Irony

I witnessed a glorious piece of behaviour at lunch-time today. Because it’s half-term, a bunch of the local schoolchild scallies were hanging round the shopping centre. They were all dressed in the trademark tracksuit and baseball cap, emblazoned with sportswear logos etc. – the sort you can see here any day of the week.

Yet they were abusing other people (and rightly so, in the case of the woman in the pink tweed suit and pink faux swede knee-length boots) by calling them “Chavs”. I just thought it was a spectacular demonstration of absolutely zero self-awareness.

Banned

Did you know that if you try and access the site of George Bush’s presidential re-election campaign from outside the US, you get a message saying “Access Denied“? The BBC has a story about it – now, who mentioned “Insular”?

UPDATED : The US has tried explaining why they’re blocking access – well, not really. “It’s for security reasons” isn’t a valid excuse, although in light of the “War against Terror” it seems to be seen as one.

ONE:Life

From the following review from the Guardian, I’m really quite glad I decided to give the programme a miss…

It was probably a mistake for Gary Hart to take part in ONE Life: Asleep At the Wheel (BBC1). Hart is the man whose Land Rover crashed on to a railway line at Selby in 2001, causing the deaths of 10 people. Hart says he didn’t fall asleep, a jury disagreed, and he was given a five-year jail sentence. He was released after serving half of it. Now he’s told his side of the story.

But even if what he says is true, and that the car hit something or suffered a mechanical failure, as a PR exercise this film was a disaster. He just comes across as a really nasty piece of work.

Yes, people were bereaved, but so was his family, he says – it was like a bereavement for them having him in prison for two and a half years. He’s suffered the same way as they have. And what about his car insurance? Who knows how much it will be when his ban is over.

Finally, when Hart looks at a photo of the post-crash carnage, the first thing he thinks about is not the people who died but his Land Rover. “I loved that old truck,” he says. It’s hardly surprising the victims’ families are struggling to forgive him.

The BBC had carried a story yesterday about the programme which made me fairly sure that it would be one of those weaselly PR-based programmes to say “it’s not fair, it wasn’t my fault”. (in much the same way that Rogue Trader did for Nick Leeson) That’s normally one of the types of TV (along with party political broadcasts) that just ends up with me shouting obscenities at the screen. So all in all, yeah, I’m glad I missed it.

Sweary

I can’t believe I’d missed this bunch of nerfherders, but Vicky at Highrise points out the – frankly hilarious – Cuss Control Academy.

“You probably swear because it is easy, fun, candid, emphatic, expressive, breaks rules, and somehow partially reduces anger and pain. But the negatives outweigh the positives.” Nope, I swear because sometimes what the situation deserves is a healthy yell of “Fucking Buggery Bollocks!”.

“You really don’t win an argument by swearing.“. Wanna bet?

“ You don’t prove that you are smart or articulate. You don’t earn respect or admiration.“. Again, wanna bet? Some of my swearier fests have brought praise from many others.

“You don’t motivate, you intimidate. Swearing doesn’t get you hired, promoted, or romantically connected.” Well, perhaps. Although it can get you fired, demoted, or romantically chuffed.

But that’s just a small sample of the site’s triteness. It’s well worth reading just for humour value. Or just to email them to say “Fucking Hairy-arsed Cunty Badgery Bollockweasels”. Which is what I’ve done.

UPDATED : And Green Fairy also comments on the same thing..

John Peel

Bloody hell, John Peel has died of a heart-attack while in Peru on holiday. RIP. Late night radio just won’t be the same without him.

Previous

I’m still trying to work out quite how I feel about the proposed legislation announced yesterday that means some juries may be informed of a person’s prior criminal record. I’ve never sat on Jury service, which will come as no shock to anyone who knows me – but if I were to do so, would I want to know about prior convictions?

To me the potential for this is to erode the concept of “reasonable doubt” – a jury is supposed to decide the merits of the case they’re trying, and come up with a verdict from that. However, if a case hasn’t been fully proven, where a jury would previously have opted for “not guilty”, if they know that someone has been accused and tried for a similar offence in the past, is there not a chance that they’ll then opt for “guilty” – “he’s done it before, the chances are he did it again“?

Blunkett said the measure would allow juries to have greater access to information about previous convictions and other types of misconduct “without unduly prejudicing the fairness of the trial”

“Trials should be a search for the truth and juries should be trusted with all the relevant evidence available to help them to reach proper and fair decisions,” said Mr Blunkett.

© Guardian Newspapers

I find this to be a troublesome concept – the jails we have are full to bursting, yet this initiative seems likely to find more people guilty, rather than less.

I think that when all’s said and done I would prefer to look at a case the way it’s done now, on the basis of the merits and evidence of that case, without having the information about what the accused has done before.

Lemon-scented

The gents toilet at work has (finally) had a new can of air-freshener put inside it. Being the sad git I am, I had a look at the warning label on the can.

“Caution : Do not inhale spray”

Um, it’s bloody air-freshener…