Be careful what you wish for ……………..

There’s a lot going on at the moment in the British press about the BBC.

It’s almost like there’s some sort of witch-hunt and it seems as if some newspapers won’t be happy until the BBC is disbanded.

But, in my opinion, that would be a huge mistake.

If it were to be broken up, there would be nothing to stop Mr Murdoch and, as well, the ‘dumbing down’ of TV that is usually blamed on the BBC, would accelerate to, well, the standard of most Italian TV.

I always think ‘be careful what you wish for as it might come true’.

There do seem to be a few voices trying to make themselves heard amongst this clamour for the destruction of the BBC – but they seem to be fighting an uphill battle.

In any event, Joni seemed to sum it up quite well ……


Joni Mitchell – Big Yellow Taxi

How to lose customers.

When is buying a book not actually buying a book?

You may think this is a trick question but it’s not really. The answer is, of course, when you rent it.

Rent a book? Are you crazy?

Well, yes and no. I mean, one can go into a library and borrow a book – but that’s not really the same as renting it as, unless you are late returning it, you don’t pay to do this.

For renting, however, you must pay.

But, I hear you ask, why the hell would you only rent it? Books aren’t like cars or something, they don’t cost a lot of money anyway.

Which is true. However, in this case, it’s all to do with public perception.

Ebooks can be downloaded on your tablet or Kindle and read. But, if you buy them from Amazon (or from anywhere else where they are DRM protected) you are, in fact, not buying them at all but only renting them – and only for as long as the retailer will allow you to rent it.

So, you pay for a ‘book’ that you don’t, in fact, own. Seems stupid, doesn’t it?

Well, yes, to me it seems beyond stupid.

But, reading all about this woman’s experience has made me decide two things:

1. I won’t be buying a Kindle or ebooks.
2. I think I’ll stop using Amazon all together!

I have, in the past, bought quite a lot of stuff from Amazon.co.uk but now I won’t be doing that.

In any event, I really do like proper books made of paper and also Amazon treat the writers/publishers like shit too. It seems they don’t reserve their shitiness only for their customers.

Ah well, that’ll be another customer lost then.

Expat? Immigrant?

There was a tweet, recently, relating to an old Guardian piece about the fact that an Indian guys didn’t feel he could be considered an expat.

Of course, it depends on your audience.

If, as an immigrant to Italy, I wrote a piece in an Italian newspaper, I could hardly call myself an expat since a) I am NOT Italian and b) I have not moved out of Italy.

For me it’s a matter of simplicity. Here, I am an immigrant – unless and except when I am talking to other English/American/Canadians here. When I talk to them I am an expat. They are expats too.

However, when I’m with Italians, as, in fact, I have done in the past, I point out that I, too, am an immigrant.

This is usually when they are complaining about the numbers of immigrants here.

It’s interesting that when I point out that I am also an immigrant, they usually respond with something like “Ah, but you’re different.”

What they mean, of course, is that, even if I can’t speak the language (whereas many immigrants can); even if I look different from the majority of Italians (with my blue eyes); even if I act differently (like being more courteous), I am OK because I am white and English and their friend.

As opposed to black or brown, non-European and selling roses or trinkets or working in a kitchen in a restaurant.

But I am mindful that I remain and will always be, an immigrant here.

I am from one of the current EU countries and so I have some “right” to be here – but, I guess, I could also be shipped back to the UK should the authorities deem it necessary.

Here, I have no roots; no “original” place to go to. And so it was true of the Indian writing the Guardian article. So, speaking to a British audience, he was always going to be an immigrant and not an expat.

I don’t think it’s that difficult an idea to grasp?

25 Years Ago

25 years ago tomorrow morning, England was closed. Or, at least it seemed like it was closed to us.

It was during my year-long or so stint in Germany. Every week I would travel there (usually on a Sunday or Monday evening), travelling back three or four days later. It was exhausting.

My job was as a consultant to Ford and we were introducing a new system to one of their suppliers. Sometimes I would be alone but this particular time, I was with some other people from Ford – or at least one person, AA.

When we got into work on the 16th, we, as normal, tried to contact colleagues. The phones rang out but no one answered.

We joked that England was closed.

What we didn’t know was that, for the South East at least, it almost was.

The great storm of 1987 meant that many people didn’t get into work and many had no electricity.

Was it really 25 years ago? Half a lifetime (more or less)!

The end of the world?

Imagine a different world.

A world where everyone considers everything they do and say as to what impact it has on other people – and then they censor what they do/say based on whether there is someone, anyone, out there who will find it distatseful or, God forbid, offensive.

It’s a kind of utopia. Everyone will be nice and courteous. Nothing will be said that will ‘hurt our feelings’. Nothing, quite obviously, will be said in rage and, as a consequence, there will be no anger.

Without anger, there will be no need to defend anything and without the need for defence, there will be no war.

And everyone will live happily ever after.

Won’t they?

I mean, surely, that’s what we all want, sin’t it?

The problem with this, of course, is that the term ‘free speech’ becomes redundant. If you are only free to say nice things, what’s the point?

I try to be nice to people, espcially people I know. A friend I haven’t seen for two years or so was told by me that she ‘looked fabulous’. She did – but that’s not really the point. I am, of course, able to say ‘You look tired’ but a) it wasn’t true and b) I don’t think it’s very nice to say that. So I don’t. She’s changed her hair. It’s now short and blonde. I could have said a) your hair looks awful or b) you look like a prostitute. But I didn’t because it wouldn’t have been true and, anyway, it’s not a nice thing to say. Instead, I said ‘Your hair looks lovely’, which it did.

So, was I using ‘free speech’ and saying what I felt? Well, yes but, equally, even if they hadn’t been true, I may have said something like that anyway. And, at that point, I am no longer using ‘free speech’.

But, why not? Didn’t people fight for this right? And if people laid their lives down for this right, why the hell ain’t I using it?

But what if I DID? What then?

Well, most probably, old friends would, suddenly, be a little unfriendly. Now, if I didn’t care, that wouldn’t really be a problem, I guess.

And, at what point would something I said become genuinely offensive? And how do you measure offensive in the first place?

Does the feeling of ‘That’s not very nice’ constitute offence? What if something said makes you feel like bursting into tears? Does that make it offensive?

What if I made some joke about a person who had recently died? A sick joke? I mean, a really sick joke about someone who died very recently that I didn’t know? Well, the dead person wouldn’t be offended. But their family? There again, how would their family know if I just told this very sick joke to my friends who live thousands of miles away from the family?

But, what if one of MY firends was offended by it? There again, how can they really be offended. Are they just saying they’re offended because they think my joke is really sick and not something one should say?

And what is the difference between telling a really sick joke to my friends from saying, for example, that I’m going to blow an airport up should my flight be cancelled for the fourth time, when I’m really angry. I mean, we all say things in the heat of the moment. Things said in anger aren’t really meant.

How many times have you said, ‘Oh I could kill so-and-so’ but, in reality, and, even given a weapon and anonimity, you would NEVER do such a thing. It’s an expression to mean you are REALLY pissed off with a person.

‘They should just bomb the place’ – another expression which I’ve heard said because someone doesn’t like what they’ve heard of about or seen at a place. It doesn NOT mean that they would actually do it. And, if the murder or bombing were to actually take place, most normal people would be horrified that they had said it.

After all, these are just words, however tasteless and disgusting they may be.

And, if we go back to our utopian idea of having a world where no one says anthing that will offend anyone else – what kind of monstrous world have we created?

And yet, this is what ‘they’ seem to be trying to achieve.

And it would be as boring as hell or worse. Even if I don’t agree, or even like, what people say and even if I am outraged by some of the stuff that’s said or done in this world – at least it is premitted to be said or done.

Anyway, for more of the same, read this little article.

Let’s just say that mob rule is the real offensive thing here. And even without the prison sentence, I think that, maybe, Matthew Woods has learnt a valuable lesson – as we all do when we are young and say things that may be considered offensive or crass. Most of us, nearly all of us, don’t go to jail for it, though!

A Makem and a Geordie go for a job

Had to give you this joke:

A makem (man from Sunderland) applied for a job at a factory in his home town. A geordie (man from Newcastle) applied for the same job and since both applicants had similar qualifications, the manager asked them to take a test. When the results were in, both men had scored 19 out of 20.

The manager went to the makem and said, “Thank you for coming to the interview, but we’ve decided to give the geordie the job.”

The Makem said, “Why? We both got 19 questions correct. This being Sunderland and me being from Sunderland surely I should get the job.”

The manager replied, “We have made our decision not on the correct answers, but on the question you got wrong.”

The makem said, “And just how would one incorrect answer be better than another?”

The manager said, “Simple. On question number 7 the geordie wrote down, ‘I don’t know.’

“You put down, ‘Neither do I ‘”

Lifted from Of course, I could be wrong…..

The kind of rain I like

Whereas, for us, in Italy, it’s been a lovely summer with hardly any rain, I know it hasn’t been like that for all of you, particularly those in the UK.

So, perhaps for you, this would not be something you can imagine bothering with. However, it is something that I would love to go and see …… and experience.

It’s at the Barbican Centre in London (London does do great art) and it’s free. If I go to London before the end of February/beginning of March, I will definitely take a trip to experience it.

And, below is the video – but even seeing it on video would not be the same as actually being there. This is something that is no good in print or on video.

Escape ………….. or maybe not?

It’s all over the UK news. This teacher has, apparently, disappeared to France with one of his 15-year-old pupils.

And, it brought to mind the time my sister disappeared with some guy.

I don’t, unfortunately, remember the details. I think she was about 15 or 16. The guy was older – maybe in his 20s.

They went off together and were away for several days (or was it a week, or maybe longer?).

I’m sure the police were involved.

I remember my parents being out of their minds.

And I remember thinking that:

a) she knew what she was doing,
b) that my parents, for the way they treated her, deserved it (to some extent) and
c) that she had finally ‘got away’.

Except that, in reality, she hadn’t. She was back soon.

I guess the same will happen with this story too.

It should be in the job description.

I guess you’ve seen something about it. It’s certainly all over the British press.

First there was some drunken party games which involved stripping and, surprise, surprise, there was someone with a phone and the next thing you knew it was everywhere.

Then, we have some woman with her tits out and people are outraged. Well, the media is outraged – people can, of course, think what they like.

Now, if I get a job, say, as model, a job in the public spotlight, I don’t want to be caught gorging on burgers. Or a married TV presenter – I really don’t need to be caught kissing one of my colleagues in the park.

And, if you get a job as a royal, you don’t want to be caught with your bits out for all to see.

OK, for Harry, he didn’t get a choice about the job – he can’t really say ‘no’. Even so, can you imagine Charlie having a party like that and permitting someone to take a photo?

And, in any way, can you imagine the Queen being more than semi-naked (and by that I mean with a swimsuit on) in any place except the bathroom?

So, whereas one can argue that the photographer was wrong to take the pictures and that the magazine (or is it magazines, now?) was not really being nice by publishing them, the real question is this:

If Kate took the job of being the future Queen of England, what was she thinking of getting her bits out in anything other than a very private place (like the bathroom)?

Worse, still, is thinking that you should be suing the magazine! Come off it, you were there, without a top, outside. Act like a Queen – after all, you took the job when you married William and, I’m afraid, with the job (for which you will never have to actually work or be short of food or worry about what you can wear or anything that normal people do), come some responsibilities.

And, if the ‘thought didn’t cross your mind’, then you’re quite stupid.

Lost respect, now, I have.

p.s. not that the pics were any good anyway.