the phone votes, the revenue from a potential new star is too small and too risky to be the main source of the shows dividends) -that is understandable. But the Su Bo contestant makes the show look more broadly democratic, and has the emotional investment of the trampled on underdog making it big time. They [the producers] love to go nuts with the latter, and that was the source of the second suspicious "crack" that got out. She was asked to describe her life on the tills, and she said that she was always assigned the same till station (no. 14 I think it was.) every shift, all of the time. For anyone who has worked on a till at a supermarket should know this is utter bollocks. They have a number to log on assigned to them But no-one is assigned the same console all the time. You get moved around or asked to relieve other ope raters (for breaks and shift ends etc.), or moved to the front during quieter times. It was put in to highlight the drudgery she faced; locked to her till, and the road to showbiz was her only escape route. I assume everyone else on her department just has to fuck off and sing for their supper presumably? In a nutshell she was told to say that by the editors, to make her job look rubbisher than it is.

Reality TV indeed. I'll keep an eye out for more of these unless, A) I can't really be arsed too. B)

I forget it is on. I'm rubbish at remembering telly schedules. C) I get a life. It might happen!

*I did actually know a guy (he could sing.) who did go to an audition (in 2008 I think.) for the show, and no -he didn't get to see Simon and co, like 90 percent of the other people who go to auditions. Unfortunately for him, decent singers don't make that horrible phrase; - "good telly"

The House Comes Down for Ringo Starr

CLICK HERE FOR STREETVIEW IMAGE OF MADRYN STREET. Ringo's house is the one facing in front. (the one not boarded up. Though it is now all sealed up.)

We have learned that 9 Madryn Street in Toxteth; Liverpool, (and indeed Madryn Street itself) the house that one Richard Starkey was born in (AKA Ringo off the Beatles.) has had a demolition notice served on it by Liverpool council. Several fans and Beatles local tour guides have formed a group called SMS (Save Madryn Street) in response, claiming it has special historic value, being where the former Beatle came into the world 70 years ago. The council disagrees. Ringo was only there for three months (though other sources say five years.). The Starkeys moved to Admiral Grove up the road, when his single mum couldn't pay the rent at Madryn Street. So its relationship with the Beatles is too tenuous to justify saving it - let alone Madryn Street. As this part of Toxteth really needs regenerating as soon as possible. The five year moratorium they put on knocking these houses down is up. So is it worth saving (IMHO.) No. But there is a small nod to sentimental preservation that could be done. So here's my take.

This part of Liverpool desperately needs something doing with it. It is just going to sit there rotting, as well as attracting arsonists and squatters. The houses are in very bad state of repair. They were reputedly cold and damp when inhabited, God knows what state they are in now? They would essentially have to be virtually rebuilt to become habitable again for regeneration. They are the kind of terraces that were lucky to have dodged the bulldozers of the 30's, never mind the and 60's to 80's, let alone now. Indeed Ringos old house has had its outer walls replaced at some later date. So is technically the same building? Demolishing the others and leaving number 9 standing alone has been proposed. Well there is questions about their structural condition from a century of damp. New building s would need new foundations excavated. Shoring up the house to modern standards would be pretty expensive, and would delay construction.

Perhaps the biggest clincher is that a lot in Liverpool are in favour of the clearance. Ringo himself has been lukewarm in supporting preserving them. He upset a lot of people by telling them not to hassle him with autobiographies. (who made you famous by the way anyway?) Liverpool is in the middle of an increase of fortune, with the Capital of culture and all. Could Toxteth follow Hulme in Manchester? Transforming a run down suburb to a more agreeable area. A new Ringo Starr road, or Starkey lane, in the site of old Madryn Street. My suggestion would be one already proposed. Preserve the facade of the house (and the Madryn Street road sign.) at the Liverpool Museum. An in situ rebuild would be really expensive and very time consuming for a really quite tenuous Beatle monument. Paying homage to Liverpools past, but thinking of the future. I can't think of an appropriate Beatles metaphor for this idea, so we'll all get by with a little help, or something.

A - Level Results Day Means Only One Thing

Oh God I've just remembered it's A-Level results day tomorrow. I'm not worried about it for the usual reason people are, as I did them myself 13 years ago. But because inevitably the papers will be full of the following cliches that get printed every single year results day arrives, of which one in particular pisses me off quite a lot. (students doing well and celebrating isn't one of them I might add. I'm not quite that dead on the inside yet!!) . So lets refresh on the usual cliches that get wheeled out:

1.) PICTURE OF THREE POSH LOOKING GIRLS JUMPING UP IN THE AIR CLUTCHING THEIR RESULTS PAPER FULL OF STRAIGHT A'S.

This picture always inevitably gets printed. The three middle class girls (they look like head girls.) caught mid jump receiving the good news. One always has a white cardy and a floral dress on. In fact I'm sure they are the same three girls that are used every year, reliving an acceptable face of home counties totty for the Mail readers; posing for an exam day photoshoot type of Groundhog day, that is locked in some kind of infinite temporal loop for all time. Weird stuff indeed.

2.) CLEVER LOOKING FOREIGN STUDENT GETS LOADS OF A's.

This is almost a given for any A-level results coverage. We get the heartwarming tale of the foreign born student (almost always with accompanying picture of an "archetypal" studious looking student with glasses.) who could speak no English when they began a course, but managed to bag a full house of A grades at the end of it. Sometimes they even knew no English a year before taking them. Sometimes they even learnt English on the bus on the way to the exam hall, or even learnt English during the exam itself. This kind of story, when done in the Mail is a good example of the weird ambiguity, the and all over the place application of prejudice the paper likes to tap into. On the one hand, foreigners are a bunch of sponging terrorists, but they are also good at showing up our "drunken dumbed down yoofs" as well. That insight over we got to:

3.) I GOT 8 A's.

This is one of the few opportunities for young men to be photographed on exam day (you might swear that none ever passed from the photos.), and they are usually all lads in this category. The mug shot will be a white student version of the archetypal photo mentioned in 2). A gangly academic student who passed 8 A-levels, including the less popular disciplines like further maths, or even the classics. Usually off to a red brick to do something sciencey. An old lecturer of mine had a bugbear about colleges allowing someone to take up such an extra large workload, when even the best universities only have a three or four discipline entry requirements. I admit its pretty bloody impressive to pass all that, but I have to agree that's a hell of a lot of work to pile on someone still in their teens.

4.) PRECOCIOUS KID PASSES EXAM.

There is often a story about how a precocious 12 year old kid wonder passed their physics A-Level about six years before most students do. Again there is the picture of a slightly intense looking kid holding up his pass paper for the whole world to see. Shouldn't a twelve year old really be perhaps doing more 12 year olds kind of stuff than this? There is going to be a lot of exams and deadlines, and stuff in their future life. Cut them a bit of slack. One always wonders if it was 100 percent the kids desire to take the exams so early, or does the whole thing, and accompanying picture all have the air of an attempt by the kids parents to look good at the school gates, what with their little genius. Hmmmm..?

5.) MY LEG FELL OFF AND I STILL PASSED.

Or I fell off a mountain, (often these are tales of sporty people who got injured.) broke every bone in my body and still came top in Chemistry. Extra points if they display their results wearing a plaster cast / war wounds. I can't think of anything much more interesting to say about these ones. Triumph over adversity and all that.

6.) THEY'RE GETTING EASIER.

There is no point ignoring this one, and God I would like too. It will inevitably be mentioned and brought up. It always does. Phrases such as "A-Levels were once the gold standard". "New Labours attempt to get half of people in university." "social engineering" "too politically correct to let people fail." tend to pop up, as does "grade inflation." Sometimes they employ the use of showing the easiest bit of a "new" exam, with the hardest section of an older one. These kinds of article seem to be written by journalist who haven't seen an A - Level paper since 1973, and don't take into account the greater role of the changing nature of society and tertiary education approaches. Anecdotally, the new papers I have seen, don't seem much different [in difficulty] to those of 1996 and 1997 (they were saying they were easier back then as well.), which would be odd if they get easier every year. So it seems more bullshit inflation than grade inflation.

As I said I am no expert on exams so I won't comment further on it, but I suspect many who like to bang on about how easy they are would fail horribly if made to sit an "easy" exam of today. Again just a hunch, but there we are.

Lets hope everyone gets what they want though. I doubt that many students would be downcast by the tabloids bellyaching over this (they have better stuff to think about for a start.) Glad I haven't had to go through that day for a while though.

*I'll do a form of "A-Level cliche bingo" over the next few days. See how many of my six get printed by the papers. (and perhaps see for others I missed out.)

The Bolton News Printed It.

Remember that letter to the Bolton News I posted about on Saturday. Well it was printed, and was the letter that made the headline for the letters page as well! It survived remarkably intact from being edited. They've altered some of the punctuation and the odd comment, which I think makes some of the prose lose its original "bite". But 99 percent of what I submitted, made it on there. I must admit, although I thought my letter was quite good, and was pretty much what I originally set out to write (and had to re write as the e-mail deleted the bloody original one I was to send!) I did feel a bit bad at first, the letter is quite scathing, and I'm sure Mr. Harrison wouldn't have been expecting such a "robust" response (I actually think he would have liked a letter backing him up on how right he was about the cushy life on the dole.) But then I thought stuff it a bit. It's a lot worse for unemployed people worrying about their state of affairs, than someone being put out by a scathing letter setting them straight. I suppose that was really why I wrote it, not withstanding the fact that it was combating my pet peeve, lazy [non] thinking and right wing urban myths. But because he was belittling an issue that really affects people badly on a personal level, people who often have little voice. I hope that I spoke up for more people than myself. Challenge a stereotype for once, not perpetuate one.

More Bin Nonsense in the Mail (Again!!)

Wheelie bin stories / Bin collection stories are one of the more perennial and odd Daily Mail obsessions. They seem to deliberately single out stories like this one about councils checking whats been binned at selected regions as part of a survey into recycling. The story isn't very interesting so I'll boil it down. Some councils have continued to survey varying demographics to see who bins what, and who recycles / doesn't, by inspecting the contents of about 10'000 peoples trash. Thus they can see if the poor are recycling more, or do ethnic minorities throw more away. A survey. In order not to prejucdice results (people might change thier recycling habits if they are told beforehand ), the residents whose waste got checked were not informed before hand. That is the Mails gripe on the story. (it even gets an editorial comment piece.) Yet again the "Dustbin Nazis" and "Big Brother" councils are victimising taxpayers by the tyranny of dustbin collections... or something like that, it's the usual spiel you get. My interest in the story isn't the story itself, I really have bigger things to worry about. I suppose it could be considered a waste of tax payers money or invasive. Many private companies can pass on customer details. That is how cold callers obtain your number. But this affair is to look at general trends, not to trace specific waste habits of individuals. No my focus is on why bin stories like these are so popular in the Mail, and I think it is for two separate reasons.

Paul Dacre has an instinct for giving his core readers stories they want to hear, and he usually has a good success rate for doing so. There are many readers of that paper who are retirees, and are bored and chippy retirees at that. Everybody has their bins emptied, it affects everyone. Providing a narrative about Orwellian councils picking fights with householders over putting a garden pea in the paper bin, or sticking microchips in the wheely bins of Middle England (the headline is worded to imply the reader is being targeted) brings out that frustrated low level libertarian ire. Getting worked up about stuff like this, is a game for those with time on their hands. It gives bored; irked at life, and frustrated people something external (and accessible;- vis a vis; to their own lives) to focus on, and something to do. Think of having to write all those angry letters.

The second is related to the first, but distinct too. A large minority of that papers target grassroots audience are habitual complainers, and habitual complainers as I said; on a certain level enjoy complaining. Habitual complainers also have that unusual mix of being at odds with the world, but simultaneously self centred about their perceived role in it. There are practical objections to this kind of council action, and to the motives of councillors and people in authority. I think good cases (though IMHO this story is really not a big deal) can be made for both. But these concerns aren't REALLY why this kind of thing is prominent in the Mail. The overall narrative of this emphasis on "bin spies" is that the tyrannical councils really are spying on the rubbish contents of Middle England. (or Dacres interpretation) You are right to think that they are watching you. They do consider you a mortal danger. In short you matter to the powers that be. I don't think it is too much of an exaggeration to say that there are those who would secretly pleased to have been "spied on". Better to think that the secret police are sifting through your bin bags, what with you being a dissident and all, than just a random demographic survey of recycling habits. It's tough to think that your opinions and promenance may count for little in the greater scheme of things. And if you are going to be the next Rob Roy, you should decide is it about a cause, or about making yourself feel good?

I'm not green lighting cynical inaction due to larger disinterest at a cause. I've never believed that at all. Complacent certainties can be challenged, and sometimes should be. You can make a difference in your own way (but you may not get much credit for it. Doing it for that is the wrong reason to partake in this kind of thing in the first place) But let us separate righting legitimate grievances, or genuine injustices, from just indulging an ego trip as some kind of latter day Robin Hood thing.

Nice Work If You Can Get It.

I don't mean to be nitpicky, but is it just me who expects that 11 people who are richer than avarice. Drive cars that we can only dream of owning, have all the trappings of a superstar lifestyle, have personal adulation up there with Jesus and Muhammed. Who probably spend more on personal grooming in a month, than a cleaner earns in a year (or even biannually). Yeah taking all these little job perks (coz by gum they've earned them. Hmmm) into consideration. Is it too much to ask the England football team to perhaps apply themselves a little harder next time, especially in the winning part. We wouldn't want them to be accused of being pampered, and overinvested.

I Can't Join in the "St. John" Line

John Lennon is one of the last century's most well known cultural icons. The Beatles, the bed ins, the granny glasses and the long hair. Pretty much everyone knows who he is, and of course he receives the customary (posthumous) adulation that this level of fame brings, which is a lot. His advocacy of the peace movement that formed in his lifetime due to fall out from; amongst other things the Vietnam war and the harsh backlash to the civil rights movements has cemented him in the eyes of his fans, as one of the key figures of the time. Songs like "Give Peace a Chance" and "Imagine" in particular have become almost secular hymns in their own right. I'm even sure the Jesus like long hair, and the white suits and robes played their part in his almost saintly mythos. I had a first hand experience of the St Lennon phenomenon at a "Bootleg Beatles" concert at the Manchester Apollo a few years ago, on the anniversary of his death. The renditions of "Imagine" and his Christmas tune, accompanied with his portrait had the feel of a quasi religious eulogy. In a way this is understandable on some levels. Lennon's senseless death was a genuine tragedy, and such a waste of a genuine talent. There is a grim irony that such a vocal advocate of peace was violently gunned down in the street. But as I thought when I saw this, and when I watched a BBC4 drama about Lennon, from when Brian Epstein killed himself to Yoko and him moving to the US, Lennon really wasn't an angelic figure. If you see past his genuine talent, and the good (as well as dodgy or naive) causes he espoused, he was a man, and a flawed one at that.

Almost anything written about Lennon's life will openly demonstrate that he was; what we would now say was "emotionally retarded". He was troubled, and had a troubled upbringing. Abandoned by his feckless father, and palmed off by his mother to an aunt who brow beat him mercilessly, and had little appreciation of her charges musical talent. He comes across in even sympathetic biographies as chippy, and unable to empathise with people on a normal emotional level, to the point of callousness. Less sympathetic biographies point to him openly mocking disabled strangers and his insensitivity towards his friend Stuart Sutcliffes girlfriend when Stuart died of a brain hemorrhage.

But the two people who really received the brunt of his callous nature where his ex wife Cynthia and his son Julian. Cynthia was rather conventional and straight laced, compared with her wayward and unconventional husband (seems likely they only married because she fell pregnant) he had little appreciation for this situation, and could never understand that she could not apply herself to his more wayward lifestyle, as many wouldn't be able too. He did manage to even bully her into taking acid. In Ray Coleman's sympathetic biography of him, Coleman all but berates her for being a bad wife for being to square for her husband. He was certainly very cruel to her as a husband, for very little justification. The way he blankly didn't react when she returned home to find him having a post shag smoke with Yoko, was really setting the bar for spousal twattery. He seems to have needed to have it spelled out to him that a woman whose marriage has fallen to bits might be a bit down, when he accuses her of being glum for "winning the fucking pools" in the divorce settlement. His lack of empathy almost seem to border on anti social disorder.

If Lennon was a lousy husband, he didn't get extra marks for being a father. One thing the program about him focused on was the childhood abandonment he faced at the hands of his parents. When they both forced him to chose at 6, which parent he wanted to live with, is the worst sort of mental torture you can think of to subject a kid to. For someone so badly stung by his parents selfishness, it is just terrible that he went on to virtually abandon his eldest Julian, rarely seeing him, and berating him for laughing and crying (pretty standard kid behaviour).

If "Lennon Naked" shows one thing, it is that John Lennon was seriously flawed. Although he gave us some great songs, and great biting witty observations. He was emotionally damaged. He had some lousy family values, and was guilty of the same kind of neglect he condemned his own family for. The advocate of peace, was temperamental, and verbally (as well as physically) aggressive. His heroin abuse, and the more mutually self absorbed indulgences aspect of his marriage to Yoko, didn't make him as profound or touched by musical genius as he might have liked to have thought during that period. Often the opposite. His death was tragic, and he went way before his time. But he wasn't a saint. And I think John himself, would have been uncomfortable with some of the more hagiogic sentiment around him.

I Don't Get Glastonbury

I consider myself a modern progressive sort of guy. Musically I don't want to return to the days of "How much is that doggy in the window". I like music, and I'm eclectic about it too. But I just don't get Glastonbury at all. Not one bit of it, and its continuing popularity. I can just about see the appeal 40 years ago when the whole thing started. A bunch of the more eclectic music bands take up a Somerset farmers offer to use his field as a rock venue in the dying weekend of June. Keep a bit of the 60's alive into the next decade. Perhaps re-create a spirit of Woodstock festival in the green and Gentile interior of rural England, reputedly where Jesus stood in ancient times. (so some historians reckon.) But like many things it seems to have dissipated it's original cause in the face of growing popularity (the numbers attending continue to grow.) and public recognition. I just can't fathom what is about today? Apart from bands plugging themselves, and an opportunity for 47 year old Guardian lifestyle correspondents to look hip by association, when they write about how they rubbed shoulders (and spliffs) with Pete Doherty in a puddle of mud. Or if it has some greater meaning than just a well known concert in a muddy field. It doesn't seem to cater to any particular musical taste. It seems like anyone who's famous in music and who wants to show up with their band is free to do so. I certainly don't think I'll be showing up there any time soon.

I have nothing against the festival and the people who go there. Good for them. But Glasto would only end up depressing me. I nearly got roped into going about 6 years ago, but it all fell apart for one reason or another. (a clash with a holiday I recall.) And the only thing I felt was relief. I just knew in the back of my mind, that if I had gone; it would just be four of the most depressing days of my life. Firstly it involves camping. Camping is horrible and stupid. I've only done it twice, both in the Air Cadets, and I hated everything about the whole fucking experience. From setting up a tent (It'd have been easier setting up a new nation in that Yorkshire field, from what I remember), to feeling cold and depressed. To that constant smell of rain and soil. I remember thinking that I'd missed watching "Wings of the Apache" in the comfort of my own home for this! Camping was utter crud. How anyone can call sitting in a bit of cloth, in a soggy field - fun, I'll never know. It was the antithesis of fun. Everything about it is designed to drive even someone with the emotional robustness of Mr. Spock off Star Trek, into a primeval state of rage and teary angst. It was awful. Don't talk to me about getting back to nature. Why did our ancestors spend thousands of years getting out of it in the first place?? Exactly. And to top it off, if the camps flood at Glasto, and everyone gets caked in mud and dirty water, and other waste (work it out.) That's supposed to be even better. Brilliant! That is called a humanitarian crisis, and a gateway to a medical crisis, in anywhere else in the world. Not called fun. Glastonbury is basically a displaced persons camp, with better music to bolster spirits, and populated by non conformists and trendies. It is a recreation of the sort of refugee camp that would spring up if lots of Daily Mail readers created an army, conquered most of England (except Somerset obviously) and sent all the undesirables into exile in a field.

Secondly it is commercialised these days. I'm not saying that's 100% bad (it was pretty much inevitable). But it means queues and high costs. I'd imagine 70 percent of Glasto involves queuing. 56 hours for a cold overpriced burger and a warm overpriced drink at a food tent. 230 hours to cross the camp to see an act performing. 567 hours to get in the entry and pitch a tent. 7 weeks to get out again. And several years in a tailback on the M5 all the way to Weston Supermare, getting home again. That doesn't sound too great. I know it is an inevitable consequence of popularity, but the commercialism of the event would also gnaw away at me. However much it might want to deny it, Glasto is as commercial these days as a Tesco Express in Macclesfield. I know they have all those spiritual tents these days, but Waterstones has spiritual books, so there. This would jar more at Glasto, than say somewhere like Disneyworld. I don't just hate everything commercial. I liked the latter for a start. But the latter doesn't really disguise it's links in the way Glasto would like to so I suppose that would make it more of a "betrayal" if that is the right word.

I might be sad, but I feel more at home watching a band in a pub, than I would at an open air concert. Better booze, more comfy. They have a wonderful invention called the roof, which keeps out the rain. And there isn't quite the same risk of catching dysentery from gallons of contaminated mud. Perfect.

The World Cup. Boooooring

The world cup is always a strange and frankly depressing affair for me, a male non football fan. It's the biggest party in town you're not invited to. Admitting to disliking football as a bloke (a northern bloke of course. Which is worse as most of the biggest teams are north of Watford Gap services) still brings out looks of incredulity in some people. At worse you will be asked the stupidest question in the entire universe that isn't a Daily Express rhetorical headline. "Are you gay or something?" (Happened to my cousin last week.) Yes being a non footie fan is a bit of a soggy fart in a pint glass, over the world cup season. Only this Saturday I felt a pang of sadness as I walked into my local pub and watched solemnly and incomprehensibly at almost the entire clientele in their England shirts, on the edge of their seats, glued to the telly on the wall. They were wrapped up in a world I can never enter, and it dawned on me that I will always be doomed to travel alone, the marginalised outcast.

I have actually tried to get into football. I've actually been to two stadia. The first is Aston Villa's one. I was so bored I ended up spending more time working out how the tidal flow system worked on the Aston Expressway, than I did as to what was going on on the pitch. As well as dodging out the way when an aggrieved fat Brummie kept sounding off, who looked like a third Mitchell brother who had not just eaten all the pies, but the pie stand and the pie man; his pie wife, and their children as well. Let's just say he had a bit of constructive criticism (i.e calling him a blind fucking wanker) in regards to the referees decisions, at various points in the match. I also watched a match at Bolton Wanderers old stadium. I don't remember anything about the match (Oh I do... It was in Bolton.), but I do remember you had to urinate in a drain pipe. So I mustn't have been to bowled over with the game itself. And that leads me to my main source of bafflement about football. How did such a boring game ever catch on in the first place to become what it is today? Why am I the weirdo for not liking it?

Football is set up all wrong. At it's core soccer is about maintaining the status quo, until a set time (whistle blows.). It's an attrition based game. One team of competent men, have to prevent a ball from being launched into their territory by another group of equally competent men. Thus you get 99% standoff tactics to maintain the status quo, and 1% action when the balance of favour tips (which has the added insult of resetting the staus quo, if a goal is scored.). It's long periods of boredom; punctuated by a few seconds of excitement. That doesn't often make for interesting viewing. Would Star Wars have been as good if the rebels had a Death star as well? With the rival battle stations trying to find each others weaknesses to secure some kind of victory? No! It's the underdog against massive odds, it's exciting. Or in "Gladiator" when Russel Crowe kicks the Germanians asses. It was a one way fight, but it was bloody exciting. The action never slowed. Would Gladiator have been such a hit if it had consisted of Richard Harris and some big smelly man with a beard sat in a tent in a muddy forest, hammering out a land border? Of course not. So why not extrapolate this logic to football then? If it's getting bit boring out there, take inspiration from the Gladiator film and unleash a few tigers and lions onto the pitch? "OOH and Rooney has taken a hell of a mauling from a Bengal on the offside!!" I'd watch it! Or take inspiration from those power ups you used to get on the Arkanoid video game, which changed the rules. At random intervals you could have three balls in play at one time. Or a goal post that randomly changed size. Or arm the players with planks to hit the opposition with, over an allotted 5 minute period? Or fit those 9 feet tall spikes in the ground that you used to get on Mortal Kombat, to randomly pop up on the pitch, to skewer unsuspecting players? Or better still, if it comes down to penalties at the finals - use those vuvuzela trumpets that are pissing everyone off for good use. Someone could toss a coin, and if it lands on say heads (for it to work, the players wouldn't know which caused which); then the player taking the shot has to have a toot from someone honking a vuvuzela (preferably dressed as a comedy mascot. It would be ten times funnier.) right in their ear before they hit the ball. It'd be bloody hilarious!! More than the Jackass golf course sketch with the air guns. Imagine the reruns of the hil-arious scenes of the players being put off at the crucial moments. Iconic viewing. It'd give Chiles his own DVD to front. "World Cups funniest penalties"

I'd watch it anyway.

Great Comment on Charles Speech

I just read one of the best online comments ever written in response to that Prince Charles speech about the soulless world of science destroying nature, on the Times coverage of the story. Absolutely sums up the nature of it brilliantly.

Bruce Gorton wrote:

Its very easy to harken back to the age of peasantry when you wouldn't be one of the peasants.

Truer words have never been spoken

This is what happens when mob mentality is stirred up. The wrong people get hurt.

This morning must have been a shock for 27 year old David Calvert, a Liverpudlian who moved to Blackpool, a shock but not; perhaps a surprise. By breakfast time this morning two and a half thousand people on facebook, with a lot of righteous anger, and not so much possession of the facts had decided to start a facebook group (some even got this name texted to their phones.) making the claim that he was none other than the secret new identity for Jon Venables who is currently in prison, and that he has received threats, obviously by people so stupid that they can't see that a man who isn't in jail at the moment, can't really be a man who is in jail at the present time. You know little technicalities like that. This has happened before; five years ago. He was mistaken for Venables, largely because of two things, he's a Scouser who moved away from Liverpool, and he spent 4 months in the clink for fraud (you know, just like murder) Inevitably the threats and insinuations duly arrived, and presumably died down. I assume his name resurfaced after people have googled Venables for his whereabouts, seen this article and Calverts name, put 2 and 2 together, and come up with the letter Z. Now he has to relive the entire ordeal over again. He is said to be too afraid to leave his house, and fears for his wife and kids, and to be honest, who can really blame him? Even more worryingly he says he has received messages threatening to get him out by any means. I must emphasise that his tormentors are apparently so dense, that they are trying to hound a man they think is Venables inside of a Fleetwood house, but who is in fucking jail for God sake !!

This doesn't really do much for the case that Venables should be outed now, or indeed ever. If some people are really acting like this, and are so fired up by this lynching mob mentality, (read the Facebook comments. They're shocking.) on the basis of so little evidence. An innocent man is now cowering in fear in his own home, when it should be self evident, even to a child, that he can't possibly be the target of their ire! I won't say this often, but I almost felt sorry for the government ministers who are trying to placate this vengeful atmosphere, and are largely not succeeding.

I also think paradoxically, it weakens the case for identifying Venables to prevent others from being misidentified for him, and falling foul of the mob. As we have seen this kind of mentality flairs up (his recall brings him back into public eye, and tabloid headlines) and tends to sort of build to a positive feedback, with the mob mentality gathering momentum. If they were outed, we would get a fair amount of coverage of them, stoking the flames, and raking it up every so often. Even the toughest law and order advocate will realise that innocent bystanders are going to get hurt (friends, relatives, neighbours,) by association, if there whereabouts were known. Although we don't know the full story of what he was recalled for, and it could be argued what about the danger they may still (if they still do) pose to others? It is still more difficult for either to be a severe danger, what with the monitoring. (the recalling however may raise questions about how they are being monitored) It is probably for the best that they slip out of the greater consciousness as much as possible, in the hope that the mob lose interest. (these things tend to run out of steam fairly quickly, after the initial source of the ire) I don't even think outing them would stop innocents being attacked. From some of the facebook comments, some of the stupider mobbers would probably attack a sardine tin with a photo of Venables stuck on it, or even footballs Tery Venables. Too little brain and a lot of rage does that.

It's easy to stoke up this kind of unthinking lynch mob atmosphere, and there are many willing to take it up. It's less easy to put the genie back in the bottle, and innocent people like the David Calverts of this world often find themselves on the wrong side of the mob, whether it's malicious gossip, shitty information or general stupidity (a bad combination if all present). As Charles MacKay wrote in his book over 150 years ago "Madness of Crowds"

"Men think in herds. It is seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover thier senses slowly, and one by one."

Still applies today.