... and someone always spoil it for the rest

Dear anonymous,

Words can not express how disgusted I am with you and your behaviour. Your snooping goes to show what a dispicable person you are, to add to the numerous other terms I could use to describe you and your selfish lying ways.

As such, I feel I am forced to withdraw entirely from the internet, due to your actions.

Apologies to everyone else. It was fun whilst it lasted and I'll tell you all what the individual has done, in person, because the only person who cowardly won't speak to me, is the individual in question.

Cheerio.

What a day...

8 hours of work. I was feeling shattered after the first hour. The sound of an MP3 dictaphone beeping (every time I paused it or played it) really grinded me down.

At 12:30pm, I went and bought FIFA Manager 10. The man who served me, had previously told me it wasn't on the list of releases that were scheduled in the Game folder, but had assured me, if it was being released on the 30th of October, they'd have it. An individual instore was wearing full camoflauge, shaven sides of his head, mullet and poppy. I think of Mike Watt, followed by wondering if I should bump into him and claim I didn't see him, being camoflauged as he was.

It was £5 cheaper online.

I get home from work, rush straight out. To summarise that part, it rained and Bailey's of Dawlish sell expensive and unpleasant, chips. Do not buy chips (at least) from there.

I arrive home, drunk people parading down the street in 3 packs of 3-5 fluid individuals, shouting and doing things drunks do.

Next door has a car parked outside their house, with bottles and a bag of rubbish littered around it.

I am disagusted and unamused. I secretly wish I catch the individual going to their car and ordering them to pick up the litter. Unfortunately, something worse happens.

A little while later, a Renault Clio pulls up, an individual gets out and bangs on my neighbour's door and windows, demanding to be let in. As I peer outside, I hear 'Taliban' insults being hurled at them, whilst he is stood on my driveway.

I will not tolerate that at all and go straight out the door and tell him to get off my drive way. I do not swear, I do not mention his racist slur. I merely tell him to get off my driveway. He says he's talking to his friends. I now tell him to get off my neighbour's property. He calls me a dickhead and says I'm treating him as such. My mother, being a stupid fool rushes out to try and calm things down by telling him where the party is. However, he is a moron who could read the situation that my mother was frightened and so threatens to deck me. I was perfectly happy for him to dare to lay a finger on me, because I knew I had witnesses. That and I could take him. He continues to swear and act like he has cojones, but slinks off back to his car, making vague threats. So I taunt him and go back inside.

Then I phone the police.

The police are very interested when I mention the taliban bit. They don't care about witnesses to someone putting a rake through a windscreen, but racial provocation? That warrants a visit from the police, within an hour.

I hadn't even mentioned that the individual banged repeatedly on the glass, or that the driver of the vehicle got out of his car and also shouted abuse. I merely mentioned one word.

I feel pleased that something might actually be done about it, but saddened that racism is the reason why it gets that push. Such behaviour isn't acceptable whether racism is involved or not.

Bottles being thrown in the road, did not seem to concern the police, but racism does. I really wonder if there had been no racist element, if they'd have bothered to call me back.

Or was it that I gave them a car registration and a description, so it gives them a crime which is easily 'solved'?

Perhaps the biggest thing was that it was me who went out and did something. I'm frustrated that my mother and brother seemed more like quivering Mavises behind me, but pleased that, wearing a "Keep Calm and Carry On" t-shirt, I stood up for my community.

"So if I can shoot rabbits, then I can shoot fascists" had always been a mixed message to me. Shooting nasty, evil, fascists in a war, is probably a good thing. I've always liked to think I could stand up against such people, but known I could never hurt a rabbit.

Maybe one doesn't require the other...

(Cut down from Stuart's extended ramblings.)

Photographs from the lighting overkill venue

Having been to The Perfect 5th before (see here and here), I was expecting some reasonably nice photos.

What follows, are the best I could do and they have made me feel that, perhaps, I should stop taking photos.


Le Chat Noir

Sam Colt and the Devil




Down by the River

Chuggers

Chuggers, a student/out of work actor/'vivacious' individual with a clipboard, who try to take some form of details from you (address or card details) for a charity organisation, have been around for quite a while now. They should not be classed in the same group as old women with buckets or holding leaflets, or people at a stand for a local cause, because chuggers are shipped in from elsewhere.

People were tiring of them in 2002, but they live on seven years later (as vivacious individuals are well... vivacious), as I encountered several today.

In the past, I have skillfully dodged them with ease, as they see a young white male with clean clothes, who does not appear to be 'poor' or volatile and think "A potential victim of our loud and extroverted behaviour! Let's chug him!"

What follows usually makes me feel like Mark in Peep Show when he is accosted by kids shouting 'clean shirt' at him.

Why me? What is it about me? Do I look the charitable type? Do they not realise that inside, I feel like screaming 'arrgghh!' and chasing them with a piece of pipe?

No. They don't think that. They seem to think I'm easily wooed.

I know this, because today's chugger tried to get me twice. First, by approaching me, beaming and saying "Hi gorgeous man!" (to which I can think of many witty retorts, my particular favourite being 'Campaigning for the blind, are you?') and following this up on the way back by repeatedly moving infront of my path and saying 'Hi!' at me, so that I had to step out of the way so I didn't walk into her. Instead I nearly walked into the backs of three poor, obese mothers pushing buggies, who thought the 'Hi!' had been directed at them. I could tell it wasn't because they didn't have a chuggers face two feet away from theirs.

As you may be able to tell, I'm quite offended by it.

I'm offended by the assumption that I would want to discuss anything with a chugger.
I'm offended by the assumption that me walking at speed means I really want to stop and talk.
I'm offended by the use of 'gorgeous' (more so than I would be if it were replaced by swear words or derogatory remarks).
I'm offended that because I didn't stop the first time, I got it on the way back too.
I'm offended that they think I'm stupid enough to not know that she was being paid to chug.

If there had been a pipe lying around...

The Enemy Within

The Enemy Within
Channel 4, 9pm
12/10/2009

In the late 19th century, the world was increasingly under threat from terrorist attacks, caused by anarchists.

The anarchist movement in London was spread by immigration - the political dissidents of eastern Europe made their way to the east end, where within the Jewish working class poor, they found individuals who felt angry with the United Kingdom and their lack of a voice.

It is important to note, that at this time, working class men and women could not vote.

A few terrorist attacks took place in London, such as the Greenwich Royal Observatory bombing of 1894, but by the start of the First World War, MI5s predecessors
the Secret Service Bureau had managed to crush the movement. It was helped in part by infiltrating a plot to bomb a theatre full of patrons (that was originally conceived by the SSB themselves).

An interesting subject for a documentary. Someone at Channel 4 picked up on this and decided to highlight the similiarities between then and 'Islamic' terrorism now.

Unfortunately, instead of subtly making the link, Channel 4 thought it best to use real Muslims repeat the words of anarchists from the 19th century, whilst recorded covertly, via voxpops and on webcam. The press of the era was voiced by some members of the Channel 4 news team, but mostly Donal McIntyre, Vanessa Feltz, Gary Bushell and Nick Ferrari.

Notice the sudden sharp drop into abysmal 'journalists'?

Incidentally, the Wikipedia article for Vanessa Feltz at time of writing ends with

"On 11 May 2009 Feltz was named Speech Radio Personality of the Year at the Sony Radio Academy Awards. Feltz's acceptance speech was characterised by her sweaty and often vulgar appearance. At one point a flood specialist was called in when Feltz's sweat smashed over the stage barricades and drowned two audience members. Much of the hysteria died down when it was discovered that the two audience members were Ant and Dec."

In between these attempts at trying to make old news sound fresh, edgy and modern, we have to put up with gritty, glichy and repetitive CCTV footage from the 7/7 bombings, various large groups of Muslims and CCTV from the Docklands Light Railway.

The most shocking piece of film (seemingly chosen to give sentiment towards terrorists) has to be the use of footage from US helicopters in Iraq and Afghanistan killing people with bombs. It is not made clear whether the individuals killed are civilians or militants, but it is implied they are civilian. This is made worse when after a group are bombed going down a street, the voice of a second American (who didn't fire the missile) is heard to say 'Oh dude!' as if it was 'gnarly' or 'cool' that a bunch of people just got blown to pieces.

The end result of such a programme is confusion. It feels like a slapdash documentary. Yes, there are similiarities between the anarchist terrorists and the 'Islamic' terrorists of today, but so what? It seemed to want to talk about now and the past, without providing anything new regarding the present and making a difficult to follow story for the past. An idea that sounded good to those involved on paper, just didn't make much sense when finished.

A better way of doing it, would have been to have a programme of two halves. Looking at the past and looking at the present. Then it could have properly evaluated if there is anything worth using from the past. Even better, would have been to simply examine the terrorism of the late 19th century, as even the BBC believes it created a modern age of terrorism.