This was a few days ago and I forgot to post it.
As if the kettling and the tasering and all the other stuff they (the police) now consider is reasonable, isn’t enough.
They lost my trust some time ago but this just goes to confirm my worst fears. One wonders how many other things are ‘let’ go by ordinary people thinking that the police actually know the law and are ‘right’?
Dreadful, dreadful, dreadful.
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
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.
Perhaps it’s just me?
I’ve noticed or, should I say, it seems, that, in general, there’s less traffic in Milan. And, even with this being Men’s Fashion Week, the usual nightmares with traffic on my way home are absent.
If I’m not wrong there are a number of factors at play that could make it less.
One is the new Congestion Charge in Milan that was introduced on 16th January. Now, to go into the centre of Milan, almost everyone has to pay €5 per day. The previous charges allowed many (of the newer) cars to go in for free. Now, no. I am outside the ‘Area C’ as it is called. In fact, I never drive into this area anyway. But I’m only just outside and I did wonder if this new set of charges would mean that all the car parking in my area would be taken. It seems not. It seems that people are either leaving their cars at home or travelling to a tube station and taking public transport.
I know not everyone likes the charge and I wouldn’t be ecstatic about it should it cover my area – but it is so much nicer with less traffic.
The other reason could be the sharp increases in the cost of petrol. Last summer I was filling up the car for about €50. Last night it cost me nearly €70! That’s a hefty increase. The increase is down to the austerity measures brought in by the new government of Italy. It’s another of those ‘let the ordinary people pay for the stupidity of the very rich banks’ rule.
I keep thinking that, sooner or later, people will wake up but it seems not just yet.
Perhaps, also, because of the crisis in general, there are not so many people at this year’s fashion week?
However, whatever the reason, it does make Milan more pleasant to live in and I’m not complaining.
You may remember, some time ago (almost 1 year ago, in fact), I had some problems with the refurbishments made to both my flat and the flat next door.
First there was the sudden appearance of two holes in the wall of the bedroom.
They filled them.
Then, during a windy night, one of the shutters came loose, threatening to fall to the courtyard below.
Telephone calls were made to the administrator’s office to ask for repair.
More telephone calls were made. Apparently, even though there was a swarm of builders in our building every day, it was very difficult to arrange for them to come and fix it.
Then, one of the builders told F that there may be new holes in the wall and, sure enough, new holes had appeared by the radiators in both the lounge and the sitting room.
More telephone calls and emails were made and sent.
During one telephone call, the ‘lady’ suggested that the shutter would be down to me until it was pointed out that the first telephone call was made to them in April. And, anyway, it was poor workmanship.
Just before Christmas the last calls were made. It seemed that, even though the defects had been reported several times, she could not make the builders come and fix it.
So I got a quote from someone.
Yesterday, I faxed (not emailed since here, email is not legally binding – yes, I know but, as I’ve said before, sometimes being here is like stepping back to the fifties or something) the quote with a letter giving them 7 days or I would do it myself, taking the money from any rent to be paid.
This morning, at 9.04 a.m. I received an email from her. Never before has the response been so fast. Do you think it might have been the money thing?
It stated that the builders would come round to repair the walls this morning – at 8.30 a.m. – more than half an hour BEFORE I received the email!!!!!
And that, on either Thursday or Friday, someone would come to repair the shutter.
I’ve sent another letter explaining that I am at work and that they can come either before 7.15 a.m., after 6 p.m. or on Saturday, after 8 a.m.
I expect I shall be sending another letter next week saying that unless arrangements are made I shall go ahead with the guys who did the quote.
Something that could have been done in the last year but wasn’t, now has to have special arrangements. Stuff them!
I left work at just after 5. I left because I am so cold. By the end of the day, my feet feel as if I have had them in buckets of ice all day.
It is dark now, when I leave home and work. It’s no wonder they invented Christmas. It helps to brighten up the dark mornings and nights with lights. I really dislike this time of year.
However, back to the post.
I hadn’t reached the end of the road when a bike came from my right, without looking, and rode on the side of the road just in front of me. Because I was near a junction, I had already slowed down.
However, bikes coming out without looking are nothing new.
What really amazed me was that the guy was wearing dark clothing and had no lights on the bike. The street lighting, this far out in the suburbs, is not that bright. Stupid guy, I thought, he really does want to be killed.
I turned the corner and within a few minutes, there was another cyclist without any lights. I wonder if this is illegal. Surely, this IS illegal? I then decided to count the cyclists on my way home and count the number who had lights (on – not just on the bike, of course).
OK, so I am driving and concentrating on driving so I may have missed a couple of cyclists but I counted 11 in the end. Of those 11 cyclists, 8 – yes EIGHT – either had no lights at all or, if they did have them, they were not switched on.
If it is illegal then 72% of cyclists are illegal.
But that’s not the point, really. The point is that 72% care so little about their lives that they want to be killed. Cyclists – without lights YOU ARE DIFFICULT TO SEE!!!!!!!
The solution, I suppose, by the last two cyclists I saw as I was walking along the pavement to the supermarket, is to ride on the pavements. The last one, with a child in the child seat, did, in fact, have lights. It was just that they (the front one, at least) were broken. I don’t mean not switched on – I mean, nearly hanging off (although, obviously, not switched on too).
Of the 8 without lights, probably about 4 or 5 did have some sort of reflectors and one guy was wearing a fluorescent jacket. Of the 11, at least two had no reflectors and were dressed, to all intents and purposes, in black.
It beggars belief.
I don’t know about the UK TV but it was all over everywhere, here, last night.
The aquittal of murder of Knox and Sollecito. I could talk about how it was the right decision, given the atrocious evidence or the wrong decision, given that Amanda admitted being there and then changed her mind.
But I won’t since it is being written about ad infinitum.
And, in any case, I only get to know about the evidence that the papers wish to tell me about. And, so, I can’t really make a judgement on that.
I will say, though, that Rudi did a runner, whereas Knox and Sollecito did not. Rudi makes more sense than the other two. Especially Knox for, if I had done it, I would have been on a plane to the States before the body had even been found.
And, perhaps there was a really good reason why the mobile phones that were discarded had no DNA. And, anyway, what Italian leaves their mobile phones at home when they go away or, even, out to the supermarket?
No, it’s all very strange and impossible for me to say if the verdict was right or not but that is not the point of this post.
The Daily Mail Online, of course, wanted (as they all did, I’m sure) to be first with the reactions and quotations after the verdict. So, as with obituaries, they must have written it in advance and, since they didn’t know the verdict in advance, one has to write two versions – 1 for guilty and 1 for aquittal.
Fair enough. At the end of it, you have to do this and just fill in the odd blank at the time.
The Daily Mail said, in their online version that when Amanda realised what the judge had said she “sank into her chair sobbing uncontrollably”.
Apparently they quoted the prosecutors as saying that ‘justice had been done’ (as an actual quote).
Both Knox and Sollecito said they would appeal.
Confused? Well, yes, that’s understandable.
There’s a picture on the page explaining how Knox’s parents were ‘distraught after the verdict was read out in court’.
Apparently, according to the Daily Mail, ‘both [Knox and Sollecito] will be put on suicide watch’ and that this was ‘normal practice’.
Of course, the whole thing was a terrible mistake. The headline read: Guilty: Amanda Knox looks stunned as appeal against murder conviction is rejected.
Whoops! Someone may get fired over this. You had, even without any thinking, a 50/50 chance of getting it right but it seems the wrong one was put up.
OK, so everyone can make a mistake and the idea that most of the article wouldn’t have been written before the verdict is laughable – of course they wrote two and I don’t have a problem with that.
However, what I DO have a problem with is the direct quotations littering the article. Some even inside inverted commas – which means they are supposed to be the actual words said. This was, quite obviously, not true. It was impossible. The prosecutors were NOT happy and DID NOT say that ‘justice had been done’.
And this, I have a problem with. Not that I ever thought the Daily Mail told the truth but, to have quoted someone without them ever saying the words leads me to wonder if any of the quotations they use are factual and have actually been said. Or if any of their stories are other than complete fairytales.
In fact, perhaps it is better to preface each Daily Mail story with:
Once upon a time, according to the Daily Mail ………..
I’m being a bit crap at the moment.
Sorry.
I have started to update the links on the right. If yours hasn’t appeared yet, it is on it’s way, I promise. But, probably, not until next week.
In the meantime, let’s talk about rules and laws.
I mean, is it OK to break them? Sometimes, if these rules or laws had not been broken by a significant number of people, the law or rule would not have been changed or abolished. But which rules are OK to break and which not? Who should decide which are irrelevant rules and which are not?
There are things that are obvious (although sometimes less obvious here). For example, driving the wrong way down a one-way street. Here, I see bicycles regularly being ridden the wrong way. And the cyclists seem most put out that you, a car, driving the right way down the street seem to think that the cyclists are in the wrong.
I’ve even seen (as I may have mentioned before) cars driven the wrong way. OK so this was at 5.50 in the morning and there’s hardly any traffic – but ….. still …….
I’ve seen a car driven down the tram tracks (which must have done some damage to the car, I would think) where there is no road but it’s similar to a train track (without the sleepers).
I would guess there is some law against these things but the question is, is it OK to break this law?
Cyclists, here, regularly ride on the pavement. In the UK they would almost certainly be caught (I think) but here it’s almost the norm. Perhaps there is no rule or law against it.
Then there’s turning left or right at some traffic lights when there are signs that say you are prohibited from doing so. If I’m behind one of these people, I become ‘all Italian’ and blow my horn like crazy. But, if ‘everyone does it’, surely that almost makes the rule illogical and, almost, unenforceable? So, should that particular rule be relaxed or abolished?
Then there’s parking. They have gone a bit mad with the blue paint in my area – meaning that we should pay for parking (blue boxes are metered parking; yellow boxes are resident permit holders only).
Just after someone had made a ‘prohibited’ left turn and was roundly slagged off by the person who was driving me, it came to light that this person parks in ‘resident only’ areas because ‘I object to paying for parking’. And so, it made the rule regarding parking invalid. Apparently.
I tried to point out that the guy turning left was, in effect, only ignoring another of the rules regarding driving and parking and I was told that it was a different thing.
Ah, yes, of course it was.
The breaking of a rule prohibiting you from turning left is, quite obviously, something for which there should have been a policeman at that particular moment whereas, stopping a resident with a valid parking permit the chance to park outside their home is something that should be tolerated. Ha!
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not perfect. I’m sure I do things that aren’t ‘quite right’ but I can hardly criticise those who turn left when they shouldn’t and in the same breath say that, as I have decided parking in a resident-only parking bay without having a valid permit is perfectly OK, I am not guilty of the same type of fault.
I realise there are ‘degrees’ of breaking the rules and, maybe, illegal parking is not quite as bad as turning left when you shouldn’t. But I’m not sure that I actually have the right to say that it’s OK to do.
Rules are rules. And they are there to make life (society’s life as a whole) more comfortable. With regard to road use (or pavement use, for that matter) I have found that Italians are a tad selfish and I am coming to the opinion that, if you can’t beat them, join them. But it makes me uncomfortable in my English way.
Still, rules are rules and breaking of them can (and should?) have consequences. It’s just that there’s a mentality that says – if I don’t agree with the rule or it doesn’t suit my purpose, then it’s OK the break this one.
In the end, we came out of the restaurant and there was no fine on the car for parking in a place that was not supposed to be parked in.
What do you think? Can we break the rules that we don’t agree with? Or should we abide by all rules and laws?
Sorry about that.
I’ve been away for a few days or, rather, the blog has been unavailable (to you and me) for the last couple of days and, as you can see, I’m back ……. sort of.
I’m afraid I’m missing a couple of comments. I’m sorry about that but the site went down before I could take a backup.
So, apologies to Cecilieaux and Lola for the comments that have disappeared but, at the moment, I have no way to get them back.
I have, of course, had to move to a different hosting company. It’s the problem with having to have free hosting. The last were, as you probably know, a bit hit and miss anyway. They seemed to get better once they had advertisements but over last weekend it spent most of the time down. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view), I was away and could do nothing. By Sunday night it was back up and I had no way of knowing that it would be down (and stay down) by Monday morning.
Such is life.
Still, I have all my posts back and most comments, which is not so bad.
However, for those of you considering a free hosting company, I would suggest you avoid anything set up by Raymond. Koolserve.com promised the world – i.e. free hosting for ever – and then I saw this:
Look what I found on FreeWebSpace.net:
Quote From Raymond:
Quote
KoolServe.comKool Serve is a free hosting site launched in March 2011. Users are signup for free cPanel web hosting accounts and we generate revenue from users who purchase upgrades and from adverts placed on their sites among many other sources.
Kool Serve has done well in terms of traffic ( Alexa rank 27,059 ) and revenue. There is no cost in promotion. We have used the following free sources for traffic:
1. Free Hosting Directories
2. General word-of-mouth
3. Forum Threads
4. YouTube videos/FaceBook/Twitter/Blogs and more
We now have close to 10000 users and a very knowledgeable volunteer support team to assist in all manners of web hosting.
The domains ( koolserve.com and koolserve.net ), the support forum ( IPB software ), and iPanel are hosted on a personal server of mine.
The costs to maintain Kool Serve are:
Server Cost:
Free server : $215.00 /month
Paid Server: $8 0.99 /monthSoftware:
iPanel: $9.99 /month
Zamfoo: $7.95 /monthMonthly revenue:
$850+
The main source of revenue comes from upgrades to paid from free, ads on free users sites, and ads on the support forum.Will sell for $5,000
Contact me at raymond@urhostz.comThread: http://www.freewebsp…iques-per-Month
Feh, he did the same with ************com, and if anyone has noticed, he runs more than 1 host, like ***********.com, no different then here really, but NEWER. Which means no ads on pages still, and no paid, which I’m sure will come soon… ugh… and then be sold to possibly someone who has no idea what their doing and the host will be GONE, including all your sites and everything else. So good luck to all the users, you’ll need it!
So much for the promises! I nearly thought of going for their pay-for servers. Thank goodness I didn’t.
In my hunt for a new free hosting company, I found he also ran infiniteserve (I now always check the forum for how many times, recently, the servers seem to be down) and, of course, urhostz.com.
I did sign up for one hosting company OpenHost.org. However, once I had signed up, I saw the nameservers were Koolserve :-D, so I dropped them immediately.
I ended up with FreeHostingCloud. They seem quite good and the service seems up most of the time.
Now I shall always look at the forums for mention of Raymond (or Vlad, Justin, Dennis, etc.) and avoid those places like the plague.
Still, as I said at the start, I’m back and can put Raymond and his croney’s to the back of my mind, for now.
p.s. I shall be working to get all the links back asap – not least because I use them to visit your blogs!
It is 7.30 a.m. The sign reads 25°C.
I like it a lot although it is pretty humid, especially last night.
And, about last night. We went for a beer, just the two of us. We were chatting and P, my next-door neighbour came into Polpetta. We were chatting. She’s giving up her flat. Her lease runs out and they are increasing the rent – considerably. It’s too much for just one person and times is hard, especially in her line of work. And, so, she’s moving out of Milan, in November. It’s a shame as she is the only one in the building that I speak to.
F asked her about her rent. She does have a really good deal now, for sure. F and I talked about the flat below mine. I have asked about the cost of that flat. They will let me know in September. Then he asked about checking out the one with the terrace that is opposite the courtyard from mine.
And then he said (again) about how he couldn’t live with anyone again. The reason is: what happens when we split up?
I don’t say anything stupid like ‘Well, that’s not going to happen’. That would provoke the response of ‘You never know. Nothing lasts forever’. Instead I say, ‘Yes, I understand what you mean’.
And, I’m not really sure how this happened, but then he said, within the next 10 minutes that, perhaps we could live together and ‘would I want that?’.
My face stays flat. Without emotion. In my head I am screaming that yes, of course that’s what I want. My face says nothing and my mouth says, ‘Well, at least I wouldn’t have to worry about a cleaner’ and then I laugh.
It’s almost as if, if I don’t say what I really want, that’s what I get from him. It’s different to any other relationship I’ve had before.
And now, because I received the anonymous email and then made an unexpected post, last night, I’ve reached post 999.
As I’ve mentioned, I’ve written post 1000. I’ll set it to publish whilst I’m away. It gives you, my dear reader, something to look forward to. I hope it doesn’t disappoint and hopefully, the guy won’t manage to get my blog taken down in the meantime but I have backups and, if it does go, it should be back within a couple of days after I come back from my holiday.
Enjoy. E buona vacanza