Colombo Investigates...

I keep getting stopped in the streets by strangers and asking me why these blog entries seem to come in waves.

"Hey, FMO! Why can't you update your blog a bit more often, eh?" They often cry.

Well, the fact is, it's quite hard work being inspired at times. Even if you've been on an adventure, it doesn't necessarily translate into something you can make a blog out of. For example, I went to Africa last month. To Uganda and to Zanzibar. "Oooh, how exotic!" you might think - "tell us all about it!".

But despite it being a trip and a half packed full of incidence, it's not that which has inspired me to write again. What has inspired me was an argument I had yesterday with a lady from a call centre about the roaming charges I'd just received on my mobile phone bill from said trip. Strange that, isn't it?

I guess anything that allows me a passive-aggressive rant and moan at the inadequacies of the service industry (a la Larry David) is as good a starting point as any, so here is what happened...

Upon receipt yesterday of my bill from - let's call them YodaFoam, to hide their identity - I noticed that alongside the expected charges for using my phone in Uganda and Tanzania, there were also £15 of charges for using my phone in Sri Lanka.

Now, I hadn't been to Sri Lanka. I flew to Uganda and to Tanzania, with short transits in Ethiopia and Kenya only, then flew home. I didn't go near Sri Lanka. I didn't even visit the same continent as Sri Lanka. As you will see from the below map (click on it for full view), Sri Lanka is not anywhere near Uganda. It is in fact around 3,300 miles away across the Indian Ocean. Clearly there was a mistake here.

I phoned the call centre.

Here is an approximated transcript of what occurred. There may have been a bit more swearing, in reality.

FMO: Hello there, you have made a mistake on my bill. You have put on roaming charges in Sri Lanka, when I didn't go to Sri Lanka.
Call Centre: Let me have a look at the bill here sir. Yes, that's correct, you have £15 of charges from when you were in Sri Lanka.
FMO: No, as stated, I didn't go to Sri Lanka.
Call Centre: Hmm. But that doesn't make sense sir, as your phone picked up the Sri Lanka Signal. Are you sure you might not have gone there at some point?
FMO: Oh good point. I might have slipped across the border by mistake. I'll just check my passport. No, no stamp. So it appears I didn't go to Sri Lanka and forget all about it.
Call Centre: There is no need to be sarcastic sir. I was merely pointing out that sometimes you can pick up the signal of a neighbouring country if you are close to the border.
FMO: Well I wasn't close to the border.
Call Centre: You were in Uganda and Kenya - is it not possible you were near the Sri Lanka border? The signal can be stronger from one country you see, so even if you are in another country the neighbouring signal is picked up.
FMO: Kenya and Uganda are not near Sri Lanka. I'm pretty sure of this from basic geography knowledge, but I've just checked and yes - there are indeed 3,000 miles of ocean in between them.
Call Centre: Ahh, I see what the problem could be - You could have sailed out into the range of the Sri Lankan signal. It often happens to people on cruises that they pick up a signal in between ports.
FMO: I haven't been on a ruddy cruise!!! I was in Uganda the whole time that your bill says I was in Sri Lanka!
Call Centre: Even if you were in port in Uganda, as I said the signal from the other country across the sea could be stronger and you might pick that up.
FMO: I wasn't in a Ugandan port. Uganda is in fact, landlocked. I've also double-checked this residual knowledge and can confirm, the nearest bit of ocean is 600 miles from Uganda. And Sri Lanka is 3,000 miles across that.
Call Centre: Right OK. Obviously though although I believe you there is always the chance you did fly over Sri Lanka and weren't aware? You can pick up the signal from the air sometimes.
FMO:  NO THERE ISN'T! I was flying from London to Africa. You don't go via South-East Asia to do this journey. Again, I've double-checked this for you just in case my whole concept of world geography is as mind-numbingly shit as yours is. 
Call Centre: Very funny sir. That doesn't explain away why you have been in Sri Lanka though according to the bill...
FMO: Have you even looked at the bill?!! It has me in Uganda on July 2nd-3rd, Sri Lanka on July 4th, in BOTH countries on July 6th and 7th, in Sri Lanka again on July 8th and then back in Uganda on Jul 10th. So unless I was doing some drug-running between continents that week, I suggest your invoice is bollocks!!!
Call Centre: There is no need to swear, sir. I have to agree though that this does seem unlikely. Just checking one last thing though - did you perhaps lend your phone to someone else?
FMO:  Had I lent my phone to someone else (someone who apparently takes daily flights between Uganda and Sri Lanka), FIRSTLY - it might have already occurred to me that this would be the reason Sri Lankan charges appear on my bill. So I probably would have already mentioned that, don't you think? SECONDLY - it wouldn't alter the fact that the phone still appears to be in different countries on the same day according to your fucking bill!
Call Centre: OK, OK, please try and be patient. I'm sorry sir we just have to explore all avenues as you wouldn't believe some of the scams people have going.
FMO: Do any of these scams actually involve people hopping about between two countries on a daily basis and then denying they did so for the purposes of avoiding mobile charges?
Call Centre: Well, not in my experience, but they could do.
FMO: If they did, I would imagine the soaring cost of aviation every day would be more of a worry to them than £15 of text messaging charges. Now, can you please take these charges off my bill?
Call Centre: Yes sir, as a gesture of goodwill we will do this.
FMO: Thank you.
Call Centre: *click*
FMO: How rude.

More opportunities for my to give myself an aneurysm next time, folks!

Raptured

Any of you lot still down there?

Save The Date!

I can't believe I've been wasting my time arguing with myself about voting reform for the past few weeks. Why didn't I do something more worthwhile with my time?

You see, it was my last chance to do something - because the end of the world starts tomorrow. No, seriously it does. May 21st 2011. End of the World.

I guess if you hadn't known, that will have come as quite a shock. Sorry about that, but I didn't really know how to break softly to you the news of the coming of Armageddon.

For those who haven't heard - Another raving religious fucking lunatic has managed to get more media attention than he deserves by declaring The Rapture will occur tomorrow.

This guy is called Harold Camping, and he's positive he's got it right this time (after already making an incorrect proclamation in 1994).

End of The World: AWESOME!

You can read about it all right here, at Harold Camping's 'Family Radio' website. So, what are the signs that has led Harold to believe we are at The End of Days? Well, amongst other things;

"The re-establishment of National Israel in 1948, the emergence of the 'Gay Pride Movement', and the complete disregard of the Bible in all of society today".

Wow. So why did Jesus want to wait so long to come back and save us? Why didn't he come back before the Jews and the gays had had chance to establish themselves?

Surely he should have looked down in 1948 and gone "Hey, hang on a minute! That holocaust thing a few years ago might have been a bit close to the bone, but this establishment of a state of Israel takes the fucking biscuit! Prepare for The Rapture, Dad, I'm going in!"

Perhaps he missed that at the time. But could he really have missed all the gay pride marches for the past 30 years? You'd have thought, after seeing one he'd have stepped in and said "That's it now guys, you've gone too far. I'm taking my buddies up with me now so stop bumming."

Perhaps it's just got worse and worse over the years, and this year's marching season was just too camp, even for a liberal-minded guy like Jesus. Either way, he's fucking had enough of it all, and he's coming back, people.

So, now we've established that Judgement Day is tomorrow - what can we expect? Let's go back to our Family Radio website for the answers:


"On May 21, 2011 two events will occur....the one more wonderful than can be imagined; the other more horrific than can be imagined."

Harold Camping: silly old cunt.

Well firstly - let me just stop you there, Harold old chum. You should know that I have a pretty vivid imagination, especially after seeing SAW III.

"A great earthquake will occur the Bible describes it as "such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great." "

OK, so according to the list of most powerful earthquakes ever - we are talking 9.5 magnitude or above here. That is some serious shit.

 "This earthquake will be so powerful it will throw open all graves. The remains of the all the believers who have ever lived will be instantly transformed into glorified spiritual bodies to be forever with God."

OK, sounds like I should have my camera ready for this!

"On the other hand the bodies of all unsaved people will be thrown out upon the ground to be shamed."Oh, now that's a bit harsh. All this because Jesus doesn't like Jews and gays? Can't he just go to a BNP rally or something and get it out of his system that way?

"The inhabitants who survive this terrible earthquake will exist in a world of horror and chaos beyond description."

Are we all going to be forced to move to Swindon?

"Each day people will die until October 21, 2011 when God will completely destroy this earth and its surviving inhabitants."

Hand of God: Terry Butcher is still fucked off with it.

Seems a bit like throwing your toys out of the pram from old God there. Couldn't he just send another flood or something? Mind you, 5 months in Swindon and I'm sure we'll all be welcoming the end.
You feel silly now, don't you? You atheist idiots! You are going to be kicking yourselves tomorrow when you wake up to do your normal round of blaspheming and fornicating, only to find Jesus at the end of your bed with a disappointed look on his face.

But hang on - what if (and I know it's a silly question!) May 21st ends and nothing has occurred?

The Biblical evidence is too overwhelming and specific to be wrong. Christ's people can look with great confidence to this date...Judgment Day on May 21, 2011 will occur because the bible declares it. Anyone whom God has not saved will arrive at that day with no hope for salvation. God warns simply the "door will be shut."

Well, that pretty much sorts that out then. So, assuming all these godly folks won't be around after tomorrow, and us heathens are fucked anyway, I suggest we all go around to their houses today and take all their stuff. They won't need it in heaven after all - and we could all still get up to 5 months' use out of it all. It's a win-win situation for us all. Well, until God kills us of course.

Then again - it might just not be true. This video is quite a good riposte.

JESUS IS COMING, PEOPLE. Prepare yourselves.

Ennui To Apathy

I know it's a couple of weeks ago now, but I can't help still being disappointed with the result of the AV Referendum. I expected the NO vote to win after hearing expert opinions and polls telling me where things were heading. But I really didn't expect it to be so one-sided.
67.9% NO to 32.1% YES.

I didn't realise the twitching curtains of fearful-of-change Middle-Britain were still in the ascendancy these days. I thought we lived in a more progressive nation than that.

You know, a tolerant, thoughtful society that treats change not as a piss-stained vagrant to be passed quickly on the roadside; but as a welcome traveller, greeted into our homes as if a friend and treated not with an expectation that he will have an axe and a severed head in his rucksack, but with the hope that he will in time become a trusted confidant.

What annoys me most about the 68% that voted NO is that I'd wager most of them did it for the wrong reasons. I wouldn't be so disappointed if the majority of NO voters had looked properly at the reform on offer and thought "Hmm, yes there are many problems with how things are, but I'd rather stick with it over this other thing which just isn't my cup of tea."

What actually happened was, they were either bamboozled by the bullshit that came out of the NO2AV campaign, or they saw something a bit different they didn't understand straight away, couldn't be bothered to have it explained to them and went "Oh, no, no, no, no, no. Not today thank you!" As if the idea of voting reform was an annoying charity mugger ruining your lunch break in the high street.

But what is even worse than that is those that didn't think it even worth their time voting.

This is why Britain is broken. It's not the chavs on the slum estates, the binge-drinking, the breakdown of multiculturalism, the benefits culture, or even those twitching curtains. It's the apathy.

It's an unwillingness of people to engage with things. The close-mindedness of  "what we have got will do" or "what difference can I make?" and a lack of desire to press for something better. That's what's wrong with Britain today.

That and TOO MANY FUCKING ASYLUM SEEKERS CLOGGING UP OUR ROADS WITH THEIR BENEFIT CLAIMS... oh, sorry. It must be catching.

To be honest, I'm getting a little apathetic about complaining about the apathetic myself, thanks to the pervading sense of apathy everywhere, seeping into my very being. You can almost see the conglomerated lassitude caused by association pouring out of my ears.

One thing that did cheer me up though was that although only 10 voting areas out of 440 in the whole country voted YES - 2 of them were my current home the London Borough of Camden, and my beloved City of Oxford. God bless you, progressive Camdonites and Oxonians.

As a final thought on the matter before returning to more frivolous stuff again, Those NO2AVers must actually be livid at the result though. This is exactly the sort of situation they were worried about in the first place - the second best option winning.

Haha I did a joke.

Why you should vote YES TO AV today

Whilst not wishing to get a reputation for being a woolly liberal leftie*, I'm still going to follow up yesterday's quite murky (and perhaps ill-advised) defence of liberal views with a plea today that you vote YES in today's UK Referendum on voting reform.

If you are still undecided, or at least open to my attempts at persuasion - please just read on a bit and tell me you are not convinced by the end of it.

If you want to see a list of the virtues of AV - go here.

What I thought I'd do briefly was my own refutation of some of the No campaign's so-called 'facts' about how terrible AV will be for us.

It will cost us millions to implement AV.
This is bullshit. All it takes is a pencil capable of marking 1,2,3 rather than a 'X' on the ballot paper. At most it'll use up a few more pencils in polling stations.

Apart from the cost of the referendum itself (which is obviously unavoidable if we are going to change our voting system), AV will not require any further additional expense to count the votes. The electronic counting machines the No Campaign have been going on about do not exist either - AV votes are hand-counted in Australia and they will almost certainly be hand-counted here. Voting reform taking money away from hospitals and schools is, quite frankly, a scare-mongering fabrication.

AV is too confusing!
Only if you are a fucking idiot, or haven't actually had it explained to you.

Few people would honestly be confused by AV if they took the time to watch this video. It explains it quite simply with an analogy about going to the pub. Cheers!

Under First Past The Post someone can get elected when over 50% of the voters didn't actually want them elected.

Under AV, an MP will need at least 50% of the voters to vote for them. If they get more than 50%, they are elected, straight-away. If they do not have 50% support, only then do people's preferences come into play.

Knowing people's preferences then eliminates the chances of politicians being elected by a minority of voters.
Common sense, no?

AV Will let the extremist parties in!
No it won't. That's why the likes of the BNP are actually campaigning for a NO vote. Actually, extremist parties have a lot more chance of being elected by FPTP than they do by AV.

Under FPTP, MPs can be elected to Westminster with support from less than 1 in every 3 voters. That's why there was a perceived danger in the 2010 election of the BNP scraping an MP in - they only needed 30% of the vote in a constituency.

Under AV, the BNP and other extremists have no real chance of ever having an MP elected, as they will need the backing of more than 50% of voters. Unless they move their politics towards the centre-ground of opinion, this is never going to happen.

AV is unpopular - only 3 countries use it!

It is true that only Three countries use AV for elections to their national parliament at present. This seems to be brought out quite a lot to justify why it must therefore be an unpopular, bad system.

However, firstly consider how hard it is to get an existing government to commit to a referendum to change an electoral system.  As they got voted in on the existing system, why the hell would they wish to change it?!! Turkey's don't tend to vote for Christmas! We've only got a referendum today because it was a carrot dangled in front of the Lib Dems to convince them to join the coalition, not because the largest party actually wanted change.

Therefore, how many more countries might chose to move over to a fairer system where their vote counts more, if their politicians actually gave them the chance to?

Another point to make is that AV is actually used quite regularly worldwide and even in the UK already - just not necessarily for national parliamentary elections. The Conservative and Labour party even use it to elect their own leaders. And Hawaii is among many US states/cities that has recently adopted AV for it's elections. Fancy that!

AV means some people get more than one vote!
No, For crying out loud, it doesn't. You still have one person, one vote - but with multiple preferences, in case no-one gets 50% in the first round.

If your first choice gets knocked out, your vote becomes whatever your 2nd preference was. It's not a 2nd vote - it's the same single vote, in another round of counting, worth the same as anyone else's.

Compare that to FPTP, where thousands of people effectively have a vote that doesn't count at all, because their seat is safe for the incumbent party, despite many not even having a simple majority.

AV will result in more hung parliaments than FPTP.
Umm, 2010? Wasn't that a hung parliament? Wasn't that FPTP?

The fact is, the more the vote gets split between more than two parties, the more likely we are to have some form of coalition or hung parliament, irrespective of which voting system is used.

For example: Canada used FPTP and always has hung parliaments. Australia on the other hand uses AV and has had 1 hung parliament from the last 38 elections. Hung parliaments can occur regardless of the voting system used. At least under AV the elected representatives will better represent their electors.

And why all the negativity towards hung parliaments and coalition governments anyway? Countries like Germany get along quite fine with them and have done for decades. We only have angst about it last year because we haven't had one for ages. We'll get used to it.

FPTP works fine. Why change something that isn't broken?
Because it is broken. In today's political world we need a system that reflects a modern, multi-party system.

FPTP works fine in a two-party system - as mentioned in the video link above in the 1950s, 90% of votes were for Conservative or Labour, so MPs were always elected by a majority in their constituencies, and as such had a popular mandate.

These days, with so many other parties gaining sizeable voting percentages in each constituency, MPs are often elected under FPTP when the majority of their constituency didn't want them. ⅔ of MPs elected in 2010 did so with the support of less than half of the voters in their constituency.

Under AV, even if it's a 2nd or 3rd preference, at least the MP elected will have done so with a mandate by voters who actually chose them.

So, that's my take on how some of the negative stuff you've heard is basically a load of old cock. So what's stopping you voting yes then?

This is an important day for British politics as if the NO vote wins today, the chances of another reform of our voting system is unlikely to come up again for decades, if at all. AV ain't perfect, but it's better than what we've got.

So I urge you to get off your arse and vote YES TO AV today.

Even if that does make me a woolly liberal.





*I refer you back to my earlier diatribe against the tuition fee protests - entitled "Pay Your Fees, Crusties!". I also quite admire Hitler, but for all the right reasons, obviously. Like the Autobahns and that.

I've Let Myself Down with my Liberal Views

It's been almost six months since I updated my Rubbish Blog. This has been for many reasons, including that it's a very busy period at work for me, plus I've been focusing more on my football blog, and my real life.

Plus I havn't really had much to say, so didn't want to bother you lovely people with a load of old tripe.

However, I've been motivated to write a new entry by a shameful revelation about myself that I've been alerted to by an astute member of the public on an internet forum -

I have let myself down big time with my liberal views.

Now I have been publically shamed, in an effort to cleanse myself of this horrid liberalism and tolerance, I wish to replicate here for all to see my shameful comments extolling the virtues of free speech, and the resultant chastising I got for daring to air them.



Now, to give you some background, this revelation came on a football forum (Don't worry you non-football people, there is nothing about football itself in this entry).

The basic jist is that there is this one guy on the forum that is often on the wind-up - let's call him 'NaughtyMan'.

For reasons known only to himself, NaughtyMan decided to have Osama bin Laden as his forum avatar with RIP written beneath it. Yeah, I know - what an idiot. I wasn't defending his actions, just his right to do so. Clearly NaughtyMan was just on the wind-up and it's not even very funny, for all it's controversial nature*.

This annoyed someone - let's call him 'OffendedMan' - enough to post a thread demanding NaughtyMan be banned from the site. I said he was over-reacting and backed up my liberal views with the old 'it's a free country' chestnut (I know, what a cliché!).

This really got up the nostrils of a third fellow - who we'll call 'VeryOffendedMan' - and leads to the resultant exchange below.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
« Thread Started Yesterday at 08:07am by OffendedMan »
Title: "NaughtyMan, get the twat off here"
As there is no nob head section, Im posting this here.

NaughtyMan is a prat at the best of times, but having his picture of Osama Bin Laden, with r.i.p written underneath, is bang out if order. NaughtyMan may think Bin Laden was some sort of circus, but he was responsible for thousands of deaths, including 52 in our own capital city.

Get him off here, this is a step to far.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

« Reply Yesterday at 08:16am by FantasticMrOx » Calm down dear. He can put whatever he likes as his avatar. That's what living in a free country is all about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

« Reply Yesterday at 08:29am by OffendedMan » Yeah its a free country, but where do you draw the line. Personally I don't think saying Bin Laden should rest in peace is acceptable. I think its disgusting
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
« Reply Yesterday at 08:41am by FantasticMrOx » I think you are entitled to be disgusted. No more than that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

« Reply Yesterday at 5:17pm by VeryOffendedMan »
FMO – whilst your blog is a good ‘un, I fear that you have let yourself down big time with your liberal views.

Having a view is one thing – to this extent and claiming free speech - quite another.
Whilst one would never renounce the right of free speech, “that's what living in a free country is all about” your post takes this meaning to a whole new dimension.

Ultimately, this is an OUFC forum. If someone has extreme sympathy or extreme anger – fine. It is just that here is not the place. Doing a blog does not make you almighty.

All you are doing in making such crass statements is that you reserve the right of free speech wherever.

Well pal, so do I. But I take a great fucking deal of umbrage for the reason that I knew at least two killed in 9/11 – colleagues, no less.

And for right or for wrong, before you spout some more diatribe, your views – whatever they are – let them rest – or at least leave them off a football forum.

All this does is place you into the same bracket as NaughtyMan, an ignoramus whose view is always right, 100% of the time, no exceptions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

« Reply Today at 8:14am by FantasticMrOx »

I'm sorry that I've let myself down with my liberal views. I'll try to be a bit more conservative and reactionary in future. It's my own fault I know - I'm clearly not reading the daily mail enough.

I'll try a little harder from now on to be disgusted and outraged by people having different views than me, and wherever possible i'll censure people for their liberal views.

VeryOffendedMan, pal (I'm glad we are pals, by the way) - seriously though, I know you told me this wasn't the place to air an opinion in answer to a non-football post because it's a football forum - I just want a right of reply, liberal ignoramus that I am.

I am not always right, 100% of the time, and nor do I think I am. Your comment that I am an ignoramus who believes otherwise is, ironically, rather a crass one (And I might be wrong on this point).

I do actually reserve the right to change an opinion based on new evidence, and I reserve the right to admit being wrong about something and retracting a previously-held view without giving my reasons.

I was perhaps too quick to jump on OffendedMan for requesting someone's banning. I have this natural aversion to the idea of banning people's right to be in a debate you see - must be that liberalness that so afflicts me.

But I see now that he did have a right to be upset about it - and to tell people he was upset about it. Then again, I had a right to tell him he was over-reacting too. It's a never-ending circle or agreeableness and acceptance, this liberalism, innit? I can see why it's so terribly annoying to the illiberal!

On this point, I believe (and hey - I might be wrong you know!) you are letting your own sensitivities to the particular issue cloud your judgement by the tone of your response.

It's my contention that NaughtyMan can write what the hell he likes on this forum, and if you don't like it you have the right to either ignore it or respond - or even complain about it like OffendedMan did, or even complain about the percieved pettiness of his complaining, like I did. Or even call me an ignoramus and tell me I have no right to air my own views, like you did.

And although you also have a right to tell me I shouldn't respond to your views, I have a right to take umbridge to your comment that, to paraphrase, went like this:

"Hey pal, I'm allowed to call you an ignoramus, but don't you dare come back at me and call me one because this should be the end of the debate now because it's a football forum."

And by the way, what does me having a blog have to do with this, anyway? Do you think I wouldn't be prone to let myself down with my liberal views if I didn't have a blog?

Oh by the way, please don't respond to this. It's a football forum.

Plus I am ALMIGHTY. ;o)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ha ha, do you see what I did there? I'm not really ashamed of my liberal views, I'm using this guy's ammunition against him! I'm very clever. And almighty!

For what it's worth, I should point out that I'm publishing this on my blog because it was an interesting and funny exchange more than anything else - I do actually think this guy had a point and it often takes someone to say "Hey, hang on a minute, I know someone who died/was affected by x or y and that's out of order" before you realise how insensitive liberal views of freedom of speech can actually be.

Would I have told OffendedMan to calm down if he'd said his mum had died at the hands al-Qaeda?

Probably not - and there lies a shameful inconsistency.

In the interest of fair play - this is VeryOffendedMan's subsequent response to mine above, which I think is brilliant:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

« Reply Today at 10:17pm by VeryOffendedMan »
Dear Almighty FMO

 Thank you for your reply and for reminding me of your right to it. I stand forcibly reprimanded.
 My rant was perhaps unfairly directed at you, whereas perhaps it should have been more a rant at NaughtyMan directly and his gross insensitivity. I do think, however, that you have slightly misinterpreted my post.

 My point to you was that your calling this “an over-reaction and that some people need to learn not to get offended so easily” places you into the same bracket as NaughtyMan. Upon reflection, this is perhaps rather unfair as from your blog and posts that I have read to date, you do not tick the boxes required to reach the esteemed and consistent levels of being a tosser that NaughtyMan has made into a unique and extraordinary art form. My post could have been better worded in this respect, so my apologies nevertheless if this was not clear.
 The gist of my post was that by effectively endorsing rather than denouncing NaughtyMan’s avatar is crass in the extreme. Free speech is one thing sure, but anyone who cannot see the gross insensitivity of having Osama Bin Laden as their avatar will need to learn pretty damn quickly that abuse is going to come their way.

 You probably have a valid point when you say that I am letting my own sensitivities to the particular issue cloud my judgement by the tone of my response. But the problem, pal, is that when individuals have been directly affected by such an incident, then these individuals are going to get upset, which I think you’ll agree, it pretty much fair dinkum.
 Sure, nobody was to know of this link, but does that make it any less insensitive? I think not.
 Please forward me your address and I’ll sign you up for a subscription to the Daily Mail ;o)
 Your pal, VeryOffendedMan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Great response, wasn't it?

Must admit, I'd probably have been a tad more sarcastic back myself, so perhaps he's a better man than me. Although clearly not as ALMIGHTY!

We'll probably become great pals, now, you know.

*For what it's worth, I wonder if it would have been deemed acceptable to those offended if NaughtyMan had instead put up a picture of bin Laden's dead body and written "USA! USA!" underneath it? Because that would have offended me. I'm not a fan of gloating, even if it is at the death of a murderer.

The fact was though, NaughtyMan didn't wish to parody the unpleasant (to these liberal eyes at least) scenes in Washington of people celebrating the death of a man - he just wanted to be a controversial cock.


There is a moral in there somewhere.

Keep To the Left!

I often get stopped in the street and recognised, and I'm always asked the same thing.

"Hey, you're that Fantastic Mr Ox chap aren't you?"
"Yes, Yes I am. would you like an autograph?"
"Oh, yes please! But can you first answer me a question - What is your blog actually about?"

Well, to stop the man in the street from needing to ask me this question again, I will tell you now.

Fantastic Mr Ox's Rubbish Blog is a blog about life itself. My life, in particular.
It's about things I see, things that interest me, things that annoy me, things that bore me, things that probably bore you. It's about things.

Sometimes, my life feels quite monotonous and I struggle to write about anything of interest as very few things have interested me, or indeed happened to me. Sometimes, I notice a thing happening, and think "That'll be brilliant to put in the blog!" but when I get down to write it, realise that there is very little to say about that thing and it's probably not worth the time writing it down.

One such incident occurred yesterday evening as I was walking twixt mainline train and tube at St Pancras station, via the underground walkway that links the two.

There was a man walking ahead of me on the left hand side of the barrier who all of a sudden threw a massive wobbly. The reason for this was that someone was walking in the opposite direction to him, and was not keeping to the left.

Instead of adjusting his walk to avoid a collision as any normal human being would do though, he went out of his way to walk into the man coming towards him, shouting "Keep to the left! Keep to the Left!! Keep to the Left!"

As if this wasn't enough, he brandished an umbrella and used it to whack the man on his back as he passed him, adding to the verbal assault with "We Keep to the left in this country, you bastards!"

I burst into laughter myself, but most of the other commuters saw the incident for the true horror it was- the actions of a man with a mental problem. There was another lady about to also receive a poke with his umbrella who hadn't kept to the left, but very quickly took evasive action and ducked under the barrier out of the enraged idiot's way.

He looked around heartily chuffed at having made his point. He even gave me a little "Tsk, people eh?" flick of the head when he noticed me looking at him. It was quite unnerving as I didn't wish to engage with this lunatic, but I did manage to avoid a jab of his umbrella and I guess the whole escapade made me more likely to keep to the left if I'm ever down there again.

I've summarised the events in this accurate, to scale picture. Double-click on it for all it's glory.

And that's all there is to that story really. It really happened and ended up being rather uneventful after the initial umbrella-smacking. The nutter walked calmly off. The man attacked shook his head and also walked off, and that was that. Sorry if you were expecting it to be the start of a mad umbrella-rampage.

You'd be amazed how many 'drafts' I've got lurking in the background of this blog unpublished; half-heartedly abandoned for being shit or not striking the right cord. Amazed more so perhaps, considering some of the utter dross I have published.

Like this one.

Curry Adventures in Bloomsbury



Curry: Britalicious



Fear not readers, it's back to some irreverent rubbish today, after last Friday's political rant.

A few nights ago, I went for a drink and a meal with an old friend in Bloomsbury. After a few ales in some choice establishments, we both fancied a curry.

Bloomsbury is a good place to grab a curry if you like an old school, proper Indian Restaurant (actually run by Bangladeshis, as most Indian restaurants tend to be in the UK- you'll know that of course, as it's one of those things everyone knows). I love the classy, modern and authentic Indian food you can find in abundance these days, especially in London. But now and then, I just want an old school curry from an old school restaurant.

The restaurants I'm talking about don't do poncy 'fusion' dishes. They don't have 10 different type of dahl or specialise in regional cuisine. What they do have though, are curries.

They tend to have very few dishes you'd actually find in the sub-continent itself in fact - these 'traditional' dishes being invented here or Anglicised to our palate.

 

The odd tandoori mixed-grill, side-dish, Balti and Biriyani selection and a few 'chef's specialities' also tend to adorn the menu of the old school curry house. But the core of the menu is always the below classics, ordered by heat-scale:

• First is the mildest, for children and the uninitiated - Korma
  (Chicken, Lamb, Prawn or King Prawn).
• Next the mild generically-named Curry (Chicken, Lamb, Prawn or King Prawn).
  
• Spot of creamy, medium-spiced lentils with the Dansak
  (Chicken, Lamb, Prawn or King Prawn).


• Then comes the slightly spicier, tomato-based Rogan Josh
  (Chicken, Lamb, Prawn or King Prawn).


• Now we get into the hot stuff - spicy Madras  (Chicken, Lamb, Prawn or King Prawn).


• The old favourite of the boys' night out comes next - Vindaloo (Chicken, Lamb, Prawn or King Prawn).


• And finally, only for the pissed and/or ignorant, we finish with the sphincter-destroying Phal
  (Chicken, Lamb, Prawn or King Prawn).

There is just something warming, nostalgic and heartening about seeing an Indian restaurant menu still set out like this, don't you think?

As such, we ventured inside the first restaurant we came across - We will call this "Bad Tandoori". You may not have noticed, but I have cleverly concealed the real name of this establishment, as I don't want to get in trouble for suggesting they might serve low-quality food, as I'm about to.



Bad Tandoori: Bad.

Now, since we wanted a bit of old-school curry house, we also expected to see another old favourite section on the menu, "English Dishes."
It amazes me that today there are still people who go to an Indian restaurant and can't find themselves anything to eat amongst the 'foreign muck', so plump for a mushroom omelette or chicken & chips.

But nonetheless, you still see these dishes available on most old-school menus and people must thus be ordering them. Each to their very backwards own.

But something even more unusual than egg & chips caught my dining partner's eye on this section of Bad Tandoori's menu. See if you can spot it from the below picture.

English Dishes: Unnecessary.

Yes, that's right - it's number 105 - "Spaghetti Hoops in Tomato Sauce".

My friend enquired, tongue-firmly-in-cheek of course, if the spaghetti hoops were served on toast?
"No", was the blunt answer from the waiter. I informed my friend that it clearly said that the "English & Continental" dishes were served with chips, peas & tomatoes, if he had read the menu.

But the waiter then corrected me - "No, only the omelette comes with these."
My friend continued - "So, it's just a bowl of spaghetti hoops? On it's own?"
"Yes sir."

Hmmm. So your £4.95 bought you a microwaved bowl of spaghetti hoops in tomato sauce, probably purchased from Lidl 2 years ago for 20p.

Given their curries were quite reasonably priced, we didn't like the idea they might be working to the same profit margins on the meat they were buying. So we slinked out. Always an embarrassing thing to do, but thankfully this time not because I realised I couldn't afford it.

The table next to us heard the whole conversation. Clearly not appreciating they might about to be fed maggot-infected meat and rotting onions, they gave us very funny looks as we left.

That this conversation with the waiter about spaghetti hoops had caused us to reject the entire establishment obviously bemused them. They probably wondered why we were so precious about spaghetti hoops, and thinking if we wanted spaghetti hoops on toast, why we had come into an Indian Restaurant?

One thing I do regret is that we didn't really give Bad Tandoori a chance. An Indian Restaurant should not really be judged on it's spaghetti hoops. Plus we didn't even try their spaghetti hoops. They might have been really nice. And I quite like spaghetti hoops to be honest.

Around the corner though, we soon found another establishment - the Tavistock Tandoori. This one had all the old classics, plus a very tasty chef's special that I lapped up gratefully.

Good Tandoori: Good.

It was actually a really, really great curry. I'd recommend it to anyone. Except if you were looking for spaghetti hoops. They didn't have spaghetti hoops in the Tavistock Tandoori.

If you are looking for spaghetti hoops as a curry accompaniment, your quest is on to discover the real name of Bad Tandoori. I won't be telling you where it is.

 
One day when I'm feeling flush, I may return to Bad Tandoori and order the spaghetti hoops just for the hell of it.

Pay your Fees, Crusties!

I'm sorry but I'm going to get all political on yor ass now.

Yesterday, my wife and I missed being caught up in the university fee protests riots around Oxford Circus by a matter of minutes. Shame actually, as I like a bit of excitement.

Only when we got home to see the rolling news on BBC News 24 did we realise how close a brush with 'activism' we'd had. Living so close to all the furor, we also considered going back out and having a gander. But as we saw all the bloodstained masses trying to keep warm in minus degree temperatures by gathering around the firebombs in Parliament Square, we thought we'd stay in our toasty flat in our slippers and finish our ice creams instead.

The fact is though, I think I might have ended up getting arrested had I gone back out. Not through trying to chuck a traffic cone at a policeman, or even for settling light to the statue of Viscount Palmerston (it's about time someone did that actually, I was incidentally thinking the other day).

But for the shamelessly aggressive act of punching the face right off of the head of the ignorant, mindless arses who thought making their point about the tuition fees necessitated desecrating the cenotaph and Churchill monument.

Cenotaph Swinger: Cunt.

Yeah, right on you anarchist warriors! Swinging from the cenotaph will send a message to the war dead not to die in Flanders and Japanese POW camps when they could have been alive and pro-creating so their descendants can pay their taxes towards your media studies degrees!

Regardless of his many faults (and they are numerous, if you know your history, kids) Churchill's wartime leadership does seem to transcend all else and so to piss and graffiti all over his monument in Parliament Square was simply going a bit too far by those responsible - and it's hardly going to stir public support of the plights of the self-proclaimed hard-done by students.

"Never in the field of human conflict, was.... ahhh, that's better".

I'm going to put my twopenneth in on this. You can stop reading now if you don't want to hear it. You may already get the gist of where this is going and might rather put your fingers in your ears and go "La la la la, I'm not listening as I already know the Tory scum and their Lib-Dem lap-dogs are destroying further education and wrecking lives. La la la."

But if you are interested in hearing an alternative opinion - mine is that I find it grossly offensive that self-interested students are expecting the world to share their outrage to what actually seems a very sensible and fair plan put forward by the government.

I do understand the viewpoint that free education for all is a good principle. Indeed I myself was abhorred when one of the first things Tony Blairs did was introduce tuition fees for students. Having started University myself the year before, I wasn't quite so motivated to march as those in the year below me but I shared their sentiments, albeit from afar in the SU bar over a subsidised pint.

But it was a shame to see the prospect of going to University as one that people had to pay for the privilege for, after so long it being a basic entitlement in this country.

That was then though and this is now. Given the current financial mess, we can hardly expect the state to subsidise higher education fully ever again. Indeed, the time has come to look more closely at whether it is justifiable for someones tertiary education to still be as heavily-subsidised as it currently is. And the answer from all sides is a resounding 'no' to this.

I'm no expert, but I have a slightly-informed opinion in that I've read through the arguments for and against, and the other options proposed, and have formed my own conclusion, humble though it may be, that the coalition government's proposals do seem the fairest - and actually fairer than the current system considering the threshold of re-payment will be going up and continue to do so as average wages rise.


I love this picture - "Make The Rich Pay".

Add the damage costs to his university fees invoice, Vince.

 Well, the rich will be the ones paying for it - as most graduates will gain higher wages as a result of their education and thus be paying their fees back rather than street-cleaners and McDonalds workers on minimum wage subsidising their education with their taxes.

The graduates who don't end up on higher wages will never pay back a fricken' penny!

There is so much ignorance and misplaced outrage over what is actually in the fees package passed yesterday. This website may be government propaganda, but it does explain why these measures are being passed and why they believe them to be fair. These are the facts and the facts sound fair to me.

The most laughable argument against the fee rises is that the last generation (i.e. the current government) got free education so it's hypocritical of them to vote in higher fees for the next generation.

It's the same as saying "Someone was giving free sandwiches out the other day but by the time I turned up they had run out of free sandwiches. That's not fair and they should bloody well go away and make me a sandwich for free too, and all those that got free sandwiches are also cunts for not paying for my free sandwich afterwards!"

The fact is, it's always cost the country money to educate people, but now we can no longer afford to foot this bill, especially if we want to maintain the same high-levels of university entrants.

It is only fair that students should help contribute for their education. But only eventually, when they can afford it. The Government still expects to end up paying 40% of the cost of higher education, and I see no reason why a student should not end up fronting more of the bill in such tight times.

The debt amount itself seems is irrelevant as far as I can see. £25k? £40k? £100k? It doesn't matter. The fact is, they will pay an amount back proportional to their income, only at a time when they are earning £21k or above. And get this - if the debt is not paid off in 30 years, it is WIPED OUT COMPLETELY, regardless of how much is still left to pay.

How the hell is this not fair?!

Under Labour's proposed graduate tax scheme, the graduates with lower income will pay back the same percentage as the higher earners, and at a lower threshold of earnings, right down to minimum wage. And the richer graduates will pay less back under the graduate tax than under the current scheme. How the hell is that justifiably fair? The thing that really astounds me is that the apparently socialist party of opposition seems to favour the scheme that will hurt the poorest most.
How much of this outrage is totally misplaced because people don't actually realise all the details of the proposals? That the poorest graduates will pay nothing back at all? That the richest will pay a higher proportion back? That they are wiped out after 30 years? That nothing needs to be paid upfront?

The one thing that does stink, for me, is the Welsh and Scottish situation.
The problem here though is that Westminster does not have jurisdiction anymore in either province thanks to Tony Blairs' costly vanity project of devolution.

As it is, the tax-payers in Scotland and Wales will either be hit harder with the burden, unfairly, or the taxpayers in England will even more unfairly end up helping funding some of that as well without being able to benefit from it. Grossly unfair, but not the fault of this government nor does it justify throwing out the whole idea because of it.

Many of these arguments above I've unashamedly lifted from debates this morning on Facebook with friends who aren't so keen on the proposals and think the protests are justified. Even the pissing on the Cenotaph, probably.

One argument I heard today was that going to university should not be about trying to improve your salary potential - it should be about broadening your mind.

Nothing wrong at all with attending Uni to broaden your mind, I say. And under the current proposals, if you want to broaden your mind by going to university and yet return to your job at Chicken Cottage after you graduate, you can still do that and never pay a penny back.

"So that's 2x fillet burgers, 3x hot wings & a 2,000 word discourse on the affects of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 on future European diplomacy".

And as someone else pointed out, if the government are going to hand out money so I can broaden my mind, will they pay for my gap year travelling around the world to soak up different cultures? Will they subsidise my purchase of recreational drugs? No, they won't.

Free education for all is fine if it can be afforded.
The fact is, it now cannot. And in such a situation it's grossly unfair to expect the poor to subsidise those lucky enough to earn a degree.

I do not believe these proposals are a stepping stone for the dismantling of the welfare state as some may claim. The difference between the welfare state and subsidising further education in particular is that the welfare state is a safety net intended to stop the very poorest of society from ever falling through it.

Not that it's perfect, but it's what separates us from the abilities of poorer nations and the illiberal values of less social-minded nations and something of which we should feel justly proud. This is why it is worth paying for.

Subsidisation for you and I to expand our minds and increase our earning potential at University is a very different matter and surely a lesser priority in austere times.

As a last comment on the matter, I thought this video found via Guido Fawkes' excellent political blogspot was quite apt. It's students from Northumbria University who've made their own music video protesting the fee rises, to the tune of LiveAid's "Do They Know It's Christmas?"

As Guido himself says:
"Comparing the privileged life of an undergraduate to kids starving in Africa, who have to worry about their next meal rather than their media studies assignment. Nice."

So stop wasting your own time and money and go back to your fucking lectures, you ignorant gits.

+++Feel free to post comments with your own opinions, by the way I'd genuinely be interested to hear them.+++

Pics courtesy of the copyright holders noted in each picture.
I hope you don't mind me using them but if you do please don't sue me as I have student debts to pay off.

Customer Service Train-ing

Isn't it cold though? Brrrr and all that.

I'm currently looking anxiously out of my office window to the train station opposite, wondering if I'm going to get home tonight. Not much seems to have moved in or out all day since I got here this morning, and that's a worry, when you are the worrying sort, like me.



#Feral Ashford International Station(ary).

 I went over to have a gander earlier, to find out if trains were in fact running today. What I was going to do, was have a look at the little screens, and see if any of the trains said "Delayed" or "Cancelled" on them, and work it out myself from that. I'm good like that - give me the information and I'll digest it - I'm quite a talent.

However, due to the widespread disruption, they have decided to turn these screens off and replace with a message stating that due to "RAIL ADHESION PROBLEMS*" there was widespread disruption today.

So, surely, you'd have thought that to ask a member of the station staff, so easily identified in their florescent orange tabards, would be the next best and indeed ONLY option to find out when the fuck a train would be next coming along.

But clearly not, judging by how irked the tabarded-twats seemed to be at being asked the question.

Oh I'm sorry, have you already been asked the same question 10 times in the past half hour? Well TURN THE FUCKING SCREENS ON THEN, YOU USELESS IDIOTS!!!

Do these fucking cretins honestly expect people to just turn up onto a platform, stand there in minus temperatures with no information, no announcements and just think "Well, I may as well just stand here and freeze my nuts off in the vain hope that a train will come along eventually. Asking a member of staff would be a silly idea, as even if there isn't a train for another 2 hours, I'd much rather stand here aimlessly and die of hypothermia waiting for something to come along than gather some information and better spend my time sat in a warm coffee shop until the next expected train is actually due."

It's one of my many, many bugbears that train and platform staff seem to get so disgruntled and annoyed about being continually asked the same questions about when the trains are due, as if it somehow isn't their fucking job to help the public get on and off trains.

They often appear so bloody annoyed at the stupidity of the commuter asking such a question, as if we should somehow be all too aware that they have already answered that question barely 5 minutes earlier, and that if we weren't there to hear it then it was our fault.

If you really don't like being asked "When is the next train to...." I suggest not getting a job that involves standing on a platform with a shiny orange jacket on!

The fact is, if you didn't try your best to make it some kind of cryptic riddle as to when the next train was likely to arrive by turning your myriad of information monitors into static statements of the frankly obvious† we wouldn't need to bother you in the first place!

I have more to say on this issue, but I want to try and get home now. So goodbye.



* I mean, what the fuck? What was it, wrong type of Pritt-stick?
†They may as well say "There's a bit of bad weather today, so the trains are fucked. Just how fucked they are though, you'll need to find out yourselves by asking the platform staff individually, one by one, until they get really fucked off with you all."