Andy Murray

Andy Murray lost his semi final yesterday. There's been a lot of comment on this and him in the last couple of weeks while everyone pretends to enjoy tennis during Wimbledon. He gets a lot of negative comments due to his perceived arrogance, there are others about how he's another nearly man of british sport. But there are quite a lot of people who don't like him and I'm not certain why.

We can lose the Scottish/British thing out of the way first, tennis players compete under Britain, so while he is a Scot, he's also British. It is possible to be both, although some seem to think, and not just in relation to this, that you can only be English and British, not Scottish or Welsh and British. Although there does seem at times to be more of an issue with Scotland, which is slightly detached and always has been with a separate legal system and possibly a stronger sense of Scottish nationality, but it's still a United Kingdom.

I don't think it has anything to do with the Anyone but England comment a few years ago either, that was another joke, and most people aren't that sensitive. There are hundreds of comments made about the Scots and sport by the English, which everyone apart from a few idiots ignore. It's got nothing to do with hm being Scottish apart from in a few sad minds. So why is one of our most successful individual sportsmen slagged so much. No Grand Slams but 17 career titles to back that idea up.

People moan about his arrogance, but sportsmen are arrogant, and a few of those commenting back some footballers, some of whom are the most arrogant people walking around. Arrogance is ok to a point, and I don't think he oversteps it, and he does tend to praise opponents in defeat although it can get ignored by people whose agenda it does not fit. There is an issue with what seems to be a dryer than some people get sense of humour in his possession, and he can be a sarky and moody bugger but that's apparently forgivable in others. I don't get it, he isn't Tim Henman which seems to offend some of the more pompous tennis set, but that can't be it either. We tend to celebrate others who don't quite hit the heights, although Murray may yet, and that may change peoples minds.

What it could simply be is we can't see yet if he's a plucky loser or a winner, and some can't make up their minds about him on that basis. But I still find it a bit strange. 

The Creeping Criminalisation of Smokers

Of the UK population around 21% are classed as regular smokers. Just so you know I am still one of them. Yesterday I came across a link to this story, basically a Buckinghamshire councillor has proposed a law banning smoking anywhere in the town. It spoils the environment and he doesn't see why people should be able to smoke in his face. First point on that, I doubt anyone is coming up to you and blowing smoke in your face, even if you're especially obnoxious. If you are outdoors passive smoking will not have that huge an effect, compared to the cars going past you on the street and the exhaust fumes they spew out. Concerned about the cigarette butts on the ground? Put some bins out for them and fine people who don't use them. Although of course that would cost money and wouldn't be a cheap headline to gather publicity for you. Which is what a lot of these stories seem to be, but they get support from otherwise reasonable people.

The main point is, if you want to ban smoking on the street, is it that much of a stretch just to ban smoking altogether? And why not argue that? What some seem to want is piecemeal banning, gradually reducing places you can smoke until it's physically impossible to actually light up without breaking the law, but still technically legal to smoke. Remember they want to stop it in cars as well. I did see a Doctor apparently seriously quoted as saying that you would be safer driving with the exhaust coming into the car interior than smoking in there. Really? You sure on that one? Also if you ban smoking on the street, and ban smoking inside any public buildings, and if you have children you're not allowed to smoke near them, where are you allowed to smoke? Or you're not allowed to smoke but others are? When does that start going too far with regard to civil liberties?

To be honest I can see some of the points with regard to banning smoking, I don't have kids but can see the argument why you shouldn't smoke in front of them and agree with that. You don't need to encourage anyone to smoke, and no-one wants to do that. I don't have kids, my sister has 2 and my brother in law does smoke, but out the back of the house always, which can be interesting when you visit and go out for a smoke with our weather but you live with that. Same in the pubs now, you go outside and deal with the weather whatever it is. Some shelter, or even a windbreak, is nice, but not essential when you're addicted. The issue with pushing smokers outside isn't just how it looks, it's also that you do hang around the doors if there is no area to go, and anyone coming in has to walk through the cloud of smoke, which even I agree isn't pleasant to have to do, and doesn't exactly give kerb appeal for your premises. But what is the alternative?

As far as I can see there are other choices. First one would be to just ban smoking. Give up on doing it bit by bit and ban it. you will reduce the number of smokers. Freedom of choice? Who worries about it. by doing it gradually you hope people won't notice you reduce it, but why not be honest, lose the taxes you gain from smokers and be done with it. Obvious problem being prohibition doesn't work and you end up with something like the war on drugs but if you think it's right, do it. Stop messing about.

Or you could actually compromise, which might be an idea on drugs as well but I'm not getting into that one here. I saw a comment in a newpaper letters page today saying that there was no way any relaxation of the smoking ban should be allowed, as otherwise you couldn't take your children into the pubs with you. To a point fair enough, but if you spend your quality time with your kids in the pub then there are other issues you have. If you have a pub that allows adults only, or even set up a club specifically with smoking allowed what is the issue there? If you set the law that no-one is forced to work there what exactly would be wrong with it? You can allow smokers to gather in a reasonable place, maybe keep some off the streets and keep them tidier for your councillors and everyone is happy.

You don't want smokers to be happy I know, but you need to consider what you're doing, with regard to everyone. Once they've got the smokers where they want them, which seems to be locked in a room sealed to the rest of the building and only accessible through a skylight via the fire escape, they will then start on your Chardonnay, and your burgers. Don't drink, don't get fat, they'll come after you.

The Trouble with Twitter

I like twitter, it's a way to keep in touch with people you know in a way that doesn't involve a phone call or email, and it's easy to do. I spend more time talking to people I've never met than the ones I actually know on there but the idea is still the same. If you follow the right people you can get different views on the things that are happening to what is reported, you have to filter it, but you have to do that with TV news anyway, and you can get a more balanced view from people who are actually there, or concerned with or about what is happening. You can get an idea of who to trust and who talks shite easily enough if you look at it, which isn't possible when you have only one point of view on your TV or in your newspapers. The BBC are to scared of appearing unbalanced or leaning to one particular view that they've lost it, Sky will do what their shareholders tell them, they will be neutral but things may get subtly downgraded or ignored. Newspapers have their own agendas and are free to do that as well. Other sources of news are better, but they don't tell you everything.

You can follow people who are interested in the same subjects you are, you can see what some famous person is doing, or had for lunch in the really boring tweets, you can just randomly follow a bunch of people and get some very weird things happening on your timeline, my favourite being when the journalist Johann Hari was interviewing Stephen Fry via twitter for reasons I can't remember and someone tweeted right in the middle of a serious point asking about how to cook sausages. Well I found it funny anyway. But you can see what other people think on issues you care about, you can lock yourself into people similar to you or get a broader view by following people you don't agree with and work out the truth, or the reality at least. These are some reasons I like twitter.

But there are a few things that have been getting on my nerves when going through tweets recently, and they're getting worse. Or seem to be. Some are just basically annoying, some are pathetic behaviour, some may just be annoying me but I don't know. One that really gets me is the Follow for Follow shite, or people who expect a follow back automatically. If you look interesting, funny, or someone I might like i'll follow you, if you don't I won't. Sounds fairly simple, but some people think of it as keeping score, like that old T-shirt slogan - He who dies with the most toys Wins. Well, he or she who reaches the most followers will be Lady Gaga, or someone like that, it's nice to read new people but it isn't compulsory, and you can lose out if you only follow other people who follow you. If you get to 50,000 or whatever then ok, but if you're following 50,000 as well you're not reading much that's going through, you'll maybe see the odd tweet from most of them, and where is the point of that? I follow just over 300 people on twitter, and can keep up generally if I check in a few times during a day. But many more than that and it's pointless, you're not seeing what people are genuinely saying, even if you live on your twitter app, so why bother. It's just stupid as far as I'm concerned. I'd rather read as much as possible of what the people I follow tweet, rather than 1% of it.

The RT me because you're my favourite actor/doctor/singer people. Why? You're not asking for anything, there's no cause or charity your promoting, you're not saying anything remotely interesting, why ask for an RT with nothing to say? And why do some celebs actually RT them? It's just a waste of everyones time, another brain cell gives up in everybody who has wasted their time reading the tweet, which may not be much but cumulatively it's very annoying. Is it just a game some people are playing? To what end and to what rules. Another thing I don't get, if you're going to talk to someone, actually say something don't just make some noise. Which is what doing that is, it's like kids attention seeking. Probably is in some cases, mental age of about 4 in some people who do it probably, and I do wish they'd stop.

And then we come to the trolls, been around since the days of usenet, (on usenet, is it just me who reads about the AFP news agency and thinks of Alt.Fan.Pratchett, a news group I used to lurk in a bit? Probably). They haven't really evolved much, but do seem to just take a target, say something offensive and then wait for people to abuse them, which is their oxygen. And why do some people draw attention to them? There are a couple of famous people who just RT them and then try to get people to abuse them, or encourage it at least - pointless as far as I can see. I think ignore them until the go away. Or block if needed, starve them of attention, they're toddlers on speed, saying I need attention and will scream until I get it. It's pathetic and annoying. Also you get the aggressive unfollowers who will @ those who they're unfollowing to tell them how boring/stupid/pointless they are. Why? Just unfollow, it makes you look petty and stupid to announce it, and really up yourself to announce it directly to the person you're unfollowing. They aren't there to entertain you and you alone, so you just wind up looking pathetic.

Those are the troubles on twitter, but the good points outweigh the bad I think, most of the time anyway. I'm sure there will be other things that annoy other people, and I'll find more that annoy me, but I've also got somewhere to talk at people, or sometimes to them, and not just mutter insanely to myself. Although I could be doing that of course, and no-one reading anything I put there, but I feel I'm not talking to myself, and that's important.

What a Circus

So, parliament has voted to ban animals in the circus, except it isn't a law yet because it wasn't an official act of parliament or something - democracy rules ok. The main question there is why did the government and David Cameron want to stop it, against what was obviously the will of our elected representatives. I don't think he owns shares in a circus, I don't think Rupert Murdoch would give a toss on this one, so why were they pushing so hard back? I assume someone will find out, although it's probably irrelevant. It does show what our MPs could do, if they had a bit more backbone on other issues, which is an interesting thought.

I see our PM has now said he didn't threaten Mark Pritchard, and that the default setting for his staff is Mother Theresa. Bollocks on the second, we can't know about the first

I approve of the idea to ban wild animals from the circus though, why do we need to have wild animals doing tricks to amuse us, why do we want to watch that? Whatever anyone says they're caged and moved around the country in less than spacious conditions, and then put in front of however many people have bought tickets for no other reason than to make them go "oooohhh" or something. There isn't a very good point to that. To say that the animals enjoy it, how do you know? Would you enjoy being stuck in a cage, no room to move, travelling from place to place, so someone can have a short show before the clowns come on? Think about travelling in a small car with the worlds biggest dickhead. And they won't even let the tigers in to eat the clowns either.

That's my take on it, if you're going to cage animals have a good reason to do it. And there isn't really one I can think of. We shouldn't even do that for food. And I do eat meat before anyone asks, but I'd kill it if I had to. If you do I assume you would as well.

Stopped Clock - Poem

The only thing they noticed was the clock no longer chimed,
They'd complained about it's noise but he'd not listened to a word,
The clock had fallen silent sometime but they never thought,
Why the chimes no longer rang.

Nobody really missed the man who wound the clock,
They didn't think where he had gone, never gave a thought,
Why the clock was silent now after years of chiming on,
No-one cared where he was gone.

The neighbours hadn't noticed that he wasn't there
They didn't think that he had gone, they didn't stop or care,
They just had peace and didn't stop to briefly care that,
The Clock had stopped Dead.

Why Minimum Wage?

There's been another Tory in the headlines, saying the minimum wage is a bad idea for a group of people. I'm not going on what else got ignored in headlines, but he's stuck his head up so people should think about what the minimum wage actually is for.

It's not designed to keep people out of work, it's not there to penalise companies and cut their profits. It's there to pay people a decent wage. Whether it is a living wage or not isn't something I'm going to go into. What Philip Davies seemed to be arguing was that people should be allowed to undercut the minimum wage if they wanted to. He was talking about those who are on incapacity benefits mainly, but the meaning remains the same, if you undercut for some, why not for more, and then all.

First point, who would decide the ones who would be allowed to undercut the minimum wage? I've seen at least one person on twitter arguing that everyone should be allowed to undercut the minimum wage and be paid what they're worth. Everyone has the right to argue how much they're paid, in most jobs they are paying well above the minimum wage, and you can undercut in those circumstances, but not below the minimum in my opinion.

As I see it, the main benefit of having a minimum wage is to keep people paid a decent amount, it's not overly high as far as I'm concerned, and it keeps employers from employing effective slave labour. Private companies want to maximise their profits, which is fair enough. People want to be paid for their labour, the argument arises how much is appropriate to be paid. It's not about dignity, I'm not certain the minimum wage level currently allows for that, but it's about not using people.

If you allow one group to sell themselves to some company at a lower level you are saying to them they are worth less, not worthless, but worth less to you, to us, and to society than others in this country. We may not all be equal, but it's not a bad idea. To say to someone if you can't get a job then lower yourself to working for levels below anyone else, really a good idea? I don't think so. I'm sure (some) companies would jump at it, and it might get more disabled people into work, but is it worth that? Surely better to provide some encouragement to get them into work, financial or otherwise, although likely only financial objectives will appeal to some companies.

Because if you start saying the minimum wage doesn't apply to all, you've killed it. If you say that it can be undercut legally, then it will be. There was a campaign in the Independent about tips to waiting staff in restaurants, those were/are? still allowed to make up to minimum wage. This shows that if some places can undercut they will undercut, as far as they possibly can. They want to keep and increase their profits, that's fair enough, but it should not be at the expense of their workforce.

What's wrong with going bald?

Have been seeing a lot of commentary about Wayne Rooney's hair transplant this week. First of this one on the BBC website - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13665321. I'm not going to say anything about use of the "word" manity here, other than ask if we're introducing fanity for a female equivalent? As that could go horribly wrong in some context. Personally I write this as someone whose hair started disappearing in my mid twenties, and I've never felt that worried about it.

There may be some reason for that, but the comment attributed to James Nesbit in that article suprised me a bit, this says - "he maintained that it has changed his life and that anyone who says going bald isn't horrible "is lying"."

I've never found my lack of hair an issue, it isn't horrible, and I promise I'm not lying to you there. It's not like I've a small gap on the crown, they wouldn't shave that big a gap in the back of my head if I was playing a monk in a medieval TV series, there's now a circle of hair round the bald spot, rather than the bald spot in the middle of the hair. Should I be worried about it? In case you're wondering I'm not.

Also Matthew Norman in the indy today, link -
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/matthew-norman/matthew-norman-never-mind-the-economy-ill-be-watching-rooneys-growth-2294256.html. I don't think he's being entirely serious, considering the comments about castrating Giggs, although that receding hairline hasn't been used as an excuse yet. But I don't get why you feel comments are an issue, if someone says you're thinning on top, say yes, and? It's just happening, it isn't important. And baldness looks better if you cut your hair right than that awful aubergine colour it goes with the dyed black look, usually with a fake tan to really make you look nuts.

Basically my hairs gone, I have many other issues that caused me problems and smart comments over the years. I don't care about my lack of hair. Bald and, not proud maybe, but unconcerned.