Category Archives: General Rambling

For posts that just go on and on and on and on and ……

Just like a film?

Posted on by
2

Well, I can’t explain it at all. So this isn’t really going to be a post that makes sense.

Sometimes this happens and it happened this morning. Actually, more or less ALL morning so far.

I feel there’s something wrong. It’s almost as if I am watching a film of myself, as if I’m not really experiencing this. Make sense to you? No, probably not.

So there’s this feeling that something is wrong but there is no pointer as to what may be wrong. It’s more like when you walk into a room and something is out of place but you can’t see what is out of place but it makes the room look different and ‘not quite right’.

Or if you walk into a crowded room and everyone immediately stops talking and looks at you.

It’s just a feeling. There’s nothing of any substance that you can put your finger on. Everything appears to be normal but it’s not. I mean to say, it is normal but, behind it all, something is abnormal.

It doesn’t really cause any ‘pain’ but it’s a little uncomfortable. As If I should do something to stave off this impending wrongness by fixing something but since I don’t know what IS wrong, it’s difficult to fix.

This morning I felt like I was going to work after a few weeks off. How strange is that? Worse still, it felt like I hadn’t driven my car for weeks when, in fact, I had driven to the airport to collect F only yesterday!

It made me feel like I shouldn’t be going to work – or, at least, not this work in this place. That goes with a growing feeling that I should really get off my arse and do something about finding something a little more personally rewarding (as well as financially rewarding, I suppose) – but it doesn’t explain how wrong it all felt. How wrong it all feels.

So, there you go. There’s no point to this post other than to tell you how strange I feel.

A bit sad although it may not have been like this.

Posted on by
2

Someone ‘shared’ a photo from one of the community-style pages.

It made me go and have a look.

And, then I came across this photo of Harding’s of Hereford.

I don’t recall very well whether my Grandfather worked there as a plumber or, because he was a plumber, he used to go there a lot to buy the stuff he needed.

And then I thought about him and wished I could see him now. I would have a lot to tell him about my life. I don’t know he would approve of it all but that’s OK.

And I felt a bit sad even if my memories probably weren’t true to the way that it really was.

Restless

Posted on by
2

Things just happen.

It’s just that sometimes, they need a helping hand. In fact, you’ve got to put yourself in the right position for the happening to happen.

And I’m feeling a little restless.

I feel that I need some more challenge (and it would be nice to earn more money, too!).

So, I’m doing something about it.

Not a lot, you understand, after all this feeling may pass (and I am inherently lazy when it comes to myself), but doing something is better than nothing.

I need to do other things as well, to ‘set things up’. Which I will probably do in the next couple of weeks.

Who knows what will happen – but something might? One must be prepared.

Let’s see :-)

Does my English look good in this?

Posted on by
Reply

“What sort of English do you want?”

I should ask this, really.

In any case, I wouldn’t get the right answer.

But I do try to explain. If I were to say “Me to go cinema this night”, I’m sure you would understand that I am going to the cinema this evening. Is it good English? Well, no, of course not if, by good English you mean to say ‘like a native’.

But even that is not quite correct. Take, for example, “If I was to come to urs ….” Written by a native speaker or some ‘useless’ foreigner? Of course, it would be made by normal English speakers in the UK. Therefore ‘like a native’ is a bit misleading, is it not, since it should read “If I were to come to your house …”?

So, exactly what is ‘good’ English? And, to live or converse with people in the UK, how good does it have to be?

This article, then, seeks to define how ‘good’ good should be and advises that ‘not very good’ is, in fact, good enough.

And I agree. And, anyway, it’s only by use, by reading, by listening (and, maybe, by having a good teacher/copy editor – ahem!) to good English that we can hope to improve our own.

In any event, English evolves simply because native English speakers adjust the language and grammar to suit themselves. I wonder, indeed, how long it will take for your and you’re to just become ur or their, there and they’re to become a singly-spelt word, maybe ther? Already ur is used, not only in texting but also in emails and, I guess, any time the word is written.

After all, with just the two lettas, its quicka, init?

They’re all quite mad, you know?

Posted on by
2

It makes me wonder what they’re scared of.

V wanted to get married. He had plans to have some big ‘do’ in Eastnor Castle or somewhere similar. He decided we would wed in white suits and he had chosen who was going to ‘give him away’. It was fantasy, of course. By the time there was the ability to have a civil ceremony, I was already certain that I wouldn’t marry him.

Personally, other than for the benefits it gives your partner (in terms of when you die, etc.), I don’t see the point. It doesn’t seem to be able to keep people together much more than normal couples (with the divorce rates rising year on year); and if it is meant to be significant – in what way is it? Other than to tell the rest of the world that you have a partner (for the moment). It seems a strange, outmoded thing and, I suppose, that is why some people are frightened of it becoming available to all. They WANT to keep it elitist – a club where not everyone can get in. That would, in their minds, make it more precious.

Would I marry F (should the law here change, however unlikely)? Yes, if he wanted it. I am ambivalent about it. It wouldn’t change how I feel about him. It wouldn’t really make any difference to me, inside. I don’t really need the presents or the party. We have our ‘anniversary’ and that’s good enough for me. I don’t really keep our relationship a secret and I’m sure that most people at work know. Our relationship is our business and we don’t need to have anyone else’s acceptance to make it more real than it is. I suppose I might change my mind if something happens where I feel discriminated against. But for now it’s OK as it is.

That’s not to say that I don’t want other people, currently denied the opportunity to marry, to be allowed to marry. If they want it, it’s fine by me.

But what I don’t understand is the hatred (from both sides) and the stupid arguments made for and against.

So, this person, a leader of an organisation that has harboured paedophiles for years, probably centuries, thinks that making marriage legal for homosexual people “madness” and a “grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right”.

Excuse me? What ‘accepted human right’ is he talking about*? And why is it ‘madness’?

No it doesn’t make any sense at all. Was this the same church that, for years, opposed inter-racial marriage? The same religion that assisted Hitler and Mussolini with the deportation and gassing of Jews? The same church that actively kept paedophiles safe from the police and courts?

How is anyone from that religion permitted to offer their thoughts on anything at all?

Now that, to me, is where the madness lies and that is a grotesque subversion of human decency and morals.

And, if you want to read more from crazy people, see the comments below this article, in the Independant.

* In fact he is talking about Article 16 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, where marriage is defined as a relationship between men and women.
In fact, the UDHR, article 16 is defined as:

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

This is disingenuous on his part since he totally twisted the wording. Article 16 gives the right for men and women to get married – nowhere here does it define marriage as specifically restricted to between a man and a woman. As with most religious nut-cases, he takes something and applies it in the way that he wants rather than fully comprehending its meaning. Stupid man, Keith O’Brian

I’m coming to you

Posted on by
Reply

The bed is made with fresh sheets. She did that before she left.

The place is empty – I mean, no one is living there. It’s free.

So, now it’s a choice.

I answer the call. “I’ve been out for an aperitivo and now I’m coming to you”. But, he doesn’t have to. There are a number of options available. It’s been more than a month now since last he slept in his own home. I was ready for the “I’m going to stay at mine tonight” and ready to give the option of “We could come and stay at yours”. But, it seems there was no reason to be ready.

Of course, I say nothing. I mean to say, I don’t point it out. Nor do I give the suggestion that we can go to his place.

In a weird way, I would quite like a ‘night off’ – but, then, we have that when he goes abroad (or when I did for the party). Then again, I’m not desperate for a night without him. And I like the fact that he’s there, for sure.

But, obviously, we don’t live together ;-)

It’s the economy, stupid!

Posted on by
Reply

Everything is connected.

If you raise taxes, people have less to spend.

They buy less.

This means that the producers produce less.

If the producers produce less, they don’t need so many workers, so they ‘let some go’.

The workers without work are now receiving benefit.

The government must get more money.

It raises taxes.

You see how this goes?

The whole money thing is a trick and it only works as long as we agree to raise the debt – our debt. When we don’t do this, the system starts unwinding since we start to spend less and you’re back in the vicious circle, simplified (I admit) above.

So, since about 2008 or 2009 it’s all been about ‘austerity’. And, look where that’s got us. Austerity means reducing debt. Reducing debt means spending less. And so on and so on.

The countries are run by ignorant fools. Them or the economists. Either way they’re all stupid.

Moving day?

Posted on by
8

He’s flicking through the Mondo Convenienza magazine. Mondo Convenienza is like IKEA but in my mind better.

“I like Mondo Convenienza”, he says. I agree with him.

“If we move in together we can get all our furniture from there”

“But not a sofa. I like my sofa” (It’s actually a three-piece suite).

“But it needs to be covered”, he replies, adding, “and it will cost more than getting a new sofa!”

Of course, he is right but that’s not the point, as I try to explain.

I bought it when V and I started our life together. It was, at the time, a very expensive suite. My idea was that it would last forever – well, all my life. And it is still as good as when it was new – except the covers. It badly needs new covers.

“Well, we can get a new bed and things”, he says, understanding that, on this, I won’t move.

But, of course, the reason I’m telling you this is not because we were talking about a suite or a bed or, even, new furniture – rather that he was talking about if we move in together. And it was more of a serious conversation about it, if you see what I mean.

The time approaches. It may be a few years away yet but that’s OK. I can see it coming and one must take things slowly.

And, the more time we spend together, the more I enjoy our time together. So, roll on the moving day, I say :-D

On being ruled by the media

Posted on by
Reply

RBS, the bank that made some rather serious mistakes and was bailed out by the UK Government (read by the UK people), are in the news almost every day. Especially in the Daily Hate Mail, who blame the bank for everything.

They’ve not lent money to a business! So the headline screams. Although, of course, if they HAD done it and the business had subsequently failed the headlines would have read “RBS throwing tax-payers money down the drain” or something similar.

For a few weeks now, they (amongst other media) have sought to have the knighthood, awarded to Fred Goodwin (for services to the crisis, I suppose), the ex-boss of RBS and the leader at the time of the disastrous investments, revoked. They asked how it was possible that he kept his knighthood when the bank had to be rescued by the British taxpayer.

The call to strip Mr Goodwin became louder (in the media, that is). And, eventually, the deed was done.

But, one has to ask, without the shrilling of the media, would it have happened?

And, what purpose does this [revoking of the honour] possibly serve?

The media have a part to play in our life but, surely, not to run the country? This is similar to the call for the ban of dangerous dogs; ‘Sarah’s Law'; and a thousand and one other laws and decisions made on the back of the ‘call from the media’. Things that often, quite frankly, are wrong or, at the very least, waste time and money on something that does not work or is irrelevant.

But, I suppose, it distracts the average Joe from looking at real issues.

To me, not only is this trial by media wrong in every case but it also highlights a weak government, one that is reactive rather than proactive; one that thinks publicity (and good publicity, in particular) is everything.

As it is being pointed out (but more quietly), surely, if Mr Goodwin’s knighthood is ‘shredded’, so too should the honours and awards given to other bankers. After all, it was their industry as a whole that got us into this mess, not the actions of a single man.

I hate the idea of the world being run by the media who are, after all, there to sell papers or subscriptions or raise market share for their advertisers. No business really does something for the public good (unless there is money to be made from it) and the media are no exception to the rule.

But they seem to be the new rulers.

Our rooms are just a little apart.

Posted on by
Reply

Did I tell you that he’d as good as moved in?

Except, it’s not that much different really.

A colleague/friend, who is here for temporary work, has his flat. He goes there to shower sometimes and also to take clean clothes and do washing and stuff. He arrives at my place, more or less, at the usual time. He is covering for another colleague so is working more (including some Saturdays and every Sunday) and, so, it is the same.

Of course, now that Rufus is no longer with us, we could, in theory, spend more time at his place. At least until the puppy arrives. I wonder if we will, when the colleague/friend leaves in the middle of February?

Someone asked me the other day, “When will you guys move in together?”.

As I explained, it really is up to him. A friend of his is moving out of her flat. It is a nice flat and would be big enough for the four of us. The other night when we were out with An, she was talking about, maybe, sharing a flat with someone. It moved to how difficult sharing was – you have to really gel with the person to be able to do this – unless you are a couple, when it is a different thing.

He then mentioned the flat of his friend. He likes the flat, as do I. He said that he could fit all his CDs in the hallway – which he could.

I pointed out that the only problem was the bathroom – which is very small, has no bath (which he likes to use) and has no window.

But it would be big enough for us to spread out a bit. We could safely be in different parts of the house and not even hear each other.

Sometimes, I wonder how long it will be before we move in together. Mostly I don’t, as we already do, our separate rooms are just a few street apart, that’s all :-D