Fish Farming Today

Lovefood's Cook like Heston Challenge.

2012-01-14T14:19:00.000-08:00

I'd completely missed the new Heston Blumentahl cooking show until I saw the challenge on Lovefood.com. I've always admired Heston and longed to try his food, so what better, cheaper way than by cooking it myself.
This week I gave the steak a go, which got the thumbs up. I tried the burgers, although I couldn't be bothered to do the grinding so I just bought the Heston burgers from Waitrose, they too were good, but I was dying to try the Oxtail and Kidney pudding. I've always been a fan of a good meaty pie, so when the challenge was set I couldn't resist.
Having studied the recipe I realised this wasn't going to be a quick supper, so I had to set aside a good few hours, this couldn't be a mid week dinner.

The ingredients are simple enough, carrots, leek, onion celery, your basic casserole base, and nothing too fancy going on with the seasoning and herbs. Chuck 'em in a pan, let them sweat a bit before getting to the main attraction.
I've only ever cooked with Oxtail once, and that was to make soup, on that occasion the old jar of Heinz won the battle. I was really impressed at how cheap it was and I knew it would pack a punchy flavour, I was pleased to find a recipe that could do something more substantial with a great underused cut of meat.
Browning off the Oxtail was simple enough although the oil does splash quite a bit. The bit I was looking forward to though was deglazing the pan with Brandy and red wine lit with a match. Nothing says showmanship like playing with fire in a domestic kitchen.

After returning all the key players back to the pan things start to come together, the smell of the star anise, red wine and brandy fill the kitchen and start the taste buds tingling, pity I have to wait almost 4 hours before I can eat it.

3 hours in the pan and it's time to let out the inner viking in me, stripping the cooked meat from the bone with my bare hands. There's something quite therapeutic about it and feeling the meat fall off the bone reassures you that your creating something good.

The problem I have here though is all that chopping, sweating, simmering, deglazing and all I have to show for it is a little pile of meat and a bowl of gravy. It seems like an awful lot of effort to get that extra bit of flavour into the dish, but with any luck it's going to be worth it.

I've never made suet pastry before, but the recipe was easy to follow, I just found the dough a bit too stiff to achieve the 3mm thickness, but I've never been one to complain about a lack of pie crust. I had to alter the recipe a bit here as I was going for a big family size pudding rather than individual portions. Firstly it's just a bit chefy, and secondly my wife would have killed me if I'd dirtied any more pots.
Trimming the kidney was easy but i was a bit unsure about slinging raw offal into the cooked meat, I personally would have liked to see it browned off first, but life's dull if you don't take chances.
As I had a bigger pudding I upped the steaming time, I figured a good hour would do it, so it steamed away while we put the kids to bed.
Things were looking a good, a moist golden crust firm to the touch, being unsure about the cooking time I stuck a thermometer into the centre to make sure it was cooked through, and we were good to go.
Just one last job... the sauce injection

Luckily for me my line of work means I have a few syringes lying around, otherwise I may have been raiding the kids Calpol box. I'm not sure this achieved any more than pouring it over the served dish would have done, but it wouldn't be Heston without a bit of laboratory equipment in the kitchen.

They say the proof of the pudding is in the eating, I was pleased with the results, It was good methodical cooking and produced a great dish, but a little disappointing, the flavour was there, the texture everything but it didn't have that Heston magic that I wanted to recreate, there's a little bit of the wizard stepping out from behind the curtain. I guess I'll have to keep dreaming of that trip to the Fat Duck to experience that.

The C Word..

2011-02-09T13:24:00.000-08:00

My wife Carolyne had a beautiful baby girl (Chloe Mia) on boxing day, a couple of months before she was due though, she went to the Doctor with a lump in her breast. The Dr initially put it down to a blocked Duct and prescribed antibiotics. As it didn't go down she went back and a different Dr. thought it needed checking out properly.

The specialist couldn't get a clear picture of what was going on until after Chloe was born. Last week we went for a biopsy and there and then the Dr warned us to prepare for the worst. On Monday our fears were realised and she was diagnosed with breast Cancer.

This sort of thing isn't meant to happen to a 30 year old woman, who's never smoked and doesn't really drink. The breast clinic was full of women young and old, but we were quite noticably the only ones in there with a baby. You could see people looking around thinking how bad it would be for someone with such a young baby to be going through this.

It's strange, I don't actually remember anybody using the word Cancer.. its always 'Sinister' or 'nasty', but you find yourself doing the same, I remember the first time I cried was when I had to say it myself to my parents, actually uttering the word Cancer sets off so many emotions, you immediately picture someone with no hair looking frail and ill. It's such a difficult phrase to say to people, not something you ever expect you'd have to say, and something that stuns people into silence. The main raction is 'I don't know what to say' Which is fine, the ones that say 'you're joking' not so.... we've also noticed people immediately look at her boobs.. like they expect to see a big black boil or a huge growth or something. Truth is I don't know how I'd react, and no words will soothe or ease the hurt that we are currently feeling, but all well meaning sentiments are greatly received.

The strangest part of all of this is right now, physically she is fit and well, no headaches, tiredness fevers, cold or anything. When you're diagnosed with a life threatening illness you expect that you would at least be feeling a bit under the weather. Scarily though, we know that over the next six months we're faced with an almost certainty of a mastectomy (probably within the month), followed by Chemotherapy and radiation therapy. If someone told you that you were going to be ill in a month how would you react?

My wife has obviously had the usual fears that I won't find her attractive after the surgery, or that the children will be frightened. A shallow man possibly would go through that, but when you are faced with it nothing like that bothers you so long as the risks of it ever coming back are gone, nothing cosmetic matters.

Luckily we have age on her side, it is treatable and she's in the best Oncology dept in the country. They're giving her every treatment available to ensure that the risks are diminished.
Our family and friends have been so supportive and I've made sure the children are going to have the minimal disruption. I'd gladly work for free for the rest of my life and pay someone to help keep them in their routine, than them suffer one day of unnecessary heart ache.

On friday we go for an MRI to make sure it's localised, then on Monday we meet up with the consultant to discuss treatment. Not the way we planned on spending Valentines day, especially as it's our second wedding anniversary.

Touchy subjects

2010-12-03T10:58:00.000-08:00

Do you remember the old joke...
"I don't wanna go to school, all the kids pick on me, it's boring and the foods rubbish", "but you've got to go in dear.... you're the headmaster"

well...
Yesterday I posted this on facebook: -

Love the sign at playschool this morning "we don't close, we have legs".... hope all the teachers that are happy that they have snow days today take note... perhaps if you hate teaching that much you should look for a different job.

Now here's the reason why
The post above is not from a student, but a teacher. She is pissed off that her school hasn't closed when lots of others have. It is her and those others like her that post similar things that I have a a problem with. (please note that it was aimed at the teachers who are "happy that they have snow days" My status post stands, if people like this hate teaching that much then I'm sorry, it's not compulsory, you can find a different job, but good luck finding one that actually lets you have paid leave when it snows.

However, I seemed to open a can of worms, a tirade of teachers began to explain that schools close for different reasons. Not because teachers can't make it in. The main reason seems to be our old friend Health and Safety. Students and teachers falling on ice on uncleared paths, slippery surfaces and injuries from snowball fights etc. To most of us that aren't teachers this is new information, obviously schools don't make a habit of announcing it as being the reason they close as it would be a PR nightmare.. cue a picture of kids in goggles and crash helmets playing in the snow.

I know that most teachers do not enjoy having the disruption caused by the snow as much as the parents. Their lesson plans are disrupted, they can't make up these few days easily so close to the end of term, and coursework deadlines etc starts to cause them stress that they don't need.

I'm not one of those people that complains about the 12 weeks holiday that teachers get, or teacher training days. I know it's not a simple 9-5 job, however a lot of the comments I got back where about this. I know teachers have this thrown at them all the time and they are bound to be defensive about it, but this was never part of my complaint.

Teaching today is a stressful job, when we were kids Ofsted was in its infancy, league tables were for football results and the students had respect for their teachers. I heard one story about a teacher who was pelted with snowballs and ice by her students, I couldn't dream of any one doing that when we were kids, if we had our arses wouldn't have touched the floor yet. Kids now know what they can get away with, teachers have very little reprisal and the balance of power has shifted. Parents are very quick to turn litigious, especially if their saintly children get told off by the evil teachers.

A lot of teachers don't live near the schools so they have to drive long distances to work, and as it was put why should they risk their lives for the job. I agree, however I would here argue that the council have a responsibility to keep roads clear, especially around schools and hospitals, and public transport has a responsibility to continue running. This week I have been into Hull hospital 3 times with my 8 month pregnant wife, the main roads there are fine but the side roads leading into the hospital and the car parks are atrocious, I had to keep driving around on Wednesday because parking was impossible, today I took a shovel and helped clear the car park so that I could get out. just think what a difference it would make if the people that claimed job seekers allowance where this week given a shovel and a bucket of salt and told to go to the nearest primary school and start clearing. I know it sounds good but it would never happen because being the society we are today, everyone would have to pass a CRB check to get within 2 miles of the school.

Am I sorry for posting my status as I did yesterday? not sure, if you read what I wrote and see the context of the argument then I stand by it 100%...
If you're a teacher who doesn't complain about their job on social networks, tries their damnedest to get to work but found my comments offensive, then I'm sorry if I upset you, but please read the status again, see the context, then see if I actually said what you thought I did.

We're not all going to agree all the time about how our taxes are spent, or ever know how hard each others jobs are without first trying them. But if we lose the right to reasoned argument the world truly will stop revolving.

My angry news week....

2010-11-21T01:06:00.000-08:00

I must have finally turned into the stereotypical Grumpy old man, everything is winding me up this week.

The Suns Waterboarding, Honestly, how irresponsible can this paper be? I guarantee it will be a matter of time before a child drowns due to a waterboarding "prank", or a family is robbed and tortured by this method, this video shows people just how simple a form of torture it is, and exactly how to do it. I remember being told when I worked at Channel 4 that we couldn't show someone tying a noose on the Internet in case someone learned how to do it and subsequently killed themselves. How did The Sun's lawyers let this one slip out and onto their front page.
Fix The Web How can anyone possibly be annoyed at a disabled charity?, well I'm not annoyed at what they're trying to achieve, I am annoyed at how they garner support. The tweets and news story headlines on launch day stated that "6Million internet users can't access 80% of the web" these figures are astounding, they're also wrong. There are 6 million people registered disabled (they claim disability benefits in other words), but how many of those are paraplegic, in wheelchairs, have bad backs, depression etc? There is no reason at all that these people can't access the internet as well as you or I. As for the 80% of websites, how is this figure arrived at, a lot of the internet isn't worth accessing, it's filled with pictures of celebrities, dead geocities sites, pornography, protest groups, hate groups etc. It is also unquantifiable, so long as Government, news, and major Internet businesses including ebay, facebook twitter wordpress and blogger conform, then the problem is diminished, those that don't conform, form the iceberg under the sea that 99.9% of people would never attempt to access.
FishFight This campaign relates to stopping discard, this is when trawlers tip dead fish that they have caught back into the sea as the quota system won't allow them to land their catch. This is an appalling problem, a a waste of fish, everybody agrees. However I still don't know what the solution is, and although over 24,000 people signed up to the campaign in the first 24 hours they also don't know what the campaigns proposals are other than it must be stopped. There will be those that think the campaign is proposing to ban fishing, and those who think it will be to scrap quotas, I'm pretty sure that these two groups won't agree. The problem is obvious, I think Hugh is fighting a great campaign I just wish people would read further into things before signing petitions based on a headline.
The Sun's Piggy This story was about the Early Learning Center receiving a complaint that the pig models had been removed from a farmyard toy, the assistant that received the complaint suggested it was to prevent offense to Muslims. The anti-Islam press love a story like this, "PC gone mad". This is the same paper that suggested Union Jack flags and England T-shirts were banned during the World Cup promoting outrage. I didn't see any stories of arrests. I think The Sun should be brought to task for inciting Racial hatred, by creating bad feeling towards parts of society based on lies.
The Popes Condom stance, The fact that the Catholic church opposed the use of condoms in the first place is horrific, this has caused more widespread of disease in catholic parts of the world like Brazil and Africa than anything else. The pope has now said it is OK to use condoms but only in exceptional circumstances, what these exceptions are we don't yet know, but I guarantee they won't include homosexual sex. Correct me if I'm wrong but the church is supposed to live by a book that was written over 1500 years ago about events and rules laid down 500 years before that. The fact that the pope can change his opinion within a year shows that the rules are just changed to suit the mood. The Catholic church has far too much power and abuses it massively. I long for the day when people around the world stop paying attention to these dinosaurs trying to peddle myths as fact, and start listening to common sense when it comes to issues such as this. The pope is over 30 years behind the rest of the world on this issue, think of the lives that have been affected in that time, and tell me that isn't a sin in itself.
Lord Young's resignation I'm not mad at what he said, I'm mad at him being brought to task over his comments and consequently resigning. He is right, in a recession interest rates should be sky high, borrowers that have caused the recession (it was after all a credit crunch) have exceptionally low interest rates. In the last recession Interest rates were around 13%, those with mortgages would have been crippled. Yes the cuts are going to cause people to lose jobs but this is not what Lord young was commenting on. He should have stuck by his remarks, explained them and moved on, rather than backing down to Cameron's PR machine seeing the headline as a slur and resigning.
UN votes for Gay execution Shocking, that's all you can say about this. "It passed on a narrow vote of 79 for, 70 against , 17 abstentions and 26 absent". It goes to show that abstaining or not turning up to vote can have some horrendous outcomes. Surely the UN members should be made to vote, abstaining should not be an option for a group as important as this.

Licensing Laws

2010-07-19T00:59:00.000-07:00

Firstly before you read the rest of this, I like the BBC, it has made some fantastic TV and radio in the past and continues to do so.

What I don't like is the use of a licence to pay for it all, it is in effect compulsory to pay for it. You need a licence to drive a car, sell alcohol and keep a shotgun, surely you don't need a licence to watch TV. Could you imagine going into a book shop and being asked to produce a licence before you were allowed to buy the book of your choice. The TV licence is in effect doing exactly this. It is not possible to buy a TV and watch programmes of your own choice without a licence.

What I dislike is the effective criminalization of people who don't pay the licence, surely there should be an option for people to opt out and go private. Whether or not it is by commercials or encryption/subscription, if I buy a TV just because I want to watch Sky Sports (for example) I should be allowed to do so without being forced to pay for the BBC.

I am certainly not saying we shouldn't have a BBC, but we shouldn't make criminals out of people who don't want to pay for it.

Cbeebies, Radio 2 and Top Gear would be worth the fee alone, to me, but I know for a fact that half the people that read this will be wincing at the mention of Top Gear, but that is just the point, we all have different tastes, I personally can't stand Eastenders, Casualty, Holby City, Waterloo Rd, Last of the summer wine, The One show, Doctor Who, Watchdog, , anything with antiques*, Graham Norton, Ferne Cotton or anything with celebrity in the title. That just about wipes out 75% of whats on the BBC this week, it should be my choice to decide if weighing up the advantages is worth paying to keep Graham Norton in pale green crushed velvet suits.

There is so much media available to consume now and I personally pay around £400 per year for TV channels, I would much rather pay specifically for the programmes I want to watch than a third of my yearly viewing budget compulsorily taken from me.

If we are stuck with the licence fee though, the BBC needs to become more accountable, salaries of presenters should be capped, there are always going to be new faces looking for a break, start giving them the chance instead of sticking with the old faithful names that are commanding such big fees, if GMTV then want to pay them £1,000,000/yr then let them go, think of it as a training ground.

US imports should also be reduced or stopped, don't get me wrong I watch more US TV than I do English, but I don't agree with my licence fee paying the huge fees that they cost to import, leave that, and it's risks to the commercial broadcasters.

The BBC websites carry advertising to people in foreign countries accessing it, why not put advertising on the UK version and save us paying up front for it?

A final note.. if our money is used to produce shows by the BBC, why do we not own the copyright to them? Why can't we access the full archive of BBC programmes on the iPlayer whenever we want to, instead of being limited to 30 days?

*If you don't believe me about the Antiques today on BBC 1 and 2, Cash in the Attic, Bargain Hunt, Flog it, Antiques Road Trip and Antiques Master, and that's every day during the week.

Wild Trout: Part 2

2010-05-27T11:07:00.000-07:00

Once again BBC's Great British Menu raise the argument of farmed Vs Wild Trout. Watch on iplayer here:

Anthony Demetre and Tristan Welch both chose Brown trout for their fish dish. Demetre chose wild and Welch the farmed. Their main argument came down to welfare / ethics Vs Flavour. Demetre argued that his "wild" trout had spent it's life foraging for food so would have much better muscle texture and more distinct flavour. Welch said that wild fish is unsustainable and farmed is as good and the right choice to make.

As a fish farmer I obviously agree with Welch, however this time I would like to have this argument with Demetre. He has absolutely no idea as to the source of his trout, yes he caught it in the River Test, but how did it get there, where was it born, what antibiotics has it been given, what chemicals has it had in it's environment, what exactly has it eaten. A farmer would know the answers to all these questions because he has to know them. Legislation insists on it.

But my argument doesn't end there, the trout that Demetre used was pink in flesh, Welchs was pale, almost white. This isn't because the wild trout had been eating scores of shrimps but because it had been fed on a diet containing Astaxanthin (Asta), a pigment that trout farmers use to change the appearance of the flesh to resemble Salmon, So the only conclusion I can draw is that the "wild" brown trout had probably been farmed for 99% of it's life and then released (or escaped) into the River Test. Welch's farmed trout was probably fed on the same diet but without the Asta. Concluding that the "wild " trout had been therefore farmed, it raises again the questions as to what conditions had it been farmed under? was it by an approved fishery? did it conform to Quality Trout standards?

Anthony Demetre next time you want to disparage my industry on TV be sure of your facts, because sadly people only hear half of what you said and will start insisting on "wild" fish over farmed. The fish produced by high standard fisheries will be as good or better than anything caught in a river, and possibly had a better life having not been hooked several times and thrown back in the river. Industry regulators would shut us down if we did that to our stocks routinely.

Power to the people

2010-05-09T01:23:00.000-07:00

On Thursday we went to the polls, we were shocked to see on Friday morning that we had returned a hung parliament verdict (even though that's what has been expected for the last 6 months). Prior to the election a lot of support had been gained by Nick Clegg of the Lib-Dems. I am a big supporter of Nick Clegg and have been for a while, I think he and Vince Cable represent a new breed of politician that speak their minds, speak honestly and make sense, they don't say what their advisers tell them to, and abide by unwritten rules of tradition within the commons.
Clegg was the first leader to say in parliament that the speaker should resign, something the others wouldn't dare to, he is the first leader to say he is an atheist, party leaders generally keep their religion to themselves so as not to make that a factor in peoples choices. I for one respect his position, yes I'm an atheist too, and it is pleasing to see a politician say that his decisions are not dictated to by religion.

Today Nick Clegg will decide if his party should form a coalition with the Conservatives in order to form a government, or as some people would prefer he aligns his party into a lib-lab (not dib-dab) coalition. Either way we are still in the position of either Gordon Brown or David Cameron as prime minister. Some suggest that David Milliband is to replace Brown, and that he will be PM this time next week.

Let's look at the facts.

Gordon Brown was never elected as Prime Minister of Britain
Labour lost the election on Thursday, they receieved 29% of the vote of the electorate.
Labours 29% of the vote equates to 258 seats whereas Lib-Dems 23% only equates to 57 seats.

Political reform is obviously needed. There are too many seats in contention to begin with. Every single member of the electorate should know that their vote counts for the same as everyone elses. If 23% of the people want Lib Dem policies then they should carry forward into 23% of votes in the commons.

Obviously neither the Conservatives or Labour are that keen on reform, a fairer system to you and I, would dis-enfranchise them to the tune of around 100 MP's, each.

It is a sad situation that we need them to agree to pass political reform so that our votes count, as the electorate we should be able to raise and pass a referendum that takes away the powers of the MP's, if we can't do this then we get expenses scandals, sleaze, and hung parliaments. without this power our votes count for nothing. 100% of the people should expect that their votes should count equally, If you don't then you shouldn't be living in a democracy, however much you disagree with other peoples opinions, whether they choose to vote Labour, Lib-Dem Tory or BNP, it is their choice, that is what a democracy is all about. The people that are opposing poltical reform are basically saying we're happier as it is because your right to vote is taken away from you.

The electorate needs to reform their ways of thinking too, their is too much in-grained political stance in people. In my constituency the Tories could put a blue ribbon on a donkey and it would win, just like in Hull, Manchester, Newcastle Labour can put forward any union man and he's in.
You can pretty much bank on people in the media, manufacturing industry and teachers voting labour, a lot of them don't even care what the policies or past performances are, these union run industries are red to the core, yet Labour doesn't offer them the best deals. In the same way farmers, bankers, baby boomers and anyone earning over £50K feel it is their duty to support the Tories.
We should look at the policies and decide what is best not just for us, but the rest of the country too, the situation of safe seats gives rise to apathy amongst the politicians that they can do no wrong.

I hope that in the next decade power is returned to the people, we can vote each week for winners of X-factor, strictly etc surely we can be trusted to choose who runs our country. Why can we not have internet/phone voting on other policies too. Todays technology could allow us to have a referendum every month on important matters.

Reality TV

2010-01-30T13:08:00.000-08:00

The TV listings are filled with celebrity does something.. programmes, they ar dull as dish water, off the top of my head we've seen celebrities,
dance, dance on ice, dance to routines, sing, sing opera, conduct orchestras, cook, play golf, tennis, football, athletics, run a farm, train dogs, birdwatch, cook again, work in a circus, be tortured in a jungle, do nothing in a house, and race cars. Add to that they have taken over every gameshow in the country, who wants to be a millionaire, weakest link, wipeout, mr and mrs family fortunes, etc etc, I'm sick of seeing the same people apperar again and again vying for our attention and craing popularity.
I can understand why they did it, Kate Lawler and Brian Dowling won Big Brother and got hosting jobs on Rise and SM:TV, time served presenters were losing out on work due to the winners of game shows pinching them. So the only way for them to ensure they goyt the jobs was to step into the world of reality entertainment.
The same thing happened a couple of years ago when Connie Fisher won the role of Maria in the sound of music. Lee Mead who was an understudy in The Phantom of the Opera didn't want to see his dream role [sic] going to a call center worker so he put his talent on the line and won the role of Joseph.
The alternative format is showing someone leave one job to start a farm ,or run a restaurant and show ho easy or difficult it is, why not show reality TV in the way it should br Reality. Shows like Trawlermen, Deadliest Catch, Axe-men, Ice Road Truckers are captivating for showing real people doing the job they have done, we don't have to vote for them to keep doing it or watch their 'journey' to success. Why not show the public how farming s really done, not by an independently wealthy Londoner struggling to start an Organic Emu farm or Chocolate factory, but a tenant farmer who lives hand to mouth, who has done it for generations.

Reality should at least have realism in it, not Amanda Holden.

SNOW SNOW SNOW!!!!!

2010-01-07T12:33:00.000-08:00

Is it global warming? God's punishment or some other fantastic natural disaster, the media is full of it, schools are closing all over the countries, thousands of people are off work, old folk are dropping like flies, the shops are being emptied. What could possibly be happening???

A few inches of snow! Does this really warrant the attention it is getting? Last night the BBC had a news special on the big freeze. I could understand it if we lived in a tropical country, or the south of France and this was the first snow we'd seen in 50 years, but it's Britain a small island in the upper Northern hemisphere, in fact if we were any further north we'd be polar. I could understand it if it was June or August, but it's January, the middle of winter. We had snow less than 12 months ago, I remember it well as my wedding pictures have snow in the background.

If the media stopped talking about it as if it was an act of terrorism we'd all get on with our lives and nobody would bat an eyelid. It's ironic that the news crews can manage to get to the worst areas without any problems.

What annoys me more than anything is the school closures, not because my son isn't at school, he's not old enough yet and besides which his nursery is open as usual. The schools that are closing are the secondary schools, the ones that have imposed restrictions on parents taking their children out of school for holidays as they are limited by how much time they have to prepare for exams. But give them a few cm of snow and the doors slam shut at a moments notice. I could understand kids wanting the day off, they want to build snowmen, have snowball fights, and go sledging, but it's blatantly obvious that it's the teachers who are calling the shots. I have 5 friends on facebook that are teachers, every one of them is boasting about having time off for snow days, and one is even praying for more. You and I pay their wages, they've just had 3 weeks holiday and that wasn't enough for them. Why do schools need to close anyway?
When I was a kid it was because the toilets were frozen, now they use the excuse that the teachers are having trouble getting into work. Let's send them all on winter driving courses!!
The other excuse is that heating systems aren't working, we used to sit in our coats in a portakabin classroom, they can buy fan heaters or portable radiators, modern facilities should not have problems so serious that an engineer couldn't fix it within the day. How come hospitals don't close? surely they have heating systems, and staff that need to travel to work! Some of us have to work outside all day, my staff have all been in work every day, on time, we have sent fish all over the country every day, and haven't even thought about finishing early. A nice warm classroom would seem appealing to us when we're stood up tour waists in water at 7 degrees Celsius with hail stones freezing our extremities.

When I worked in London the underground used to cancel trains for snow, (underground snow that's new), trains and flights get cancelled too. yet when I worked in Munich and we had -13 regularly and 3feet of snow in 36hours I managed to get a flight, train, U-bahn and Bus to the hotel and everyone of them ran on time. the roads were always open and schools and businesses never shut, if they did the city would go bust, they simply couldn't have 3 months of zero productivity, yet this so called great country stops dead in it's tracks.

We need to get over this tirade of blanket media coverage everytime the weather changes, it's always either too hot or too cold, or too wet or too dry, it's called SEASONS!!! if everyone was just a little bit better prepared the weather would remain in the 2 minutes after the news rather than dominating the headlines and warranting special reports. This is not global warming, or the next ice age, its winter, get over it, get to work, stop complaining. To my teacher friends, if you hate your job that much, find something else to do, you're supposed to be setting an example to our children, we pay your wages from our taxes, if you worked for me with that attitude you would be looking for another job on monday morning.

Environmental Atheism

2009-12-04T04:32:00.000-08:00

Yesterday I saw a tweet from a former colleague with a link to an article in The Times telling us we had to read it, particularly if we were sceptical about climate change.

The article is called "Global warming is real" by Bryan Appleyard. In it Bryan explains how he used to be a sceptic but opened up his ears and mind to the scientists and is now a devout follower of the religion of climate change.

My favourite paragraph is this:-

"Beginning from the beginning. In 1750 there were 800m people in the world. Then came the Industrial Revolution. This required almost pure carbon, coal, oil and gas to be taken from the ground where it had lain for millions of years, burnt and tossed into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Now there are almost 7 billion of us and we toss 27 billion tons of carbon dioxide — 7.3 billion tons of pure carbon — into the atmosphere every year."

Does it not speak for itself, isn't it obvious to you, the statistic that is most significant is that the population is 9 times greater than it was when we started burning fossil fuels. So surely one fact we need to address in order to prevent climate change is cull 90% of the population! right? of course not, only an idiot (or George Bush) would see that as a possibility, however we do need to feed, clothe, keep warm, transport, educate and medicate these people, they also produce waste including CO2 and Methane (breathing out and farting) which needs to be dealt with, and more to the point they produce children, often in the developing world (and also catholic countries) a lot more than just to replace themselves, by which I mean more than 2 children per couple. This means that the population will continue to grow at an exponential rate.

So what is the issue, be it global warming or population explosion the fact is we are all doomed. sooner or later the earth is going to collapse under the strain of all the people or cook/drown us all. This is what you're saying right Bryan? so what do we do about it?

The religious people amongst us that believe in a higher power surely think that the creator who is infallible will save us all, after all why would he/she build a world and allow us to kill it. Which then begs the question why are churches who preach the creationism theory also part of the global warming camp? Are you saying your god is fallible (shit have I just destroyed Catholic Dogma.) Or why are you worried if you'll go to a bettter place anyway?

The Athiests amongst us (like me) live our life on the principle that when we die we're dead, rotting in the ground or cremated (tossing more carbon in the air). what do we have to worry about? The beauty of being an Athiest is you don't worry about what will happen when you die because you will be completely insensitive to it, so the same goes for global warming, if the planet is destroyed, it won't hurt us as we'll all be dead.

So why do I link religion to global warming, well it certainly is following the same path as a religion in it's infancy, there are believers and skeptics, apocolypses and doom, uncertainty and death, oh yes and money? People are reducing their belief in religion so churches pockets are suffering, Global warming is the new money spinner, look at the solar panels, energy saving light bulbs, Prius' etc people are making money out of going green. The more we are convinced of it the more we spend on it. 10 years ago it was Y2k, we were all conned into making sure our VHS player didn't blow up our house on the stroke of midnight. I'm always sceptical of anything that involves us spending more money, this includes religions, and the more you liken global warming to a religion the more it makes sense. Companies, Politicians and Do gooders aren't bleating on about it to save us all but to line their own pockets.

This doesn't however mean that I'm against environmental issues, we all need to be more thoughtful about what we do with our waste, particularly food waste. We should all be more efficient with our use of resources, and use nuclear, wind etc where possible. But what I'm not going to do is spend the few short years that I occupy the planet worrying about whether my house will be in the sea in 50 years or not, or whether the temperature of the planet goes up a degree or two. I will follow the example that Richard Dawkins set out on his Athiest bus campaign:-

Stop worrying about it and enjoy life!

Britains got the strictly pop factor in the jungle.

2009-11-28T23:43:00.001-08:00

Saturday night Tv is filled with talent/popularity shows, strictly come dancing, x-factor, Britains got talent, find me a (Joseph/Oliver/Dorothy/Maria), the list goes on. The format for these shows is roughly the same, judges select the 12 acts they want to showcase, the acts perform, we vote and the 2 with the least amount of votes get saved or eliminated by the judges, until a winner is left standing.

These shows court so much controvesy it is untrue, when 'Jedward' a pair of Irish twins who fit the old kit-kat advert perfectly (you can't sing, you can't dance, you look awful, you'll go a long way), were saved over more talented acts, the tabloids went into overdrive, and questions were asked in parliament. Really, is that news, that a slightly better act that wouldn't have won anyway didn't progress in a Tv talent show? The story the papers should have been pushing is how the producers (Simon Cowell) kept in a controversial act so that next week everybody who was shocked by this result would be sure to phone in and vote for someone else, netting him more money in the mean time.

So why the problem, well these shows generate a fortune through telephone call charges, and the votes that everyone cast have absolutely no efefct on the outcome of the show.

Let's take Strictly as an example, the judges cast their votes, the couples recieve points based on their position in the leaderboard. The public cast their votes, the couples then get listed based on the number of votes and recieve points for that leaderboard, the two sets of points are added together and the two acts with the lowest votes go into a dance off, the act deemed to be worst of the two is sent home. This all means that the judges get their say twice. They had their chance to vote when they give their scores, why doesn't the one at the bottom just go home, why a dance off?
Let's look at last night, there were 5 acts, after the judges had scored. the leaderboard looked like this;
Ali and Brian 5
Chris and Ola 4
Ricky and Natalie 3
Laila and Anton 2
Natalie and Vincent 1

After the public had voted the 2 acts with the lowest scores were Ricky and Natalie and Natalie and Vincent. I would love for the BBC to publish the actual order that the public voted and how many votes they get, but they don't so I have to assume the order. I can however calculate that Ricky Whittle must have had the least amount of votes, otherwise he wouldn't have dropped down the leaderboard, yet he was saved in a dance off by the judges.

I can also work out that Ali and Brian were always going to be safe and Natalie and Vincent were always going to be in the dance off, which means the judges have the chance to push the ones they want out into the dance off and get rid of them each week. In a situation like that the BBC should have said, it is pointless voting for Natalie or Ali so save your money, What really annoys me is when they complain that somebody good goes out at the expense of someone who's popular, they have their say , we have ours and they whinge when we don't agree.

I can guarantee that Ali and Ricky will top the judges leaderboard for the next 2 weeks, forcing the popular couples (Chris and Ola and Laila and Anton) into the dance off, where they will be sent home over the unpopular ones (Ricky).

If they sell these shows to us on the basis that we decide the outcome then get rid of the judges scores altogether, and remove the dance off/sing off, this is how these shows started and how Will Young beat Gareth Gates in the first series of pop idol, much to Simon Cowells disgust.
What these shows have become is a cash generator, and celebrity popularity booster. The celeb contestants always have their profile improved and get further TV work from it, look at Matt Dawson and Austin Healey, their media careers have exploded since they were on strictly.

The other choice is to remove the public and just have judges, we know this format works from the apprentice, the restaurant, masterchef, project runway etc, but obviously if we don't pick up the phone they wouldn't make the money.

At the very least if you want us to spend our money voting, then let us have the final say!!

Are bank charges unfair?

2009-11-25T06:58:00.000-08:00

In 2006 I challenged my bank on bank charges, I'd been reading on moneysavingexpert.com about the amounts of money people had reclaimed, so i wrote to my bank and asked for my previous 6 years statements. I added up about £2500 in charges for unpaid cheques/direct debits and going over my overdraft limit. The thing that stood out amongst them rather than the amount of the charge was the fact that they were all made within 14 months.

I was self empliyed for some of the time so money was sporadic coming in, however payments all needed to be made within the month. Lets assume my income was around £1500 per month, my minimum outgoings were about £1350, and this was not a lavish lifestyle. one month I had to change the brakes on my car which cost about £200, even trying to cut back I knew i would go overdrawn and be charged £30, fine no problem I'll just spend £30 less next month. But that's not how it works, I was charged as soon as I went overdrawn, then a Direct debit I had forgotten about for a few quid would go out and I'd be charged another £30, then a payment i had made a week ago for petrol would finally appear and the bank were forced to honour it and I get charged anither £30. that's now £90 I have to make up next month. The following mont though I only earned £1300, so whwer do I find the extra £90 I need? well that's by ising the overdraft again, and yet again being charged £90 the following month. All of these charges stem back to one mis-use of my account.
The method of charging and the amount they charge is without doubt unfair. What should have happenned is the direct debit should have been returned unpaid, without charge and I could make arrangements with the company to pay them next month, in todays age any payments made by card should be recorded immediately, not appear a week after they were made.

I put my money in a bank in order to keep it safe, make payments easier and possibly earn interest. They take our money and lend it to other people in the form of mortgages, loans etc, and also use it to deal in shares in order to make profit. we give them access to our money in exchange for the service of making our payments, keeping it safe and possibly paying us interest. They should not need to make profits by charging the poor. If we ask them to make a payment to somebody and we don't have the money then they could just refuse it, it doesn't cost anything, just a computer telling another computer that the customer can't pay by these means. In the same year I was charged my bank made over £5 Billion that's Billion in profits. They made these profits by charging people like me, charging interest, and gambling with our money.

Now in 2009 the banks have started making losses, not because they have stopped charging customers, in fact they make more charges now to businesses. Not because of interest rate hikes, they pay less then half a quarter of a percent in interest to the safest savers wit they highest balances, and charge over 5% on mortgages. They are losing money because so many people have defaulted on debts that they simply can't afford, they have lost money on the stock markets and they have taken too much in bonuses. Who is to blame for this, the customer who went overdrawn a few times or the banks for lending too much money and allowing too many people to get into financial hardship.

I was paid back my charges in an out of court settlement, in full. i had been offered half of the money then 60% of it within 3 months which I almost took, but I went the whole way, right to the day before the small claims court case, and the bank caved, if they thought they would win they wouldn't have paid, but tehy knew they were wrong. Do not let them fool you in the media that they will go bust if they start paying this money back, they just need to start being bankers again rather than salesmen.

Why my love affair with Twitter has drawn to a close.

2009-11-01T10:20:00.001-08:00

I joined twitter a few months ago, I'd heard about it a few year ago when I was at channel 4 but couldn't really see the point of it, not very web 2.0 of me I know... It was something that a few people did but I thought it to be just the same as facebook status' yet you could follow people you didn't know too.

When I finally bit the bullet and joined up i became hooked pretty quickly, my love for facebook dissipated quickly as my new twitter friends had much more interesting things to say. facebook became a place where school friends I haven't spoken to in 10 -15 years start pouring out their hearts over failed romances, job losses, spats with ex's or playing mafia wars, farmville and bejewelled. Why would I care how highly someone scores in a game I have no intention of playing. facebook still has it's place, groups of friends use it for e-mailing and sharing pictures, but it's not what it once was.

So Twitter it was I now had new friends in Stephen Fry, Jimmy Carr, Jason Manford, Miley Cyrus and Lily Allen, their lives were interesting their status' often hilarious I was part of their circle, I also had my old friends but only the cool ones, the boring status of xxxxx is bored at work again, xxxxxx can't wait for friday, would no longer clog up my cerebral inbox. The problem was I became addicted, my wife would criticise me for always being on twitter, I'd check everyones feed every 10 minutes in case someone said something slightly interesting, if I @ mentioned someone I'd be waiting for them to reply like a teenager waiting for his girlfriend to text, and these were celebrities, people I'd never met or associated with me, I started to feel liek the wall flower at school in an American teen film , waiting for the quarter back to know my name. People would rile me with their political views such as Lily Allen discussing file sharing, and I was drawn into it. I obviously wasn't the only one as Lily later lift twitter and quit music due to the amount of people disagreeing with her - or abuse as she puts it.
I started to realise that my love had peaked on the day of Jan Moir's column about Stephen gately's death, It was like 9/11 all over again, I was watching news happen live, yet not on TV but on my phone, when the other press started to pick up on the story I felt like I was ahead of the game, I had become one of the survivors on the streets rather than just a passive viewer.

However the final straw was yesterday, a guy calling himself Brumplum had made a comment to Stephen Fry that his tweets were boring, for anyone who isn't aware Stephen fry is the king of Twitter, probably the first celebrity to use it and everybody follows him, On Jan Moir day people looked to him, awaiting his response like that of the president, or some kind of sage. Today someone has dared to question him!! as Stephen RT's the comment people started to pour scorn over this poor guy, celebrities were calling him a wanker, he had become Jan Moir mkII or 7/7 , Stephen had left Twitter...... What had he done, a simple 140 character message had made the king abdicate, war's have been started over less.

How did all this affect me? well to be frank it didn't, I had seen the light I realised I was watching a living soap opera of the same magnitude as Coronation st or 'Enders, and decided to do the same as I do with them, ignore them, I cannot abide soap operas or continuing dramas for the way they suck people into their story lines, I pity the people who set their clocks by them, and scoff at magazines and newspapers for filling their pages with the tripe that they produce, but I had fallen for Twitters trap. From today I will use Twitter in the same way as I use facebook, communicate with friends, and read on the bog!

The Postal Strike

2009-10-18T10:48:00.001-07:00

I normally wouldn't bother commenting on something as routine as a strike by postal workers. If it's not the Royal Mail it's teachers or train/tube staff. Usually it's just about pay, they all seem to feel that the only way to get a pay rise is to stop working for a few days.
The whole practice of going on strike is completely out dated, there's no such thing as a job for life any more, every one is free to move to other companies, it's easy to up sticks and relocate, if you're not happy with the terms of your contract then find a job where you will be.
The postal strikers would argue this time that it's not about pay, simply that they are being threatened with redundancies and that their benefits are being reduced. How is holding the rest of the company to ransom going to change anything?

It always seems to be state owned industries that take this action, they obviously want to garner the support or anger of the British public to a level where we tell our MP's to just give them what they want so we can all get back on with our lives.
Now let's get this straight, you chose the career you work in, you know that technology is reducing the demand on the postal service, it's obvious that there are going to be redundancies, either wait for the cheque, then find another job, or leave quickly and get in front of your colleagues when they leave, or make sure you're the one person that they wouldn't get rid of, don't be a trouble maker, do your job well and keep your nose clean.
I know what's coming next there aren't any jobs out there, well there are lots of jobs out there just a lot of people who think that working in McDonalds or Tesco is beneath them.

I've been made redundant twice 2001 and 2003 in 2005 I left a job as I knew redundancies were imminent and again in 2007 decided to change career rather than be at risk again. Never have I stood on a picket line and refused to work because of it, I have swapped career from working in TV, for the Police to landscaping, sales, removals, bar work, and farming. Not once did I take single benefits cheque even if I didn't work for month or so, I aren't wealthy and could live off my family, I just went out and found work instead of sitting at home watching Jeremy Kyle complaining that there are no jobs.

The Royal Mail is a business, they have share holders in the form of the tax payer, they have a duty to deliver mail and meet targets for everyone in the country. Going on strike is not going to hurt your employers, it's going to hurt your neighbours, friends, family, and small businesses. People will be relying on cheques being sent to run their business, pay their bills, people will end up getting late payment fees when they don't receive bills and miss payments. But all the mail that would have been posted will still get posted, stamps will still be bought and parcels will still be sent, the Royal Mails bottom line won't be dented, so what is the purpose of it all? As with the TGWU and NTU it's just to show us all how much we appreciate you when you're not there, wll if that's the case here have a pat on the back, I'll personally say thank you every time you stick a sorry you weren't home card through my door, and buy you a beer when you deliver a cheque for £17,000 to a random house in the village (yes this did happen....twice), I'll even give you a Christmas present when you come out in the snow to deluver my cards which you've already searched for money sent to my son of course.

If you want to stream line the post office, then fine make people go and pick up parcels, give them that option when it's ordered, but not from a warehouse in the middle of an industrial estate 5 miles away but from a designated collection point like a local post office.
Encourage everyone to opt out of junk mail, nobody wants it, it's pollution, wasteful and non-eco-friendly, this will lighten the loads for the posties and make their jobs easier so they can stop making stupid mistakes, get on with their job, finish early and go and paint houses for cash (avoiding the taxman of course).
Most of all though stop employing illiterate, non English speaking postmen, thieves that rifle through the mail, and idiots that dump loads of mail so they can finish and go home early, then get rid of all trade unions that serve no purpose other than lining the pockets of their Fuhrers.

Why DRM is ruining online music and TV

2009-09-27T12:04:00.000-07:00

Tonight's episode is brought to you by... Whatever the brand that sponsors the programme, I'm sure they would love as many people as possible to view the programme and hear their sponsorship message. I find it hard to imagine the sales meeting when the production company/TV company say:
Mr. Pepsi we'd love you to sponsor our show, to protect our brand though we'll make sure the viewers watch the show when we want them to and where we want them to. errrr great I guess?
How about flipping it on it's head:
Ok Miss Coca-Cola, thankyou for paying for us to produce our show, what we'll do is let as many people as possible download it for free, cover it in your branding, in fact they can even get it from your website first, we'll stitch your adverts into it, people can have it in HD, stream it, divx quicktime, AVI on their Ipods, PSP's Archos phones etc and that's before we put it on TV... and what's more we'll let people all over the world have it at the same time, everyone who sees it will know your name.

Who's going to pay more coke or Pepsi?

The real scenario is the first one, producers are so precious about their creation that they bought into the idea of DRM (Digital Rights Management). The only reason DRM sounds good is it sounds like a nuclear fall out shelter, it appears to be protecting your brand when in actual fact it pushes the people who want to watch your programme into the 'illegal' file sharing world.

DRM is sold on the fact that people can't change the format, view it for a limited time, restrict locations and retsrict sharing. It obviously doesn't work though. If you can view it, it can be copied, as soon as it airs on TV it can be put onto a computer and sent around the world by anyone, to be viewed by anyone, what's more, the person who uploads it can spend a bit of time and edit out the ad breaks, if he/she wanted to they could put their own DOG (digital on-air graphic) on it, they could edit out the dull bits, put subtitles on, anything they want. If everyone could get it legitimately, there would be no need for them to do it, why waste their time.

People want to watch the programmes you create, on a device of their choosing, at a time of their choosing, start following the second example and give the stuff you make as much exposure as possible, cover it in adverts and sposorship, make it available for everyone, all over the world, on every device imaginable, and give it away for free. You'll make a lot more money this way than allowing the ad agencies to drive you down on price because of so called piracy.

Federation for copyright theft? An open letter to Lily Allen

2009-09-21T10:12:00.001-07:00

I read a tweet last night from Lily Allen about how she had started a blog/campaign to force the ISP's to do more about copyright theft http://idontwanttochangetheworld.blogspot.com/
I have to totally disagree with Lily and just about every artist that has commented on her blog, except for 50cent who has it spot on. (yet gets berated)

Before MP3's came along there was CD recording, before that there was taping, before that people would lend each other LP's. people have always shared music, and people have also always shoplifted CD's from woolworths.
The Internet is not solely to blame for the demise of the Record industry and file sharing is by far the least of its worries.
Here's my list of factors affecting the music business at the minute.

There is simply too much content available, this is not a bad thing, however the younger generations are revisiting old classics - Vera Lynn is No 1 this week for example. 10 years ago I worked in Woolworths, on the record counter, we used to get a list of singles being released that week, usually up to 5 or 6 new entries, now there are hundreds of artists releasing songs every day online. The market isn't big enough to sustain so many artists, instead of the brightest shining through, there is a more even spread of the wealth resulting in everyone suffering a lower income.
People are no longer prepared to pay for any content as they have so much free music available to them, Spotify, Blip, Last FM, 100's of DAB radio stations dozens of music channels, all playing the music of different genres and tastes 24/7. Why buy a CD etc when you can hear all your favourite music for nothing?
Record companies are still insisting that CD sales are the way forward, why when more people download music do bands still put out albums? there is no limit to how much music can fit on album now, or indeed no minimum. I remember the artists complaining that they had to record an extra 2 songs to fill a CD that they did an LP back in the 90's. There is completely no reason to release an album, release a song... let it play for a couple of weeks, then the next and repeat, as a consumer I can put the album together myself. This saves money, resources and time - no need to press a CD, no need to pay for a sleeve designer, photographer, packaging, no need to write a list of thank you's that nobody ever reads.
This scares the record companies though, as why do they need to exist? An artist like Lily Allen ( chosen as she started the campaign above any other reason) is perfectly capable of marketing herself, she has proved this with Twitter and Myspace, her money is to be made by air play, touring/life performances, public appearances, web advertising, product sponsorship, her music is just her tool, Lily, sack your record company, buy yourself out of your contract etc, employ your own viral marketing team and go it alone, they are totally unnecessary in todays marketplace.

Simon Cowell is flooding the market with talentless, pointless music, The X factor in it's many guises has produced more No1 singles than any other artist, too many people now think that is how to get famous, that embarassing yourself on TV is a good career choice.

Back in the 60's my mum used to go and see bands every saturday night at the Bridlington Spa, I'm talking about a small venue, small town. The band's she saw there were big in their day, Rolling Stones, the Who, the Kinks, Ike and Tina Turner, etc... They went to these venues to play for their fans, to get their music heard, and to earn money. An artist today will stick a track up on I tunes, and expect the masses to pay for it, then blame illegal file sharing when they don't make any money. What's wrong with putting in some hours working, play the shopping malls, theatres, play local radio, schools and the high streets, get a buzz about yourself, the radio stations will then play your stuff and the fans will eventually pay to come see you play, maybe even buy one of your shiny silver discs you're all so desperate to sell.

As for torrents, it's really not as big a problem as you are being lead to believe. At this minute on Mininova.org their are 400 people downloading Muse (another one to comment on Lily's blog) the rest are in the 10's - not 1000's, in fact 12 are downloading Lily's album, that's about £2 she didn't make today. I bet HMV, Virgin, Woolworths etc all ost more through shoplifting than file sharing ever will.

Why then is so much effort being put into it, why is Peter Mandelson kissing so many arses in the music industry so close to election time. Remember Lily, how against the BNP you were, and that people should have gone out and voted, well Peter Mandelson who you now love, didn't receive a single vote from anyone in this country and he was officially in charge of it in the summer. That is surely a bigger crime to be fighting...

I leave you with this thought, I am a fish farmer. Lidl sell fishing rods for £4.99 and not rod licenses. Every time someone buys a fishing rod then goes out and catches a fish, I am losing revenue. Should Lidl police the rivers? who is compensating me? Why is a power hungry politician not fighting my case today? Oh that's right I don't have millions of fans to tell how wonderful he is.

Was Jordan raped?

2009-09-17T10:16:00.000-07:00

A couple of weeks ago, Jordan aka Katie Price claimed to have been raped by a well known celebrity when she was younger, however she has refused to name the perpertartor to the police or anyone else, she has also said she doesn't want any more discussion about it? Well in my eyes that spells only one thing - It's a made up story. She is using the same tactics as Heather Mills did when she divorced Paul McCartney, trying to garner sympathy so that people will like her and buy her new book/cd/perfume etc.
I've never liked Jordan, she has been nothing more than a media whore since she first got her tits out in the papers, she has no talent, not even good looking, nothing interesting to say and far too over exposed.

For a woman who has previously claimed all rapists should themselves be raped as punishment, to allow someone who raped her get off scot-free is pure double standards. She has obviously fabricated the whole tale and is now being backed into a corner over it. She will either;

name and shame an innocent person
come clean (unlikely)
name and shame a dead celebrity (they can't sue then)
keep going on about it whilst claiming she wants no more mention of it.

She should be forced to meet real rape victims, women who are living in fear, scarred mentally by their attackers, all she has done is trivialised a very serious matter. Her refusal to name the guilty person (if they exist) will send out the message that rape isn't serious, and not worth reporting. What a stupid nieve woman she is. I wonder whats next? will she look at Jade Goody and claim to ahve cancer in order to be loved by the masses!

stupid cow.

Becoming Middle Aged

2009-09-06T04:24:00.000-07:00

In the last week I have:

Refused to spend £40 on a John Rocha shirt I really liked (I used to spend that on t-shirts)
Written a letter to the local paper complaining about parking (see previous post)
Been put on thyroid medication
Complained to one of the neighbours about the music he was playing
Watched a full episode of murder she wrote and liked it.

I have well and truly become middle aged in the blink of an eye. I should have seen the signs when I started driving a Jaguar X-type.

Driffield main street.

2009-09-04T10:39:00.000-07:00

The main street in Driffield has turned into a car park. It is impossible to get from one end of the town to the other without having your route blocked at some point. The main culprits of this are disabled drivers. They appear to think that it is OK for them to just pull up and park outside a shop on double yellow lines thanks to their magic blue badge. I fully accept that some people can't walk very far etc, but it is not right or in deed legal to cause an obstruction. The beckside car park is almost empty on a daily basis, and close enough to the shops. The majority of times there is usually someone still sat in the drivers seat whilst the other person is out shopping, (hopefully that's the one without the disability sitting in the car, otherwise why not do their shopping for them), in which case they could drop them off and park up properly.
Occasionally though there is also just selfishness, I had words with a middle aged lady in a balck Range Rover who stopped and parked at the traffic lights outside HSBC, preventing everyone from getting through the lights as someone was waiting to turn right and she was blocking the path, Obviously as she was driving a fancy car it was perfectly acceptable for her to park wherever she feels fit. I believe people see the disabled badge drivers parking all the way down the main street and think that it's fine for them to do it as well. It seems to be, that running over the road to the chip shop or popping to the cash point is ample excuse for holding everyone else up from going about their business.
It's about time the traffic warden did her job properly or else get the PCSO's to do something about it, ambulances and fire engines would struggle to get to an accident at some points on the main street, they'd certainly never get past Wilkinsons when people park opposite each other on an already narrowed stretch.
Taxi drivers are also to blame, particularly on Mill St, the Taxi rank there seems to think the street belongs to them. There is a public car park less than 100yds from their rank, when they want to pop in for a cuppa they can pay like the rest of us have to. By the look of some of the drivers, a bit of a walk wouldn't go a miss either.

Free the Lockerbie 1

2009-08-23T02:52:00.000-07:00

Everyone seems to have an opinion on the freeing of Al Megrahi the Lockerbie bomber, well here's mine.
The Scottish Justice minister did the right thing. This man was probably just a Patsy, but typically the US felt they had somebody they could blame, a face that they could add to a tragedy, someone with whom they could take revenge. Much like the 911 twin towers attack all the culprits were dead, that's part of the downfall of suicide bombers, you can't execute them later, so what do the US do but place the blame on Bin Laden, who probably knew nothing of the attack planning, the Al Qaida way seems to be that people follow teachings, then go off and do things on their own, the 7/7 London Bombers will never have had direct orders from Bin Laden.

Al Megrahi is a dying man, he has 3 months left to live according to reports, Ok he hasn't served life that he was sentenced to but he's got pretty darn close to it. The attitude of the Americans is that he should be made to suffer for those 3 months, no treatment, no pain medication just rot in a cell. How humanitarian is that from a so called peace seeking nation. Had he stayed in the Scottish prison, we would have had to give him treatment, expensive treatment, who would pay for it? The UK taxpayer (note not the Scottish ones) or we could say "fine you're dying, piss off back to Libya and they can look after you" If you look at it this way, how is it compassionate?

Dvid Cameron and his allies are now trying to score political points by saying how disgraceful it was to free him, If the decision had been in their hands, and they had all the facts, I would like to think that a future prime minister would have compassion, and not be a hate filled seeker of unhumanitarian justice, what's next water-boarding?

Al Megrahi may have been guilty, he may have been one of many thst took part in this atrocity, it may even have been state sanctioned, but if we're going to apply the rule of an eye for an eye, then perhaps we should look towards been a more pacifistic nation and stop hurling missiles at schools in the middle east, and sending our men and women to kill others and being so shocked when they come home in coffins.

Swine Flu

2009-07-26T01:50:00.000-07:00

On Friday my 2 year old son was ill, when i came home at lunch time he had a fever and was just cuddling mummy all day. We called the doctor and they said he had swine flu symptoms and they would see him that afternoon. My wife took him to the surgery and had to go in through the back door into the quarantined area, and yes they diagnosed him with swine flu.
When she called me to tell me my heart sank, I'd been reading how bad it was and that people were dropping like flies from it. the papers have been swamped with Pandemic alerts, I honestly thought the worst.
I got home as quick as possible, my son is sat playing with his toys happy as anything, the doctor had prescribed Calpol, and Tamiflu, as I hadn't picked up the Tamiflu yet the calpol must be doing some good. I rushed off to the Pharmacy to get the tamiflu, this so called wonder drug that will save us all, the government have been hoarding it for months just for such an outbreak. Waiting at the Pharmacist i felt like a Leper, I thought what if I've got it too, look at all these elderly people and children around, should I wear a bell or something?
We ring round all our family and friends that have been with us in the last couple of days and warn them to keep an eye out for symptoms.

Friday night I get about 2 hours broken sleep, constantly checking on him, worried he's getting worse, I'm up at 4am sat with him in my arms making sure he gets enough to drink etc.

Saturday afternoon..... he's fine, appetites back, playing with his toys, running around, laughing, happy as a pig in shit. Maybe this Tamiflu is a wonder drug after all, or maybe... and more likely swine flu is not such a big deal after all.

I've read a lot about it this weekend as you would imagine, the phrase that pops up in everything you read of any worthiness, is that it's actually a very mild illness. So why all the panic, it seems to be no different to a slight cold, or a hangover.

The press as usual have used it as a way to sell papers by sensationalising it, the expenses scandal has dried up so they had to find something new. The government have used it as a political points scorer, look at the website, it's more about what the government are doing than about how to deal with it...

Granted some people have died but the common statement issued is that they have underlying health issues, in other words, they were already dying and happened to get swine flu.

So here's my advice, if you have a headache, loss of appetite, aching limbs etc. Take a couple of aspirin, drink plenty of fluids, stay away from sick people and don't panic, you haven't got the plague, just a bug that's going round.

Totally Saturday!

2009-07-11T01:21:00.000-07:00

I see the BBC has again axed a failing Graham Norton vehicle. The problem is that the BBC appear to try to attach a celebrity to an idea in the hope of his or her 'pull' increasing ratings. Channel 4 in contrast have always succeeded in coming up with the format first then creating a celebrity from the presenters, Graham Norton, Jonathan Ross, Ricky Gervais, Sacha Baron Cohen, Simon Amstell, Johnny Vaughn etc... all started at C4 and became popular, the BBC then poach them away and hope to find their own format. The difference being that C4 have the ability to allow the star to be themselves. The BBC can't take the same risks.

I'm pretty sure that the new celebrity panel quiz show with Steve Jones at the helm will soon fall to the same fate, Steve Jones was great on T4 because we all knew he was flirting with the guests and more than likely giving them one in the ad breaks. His charm will probably be seen as sleazy by middle Englanders.

We need a big axe across all of Saturday night TV. X-factor, strictly, you've been framed, celebrity gameshows, Ant and Dec, they're just rehashings of old formats. Noel's Crinkly bottom was entertaining inits day but the audience has grown up. On the same subject I'm sick of seeing z-list celbrities doing stuff to entertain us. Masterchef, strictly, iacgmooh, hells kitchen, CBB, celebrity come dine with me. The format of these shows is real people being able to entertain us, we would watch at home and play along because they were just like us, now they're just a way to further the career of an ailing TV star.

Let's get some fresh ideas please TV land.. I'm sick of being asked to vote for which celebrity I like the most...

Michael Jackson

2009-07-09T11:36:00.000-07:00

I watched the tribute/funeral the other night, funny I don't remember Michael Jackson being someone who harped on about civil rights or how difficult it was being black. To quote the man himself "I'm not going to spend my life being a colour". Why then do people like Martin Luther King Jr, and that senator woman turn a funeral into a civil rights march. The only saving grace was Brooke Shields, she was genuinely someone who cared about the man and was saddened by his death. I think Liz Taylor had the right idea in staying away she obviously foresaw it becoming a farce, which it did.

I'm not the biggest Micheal Jackson fan, but when I was young I liked his music, Bad was the first album I bought with my own money, and it was listened to heavily on my walkman. Some of his music can be classed as masterpieces, Billie Jean, Thriller, Beat it, the bass lines alone are enough to make the hairs on theback of your neck stand up. As for everything else aout him, who knows, all we will ever hear now is other peoples claims, oxygen tanks, children, surgery, overdoses etc. None of us will ever know what went on in the mans life but many will speculate.

He probably will become another Elvis, richer in death than at the moment before, Neverland will become like Graceland, MJ impersonators will sing in Chinese restaurants and his music will be the legacy that lives on.

What I did realise though was MJ probably rose to fame heavily about the same time as Elvis died (1977), I struggle to think of anyone in our current playlists that will take on the title of King. Perhaps this is a sign of the times, where muscial talent is mistaken for a talent contest. Did video kill the radio star, asnd has Simon Cowell danced merrily on it's grave.

Wild, Organic, Hand-Reared, Sustainable, Line-Caught Trout.

2009-06-27T11:52:00.000-07:00

I complained to the BBC today. I'd watched Great British Menu with anticipation a few weeks ago when Aiden Byrne was cooking Rainbow Trout as his fish dish for the returning troops. His recipe here for poached rainbow trout with asparagus custard and morels, was well recieved by the judges and looked good too. Having more trout than even I could manage to eat at my disposal, I was going to give it a go. However when I logged onto the website to check the recipe I see that it calls for wild rainbow trout... Funny that on the programme there was a short film showing Aiden Byrne going to a local fish farm to get his trout! Why the sudden addition of the word wild on the website?
There seems to be an almost instant addition to recipes of the words organic, wild, hand reared and rare breed. Recession aside these ingredients are not available to everyone, they're expensive and not always tastier than the cheaper farmed alternatives. I'm no advocate of intensive farming, battery chickens, or sow crates etc. but being a producer of fresh fish I can say that we do all we can to ensure the welfare of our stock, our farm is only stocked at 50% density compared to others and our trout are damn fine tasting. What the authors of these recipes don't realise is that someone following it may think "well I can't get wild trout so I won't bother (the farmed stuff in Tesco's is obviously not the same)". Or is it?

I was talking to someone from the environment agency this week and there is a national strategy to remove rainbow trout from our rivers as they are a non native species (imported from Canada), the theory is to have more Brown Trout and Grayling, by stocking fishing rivers with Triploid (sexless) fish so that the native species can breed. If this is the case then the only place you will get a true wild rainbow trout is to go fishing in Canada.

So come on chefs, Newspapers, supermarkets, magazines, TV shows... let's have some support for the farmers in this country. Help the consumers source the best freshest ingredients they can, encourage them to go to local farm shops, farmers markets, butchers etc. But if the supermarket is all they can afford or are able to get to then show them how to check for freshness, quality sustainabilty, welfare and above all fairness for the producers and Britishness.

Digital Britain

2009-06-16T10:40:00.000-07:00

I've just glanced over the Digital Britain report that was published today, mainly looking for the governments stance on peer to peer file sharing. I love P2P sharing, today I have been told by my government that if I continue I will have my internet connection blocked.
this stance by the government has all come about because the copyright creators claim to be losing millions in revenue to to illegal file sharing. They would have us believe it is theft, on the same scale as walking into a bank with a loaded shotgun and out with a bag of swag. I understand that the TV producers, musicians film makers etc need to make money. But they also want us to watch/listen to their "art".
The current system is flawed, let's take an example of the TV series Dexter. Series 3 of Dexter started in the USA in September 2008 and finished December 2008. that programme will have been watched by people all over the US who pay a subscription to the cable company. The cable company pay a fee for the show, and sell advertising around it. everyone wins. However the next day they can put it online for people (again within the US) to watch for free. Subscription holders are paying for one extra day. The Cable company who probably put it online can then gain more revenue through the website advertising. I'm in the UK. I would have had to wait until at least 5 months later to watch the same series in this country on subscription Tv then probably see it on free to air TV in another 6 months. Both of these channels will have again paid for the right to show it, and sell advertising around it for a period of time. I just want to watch and enjoy the show? I'd be prepared to pay Showtime in the US for the ability to watch it the day after broadcast, I don't want to wait 6 months to see it, and in that time be told what happens by people all over the net.
We are starting to get there with Lost and Heroes we only have to wait a few days, but again by the time we get to see it, Twitter etc is full of spoilers from the US so our enjoyment is ruined.
Surely NBC, ABC, CBS, Showtime, Sci-fi etc are big enough brands to deal globally, cut out the middle men, and sell to the consumers directly. I currently pay £50 a month to watch programmes on Sky, and £114 a year TV licence to not watch the Eastenders. I would gladly pay £1 for each episode of a US drama/Comedy that I want to watch as soon as it's ready. Not 6 months later, plus think of the adverts you could put in if you allowed me to watch it legitimately.
I don't save hundreds of hours of TV to watch, I'll download a show, watch it once then delete it. It's not like I want a DVD boxset with hidden extras. just 40 minutes of unspoilt entertainment.

Broadcasters, programme makers, film makers, and the government, you all need to realise that the digital age has made the world smaller than ever before, todays consumer does not want a TV guide telling them when they can watch things, they want to go out and get it themselves when they want it, and how they want it.