Archive | Outrage RSS feed for this section

The Big Reveal: Why Super-Injunctions Are Pointless

9 May

Here’s the thing about super-injunctions. They’re neither super, in nor at a junction. They make a mockery of freedom of the press and they are proven (scientifically) to be the worst way to keep a secret.

I certainly do not agree with many of the current tactics used by the press, and I find much of the gossip mongering that exists in the world quite distasteful (though, like with caviar, I will admit to engaging in it at times). However, it is much more appropriate to clarify the laws on phone hacking and punish those who have broken the law. I don’t know that we’ll ever be able to change the public’s thirst for gossip, but rich people paying a lot of money to keep their secrets is certainly not going to slow down the desire to know about others’ private lives. In fact, it’s only going to do the opposite.

People love juicy information. If you pay lots of money to keep a secret, ipso facto (look it up), that secret must be pretty damn juicy. That logic isn’t hard to follow.  So in many ways, super-injunctions just make people want to know your secret even more. Plus, once they find it out, they can judge you, not only for the secret itself (and why shouldn’t they, for clearly you are condemning your own behaviour by hiding it), but for the act of gagging the press.

And the thing is: they will find out. A super-injunction may delay it, but, let me assure you, all will be revealed. Adolf Hitler had a hell of a lot of power in his time, but did that stop us from finding out that he was 1. uni-testicular and 2. an occasional partaker in a vegetarian diet? No, that power did not keep his secrets for him.  It might be your own guilt that makes you confess. Maybe an Arabic translator will stumble across the sensational detail next to your name, while going through Osama’s papers. It might even be a careless remark made by your three-year-old child about that time he caught “Daddy doing something unseemly.” The point is: the world’s going to find out eventually.

Therefore, in the interest of encouraging other celebrities to take responsibility for their own behaviour and stop relying on their money to hide it away, I shall confess all my “dirty deeds.” I’m not proud of them (well, not all of them), but I am proud that I have neither abused the legal system to hide them nor consulted Max Clifford to deal with them.

1. Yes, I did sleep with Fidel Castro, but it meant nothing to me nor to the Cuban Missile Crisis.

2. I once paid a prostitute to the leave the area as I was expecting a foreign dignitary for tea and wanted to give the impression that my locale was whore-free.

3. Only 5% of the dancing was mine.

4. I spent some of D.B. Cooper’s money.

5. It was I who let the dogs out.

Tags: , , , ,

The Castle Howard Incident

18 Apr

Let me encourage you to visit Castle Howard in York. The House and the gardens are simply breathtaking. A day there is bound to remind everyone of the glory of humanity and of nature. I have no doubt that it was not the where, but the who and why which caused the incident.

Christopher and I spent a few hours there to top off our travels through Yorkshire. It’s easy to get lost in reverie within the rooms of the house.  They really knew how to use wallpaper in those days. I am envious of those who lived during a time when “the look” required using as many different patterns in decor as possible.

We wandered the natural sensuality of the Woodland Garden and the precision of the Walled Garden, and I’m sure in most circumstances, the people who pass through them cannot help but absorb the serenity and peace of the environment.

Please do not let the unfortunate incident involving a certain young man and his lackadaisical attitude to the gravity of keeping a promise stop you from enjoying what is otherwise a truly magical place.

Tags: , , , ,

Let America Be America Again

8 Apr

These words start a poem published by Langston Hughes in 1938. As I write this post, we are hours away from a possible shutdown of the American government, because politicians cannot decide on a budget.

The budget fight is premised on the deficit that the country has. Now ideally, no one should ever have a budget deficit: not a government and not an individual. It’s really a matter of being fiscally responsible, a lesson that most of us should have learned when we were four-years-old and asked our parents for a pony. In a perfect world, no one would spend money they do not have. Take me, for example—as you know I’m not short of a bob or two, but I still stick to a budget. If it’s a Friday night and I’ve only got £1000 left of my weekly budget, I’ll have to limit my spending: say, if I’m tempted to wage a war in Afghanistan or fund a religious maniac’s diploma mill to the tune of $445 million, I won’t, I’ll just say no. It’s not always fun to say no, but sometimes it’s the only responsible thing to do.

But okay, the US government’s got a deficit, so what’s the best way to get out of it? Clearly, you’ve only got three options when you’re out of cash: bring more in, take less out, or a combination of the two. As any bisexual will tell you, a bit of both is always best.

One obvious way to increase the money a government brings in is to raise taxes. Duh. Now no one wants to pay taxes, we all know that, so anyone who feels compelled to make the point that taxes aren’t fun should just zip it right now. There’s lots of things in life we don’t want to do, but sometimes have to do. If a fun solution had been an option, we wouldn’t have gotten to this crisis point. We’ve got to find the least not-fun solution available.

So we’re in the middle of a financial crisis, we’re all struggling, and now I’m suggesting raising taxes?  Before I go any further, just think about this for a minute.

Are

we

all

really

struggling?

Because you know what? A lot of us, we’re not struggling; we just have less money than we used to have. That isn’t the same thing as struggling (especially if part of the reason why we have less is because we neglected to follow a budget, as outlined in paragraph 2.)

So bumping up taxes (particularly on the rich) is an option. Or is it? No, because Obama extended the Bush tax cuts, a measure that costs more than his stimulus package Republicans are always banging on about, even though evidence shows the cuts neither hurt small business nor help grow the economy.

As the government’s given up on bringing in more, by default, they’re choosing to spend less. The government spends a lot of money on a lot of stuff. Big stuff, little stuff, good stuff, bad stuff, useful stuff, useless stuff. The argument now is what to spend less on?

I am not going to propose what should and shouldn’t be cut here. I could go on about my personal opinions and interests and the way they reflect my own upbringing, background, morals. But I won’t. And here’s why.

Because the truth is most Americans know the difference between right and wrong.

Leviticus 23:22 When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God.

The Prophet Muhammad: He who sleeps on a full stomach whilst his neighbour goes hungry is not one of us.

The Upanishads: Like in a well the more you fetch, more water oozes . . the more you give the more you get. This generosity is mandatory to every individual.  Hurry to promise or pledge to help. It is one thing—glorious and divine—to strive for getting an occasion for that.

The Buddha: Thousands of candles can be lit from a single candle, and the life of the candle will not be shortened. Happiness never decreases by being shared.

Guru Granth Sahib: The poor and the rich are both brothers. This is Lord’s immutable design.

The Talmud: Whoever destroys a single life is as guilty as though he had destroyed the entire world; and whoever rescues a single life earns as much merit as though he had rescued the entire world.

My Grandmother Boots (one for the atheists): If you turn your back on the needy, you are a real shit.

All Americans should realise that however this crisis ends, the final budget will have effects across the globe. When people around the world look at what America does, they don’t look at it as Republican choices or Democrat actions.

What do we want the world to think is important to Americans?

Tags: , , , , , , ,

A Sense of Pride, Yes, But £200k?

25 Feb

A new report claims that the total cost of raising a child is now £210,848. Below is a breakdown of the costs.

I apologise in advance for their inconsistent use of ampersands.

Some of these figures are a little startling and indicate a real problem with priorities. Parents are spending over thirty thousand quid to keep their kids entertained (with holiday, hobbies, toys, leisure and recreation) yet just barely a thousand for personal care? I also wonder what on earth the children are buying with their £4543 in pocket money if their parents are already providing them with food, shelter, clothing, furniture, vacations, entertainment and even a car. I can’t imagine what that leaves left except for fags and no child should be smoking over 4000 quids’ worth of fags, even I will admit to that. Most upsetting of all, though, is the fact that parents spend £67,430 for childcare and babysitting. You could buy over 23 acres of land in North Yorkshire for less than that. Instead, parents choose to have children and then shell out the cash for someone to take them off their hands.

To pour salt on the wound, the “news” article I read about this report claims that parents can save money in the following ways: by taking advantage of bargains on entertainment; by buying “used” toys; and by cutting their own cost of living through shopping around for cheaper rates on insurance, credit cards, mortgages, etc. If I were a parent (which  I am not), I would be more than a little offended by these so-called suggestions. Firstly, on principle, I take umbrage with anything connected to the word bargain. Secondly, facts are facts: kids chew on things. When a toy is described as “used,” what they mean is “has already been chewed on.” In my mind, purchasing a pre-chewed-on toy for another child to chew on is tantamount to abuse. And finally, faced with the knowledge that I as a parent (again, I’m not) am expected to disburse over £200,000 of my hard-earned money for this little kiddie, if someone suggested that I alter my own cost of living by wasting hours upon hours on the internet trying to save 3 quid a month on my car insurance, well, I hope said advice-giver is wearing a bulletproof vest, because I’d have a gun and one of us is going to die.

I believe that children are our future. We should treat them well and what not. However, there’s already over two billion of them on the planet; I’m not sure we really need any new ones. Doesn’t it seem like a wiser investment to buy that land up North, make a donation to UNICEF and have a few bob left over to get yourself something nice on a rainy day?

Tags: , , ,

Students—You Gotta Love And/Or Hate ‘Em

14 Nov

I always find myself in a bit of a sticky situation when discussing students and their financial woes, because I grew up in America, where they do everything bigger, including their student debt. This year there are more than 100 higher ed institutions in the US charging over $50,000 a year for tuition, fees and room and board (for those of you who failed your maths O-levels, that’s about £31,000). Fees vary, obviously, and also increase for out-of-state students. This total does not even factor in the required books and other supplies, VD treatment, bail money or legal fees for when students take professors to court for not giving them the grades they wanted. We’re talking big bucks here, people. Although financial aid and loans are available, the price is so high that a deal with the devil is often the only option. This explains why most US university students are soulless twats.

But English higher education has never been run in this way, so far be it from me to make a comment—as you know, I never speak on things on which I am not an expert on.

However, the protest raised one issue that affects all of us, and that is the issue of hypocrisy. Let’s take a hypothetical situation. Let’s say you have a country where three major political parties win most of the elections. Let’s say the third party, while admittedly holding far fewer seats than the other two, represents the possibility of change to much of the electorate: a belief that just maybe we could have a party in power whose policies were, I don’t know, let’s say, more “liberal” than the status quo of the two other parties, who seem to grow more and more like each other each year. Then through some odd twist of fate, the leader of that third party (just to keep the story simple I’ll give this character the name “Nick”), through some bizarre aligning of the stars, a global financial disaster and the scary smile of the incumbent, Nick somehow actually becomes Deputy Prime Minister. Hurrah! say the electorate, we are going to finally have a little bit of influence on the way things are run. This man, this Nick, he made promises—maybe even signed pledges—that if he were ever in power, he’d do right by us.

Then he didn’t.

Maybe we’d believe that this hypothetical Nick wanted to stop certain policies but just got outvoted. Maybe he would say, I have not abandoned my principles—I just don’t have enough power to overrule.

But imagine he didn’t say that. Imagine instead that he said, on reflection, he wasn’t being careful when he made the pledge, that now he knows he should have been promising the exact opposite of what he pledged. In fact, now that the older boys in the blue ties have explained everything to him, he actually reckons their ideas are more progressive than his party’s.

Now in my little story, I imagine quite a few of us would feel pretty cross at our Nick. Maybe cross enough even to, hypothetically of course, bust out a few windows and throw a few things around. It wouldn’t fix things and would probably lead to our arrests, but the anger itself would not be an inappropriate response.

Tens of thousands of students showing up at Millbank Tower Wednesday has had two important and hopefully long-lasting effects: 1. it proved that the younger generation is not apathetic and will speak up against hypocrisy and 2. because so many students were otherwise occupied, downloads of that lady’s gaga music dipped drastically. Both of these can only be good things.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Breaking News: Reports of My Arrest Have Been Greatly Exaggerated

31 Oct

As one of the key messages of Saturday’s Rally to Restore Sanity was about the press’s fear mongering, I thought I would clarify any mis-reporting that is happening in the UK regarding my arrest at the border. I was not charged with sex trafficking; the police just had a few questions about the nature of my relationship with Christopher and once I was given the chance to provide answers, I was allowed to continue my trip without incident. While I appreciate the immediate establishment of the “Free Agatha” fan page on Facebook, it is no longer necessary (though Alice Wintergarden is staying at my home and able to sign for any gift packages or flower bouquets if you still feel compelled to show some type of support).

 

Additionally, if you happened to catch me when I showed up on the Jumbotron, can I please clarify that it was a banana that I was eating. My high level of decorum and the fact that the police were “keeping an eye on me” mean that this is the only reasonable explanation for my rather unflattering pose.

I shall post more on my experience of the Rally shortly, as soon as I have regained feeling in my wrists (police handcuffs unfortunately are not covered in pink fur like normal restraints and are therefore nowhere near as comfortable).

Tags: , , , , , ,

Rich Virtuosi Do Not Have My Permission to Be Uptight

9 Oct

I am extremely disappointed with both Paul McCartney and Johnny Marr, two men whom previously I had held in rather high esteem. They really both let down the ol’ Genius Team (of which I am Activities Co-ordinator).  Apparently, they’ve both put the kibosh on a young and upcoming comedian’s album. First they refuse to donate items to the jumble sale we held to raise money for team uniforms and now they appear to have lost their sense of humour. What next, clever ones, are you going to start kicking puppies?

Harry Hill, a charming big-collared gentleman, was hoping to entitle his recording Sgt Pepper’s Volume 2. He was also going to redo the Peter Blake photo, replacing the human images with knitted creatures. But Paul McCartney and Apple said, “No way, José.” Why? Were they worried that people would really confuse the comedian’s work with the work of the Beatles (a combo often associated with said musician and label)? I’m pretty sure people will be able to tell the difference. Is it because Harry Hill is just a little bit silly? The Simpsons are pretty silly, but I don’t think their take on Sgt Pepper’s did you any damage. Why be so mean to Harry Hill? He’s a doctor, you know.

You are Paul McCartney. No one’s going to forget about your brilliance. They haven’t forgotten about “Ebony and Ivory,” have they? They aren’t going to forget about your good work either.

Now Johnny Marr, where’s your snootiness come from? I thought you might have learned something from being picked on by all the bullies of your youth. (I have no evidence this happened, but I’m willing to bet 50p it did.) Harry Hill recorded a medley of Smiths’ songs to include on the album, and Marr’s “people” (you have people, now, Johnny? Seriously, you have changed) have asked him not to. Outrageous! Is it because you were hoping he’d do a medley of Electronic songs? Dream on. What possible offense could you take from Mr Hill’s cover versions?

If there’s one lesson I’ve learned in my life, it’s that when you have a gift, you will inspire others. This is an honour, something we should be grateful for, not be fussy about. Whether it’s a tribute or a parody, if your work has inspired someone else, it means you’ve done something right. You should be ashamed, Mssrs McCartney and Marr. I hope you have a very good think about what you’ve done as you sit there, watching the darts, eating your Ginsters and counting your money.

Tags: , , , , ,

And To Cricket, Those Ten Same Rules Should Apply

29 Aug

Cricket is supposed to be the sport of gentlemen. It’s about playing with honour, trying your best and getting smears on your trousers. It’s about dignity. For goodness sake, they stop play for tea—surely that’s indication that the game’s got distinction?

The no ball scandal at Lord’s has rocked the cricket world this weekend. In many ways, though, it should come as no surprise. Things have been heading the wrong way ever since they started wearing coloured shirts. Unlike footballers with their garish get ups and super injunctions, a man dressed in cricket whites says, I’ve no reason to hide: I am committed to being a gentlemen both on and off the pitch.

I’d love to be able to blame the fall in moral standards on foreign teams, but we must make sure our own hands are clean before we start pointing fingers. The England team is not innocent of drunken or dodgy behaviour and lack of focus. Even our new heroes, Stuart Broad and Jonathan Trott (who, I’ve just learned, goes by the nickname “Booger”) could show a bit more class at times.

It’s a crucial point in the history of cricket. Fans must deserve more respect for the game from our cricketers. I, for one, will do all I can to stop this cancer, and I hope my readers will follow suit. Christopher and I have just returned from our local cricket ground where we staged a two hour silent protest to make our grievances known.

I wore my new black dress. I looked fetching but also judgmental. I hope I’ve made my point.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

“It Is Always With the Best Intentions that the Worst Work is Done”—Oscar Wilde

30 Jul

God bless him for trying, David Cameron. I do believe he’s got the best intentions, somewhere inside that doughy head of his. But he’s got it so wrong that I almost feel a little bad for him.

Take, for instance, his “Big Society” business. According to the Telegraph:

In his first major speech on the theme of the “Big Society” since winning the election, the Prime Minister will announce the “biggest redistribution of power from elites in Whitehall to the man and woman on the street”.

Mr Cameron – who is keen to present his administration as offering optimistic new policies that are not just about cuts – will say that the “liberation” of volunteers and activists to help their own communities is the vision which drives his premiership.

As part of his drive to roll back the reach of the public sector, the Prime Minister will attack the previous Labour government for turning state employees into “disillusioned, weary puppets” and communities into “dull, soulless clones”.

Me oh my. Someone is not taking advantage of his public school education on the power of language. Big Society? I just don’t see that phrase appealing to the youth who loiter outside the leisure centre. I bet their parents wouldn’t even swallow Big Society if it were the name of a pizza which came with free garlic bread. Just listen to yourself. You’re going to liberate volunteers? Volunteers are already free—that’s the whole point.

He will announce that four areas in diverse parts of the country have been chosen to form a “vanguard” in realising his dream of “people power” in which individuals rather than the state come together voluntarily to solve their problems.

The four – the greater London borough of Sutton and Cheam, the leafy Berkshire council of Windsor and Maidenhead, rural Eden Valley in Penrith, Cumbria, and the metropolitan city of Liverpool – were chosen after they petitioned Downing Street to start their own projects.

They will be the first to be invited to submit applications to the Big Society Bank, a fund which will allocate the proceeds of dormant bank accounts worth hundreds of millions of pounds to help set up volunteer schemes to improve communities.

Combining Big Society with the word bank, well, you’re on to a real winner there to earning the public’s trust. Also, if we’ve learned nothing from the MTV Awards, we’ve learned that the word vanguard certainly doesn’t mean what it used to. And little David, people power? Really? What’s next—women’s libbers, rap sessions and hep cats? Get with the program, Prime Minister!

Communities already unite to take care of each other in many ways. The little kiddies at our church do sponsored silences to raise money for the hospital. Last month quite a large group “came together voluntarily” to vandalise Mr Willingstoke’s Bentley after he suggested Jeremy Clarkson open our village fête. We stand up for our community like that. As individuals, we also do good. Look at the help Christopher gives me out of the goodness of his heart. The old man three houses up has a volunteer nurse who comes by to look after him once a week and she’s even willing to do it in costume. Alice Wintergarden and I both read to the blind and sign to the deaf (not simultaneously); neither of us are “dull, soulless clones” (though admittedly some of those we help may be). We don’t need the government telling us how to take care of each other.

But we do need the government for some things. After all, what is the state for, Mister Cameron, if not to help the people?  Build some playing fields. Make sure there’s disabled access in the shopping precinct. Insist the local library carry all of my books, not just those published in the last ten years. Go back to weekly rubbish bin collection. These are the duties of government. These are the kinds of things the government should be doing, instead of coming up with ways for us to do them for ourselves once the budgets have been slashed.

Governments don’t give power to the people, the people give power to the government. You were elected by the people of this nation, well, you weren’t exactly elected, but the thing is you’re there now so do your job, do it right and quit being a dick.

Tags: , , , , ,

A Quick Note to Those Not Interested in Football

19 Jun

Unlike those who complained about my multiple posts on the election, those of you not particularly interested in football are forgiven. It’s only a game, after all, and we all are allowed our own personal preferences when it comes to what sports we enjoy. If you prefer cricket or baseball, that’s fine. Please pardon the rash of football-related posts, but, to me, World Cup football is magical. Maybe less so for you. You’re not alone.

You may also just find reading the posts too painful to read. That’s okay, too; it’s so very English of you.

If you’re one of those people for whom these posts aggravate your Irritable Bowel Syndrome, I beg your pardon. There’s only a few weeks left (please knock wood now).

However, I do find some of the anti-football rants by Americans upsetting. G Gordon Liddy said he thinks it originated with “South American Indians [who] instead of a ball used the head, the decapitated head, of an enemy” while he was on the phone to Dan Gainor, who said “soccer is a poor man’s or poor woman’s sport” being sold as part of the “browning of America.” And Glenn Beck, ever the clever one: “Barack Obama’s policies are the World Cup—It doesn’t matter how you try to sell it to us, it doesn’t matter how many celebrities you get, it doesn’t matter how many bars open early, it doesn’t matter how many beer commercials they run, we don’t want the World Cup, we don’t like the World Cup, we don’t like soccer, we want nothing to do with it. The rest of the world likes Barack Obama’s policies, we do not.”

Of them, I’m slightly less forgiving.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →