At a petrol pump, why don’t they have buttons ?
£5
£10
£15
£20
£other
then that would stop people like me momentarily gazing into space and missing the target by 6p. Can’t be that hard to make buttons can it ?
There is a small estate which is about 200 yards from us. It comprises say 40 houses. We used to live there – it was our first (and only) home which we left in 2002. I mention this because both our girls have friends there and they are familiar with the place. It’s also one of those little estates when a certain level of social behaviour is expected – for instance, when we moved in, I decided that our very small front lawn (it was about 10 feet square) would be a haven for wildlife as every other lawn was perfectly manicured. I gave in and mowed it when it reached 4 feet high. This did not endear me to our neighbours – some never forgot it. So, it’s one of those estates. Being the time of year it is, some of the houses there have some outside decorations. One house in particular has a single string of lights around a single tree. I really like that one. In that estate, our girls tell us that one man is ‘creepy’. He lives alone and he unnerves both our girls and their friends. Now there is always someone we know who we might call ‘creepy’ but we (and I mean you and me) can usually put our fingers on what it is about someone that sends our ‘creepmeter’ up. But with this guy the girls cannot quite say why – it just something strange. They would not talk to him and view the house with suspicion and wariness.
He has lit up reindeer on the front lawn, lights in the tree, on the house, around the doors, on the roof, a santa and sleigh going from the tree to the roof and in a window upstairs has a lit up ‘Merry Christmas’ in what is obviously a very decorated room. It is the only house like it around here – and given what little I know I am very suspicious indeed.
When I watch a cat that is walking or running, it does so in a directly forwards motion. It knows where it is going. They say – so I have heard – that if you put a person into a featureless desert and told them to walk their way to safety that they would eventually end up roughly where they started because their stride is uneven and favours one side. I have never been left in such a situation – though I have been in a desert – so I have to take what is said as something close to the truth. Maybe this lopsidedness is because we are right / left handed. Maybe. And maybe this has nothing to do with this: why don’t dogs walk straight ?
Winston does go forward – with a surprising momentum – but while doing this he is also going to the right. It’s as if he were asked to walk / trot North but ends up on a heading on NNE. Why ? Are dogs right-handed ? I haven’t seen a dog that veers to the left (voluntarily that is). Why would a dog have one dominant side for walking or doing anything else ? Apart from the begging thing with the paw that most dogs I’ve known do, for what other reason would they have a dominant leg unless they are right/left handed ? Do wild dogs have such favoured limbs ? Has Man encouraged this through the desire to make dogs beg ? Did dogs that did not beg become extinct due to natural selection (and hunger) so limb favouritism become ‘de riguer’ ? It’s not like they ‘high five’ when they meet either is it ? Or maybe it’s just Winston.
There is always someone suing someone else it seems. It’s a culture that means if someone else gets hurt it was an “accident” but if it’s you “it’s the fault of someone else who shall be sued to teach them a lesson”. So we have this ridiculous compensation culture.
I read his blog and now I’m mentally scarred for life so I’m going to sue the blogger to make him see the error of his ways ! and the money will make me better. It’ll remove all the mental scarring and I shall return miraculously to my pre-blog reading life
But we also have people who say that they do not wish to sue for the money, it really IS for the principle. Now with every cause there are people who believe in it, and those who tag along because it makes their life easier. I do think that there genuinely are people who think suing is the correct thing to do because only then will an organisation take notice – and my years as a nurse bears this out. It focuses the attention of a company if for no other reason that the negative impression that is attached to them by the press, other companies and people. So we have 3 groups of people:
- I am going to sue to make pots of money
- I am going to sue but pretend I don’t want the money
- I am going to sue and I really don’t give a damn about the money
I think we should praise this last group. They really are engaging in altruistic behaviour of a high order. And to recognise this they should get faster service:
“I want to sue”
“After money from the company / person / country / anyone or thing else ?”
“No”
“Great, see you in court next Monday”
The burden of proof should be ever so slightly less – because the company will not be subject to an fiscal penalty they shouldn’t mind – directors can still get their shiny new motors – but the negative publicity should be greater – whoops ! No shiny motors!
We should help the people who are going through more emotions purely to make a point, to make our world better, to get closure for themselves and to move on. We should not have a judicial system that clogs up genuine good intentions. Fast track these people. But we then have a problem with what to do with people that do want cash. I suppose this can be divided because cash – while nice – doesn’t make things better does it ? So we have:
- I want to sue to get rich
- I want to sue to teach the company / person / country / anyone or thing else a lesson
Now, only a complete fool would admit to the first wouldn’t they ? So that lumps everyone into the second. They want someone to pay – but they don’t want to get rich. So how about that in these cases, all money awarded is given to a charity ? The person suing is happy they won, the company was taught their lesson and a charity benefits. This seems to have an additional benefit too – the number of people seeking to sue would drop overnight. An added bonus would be that the TV and radio would be devoid of those awful “Slip trip of fall in a public place ? You need us” type crap that either has that blonde thing who really should have stayed with her last haircut or the old guy who looks just like how I imagined Jaggers to be. It’s not a perfect system but I’m sure it’s better than what we have right now.
I wonder if families of people they have lost feel guilty when other families start trusts and campaigns and charities in the name of their own loved and lost ? I wonder if people that just want to grieve quietly and privately feel that they are in some way letting go of what they had too easily. I wonder if those same people are made to feel that they should have done something else, to have questioned more, pushed more. Or are these families that do move into charity and campaign doing it as much because they feel they have to ? Do they feel it is almost expected of them ? Why is all this so disproportionally moved toward the deaths of young people ? Is marking the passing of someone young so much more important than someone older ? Maybe as a society the concept of grieving has moved into some new area .. and this is as far from criticism as I could get and there is no right answer. Just thinking out loud.
You make a post. It’s a legitimate post that makes up nothing, does not libel or defame any more than a mainstream publication, it does not violate any TOS and is legally unactionable.. You are asked by either the person you name, the company you name or people close to those to remove the post.
Under what circumstances would you do so ? And why ?
Edit: here’s why I’m asking.
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a post about a failed rape prosecution and I commented on what happened. I used the name of the man involved as the post title and as of right now, it’s #1 on google if you search for his name (12 of the first 20 are concerned with the same event). I suppose ‘blogging responsibility’ comes into this, but I see that entry as being a legitimate commentary on an event I read in the news. We all read things in the news and we all take viewpoints from that information. I made my viewpoint crystal clear. However, that post has – naturally I suppose – attracted a few comments from friends of the person concerned. They – naturally – protest his innocence. In one case one of his stupider friends named the girl. One commenter even says the girl must be lying because she is a drama student! I’m fairly sure they would like that post to be deleted (which would mean that The Guardian would take top spot – not a completely different view and hardly one for the CV). I have also had 2 emails asking that I reword or change that post. So should I ?
A very very small part of me says I should. It says that he messed up, has paid with upset, worry, trauma, has to rebuild his reputation etc and that a post like mine isn’t going to help him. I should let bygones be bygones. But that’s a small part. Most of me thinks it should stay – it was a legitimate post, the events that lead up to the alleged event did occur, that certain facts I mentioned were just that – facts, that I find his actions as reported horrendous, that I do think he should pay a price (but what price says the small voice ? When is enough enough ? Who am I to judge ?). There is also the fact that the girl has not commented and if someone did how would I know it was indeed her ? Why should she have to revoke her right to anonymity to say that she wants those facts to be widely publicised ?
I find it strange that I am questioning my own post, and especially a post that I still think is valid. It’s a post that can be easily attacked to go away – I cannot see these same people having a go at the national newspapers and asking they redress the balance. I have only – as far I can remember – deleted 1 post from this site deliberately, and that post will most certainly return at a later date. Should I let these few people get under my skin ? Was I too forthright in my views on that day ? I know that I do write as I think / feel at times but I’m not about to start apologising for how I blog and I sure as hell don’t want to change. The larger opinion in me says if he had not done anything then he would not have been in the news so neither I nor others would never have heard of him.
And given the comments that are hitting that post right now …..
For the record – I did not say he was guilty.
Many years ago, one of my grandfathers used to have a variety of sayings he’d trot out to get you to close a door – things like “Born in a barn were you ?” and “Put the wood in the hole.” Struck me yesterday that the second one there could be a euphemism ;)
When a cat goes out into the garden, some of the birds start making a racket, and it’s always the same racket. So I reckon that they are saying one of two things:
OR
And from looking at my cat, he’s either acting really cool or he’s blanking them completely.
In the early hours of this morning when I went to bed, for some reason my mind turned to Richard Whiteley’s death at 61 years old. When you say it glibly it means nothing does it – it’s just a number, but then I realised that if I live to be as old as him, my life is 2/3 gone. I’ve only a third left. When I row at the gym, I tend to use one visualisation – that of a circle. As I reach a quarter distance I picture it, then at halfway and I always visualise having only a third left. It’s because I’m past halfway, keeping the rhythm going may be difficult but I’m nearly there, not long to go, soon I can stop. Those words jumped into my mind as I thought about the last one third of my life. Not long to go. My stomach sank and I actually felt sick. The light of day has lifted what wasn’t an emotional plunge more just a sudden brilliant flash of mortality. And I’m sitting here typing this when in one hour I’ll be on that rower :)
FreshlyPressed - Feed - Privacy - 3.1.3 - 3,203 - 10,494 - 0.214