Is the world crazy or am I?

The mystery of the tasteless t-shirts of Barcelona: Solved

2026-05-05T21:34:00.003+01:00

‘I ♥️ big tits’, ‘I ♥️ doggy style', ‘I ♥️ blondes’. These are not necessarily my sincerely held beliefs. However, they are expressions you’ll see written on t-shirts around my local neighbourhood in Barcelona.

I’ve lived in the city for over 12 years, and one of the things you definitely learn quickly about living near the centre is that this is a tourist town, and that comes with some of the tackier elements of all that comes with it. T-shirts proudly saying “I ♥️ milfs", for example.

It’s something you definitely notice, but after a while it blurs a bit into the background of everyday. They seem to be quite common. Not everywhere, but more common than you would like.

The jokey designs are also something that comes up in conversation among other long-term foreign residents. We’ve often scratched our heads about who in their right mind would buy something so brazenly tasteless.

Not only tasteless but useless. Where can you wear an offensive t-shirt like this when you eventually have to leave Barcelona after your holiday ends? There’s practically no place where you could wear the T-shirt without (rightfully) getting some severe backlash.

You almost have to assume it’s another part of the same web of deadly sins: pointlessness, bad taste, profiteering, and wastefulness that comes from the worst excesses of the local tourist trade.

This week is the week, though, where it finally happened. I finally learnt who the people are that are buying these t-shirts. Justifying their proud placement in the shop windows of tourist-targeted stores up and down Avenida Paral·lel, Las Ramblas, and the tourist centre.

Some of the people, it turns out – rather unsurprisingly – are Brits abroad. This is evidenced by a report in the Daily Record slamming a Scottish youth football team photographed in these t-shirts while on a tournament run here in the city.

Really, I wasn’t surprised by the idea that a group of young lads from the UK would be so idiotic. That’s not to handwave it away as “boys will be boys”; rather, I just have been a teenage boy, and I know the depths of the stupidity myself.

The Inbetweeners Movie even poked fun at this over a decade ago, although this wasn’t an off-the-shelf design like in Barcelona, rather something they had made themselves. That would have been understandable on some level. Teenagers are a known quantity, after all.

Unfortunately, it turns out it was one (or more) of the parents accompanying the boys on the trip. As the sages of the internet have already pointed out, everyone is twelve now.

The shifting sands of British voters

2023-05-07T14:15:00.001+01:00

We live in interesting times to quote a very dully repeated cliche. The problem with interesting times is old assumptions go out the window.

The British voter is not a monolith. People vote based on circumstances as much as they vote the way their parents did. Assuming everything will stay the same is a fool's errand.

The local elections are proof if it were ever needed that the Conservative movement has wedged itself between a rock and a hard place and it is at risk of being pulled apart in a Labour Lib Dem and Green feeding frenzy at the next election.

The signs bode badly for Rishi Sunak who after inheriting a wounded, yet still well-placed Conservative party with a good majority in the House of Commons has seen the economic outlook go gloomy. Let’s be clear. We’re a long way away from the Boris bounce and the ‘stonking’ majority election victory of 2019.

The party now finds itself pulled between its past and present with no one looking to the future seemingly. The past being its Brexit drum-banging Boris bonanza of the late 2010s and the present its confused descent into populism and culture wars.

Whilst remaining these machinations wrinkle brows for political strategists in Millbank, it is positively infuriating for the electorate. Whilst the party loves to point at enemies everywhere it does nothing to fix the actual things people need a government to do. The NHS is in sickly health, wages stagnate or slump and things fall apart around us without the necessary care or maintenance needed.

If you have a decent career you can still find yourself squeezed financially whilst basic services fall away around you. This isn’t even managed decline. This is national vandalism and it hasn’t gone unnoticed by the electorate.

The Conservative's biggest danger has always been complacency. The assumption is that everyone is a bit Tory at heart and will eventually become more conservative with age and as they acquire money, a home and a family. They’ve planned for every eventuality except what happens if no one actually gets those things. Hence we are now seeing scores of millennials and Gen Z breaking the old trends as they are not gradually leaning more steadily right as they advance into their 30s and 40s.

To be fair, this resigned belief in the Tories' electoral invincibility is well established by this point. That said, it is wrong and doesn’t appear to recognise people are no longer willing to nod along with the status quo.

The old tastes of UK voters are still broadly there but people are willing to chance on a new direction. Parties seem to have noticed this and are pivoting to hoovering up the disillusioned electorate. It’s not inconceivable to imagine the Lib Dems becoming the defacto party of the metropolitan NIMBYs, whilst the Greens increasingly attract progressive NIMBYs. Labour has everything to gain in urban former industrial areas in England and basically much of Scotland and Wales.

This has been tracking gradually in this direction and the ongoing incumbency of a Tory party that promises much and delivers nothing but scraps, cuts and culture wars on hypothetical threats becomes a drain on everyone’s patience.

Does this mean a Labour election victory is all but assured in the next General Election? Not at all.

There are quite a lot of possibilities that could come up but many of them probably result in a Labour government of some shape. 2019 is likely to be a one-off, not least because elderly Brexit voters have died off and many others are utterly sick to the back teeth of the whole project given the poor spoils gained from the whole mess. There’s also no more Corbyn boogeyman to spook suburban curtain twitchers.

With no eyes on the future and opportunistic inroads appearing for rival parties I am doubtful the Tories have either the vision nor the political coalition to stay in power past 2024. Good riddance.

The Brave and the Bald

2021-01-29T18:37:00.005+00:00

Fans expressed shock when 33-year-old Sebastian Vettel revealed his new “aerodynamic” hairstyle on his first day at Aston Martin. Yet, the history of Formula One features plenty of follically challenged participants.

Male pattern baldness has been with us for millennia and it would appear from his first snaps in his new Aston Martin colours that Sebastian Vettel is the latest victim.

Whilst many will joke that this is a result of his 5 disappointing years at Ferrari or from too many hours wearing a crash helmet, this is a very common thing to see from a man his age. Not only that, but it’s good to see that he’s dealing with it on his own terms, rather than trying to hide it with increasingly fiendish comb-over tricks.

Nevertheless, F1’s newest hair-challenged hero is in good company. Some of the greatest and best-loved drivers in the history of the sport also experienced similar challenges.

Stirling Moss

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_Moss

It’s hard to imagine the late great Stirling Moss with a great mane of hair. That’s because during his most successful years Britain’s own “Mr Motorsport” was easily recognisable by his bald head and piercing stare.

Moss is remembered as a gentleman racer and it’s a title that’s well deserved. He famously vouched for fellow Brit, Mike Hawthorne when his Ferrari was facing disqualification for a perceived rules infraction. This decision would ultimately cost Moss the 1958 world title.

Whilst he would never taste championship glory himself, he would attain a legendary status as perhaps one of the greatest drivers never to win the title. He would also remain a popular figure in the world of motorsport until his death at age 90 in 2020.

John Surtees

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Surtees

Formula One’s only champion on two wheels, as well as four, was also another notable sufferer of male pattern baldness. Similarly to Vettel, he underwent a tense relationship with Ferrari that would also end in acrimony.

In Surtees's case, that partnership would ultimately result in world championship glory. Nevertheless, he ended up walking away from the Scuderia midway through 1966 after falling out with Enzo Ferrari, potentially costing him a second drivers title.

However, he wasn’t done with manufacturer teams entirely. He would later race for Honda before turning his attentions to his own self-branded team in the 1970s. He remained deeply involved with motor racing until his death in 2017.

Denny Hulme

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denny_Hulme

Another former world champion who was also lacking in the hair department. Denny was known as “the bear” as, despite the fact he was missing a few follicles on his scalp, he boasted plenty more on the rest of his body, as well as a gruff figure.

The 1967 champion was a mainstay in the sport from the mid-60s to mid-70 driving for Jack Brabham’s and fellow Kiwi Bruce McLaren’s eponymous teams. He remained a popular figure in ANZAC motorsport until his sudden death in 1992 at Bathurst.

Teo Fabi

Source: https://www.pinterest.es/pin/623326404674562481/

Teo Fabi was a solid midfield driver in the 1980s. Yet to many, he will be remembered as the king of the combover.

At a time when such ‘hair-o-dynamic’ engineering was still common amongst sportspeople (just look at first division football at the time for example), Fabi was perhaps motor racing’s best example.

During his career, at the height of Formula One’s last turbo era, he drove both at the front and back of the grid with Toleman, Brabham and later Benetton, with his best results being 3 pole positions and a couple of podium finishes.

Roberto Moreno

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberto_Moreno

The talented Roberto Moreno never quite got his hands on the machinery that let his ability shine. Yet, whilst he was never short of talent he was short on hair coverage, even in his younger days.

Moreno is beloved for his ability to drive anything he could get his hands on. This, unfortunately, meant driving for lamentable outfits such as Forti, Andrea Moda, Coloni and Eurobrun.

It almost all came good when he got the chance of a lifetime to drive for the frontrunning Benetton team in 1990, which he vindicated by scoring a podium place in his first race for the team. Unfortunately, a certain Michael Schumacher would end up poaching his seat after his impressive debut in 1991.

Special Mention: Jacques Villeneuve

Source: https://www.pinterest.es/pin/392094711278499055/

The 1997 world drivers champion was a man who had a way with hair; what little he had of it. Noticeably thinning when he made his debut in 1996, he would seem to be just on the cusp of going bald for much of the last 20 years without actually seeming to do so.

Of course, in the case of Villeneuve the story was always about his hair dye after taking on his memorable platinum blonde look during his championship-winning year. Sadly, his career (and perhaps his hairstyle) peaked from that moment and after what turned out to be a sensible-on-paper but disastrous-in-practice move to BAR, his time in F1 was marked by a slow and steady decline over the next 10 years.

It’s clear from the drivers featured in this article that no hair doesn’t necessarily mean no talent. Of course, no matter what coif they sport, the drivers that make the cut in Formula One always have more than just luscious locks to make their mark on the competition. Unless you’re Lewis Hamilton of course.

Why Brexit Will Reunite Britain (Really!)

2021-01-24T18:53:00.001+00:00

Photo by Rocco Dipoppa on Unsplash

The name of this article seems a little illogical coming from someone who is and always has been pro-remain and anti-Brexit. Yet I increasingly believe the issue that I’ve seen as a negative force will actually unite my country again (in a way).

To be clear, I am sure of the fact Brexit will be incredibly damaging. There’s little to mitigate against that now. It’s a reality.

There’s no more posturing on what Brexit could potentially mean. It is what it always was, a huge shock to our system. In some ways, this is welcome as it shakes us awake from complacency but also forces us to sober up and truly see our place in the world without all the pomp and bluster.

Brexit is no longer hypothetical, it’s real!

We’re outside the EU, the Single Market, Customs Union, and we have a thin deal which prevents the very worst outcome from this whole exercise. Everything Brexiteers wanted has been placated along the way and yet, “the sunlit uplands” (which have long been a cliché by this point) don’t seem very obvious.

The country could potentially break apart due to Brexit. Scotland and Northern Ireland are quite clearly eyeing the way out of the Union and one would imagine that Wales would think seriously about doing the same. It could bring about the end of the United Kingdom and I’m not catastrophising when I say that.

A lot rests on the politics of the country and that is easily our biggest weakness. There is talk about “reuniting” and “healing” but it is barked at us by who want to achieve reconciliation without the work being put in to understand why Brexit was so divisive in the first place.

Is there actually a cause for optimism?

Now, of course, this all seems pretty negative and hopeless. However, I still believe there is cause for optimism from all this.

Brexit, in its way, can be a unifying force. However, the irony is it will only create eventual unity by successfully uniting more and more people against it. A lot of the population who were indifferent or vaguely pro the idea as a concept are not necessarily going to stay that way for long.

Sadly, it has taken the painful realisation to perhaps start the country on its road to recovery. But, like an alcoholic, it had to reach rock bottom first before it would consider seeking help.

We might not even be at rock bottom yet. Things are still coming to light about what this all means for the average person (or fisherman) going forward.

The important difference is that functionally we can’t really blame the EU for our situation. They don’t tell us what to do in our own country and we’ve voluntarily waived any right to tell them how things should be run in their own market. Maybe for once, we’ll turn our attention to the cause of our actual problem, which is (and always has been) our own government’s policy on one hand and our local mediascape on the other.

In other words, Brexit and the causes of Brexit are something that will unite us against themselves eventually.

What comes next?

In the short to medium term, depending on how well the initial problems are resolved, it’s going to be a painful time for many people. This will all depend on how well the government attends to the crisis with practical solutions.

I’m not that optimistic that they’ll do that in time (given recent form) and considering it seems obsessed with solving problems with politics I fear a lot of damage will be done that will be hard to undo.

This of course begs the question, how to undo it? I think one thing that’s clear is that a form of continued alignment with Europe might be the only realistic solution. Whether as a member of EFTA, the Single Market or the Customs Union, or a mix of all three. That said, I think we’re a long way off a formal reentry bid back into the EU itself.

The sooner that better alignment with the EU happens the more likely businesses will be able to cope better. That said, given the inability of the government to stare facts in the face, we’ll probably see more pointless posturing that will harm our international standing.

Johnson and his cabinet will do what they’ve always liked to do which is to play well to their own audience by talking down foreigners. This is in spite of whether this approach slows down the process of creating a positive new international identity for Britain. After all, no one in the world is interested in a global partner that will always be somewhere between begging you for concessions and fickle antagonism.

The dawning of the reality of the situation will slowly but surely push the British identity to one of concession or cooperation with Europe no matter how long Britain stomps around being angry that the international world order of the 19th Century doesn’t exist anymore. It’s our responsibility now to come to terms with that and our place in the world.

This will mean understanding what we are good at and what we are bad at and playing to the strengths whilst mitigating the weaknesses. This will also mean holding those who are responsible for the damage caused by Brexit to account.

The United States is probably going to be an interesting litmus test for whether this works. The dismantling of the cult around Trump will be an interesting case study in how nations can (if possible) reset and establish a new national norm following such division.

However, there has to be actual punishment for those who either lied or simply didn’t understand the realities of Brexit. It’s criminally negligent to have led the country to this point.

Letting people get away with this kind of ideological manipulation cannot be allowed to stand. If you don’t stop it now it could easily happen again but with even worse results.

We have the chance to grow from this difficult time. It won’t be easy but it requires bravery in the face of the true reality and an adult approach to tricky issues. Am I confident this will happen? Simply put, yes, but it will take time.

How to avoid joining a neighbourhood Whatsapp group in the age of lockdown

2020-04-11T12:46:00.006+01:00

Photo by Rachit Tank on Unsplash

Living in these strange times of isolation has given further rise to one of the most eccentric facets of domestic life: the neighbourhood Whatsapp group.

For some, this is an essential lifeline to social bonding and local happenings. However, for others, it’s a persistent annoyance. Considering, that with technology we’ve never been so apart and yet so together at the same time it’s normally one or the other without much room in the middle.

If you’re very much in the latter camp and want to stay out the drama, bad joke and gossip tornado that is a Whatapps group between local residents, don’t panic. For fun, I’ve hypothesised a few solutions to help you avoid a phone breaking deluge of bad viral comedy and residential rivalries.

Approach 1: Avoid your neighbours

The first option is also perhaps one of the easiest in the current situation. You’ve got the perfect excuse in social distancing not to speak or go near any of your neighbours for the next few months.
Of course, saying hello to members of your community might seem fine (and in most cases it is) but do your best to avoid anything more than a quick exchange of pleasantries.

However, someone could still eventually ask you to join the group, or worse, a paper invite might find itself popped through the letterbox giving you little room to hide.

To be extra sure you avoid that mess, instead build a reputation as that weird bloke or lady that never speaks to anyone. Embrace it and run with it and you will avoid being roped into a neighbourhood sing-along or any other eccentric group activity that they try to make everyone do.

A little quirkiness of your own may ironically help you avoid falling into the social media black hole your neighbours have created.

Approach 2: Use a burner sim

Sometimes it’s not possible to avoid being shanghaied into a group. Perhaps someone managed to catch you unguarded and talked you into joining or maybe you had no excuses to hand and agreed out of politeness. Nevertheless, now you’re in there’s no way to get out. Or is there?

As best shown by TV shows like The Wire or Breaking Bad, one of the most convenient ways to be untraceable is to have a collection of cheap phones and sim cards that can be disposed of if compromised.

If you’ve had to give your Whatsapp number to an eager neighbourhood social media coordinator, it might be better under the circumstances to cut your losses and bin the sim.

Before doing so, make sure you have a spare handy or one on order so you don’t lose all communication with people you do one to talk to. Once, the replacement is ready, all you’ll need to do then is dispose of the old one.

How you do this is up to you but don’t be afraid to be creative with one of the following methods:

Clandestinely burying it in the back garden
Smashing it with a hammer
Putting it in a blender or food processor
Melting it in the oven (avoid microwaves if you don’t want to blow up the kitchen)
Cutting it into tiny pieces with scissors
Attaching it to a firework and letting the thing off during the Thursday evening NHS clap-along

Remember, once your old sim has been safely destroyed, to let the people you want to keep in touch with know that you have a new number and WhatsApp profile. From there, a brave new world of freedom awaits you and your neighbours will be none the wiser about you passively missing their wacky, pun-filled quote card jokes.

Approach 3: Plan to move house once this is all over

Let’s be honest, there might be no going back to normal once this is all over, at least in terms of being friendly with our fellow local residents is concerned. Instead, use your lockdown time wisely to find a quieter more isolated place to live.

Once things return to somewhat normality, get your plans into action and then quietly leave the Whatsapp group you’ve been roped into. From there simply enjoy your new life and never look back to the dark times of before.

Do: Try to be polite

The difficulty with a neighbourhood Whatsapp group is that non-compliance or perhaps too much activity can instantly turn you into a social pariah. This isn’t what anyone should strive to do.

Always, politely decline if you’re invited and have a good excuse ready. This could be along the lines of:

“Sorry I need my phone available for work”
“What’s Whatsapp? I don’t use that”
“I’m going mobile-free for a few months”
“I’m already in the group” or “I already gave my details to [neighbour]”
“GROUP! YOU DIDN’T INVITE ME BEFORE? WELL, IT’S A BIT LATE TELLING ME ABOUT THAT NOW! GOOD DAY!”
“I’m already in the super-secret group that no-one’s allowed to talk about… I’ve said too much. Got to go.”
“Following advice from Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, I only use Signal because I’m afraid that the US authorities are keeping track of my online shopping orders.”
“Mark Zuckerberg banned me from all Facebook products including WhatsApp.”
“You fool, don’t you realise that’s what the 5G elites want you to do! Wake up sheeple!”

Don’t: Give in to peer pressure

Whatever you do, try to resist actually being added. Remember, once you’re in you can never leave. After you've signed up you’re highly likely to be treated to a barrage of memes from 10 years ago or weird share-bait from bizarre groups like Memory Lane UK which will clog up your phone memory for the rest of time.

I’ll give you my milkshake when you pry it out of my cold dead hands

2019-05-19T21:01:00.000+01:00

I’m pretty sure editors and sub-editors everywhere rubbed their hands in glee at the news that a McDonald's in Edinburgh close to a location where Nigel Farage was giving a speech had effectively banned milkshakes. There’s no doubt, it’s a story that gets people’s attention and eyeballs on newspapers. And the social shares, just imagine the social shares.

Naturally, as with anything nowadays, the discussion on the “weaponised Milkshake ban” polarised straight away into two camps and was seized for political purposes. The far-right's was for me the most interesting with its screeching about political violence. Let me explain a little about why that caught my attention.

Why do those people I keep trying to destroy keep doing mean things to me?

The right’s reaction has interested me as it smacks of phoney martyrdom. One commentator calling it political violence was one of the alt-right's loudest contrarians Paul Joseph Watson, who made this statement whilst blaming the left for hypocrisy when Burger King announced (in a moment of inspired brand opportunism) they would be still selling milkshakes in Scotland.

Whilst throwing a milkshake at someone you’re politically opposed to could just fall within the loosest form of that definition and while I agree that it’s not good form for political debate, this is a ridiculous position to take. If we work under that premise then coughing loudly during someone’s speech is political violence.

The far-right doesn't really come out of that kind of debate unscathed either. It was only this month that Carl Benjamin (a notable milkshake victim) publically implied he would rape Labour MP, Jess Phillips. Is this not political violence too?

I have a feeling the far-right crowd is being selective with their evidence of "political violence". I, of course, invite you to wonder if equating milkshake throwing and threats of actual violence and rape is false equivalency? That and the fact that the assassination of Labour MP Jo Cox and a foiled plot to assassinate another were both perpetuated by followers of the far-right, makes you wonder.

This behaviour is almost certainly not by accident and seems to fall into common far-right political smear tropes. A common tactic of this political tribe is to accuse the enemy of something they (the far-right) themselves are guilty (paraphrased from Josef Goebbels in 1943). It can be a good distraction tool and a form of discrediting your enemies and it used often today if you look carefully. The whole milkshake fiasco also fits in very nicely with what Umberto Eco lists in his influential UR Fascism essay about the far-right’s obsession with plots and a need for constant struggle. In this case, however, that struggle is against not being covered in milkshake.

Therefore it can be argued that screaming “political violence” and “oppression” at the threat of milkshakes in the face is a way to keep the broader population on their side, whilst sidestepping the reasons for the milkshake throwing being necessary. Which is principally motivated by their politics and the often oppressive or racist things they advocate for.

Milkshakes = bad freedom but guns = good freedom

Another comparison I got thinking about in all this was about weapons and access to them in general. The discussion about banning “tools for violence” that came into play with the temporary outlawing of milkshakes, reminded me of the angry debate around US gun laws.

This is also somehow apt as the probable Edinburgh milkshake victim Nigel Farage is in favour of relaxing the UK’s notoriously strict gun control laws (which were introduced after a horrific school shooting in 1996). This despite the fact the UK isn't a country that's screaming for liberalized gun laws like in the US.

We hear an awful lot from the far-right about freedom, be it freedom of speech, freedom of expression and in some cases freedom to bear arms. Of course, this is more prevalent within the American right. However, I’ve never seen such a push to outlaw a “weapon” from these people who decry the end of freedom if responsible gun laws are touted in the US. The sudden clamouring for the banning or removing from sale of a beverage seems uncharacteristic from a group that seems unable or unwilling to have a sensible debate about gun ownership.

After all, this is a political tribe that recently bemoaned the Green New Deal will “take away your hamburgers” (according to overstuffed Beanie Baby in a suit Sebastian Gorka). However, when it comes to other popular fast food items being thrown at one of their own they suddenly become very protective and start trying to ban things and criminalise behaviour. Although, is implying that Mexicans are rapists and Muslims are terrorists etc (i.e. things that can lead to real persecution and violence) ok if you're just "telling it like it is" and it's "free speech"? Does that free you from any responsibility, be it criminal or social?

Indeed, what about those good old freedom-loving folk in Edinburgh who just want to a tasty milkshake on a Saturday afternoon. Who will stand up for them? We can also only imagine the reaction if it were hamburgers the people were throwing at the far-right...

Of course, banning guns and the milkshake situation in Edinburgh is not a perfect comparison. Naturally, the move to ban guns is more universal than a local ban on milkshakes during a political speech. However, it’s always interesting to see the loudest people on the far-right using the same arguments that many on the opposing side use against them at the slightest infraction.

Just for clarification, I’ve never thrown a milkshake at someone. Hopefully, I never have to. I don’t encourage milkshake throwing as everyday behaviour. However as a form of protest against a political movement that is trying to trivialise persecution of ethnic groups then have at it.

Now I don’t know why but I really want to drink a milkshake right now for some reason. Perhaps that was McDonald's plan all along...

via GIPHY

5 things to know about Dry January and why it's the best and worst thing ever

2019-01-28T20:37:00.003+00:00

Dry January is something people do at this time of year. It primarily exists as a reaction to the heavy drinking of Christmas and New Year and the fact that lots of people like to try and start the new year with a healthier perspective in mind. Whilst some people join a gym or start crazily prohibitive diet plans to lose weight, some people just stop drinking; for a bit. This year I was one of them.

Statistically speaking most New Year's resolutions fail between February and March. No matter whether it's in the UK or the USA we mostly just run out of willpower in about 3 months. With that in mind 30 days is an achievable goal almost anyone can manage. I felt up to the challenge of this.

However, 30 days without alcohol doesn't seem like much but it is a surprisingly long stint when living it. I don't consider myself an alcoholic by any means. I don't tend to drink by myself at home or holiday and it's normally confined to social occasions at weekends (with a couple of exceptions). Whilst I don't normally miss alcohol if I don't drink it in my day-to-day life you do notice a difference living 30 days without it.

These are the observations I've found from not drinking for 31 days (at time of writing 28 but I think I've got this!).

1. It's actually quite refreshing not drinking for a bit

Socialising without alcohol at first almost felt like a test to myself. Having leaned very heavily on it over the years to overcome social anxiety it was actually quite a relief that I was able to interact fairly normally without it. I feel like I won't have to use alcohol as much of a social crutch going forward, which is probably the biggest positive of the whole exercise.

2. The choice of non-alcoholic alternatives at bars is atrocious

Most places have one choice of alcohol-free beer and that's it. It's either that or you're on soft drinks or fizzy water for the most part. I don't know if this is down to a lack of choice from them or a severe lack of imagination from me but choosing drinks under those circumstances always felt challenging during my 30 day stint. Also, the fact there's no non-alcoholic variant of wine is terrible.

3. Nights out aren't so costly

Just to clarify, Dry January isn't necessarily cheaper in financial terms. With bars having a weirdly vindictive streak to make any non-drinking punitive any alcohol-free options are as expensive or even more expensive than their usual counterparts. This includes alcohol free beer! It's almost like alcohol is a drug they want you to get addicted to, isn't it?

However, where you notice the positive effects is in terms of time you gain from not recovering from hangovers. Waking up at the weekend feeling fresh is definitely a bonus of the experience. Also not wasting cash on impulsive fast food probably saved me a lot too.

4. People's attitudes to not drinking is somehow worse than it is towards excessive drinking

I was interested to see (whether humorous or not) how much offence people seem to take when someone in their midst stops drinking. Reactions ranged from horrified curiosity to actual disdain and suspicion at the idea. I'm pleased to say no one seriously attempted to pressure me into drinking during the time, however it was curious to see someone react so negatively to something that wasn't obliging them to do anything, as if it provided an existential threat.

Where this seems particularly strange is this is in stark contrast to a quite passive reaction to problematic drinking. It happens more than we'd really like to admit and often goes completely unchallenged.

5. Alcohol free drinks are quite good (when you can find them)

First things first, some (but not all) non-alcoholic beers are fine and are just as good to drink on a night out, even if it is a bit like pretending to be grown up to fit in. However, the real revelations have been the more inventive drinks.

We've all probably seen, or maybe, tried the odd mocktail before and when they're good they can be very good, albeit a little costly. However, for me, the best find was Micheladas. This is a Mexican beer cocktail which is a bit like a Bloody Mary but with more of a spicy kick. I found this was the best way to enhance alcohol-free beer.

While I've not been gasping for a beer or wine since stopping my drinking, I am quite looking forward to going back to my normal habits on February 1st. Overall I think Dry January is a worthwhile thing to try at least once. It gives your body a rest from the constant filtering of the chemical from your bloodstream and allows you to reevaluate your relationship with drinking, even just a little.

Remembrance and Respect

2018-11-04T19:51:00.000+00:00

Preface:

I wanted to write about this subject as I felt particularly moved by the memory of of the Great War as we reach 100 years since its end. It’s not a subject I think about much. Maybe because it’s easier not to think about the horrors of this war. However, when I thought about it recently and considered how little we really remember of how bad it truly was I felt compelled to write something. I always remember feeling particularly humbled by the trenches and war graves in Flanders and from what I studied at school and wanted to try and put that into words.

The annual poppy pile-on

It’s poppy season, that strange time of year where people manufacture crises over people not wearing poppies disrespecting poppies or claiming Muslims want to ban poppies.

I’ve had a strange relationship with the remembrance poppies myself, as they’ve seemed hijacked by nationalists of late. This has always seemed an unfair reflection on these somewhat benign symbols of memory. Although much of my unease has come from a loud “moral majority” that seemed more obsessed with policing poppy conformity than by promoting the sobering remembrance they stand for. In a free country where we often claim cultural capital by the fact we fought for freedom that would appear a bit oxymoronic. Perhaps this feeling that’s more to do with my awkward relationship with British society than it is with the poppy itself. It’s worth noting however, that the poppy is not intended as a symbol of militaristic support, something the Royal British Legion who runs the appeals emphasise themselves on their own website.

That said, I got to thinking recently about how the war was and how it ended. I learned much about this at school. However, for once this year I actually feel motivated to remember and also encourage people to remember. I feel the poppy serves a very positive and very important thing in society, remembrance itself.

Fading memories

I grew up in a time when there were still a lot of battle survivors of the First World War to talk to and as they’ve died and as the Great war begins to pass out of living memory I’m actually prompted to reflect on things this year as we reach the centenary of the Armistice and Treaty of Versailles. In short its never been more important to remember what happened in the trenches. Even if you’re a pacifist.
It’s easy to forget just how many men died in WW1. What it did to families and communities not just in Britain but across Europe. I had the benefit of some really good history teachers at school who researched local history to show just how many people (including students from my school) died in the trenches.

However, while local history is important we mustn’t only dwell on how it affected those people closest to us. Let’s not forget how the war was a disaster for people as far away as Turkey and for people such as the Austrians, Italians and even the Germans too. Just because many of those people were the enemy doesn’t mean they didn’t experience the horrors of war as we did. We were just lucky to have the dubious honor of getting the accolade of winning. Although, it’s questionable if anyone REALLY won WW1.

Wrestling with the past

More than that military life was not just brutal in terms of the death, mud and destruction. It was also a conflict typified by idiotic higher ups on both sides and actual a catch 22 of death in the trenches vs death by court martial and firing squad. I always remember one of the films we watched that was set during World War One. The Stanley Kubrick film Paths of Glory. Among the many injustices the film portrays is the court marshal and execution of three innocent French soldiers for Cowardice by the French general staff. The most ridiculous part being one of the three being grievously injured and unconscious on his day of execution and being tied to the stake whilst still on a stretcher. During the whole film attempts at moral decision making is always quashed by blame deflections and promotion ambitions of those in command and this has always resonated with me (I of course accept that the film is a work of fiction but the war was full of silly moments like this).

However, there are still people who attempt to aggrandise what happened in the war. One of the things that always bothers me about people - politicians especially - who want to try and reframe the history of the Great War of 1914 to 1918 as something more glorious than the disgusting waste of life that took place. People like Michael Gove especially try to re-invigorate ideas of patriotism and the glory of Empire (is it any wonder he was a leading campaigner for Brexit) . I always find this laughable as the idea of Michael Gove serving in a military campaign as anything other than a desk clerk seems unlikely. These sorts of people are very eager for a glorious war in the name of Britain if they aren’t the ones doing the fighting funnily enough.

I still think Blackadder was one of the best portrayals of WW1. Finding some humour in the ugly conditions of trench warfare at the time and attacking the waste of earnest young men. Men who in many cases wanted to serve their country willingly that had their loyalties betrayed by a group of upper class know-nothings who only worried about matters of status and not the mass slaughter of many thousands of soldiers (this was the case on all sides I might add not just Britain). It was a series that didn’t pull any punches from its anger at the heartless stupidity of those in charge of the military manoeuvres. Lions led by Donkeys, a phrase often used to describe the pure unfeeling incompetence of the military leadership during WW1, still applies to a lot of ways we are led today.

Poppy positivity

This rather nicely brings me back to poppies as perhaps one of the most bittersweet ends to a sitcom ever filmed is the final scene of Blackadder (and if you haven’t seen Blackadder Goes Forth I highly recommend you watch it). As the trenches fade away into a bright red field of poppies with birds chirping. Despite the strange cultural battle that seems to be taking place for the soul of the Poppy Appeal it’s still something I can safely tell people to support. When you get away from the people who want to force you to wear them because of some chip on their shoulder about national pride or whatever, it’s still a worthy cause. We desperately need to remember.

Ultimately Remembrance Day is about remembrance and we shouldn’t forget just what happened 100 years ago, so we never feel tempted to repeat those mistakes ever again. Wear your poppy with pride whether you prefer the white or the red, or don’t wear anything, but whatever you do never forget.

5 Fictional Countries I Wish Existed

2018-10-03T00:30:00.000+01:00

Countries. There are 195 out there including tiny independent states like Vatican City, Monaco and Lichtenstein. While the 195 we know are (for the most part) rooted in reality, it's sometimes fun to imagine the fantastical possibilities of countries found in fictional stories.

With utopian philosophies and systems of government or futurism as ideas to play around with when creating fictional lands, these are the five which I would love to see in the real world and (perhaps) as part of the UN.

Anvilania

For those of you not in the know, Anvilania was a fictional country which featured in an episode of Animanics. It was a medieval style feudal Kingdom where the society and economy was built completely around anvils. The country itself was also appropriately anvil shaped. Whilst it has a famously droning national anthem, an anvil based country could be a laugh.

Wakanda

If the movie Black Panther has proven anything, it's that an afro-futuristic country is an interesting concept and one many would like to see really happen. Wakanda existing for real would be fascinating and beneficial for the world considering, Killmonger aside, their advances in technology and healthcare. Not to mention, having a superhero king definitely adds to the fun.

Lilliput

Being a giant could be fun. Basically visiting Lilliput would be like visiting the most elaborate miniature village imaginable. There would however be serious ethical concerns if Lilliput really existed, considering if they produced anything of discernible value they would probably be plundered by one or more world powers. Considering one soldier would be enough to defeat the population they would be at a pretty severe disadvantage.

Zamunda

Zamunda was the fictional African kingdom that featured in the movie Coming to America, starring Eddie Murphy. Among the advantages of Zamunda existing are James Earl Jones as the King, which would lend the nation an air of gravitas. Also it could be amusing to see if they could bring McDowell's and the Big Mick into existence with them.

Pala

One of my favourite books is Island by Aldous Huxley and his fictional island kingdom of Pala is a place I wish existed (despite some of the events at the conclusion of the book). The whole society is based around a strange philosophical blend of East and West philosophy, where great effort is spent on living in the moment and subverting the more unpleasant traits of humanity with distractions like exercise. It's hard to know if the philosophies explored in the book could work out in this way but it would be an interesting experiment all the same.

Those are my picks for countries that would be interesting choices to bring into reality but what about you? Do you have any countries you think should be on the list?

A step into the past and a glimpse into the future?

2018-08-19T19:20:00.000+01:00

During my holidays this year I paid a visit to Wroclaw, Poland's 4th largest city (and an underrated gem in terms of Polish city breaks). This was a personal as well as a touristic visit for me as I have some historical ties to the city. It was a trip that really got me thinking about some of the things happening in the world and how the history of this city could provide a little context, and perhaps also, an alarming warning about the direction that Europe and the USA is heading in.

A little about Wroclaw

Wroclaw today is a pleasant city with impressive historical architecture in its centre (especially impressively well maintained as we'll come to see later). It has a vibrant modern feel with a large student population and feels both old and new at the same time.

Wroclaw is a city with a complicated past however. Firstly, it hasn't always been called Wroclaw, despite being founded under this name. This is as the city has been the possession of numerous powers over the years including the Poles, the Czechs, the Austrians, the Prussians (later the Germans of course) and arguably the Soviets (depending on your view of how free the Polish People's Republic of 1945 - 1989 was). Under the rule of the Germanic people of Europe, Wroclaw was known as Breslau, which is going to be important during this discussion.

During the last years as a German possession, Breslau, as it was still called, was a German city very close to the border with Poland (the 1918 - 1939 Western border of Poland). During the time of the Third Reich the city was arguably a stalwart supporter of Nazi politics (despite having been a much more left wing city during the time of the German Empire), with 44% of the city voting for NSDAP in 1932, the third highest proportion in all of Germany.

However, just over a decade later in 1945 Breslau fell to the Red Army in spectacular fashion.

As the Red Army advanced towards Germany in late 1944, Hitler himself declared that city was to become a "Festung" (or Fortress city) which was to be defended without surrender to the last man. The city and the Silesian region, was overseen by one of Hitler's sycophants Karl Hanke, who took the Fuhrer's order quite literally (even after Hitler had bravely committed suicide in Berlin), unfortunately for the residents of the city.

What happened next was a disaster as the German army didn't have the manpower to stop the advance, whilst people attempting to flee before the bombing started were either prevented or shot at by their own defending army. Hanke was adamant there was to be no evacuation despite the hopelessness and pointlessness of the situation, so as not to undermine illusion that all was well in the area. Eventually (and probably too late) he relented and evacuated the city in early 1945 during winter, leading to the deaths of thousands of Germany's own civilians in the freezing cold.

About 80 percent of the city was destroyed in the bombings, with Breslau finally surrendering 4 days AFTER Berlin. What happened next wasn't much better for the people of the city. Those who had escaped the attack and siege, were basically displaced and unable to return to their homes (what may have remained of them) as part of the Potsdam Agreement was that Breslau was to become part of Poland and the German citizens were to be expelled from the region. This effectively wiped out an entire dialect of German from the Silesia region. Many Poles from Eastern Poland which had become part of the Soviet Union in the many border changes mandated by Potsdam agreement arrived and repopulated the city, which was once again known as Wroclaw after centuries of Germanic rule.

Way to go guys! You sure made Germany great again!

My personal connection to the city

All this is important to me as it actually ties into my family history as my grandmother was one of those Germans expelled from the region in 1945.

From what I know about my family from that time, they were farmers living on the outskirts of Breslau. The area around Silesia and Southern Poland is mostly farmland. I think in many ways the rural population of Breslau was traditional in lifestyle, religiously catholic (at least in my family's case) and not particularly interested in education (based on a story I heard from my grandmother that one of her friends boasted that "she had never read a book before"). They were not the most politically engaged people I think it's fair to say.

I don't know many of the in depth details about how they left the area and at what particular point of the evacuation it was but I know it happened in a hurry. I know that one day they were living there and the next, soldiers came and told them to get out. No one in my immediate family died in the fighting there and during the escape (one Great Uncle was in the army and captured by the Soviets and encountered the horrors of their POW camps, no exaggeration when I say horrors). However, their lives were uprooted and I'm pretty sure they encountered hard situations on the road to the newly created West Germany where they eventually settled and still remain in the Hamburg area to this day.

Why what happened then is a fantastic cautionary tale

The story of the fall of Breslau as a microcosm has a little bit of everything. It has victims, it has demagoguery, it has hubris, it has a madman and it acts as a warning to those who don't take their vote seriously.

To a certain extent the people of Breslau voting for the Nazis in 1932 can be compared with the disruptive votes of Brexit and Trump in the UK and USA respectively in 2016. There are a lot of parallels. There is a lack of faith in the establishment, economic paranoia after a major financial crash, nationalistic identity paranoia based on the feeling that one's country is no longer as "great" as it once was, demagogic appeals to the restoration of traditional identities with regards to gender and nation and a frustration with the political system that can be seen in play in all three votes.

Whilst with Brexit and Trump we can feel a bit of relief that the story hasn't yet played out. Visiting Wroclaw for me made me realise just how badly things could go and I have to wonder if we can pull out of it at this point. Now I think it's fair to say that the people of Breslau voting in the German Federal election is not quite as extraordinary as Brexit (given that it was a very different kind of vote to a normal general election), although the times were similarly fraught and the appeals to the idea of voting against the establishment for a greater nation were also worryingly similar.

Of course however, we know how things ended for the many people who voted for NSDAP in the 30s and helped Hitler into power. It may sound callous to say this but what went around came around. It ultimately led to the ruin of the nation they were trying to restore, their subsequent expulsion from their homes and the destruction of their specific regional culture. They voted selfishly and overlooked the very problematic elements of the Nazi rhetoric (i.e. extreme antisemitism) and got carried away with warped nostalgia. They were won over by dubious promises of simple solutions to difficult problems and whether they voted with malicious intent or just in self interest or neither, they paid a very heavy price all the same.

Why what happened in Wroclaw then matters today

We hopefully won't have to encounter another situation as extreme as the Second World War or the partition or annexation of any lands but the current climate we live in is cause for concern. Brexit and Trump have happened as a result of the politically disengaged being mobilised by people promising the population an easy way out of their problems either by using race or nation to win them over.

This is almost worse as that mobilisation took place and succeeded despite a strong feeling of a votes not mattering as much as they actually did. This also combined with very problematic rhetoric used against minorities and a very clear lack of detail in the feasibility of key promises to the people by the likes of the UK's Leave EU campaign or Trump's presidential campaign makes me wonder if it's already too late to stop things before they really get out of hand.

Brexit and Trump have already done damage to some people's lives although one hopes that they can be carefully guided away from this before any much more serious harm is done and countries literally tear themselves and each other apart like in the 30s and 40s.

Overall however, I can only reflect on this. Then as now, what you do in the ballot box matters and voting is not a frivolous decision that doesn't have real world impacts. Politics may be boring and may feature odious people who you'd rather block out from your day-to-day life but politics still affects you whether you like it or not.

You need to pay attention to what people are saying or you may end up hurting scores of people or perhaps ultimately yourself. The German people of Breslau were ultimately punished for their lack of attention to the darker elements of Nazism and I have to wonder if they ruminated on that as they trudged through the snow as refugees in early 1945, never to return to perhaps the only place they'd known as home.

This article is based on a Twitter thread I wrote earlier this month while in Wroclaw.

5 Footballers Who Tried Singing And Failed

2018-06-16T15:54:00.002+01:00

World Cup 2018 has officially kicked off. This of course means that many other news and events take a temporary back seat to the festivities of people waving England fans, shouting "Come on England!" in increasingly desperate tones and deluding themselves into thinking that England will win the World Cup if they move past the group stages. Part of the experience of the tournament is also the music.

Most of the time when novelty world cup songs or football songs in general are made, they are made by professional musicians and performed by well-known singers or celebrities. However, on occasions footballers have tried their hand at crooning too. Often with quite poor results. Today we're going to have a look at some of the more bizarre and terrible examples of this.

In no particular order we have:

Sergio Ramos (2016)

There's very little argument about Sergio Ramos' prowess on the pitch, however when it comes to singing there's no amount of pitch tuning possible to make him sound good. Even if you can't understand the Spanish lyrics we can all agree he will not be winning any Grammies soon. The video is also just plain awkward as it seems clear Iniesta would rather be anywhere else but recording the. Still at least we can think ourselves lucky that Shakira and Pique haven't tried to release a duet.

Paul Gascoigne (1990)

Gazza is known for his eccentricity (ask anyone who's ever lived in Newcastle and remember, if Gazza invites you for a drink, never EVER say yes) and this is a good example of it. During what was probably the height of Gazzamania in the early 1990s the Geordie midfielder inexplicably decided to release a remake of Lyndisfarne's ode to his hometown: Fog On the Tyne. No one expected Gazza to be a good singer and weren't surprised that he wasn't, despite singing lyrics about sausage rolls fitting his character pretty well. Also the less said about his follow up single Geordie Boys the better.

Ian Wright (1993)

Do the Right Thing (you see what Ian did there?) is the debut, and apparent swansong, to the former Arsenal and Crystal Palace player's singing career. To be fair to him he isn't a bad singer, although the spoken word part of the song is hideous. Unfortunately for the aspiring Wright, the track was a forgettable dance single even by early 1990s standards. The song and video now look like a pitch-perfect modern-made parody of Britain in the 1990s. Sadly, I can no longer look anyone born after 2000 in the eye and excuse the 90s now, so well done for destroying my childhood Ian! Which brings me nicely onto the next entry on the list.

Kevin Keegan (1979)

I didn't grow up in the 1970s but this is horrific. I'm not sure why people would ever want to hear Keegan sing a love ballard but we've got it anyway. From his hairstyle to the cheesy disco symphony this is the perfect thing to demonstrate to your older relatives that the late 70s were not as amazing as they remember them to be. No amount of Spangles, Clackers and Choppers can excuse this mess. At least Keegan himself can look back at this and say that his dismal tenure as England manager wasn't the worst thing he did.

John Barnes (1990)

The appearance of John Barnes on this list is bound to be a controversial choice, as the value of Barnes' rapping on the 1990 New Order song World In Motion is based purely on its novelty. It's not well written or a particularly well performed rap section. John Barnes is no Stormzy (which would have been pretty amazing if he had been) and that's ok, as the end result is something magnificent and iconic despite Barnes' lack of natural flow. The whole song however is easily the best one on this list and truly deserves its place as one of the one of the top English World Cup songs of all time.

There doesn't seem to be much hype around the music of World Cup 2018 (which should come as no surprise as the official song is generic and forgettable). As for the England team, it's probably never had a better anthem than Three Lions, or Fat Les's parody of football culture. In both cases they are now 20 years old and nothing seems to have come close to replacing them.

Just because you can doesn't mean you have to

2018-05-07T21:47:00.002+01:00

In what seems to be a continuing theme on this blog of negative attitude philosophy I've begun to wonder how many things that people do, which whilst impressive or conversation worthy are utterly pointless.

I'm guilty of this too as much as anyone but with the constant stream of human interest click bait on social media about spectacular if somewhat useless achievements coupled with the fear of missing out (FOMO); seems to create an attitude that makes people guilty for not achieving something they never wanted to anyway.

I don't think this is necessarily a new phenomenon, people have been chiding themselves for not doing things they feel they should be doing for social appearances for generations. Many of us were forced to do such activities by our parents in a well meaning but ultimately misguided attempt to socialise us into society with a skill we either didn't want or need, before completely abandoning the practice once we get out of the family home or reach adulthood.

However, with trends being trends and impressive or difficult tasks always drawing people's attention and, somehow, their envy we keep doing them.

The ultimate goal of the following list of things you can potentially do but maybe don't have to is ultimately a positive one. That is: You can do anything. However, maybe you don't need to feel like you need to if you don't want to. In all likelihood you'll probably find something equally pointless, time consuming but personally fulfilling for you to do.

Here are 10 things you could do, but you probably don't need to feel like you have to:

Learning the flute (or any musical instrument for that matter)

I once went to school with someone who learned the flute. He was very good at it to say the least and he's now a professional musician I think. He's a person who should have learned the flute, as he clearly had a passion for it. If it's something you're thinking about because you think it would improve your social standing or because you're always telling yourself you think that you should then don't. Just don't.

Running a Marathon (or longer)

A big one on the FOMO spectrum that pretty much everyone seems to do now and honestly the preparation sounds awful. I also wonder if the fact it's now so common (seemingly) for people to run marathons that it now feels like it's lost its air of mystery and that "what if?" factor and has become a an expectation of a 20-40 something adult, which disincentives it further.

Running a charity 10k

If you know someone who is doing this for a good cause by all mean support them and enjoy the deluge of smiling, laughing photos and goal updates that will inundate your social media feeds for the next few months. Good causes are good. If the person believes in supporting a charity for personal reasons those reasons are good. However, if you're me and you have every reason to do one of these 10ks for cancer, heart disease, mental health, diabetes or dementia charities (it'll be fun finding out which combination of these destroy my health later in life) and still haven't it's likely you probably won't.

The ice bucket challenge (or similar)

I feel infinitely lucky that during the ice bucket challenge that either my group of friends is what it is or I've become so unapproachable over time that I was never once nominated to do this. Not that it would have meant much as I've become quite passive to social media nominations (see also: dares). If you want to tip ice on your head do it because you want to. Also, you can still not do it and give to charity if you want. As with the others, you can do it but you really don't have to.

Spending 6 or more months travelling

I've actually done this one and when I tell people about it everyone always says, "oooh I'd love to do that," (see also: Living abroad) and I always ask them why they don't, which is normally met with excuses about work and the like. Now obviously, if you have the money and want to do it then why wait but if you don't, then you don't have to excuse yourself for not doing it. You really have to be in the mindset for it and doing travel for numerous months can be a real pain at times. Even I can't be bothered with staying in hostel dorms anymore, so I'm judging no one on this if they don't feel like doing it.

Learning a language

Look, learning a language to a good level is not fun quite frankly. I've spent four+ years living and working in a Spanish speaking country and despite daily exposure, weekly classes and professional use of the language, not to mention experience in the teaching of English as foreign language, I can tell you it is time consuming and difficult as a process. It doesn't mean you shouldn't learn languages, unless you really want to or need to. If you're a Francophile then learn French. If you love Japanese culture then learn Japanese. If you need a language to progress in your career then learn it! To be clear I've only reached an intermediate level in Spanish because it's just the most practical thing to do in my case, not to mention culturally appropriate (Although I will probably never learn Catalan).

Going to university

I really liked going to university and I would say it was totally the right call for me and I wouldn't have done things differently. However, I think for the longest time it was taught to people that they MUST go to university, which is wrong. This isn't helped by employers lazily insisting on degrees for jobs that really don't need it. However, if you're sure academia or further education isn't for you then you're definitely better off just leaving school and getting whatever work you can after that rather than getting bogged down in ridiculous levels of debt and wasting three years.

Basically anything in the Guinness Book of records

They'll put pretty much any record in that book to be fair. At this point all the easy to do stupid records have probably been broken, so it's only going to take a task so monotonous, complicated or disgusting to get in. You have to question at that point if your time couldn't be better spent on something else.

Writing a blog

I actually think the one consistent goal I ever had was to become a writer of some sort which eventually I have become. I think it's testament to that I've been writing on the same (albeit rubbish Blogger) domain since about 2004. However, I'm endlessly confused as to why I'd want to spend my spare time doing it for free. I guess that's my madness. However, just because lots of people do it doesn't mean you should.

Having Children

This is probably the number one thing on the list that LOTS of people really feel they HAVE to do but maybe wouldn't on consideration. Yeah, yeah, yeah, "unique experience", "you don't know love until you've had kids", "my parents won't stop asking me about it" etc are all factors that go through people's minds. However, are you really sure you want that? Are you sure you want to deal with a loud, unsocialised, irritating psychopathic money sink for all those years. If you're doing it to stave off lonliness or for care when you're old in modern society then I think that's pretty dark, as you're creating a living consciousness which may not necessarily enjoy the treadmill of school, debt, work and just sheer confusing emotional mess that life entails. Especially when you realise early on the walking talking amalgamation of your cells doesn't want to do ANYTHING you want to do and wants/probably needs 90% of your attention AT ALL TIMES. There's also no time off from that for any of you for more than a decade. After all that, the ungrateful brat will probably just ignore you half the time when it has become company you might want to spend time with. If you're willing to go through all that then do it but you have to REALLY have your heart in it (I've also not talked about how terrible pregnancy sounds but I don't have a womb so I'm not really an expert).

So these are the things that people often convince themselves that they need to do to be complete or happy. Is it all just a waste of time to distract you from the inevitable or your steps towards self actualisation, or both?

Cracking Open the Easter Egg Controversy

2018-03-27T00:25:00.001+01:00

It's PC gone mad etc etc

Almost as inevitable as wet bank holiday weekends and obligatory repeats of Ben Hur is the annual controversy about the PC attack on Easter, religion and the alleged lack of Easter on Easter Eggs. I've only really noticed that this has become part of the periphery of Easter-time in the last couple of years, with pundits, the public and even the Prime Minister Lady Vicarsdaughter weighing in with a view. Let's take a look into the situation in a little more detail and see the EGGStent (of course I'm going to use egg puns!) of the issue.

When did this moral panic about Easter Eggs begin?

Honestly, it appears to be a very recent thing. Obviously following in the footsteps of other favourite festive conspiracies like the all too many EGGaggerated 'Christmas is cancelled' stories comes our more contemporary 'Easter is being removed from Easter Eggs' panic we're seeing today. From what I can tell it stems from a company called the Meaningful Chocolate company, who are selling a product called the Real Easter Egg. As for most big brand Easter eggs, it appears that they've only ever referred to their Easter Eggs as chocolate eggs on the packaging since the 70s, with seemingly little consequence, suggesting this is a much more recent issue.

Why is this now a problem?

It fits into lots of narratives about PC culture taking over beloved celebrations and presumably something about nothing being allowed to be fun any more. This despite Easter Egg hunts still being popular, copious levels of chocolate rabbits, eggs and other springtime shit selling really well at this time of year and the fact that Jesus dying on the cross wasn't really fun for anyone except maybe the Romans.

There's been a certain amount of positive momentum in the traction of this story year on year with it getting more visibility and debate. Over the last 5 years the message has been repeated at this time of year and each year gaining a bit more resonance with the public, and steadily growing despite the fact this is not the first year this has been raised as talking point. There's no doubting the press wants a piece of that action and capitalises on it by dedicating more column inches to it. They will probably do quite well from it too.

Who are the Meaningful Chocolate Company?

In their own words they say: "We are a privately owned British company with a single shareholder and a small team of committed staff who work out of our Lymm office." That doesn't exactly tell the whole story and despite mentioning the company's solitary "shareholder" the website fails to mention who that is. The truth is the man in question is David Marshall who is described as a Christian campaigner and who certainly seems to have a bee in his (presumably Easter) bonnet about companies "censoring the centuries' old tradition" of Easter.

The Meaningful Chocolate Company seems to be quite eager to make a name for itself in the landscape of chocolate worship of Jesus in all its forms selling not only the Reverend approved Real Easter Egg but also advent calendars, chocolate buttons and the somewhat unchocolatey olive wood crosses. Many of the confectionery products come with extras like religious story books. Their website also quite proudly boast about which supermarkets have been coerced by "customer requests for the Easter egg to appear on the shelves" into stocking the Real Easter Egg and makes numerous references to their Fair Trade credentials. Unsurprisingly they've sold out of eggs this year.

It's not a conspiracy, it's marketing and lobbying

To speculate for a moment, one has to wonder if this all comes down to the Church trying to claw back some visibility from an increasingly apathetic uninterested public. Sometimes any publicity is good publicity. Let's be fair the Church has a historical pedigree of pressuring companies and governments with its doctrine; less than it used to, but clout all the same.

The Church is in many ways a business like any other, eager for brand visibility like any other and seems to be fiercely protective of the times of year when it might have some actual relevance in society still. Julian Henderson the Bishop of Blackburn stated earlier this year for instance: "We have a responsibility to pass the message of Easter to the next generation and The Real Easter Eggs are a creative way to do this," so there's little doubt as to what the agenda is. To be fair one could imagine the Church is already worried after finding out that hot cross buns (which are at least delicious and feature a Christian symbol already) and chocolate eggs were more recognisably related to Easter than Jesus.

Whilst there is a rather strong push for more visibility of the 'Christian brand' over those nasty atheists and secular chocolate competitors from what little research of press and PR material I found there's no lack of mention of Easter. Cadbury's in particular seems to have capitulated to the public pressure by renaming their annual Easter Egg hunt to include the word Easter, after controversially not including it last year.

Do people really need Easter Eggs to explicitly state they're for Easter?

That really depends who you ask. If you asked me I would say no. However, a lot of angry social media users would beg to differ. There's no denying the Church and Mr Marshall's plan has worked as there's no lack of disgruntled dialogue from people who are demanding Easter be mentioned on Easter Egg packaging.

Nothing to see here, says clearly that it's an Easter Egg

I think part of the reason chocolate companies have been referring to them as "chocolate eggs" for so wrong is because many companies don't care who buys their eggs as long as people buy them. For that reason considering the country is multicultural and for the most part secular, just calling them chocolate eggs widens their appeal and makes them more likely to be bought at other times of the year. This is not about placating imaginary offended Muslims, Hindus or Jews (which is quite nice of them as Easter partially exists to supplant Passover), neither is it about worrying about political correctness. This is to do with making the most money possible during a season where chocolate sales get very high and the market gets particularly crowded. It's clear to see why David Marshall is making such a fuss to get attention.

Incidentally, I received a Cadbury's Mini Eggs Easter Egg this year and it says: "Contains 1 Easter Egg on the box", so bang goes the theory there too.

What has all this been for?

It would seem this debate and controversy has all happened so people can point to this and maintain their belief/outrage about their cultural identity being under threat, so that the Church gets more coverage of its religious messages and David Marshall and the Meaningful Chocolate Company get to sell all their Easter eggs in a particularly pious manner.

Does any of this mean I can't enjoy Easter?

Ultimately you have the freedom to enjoy any holiday the way you want to, whether you adhere strongly to the religion and its beliefs or not. If a chocolate egg without an explicit religious message on it ruins your holiday (which originally has very little to do with either eggs or chocolate) then I don't really have any advice for you.

10 dumb things to try in 2018

2017-12-31T13:52:00.002+00:00

Life is all about experiences, as without experiences we are just empty vessels going through the drudgery of life. Everything is an experience or a journey nowadays. For example, a cup of tea is a experience, going to the toilet is an experience etc. Obviously the nuance of the experience may depend on the experience in question. After all an exciting new tea experience is infinitely better than a terrifying toilet experience.

People are always making lists to finish the year by telling people what they should feel guilty for not doing, calling it something like 10 things to do before you die (for example you have permission to die if you do everything on the list, I'm about halfway through 100 songs to listen to before you die and I think if I just keep putting off listening to all the U2 stuff long enough I can increase my lifespan almost infinitely), so I'm going to be lazy and do just the same but with pointless or impractical experiences to have in 2018.

So in the spirit of starting the year with unavailable and uninteresting goals, here are dumb new experiences to try in 2018.

1. Get fired from your job on purpose

My ideal method is by bringing a live donkey into the office to make jokes about "making an ass of myself". If you work on a donkey farm you may need to rethink this one.

2. Create your own currency

"What do mean Gnoflots aren't legal tender!"

3. Try to teach your parents how to build their own sex robots

They taught you about the birds and the bees, so teach them about how to create artificial intelligence that will get them frisky and save their marriage. They're counting on you!

4. Build the world's largest fidget spinner

Because you're down with the kids with their Facetergrams.

5. Construct a miniature version of the Royal Albert Hall out of gherkins

It can be the talk of your Last Night of the Proms party as a savoury centrepiece.

6. Pretend to be a time traveller from the year ahead

"What year is this! 2018? Then I still have time to stop it! Danger! Migos are not to be trusted! They're bringing great destruction! Beware!"

7. Create a disgusting new flavour of beer and see if you can sell it to Hipsters

"Mmm Marmite beer! It has a delightful savoury kick with a hoppy finish." Yes I know Marmite is made from beer byproducts!

8. Start an unscientific healthy eating craze

People love a good old fad diet with little to no scientific basis, so create something trite like cutting out all food that is dried because they "lack nutrients" or some other pseudo nonsense. It'll be fun as you can demand special attention in restaurants and drive friends and family nuts with your picky attention seeking eating (nuts are most definitely not ok in the wet food diet!).

9. Send all your enemies Valentine's Day cards saying: "Your heart will be mine and on my mantelpiece by Christmas!"

Nothing like a good old Valentine's scare!

10. Create a play or musical based on the many deaths of Sean Bean

If you work fast maybe he could star in it too!

So there are 10 things to do before you die in 2018. You have my permission to die of natural causes after completing this list, but woe betide you if you do before finishing. (Absolutely no suicide, that's not allowed in this challenge.) Or keep living, I'm not going to tell you what to do.

Happy New Year!

(I'm not going to do anything on this list just so you know).

2018 News Hierarchy

2017-12-12T21:10:00.001+00:00

It's nearly 2018! As we count down to the end of 2017, a year that didn't have to try very hard after the dismal 2016 and yet still turned out to be disappointing somehow, we can cast our minds forwards to what's in store for the next year.

I've been having a think of how the news cycle in our age of fake news, pretend outrage and other tiresome buzzwords everyone repeats due to a lack of imagination or interest with the topics at hand, might look in the coming year. Also the internet loves predictive lists in December and listacles are really easy to write.

So here's how I think the hierarchy of news could look in 2018 going from most important to utter rubbish:

Real news - Wars, explosions, coups, political corruption, beloved celebrity turns out to be massive bell end prolific sex offender etc.

Sport - Almost real news, at least involves something happening.

An influential person says something they shouldn't - Whoops someone wasn't thinking there, guess we better cover that. I'm sure they'll issue a feeble apology and will probably think better of it in the future (This does not apply to Boris Johnson or Donald Trump)

Royal Weddings - Because they sells a ton of papers or ads and everyone seems to be captivated by it.

Gobshite looking for attention says something horribly offensive - See Katie Hopkins or Morrissey. Seriously, just ignore them and hopefully they'll go away! Stop writing about it as if it's a shock, it's predictable at best.

Gobshite doesn't like a thing everyone likes - Are you really surprised considering they are a gobshite. Stop giving them attention!

A person you never heard of did a thing - Pah! Millennials right? With their fidgitstergrams! Get off my lawn!

Z list celebrity is signed to appear on reality TV show - One of three reactions necessary: Who? Him/Her? or I thought they were dead?!

Gobshite appears on reality TV - Look! Enough! Stop giving these people an audience!

That TV show did a controversial thing - Rinse and repeat every bloody year until we end up with some bizarre story involving Britain's first human octopus on-screen kiss.

Charity campaign goes viral with memey photo sharing thing- Hope whatever it is somehow never reaches you by isolating yourself from social media until it fizzles out.

Playground commentary - Footballers wife has tell all story or speculation about the love life of members of the Loose Women panel sourced from "a friend of the family".

Gogglebox commentary - I'm still waiting for where they get Goggleboxers to watch old episodes of Gogglebox and comment on that before taking it to the next level of having Goggleboxers watching Goggleboxers watching Gogglebox.

The Self Declared Republic of Catalonia

2017-10-27T21:00:00.000+01:00

Today as many of you have probably read, Catalonia declared independence from Spain. Obviously the how's and whys have been better reported by professionals so I won't waste time in repeating the story, it's been told already.

I've been living in Spain and Catalonia specifically for the last 3 and half years and I've had a good chance to familiarise myself with many of the arguments, opinions and actions of both parties. Unfortunately, this doesn't leave me with a lot of confidence in a sensible outcome.

Madrid has proven itself time and time again to be utterly tone deaf without a hint of diplomacy. I wonder if this has something to do with the brash fairly outspoken nature of Spanish culture, which even in it's linguistic choices favours a relatively blunt unconsidered way of approaching an issue. However, I've been surprised by the fact a leader of a G20 country such as Rajoy, could not see that while remaining firm it is possible to use softer language and maintain an air of respectability and statesmanship when stewarding your people. There's something of the right wing in Spain especially (although I'd hesitate from calling them fascist. There's luckily a way to go before we get to that.) which seems to think a strong armed response can quickly resolve an issue by beating it into submission. However, most right wing leaders in Europe lack the charisma to really pull off something like that and making it stick with most of the population. And for the better.

Then again Rajoy is very much a person who's in the wrong leader at the wrong time. He's too partisan and like a lot of politicians of today is not worried about the populace at large but is more concerned with pulling powerful, influential, and ultimately loud, tribes into his sphere of influence. I guess that's politics for you. The problem with Rajoy is his style of communication is too aloof. He doesn't ever seem to address the people as equals or appeal to them directly. Instead he acts the king using lofty rather blunt (and repetitive) expressions about law and order and seems utterly limited to explain his choice of action beyond it being "within the law". He isn't completely wrong to do this but a more charismatic politician could express this sentiment in a way that isn't so hard headed and properly allows a hint of empathy, especially with the under represented (at least in terms of discourse) majority of people who don't dream of an independent Catalonia.

Then there's the other extreme. Puigdemont, who seems to think that he's some kind of Iberian Nelson Mandela, whilst riding roughshod over most of his population's wishes to achieve his own personal aggrandisation. Puigdemont as a former journalist definitely shows a greater ability to manage communication but at the same time he does so in a way that is heavy handed in it's emotiveness, dare I say to the point of Propaganda. The messaging coming from the Catalan Parliament is equally as heavy handed but uses way more of the tools of the psudo-oppressed (thankfully that's not the case here and I find it distasteful that this way of communicating is being used as it unfairly takes away legitimacy and attention from the actually oppressed), which generally has worked better. Let us not forget that despite the constant repetition of terms like democracy and self determination, what Puigdemont and his coalition have done is utterly undemocratic and rightfully not considered right or normal under the laws of most parliamentary democracies in the West.

Worse still, the more you see the message repeated you see more people with a similar mindset repeating the same keywords to justify themselves. It also highlights a large wave and feeling of separatism in the digital sphere across all nationalities. There's something very interesting and also quite worrying about how a simple but easily repeatable idea or keyword or lie spreads quickly and without question. Madrid has been little better in this matter repeating ad nauseum a seemingly closed minded repetition of it's dull unfeeling law and order discourse.

Puigdemont may act the martyr but he's seemingly trying to do it on purpose. He's talked on multiple occasions about being willing to go to prison, as if taunting Madrid to do it. It will make a great chapter in his memoirs about his struggle I'm sure, although it seems unfair that he does this at the expense of the Catalan people as a whole. At the same time Rajoy is guilty of also being irresponsibly careless with his treatment of the matter. However, the parliament of Catalonia is not behaving responsibly either with its idea that a few are motivated enough to become martyrs in the name of a large group who do not wish for this outcome or what they, the independentists, are asking for. I'm also highly suspicious of martyrs in general. I don't think they always make the best teachers.

Say what you want about people like Nelson Mandela, he was fighting against Apartheid. Whereas Catalonia despite undergoing severe cultural repression in the Franco years, today cannot be compared with something as brutal and discriminatory as that despite how hard it tries to wish itself into such a position to cynically justify it's position. The region rightfully enjoys a lot of privileges such as the common everyday usage of the Catalan language in all its institutions and daily life. It is also seen as being one of the best educated and most industrious regions of the land. Being Catalan is no disadvantage to any position in this region or the rest of Spain. And all Catalans are taught Spanish bilingually so there's never a problem communicating with the rest of the country or the real risk of isolation from outside culture. The declaration of independence is based on a parliamentary coup really, despite how much it tries to dress itself up with dialogue from Les Misérables.

The sad thing in this whole situation is that all Catalans will suffer for the aspirations of a few particularly rash and purist Catalans and an utterly aloof group of politicians in Madrid. This upsets me because many of my friends find themselves with family rifts and unsure of where this leaves them and their home. They like nearly half the country have tried to stay out of this and remain quiet for fear of upsetting a very passionate dedicated group. All for very little clear reward. They're also bewildered as to how Madrid could mess up the situation this badly.

Nationalism is an insular, limited way of trying to solve a problem at a time when the world should be coming together and trying to understand each other, despite how difficult it can be. Countries like Spain and England still may be trying to overcome the trauma of losing control of large Empires whilst reconciling this in a world where they maintain a large level of cultural hegemony (especially in terms of language). These are also countries that have not had the chance to reflect on their own national confusion as to what they are. This is manifested in nationalism and complete apathy. Sadly the nationalism tends to make more noise and therefore gains more attention. Perhaps it's time to move past nationalism as a way of organising ourselves. It's a pretty 19th Century fad anyway and doesn't feel congruent in the 21st Century.

We Need Better Leaders

2017-10-03T22:29:00.000+01:00

After witnessing a disruptive but overall peaceful and fairly well tempered General Strike in Catalonia (well from my office outside of Barcelona) I've just seen all the catharsis lost by a completely inflammatory and unhelpful speech by King Felipe VI of Spain, the head of state and then another announcement from Carles Puigdemont that an Independence announcement is imminent.

Without mentioning anything of the ludicrous police brutality, which is sadly becoming a theme from the Spanish government, the King made claims that Catalonia had "scorned" Spain with its actions and talked about their contempt of the law in the country with bluster such as "inadmissable disloyalty," which is discourse that belongs in another century quite frankly. To only portray a very biased side to it as this is just bizarre and clumsy by today's communication standards.

Now I don't disagree that the referendum was invalid but the bigger picture is that it didn't really need to be restated by King Felipe as it was. It would have served the discourse much better to accept that the violence was unacceptable against the people voting first and then go on to condemn the vote. Also then trying to use the referendum as leverage to try and break from Spain altogether as Puigdemont is threatening to do is just as dangerously irresponsible as Rajoy's heavy handedness and the King's angry bluster.

George Orwell wrote in his Homage to Catalonia account of fighting on the Aragon front and in Barcelona between 1936-7, "In Spain, for the first time, I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any relation to the facts" and that echoes frighteningly close to the Spanish Government's attempts to try and just ignore this problem as if it doesn't exist. There is a failure to realise the gravity and nuance of this situation and instead the government is responding in ways I never (or at least hoped to never) imagined. This is equally true of Puigdemont trying to go through with the result of such an improperly done and unrepresentative referendum. He may say he's willing to go to prison over it but he neglects the fact he is the leader of 7 million Catalans overall who's safety he's also risking over what seems to be (I'm sure for him) a matter of personal pride. He's just as much a dangerous bumbling incompetent as Rajoy or even Theresa May.

That said, no doubt that the police brutality seen on Sunday was something you would expect from a poorly functioning dictatorship, which paints Spain as a pantomime villain in this discourse but no one was truly stealing democracy of what was, let's remember a completely unrepresentative and legally meaningless vote. The results of the so-called referendum if enacted in full as far as secession goes would be utterly undemocratic to around 50% of the Catalan population who don't want to break with Spain (although with the handling of the crisis one has to wonder where that number lies today).

I worry that the things I dismissed as paranoia amongst the Catalans may be true all along as I can't really hide from the reality of the situation. I can see for myself with my own eyes just how autocratic Spain's government actually seems to be. That said for the other side of things Catalonia has a similar problem with its own politicians who like playing the underdog but are just as corrupt and, one has to worry, just as stubborn and self serving as the Madrid politicians. Don't be fooled. Puigdemont is just as problematic as Rajoy.

It isn't just leaders though. The insane thing about the Catalan crisis for me is seeing how people jump on it and use it to justify their worldview without understanding it in the slightest. I'm living in the middle of it and have lived parts of it over the last 3 and a half years. I see it with my own eyes from the epicentre and yet blinkered people are trying to use it to shore up their narrow opinions and are making broad stroke assumptions based on massive biases which seem to be poorly pasted onto the shape of the issue at hand. I'm looking at you Scottish independentists and Brexiteers (who would have had a fit about 'the Brussels Autocracy' if the EU had intervened more than they have), not to mention American gun nuts who hours before the Las Vegas shooting were justifying the possession of weapons in their country to defend democracy despite the fact no one was suspending Catalan democracy overall. The way some people talk you'd think the Catalans were unable to participate in any elections which is utterly false.

The problem is not too much or too little democracy. The problem is giving more democracy before people actually understand the implications of it and not putting proper checks and balances in place in terms of turnout limits and minimum percentage thresholds (Brexit again).

I'm sure that lack of wider understanding is part of the reason that we've got such incompetents running governments in this decade.

Chaos in Catalonia

2017-10-01T21:48:00.000+01:00

It's fair to say we are living through strange times and days don't come much stranger than today.

At time of writing the news is reporting somewhere in the region of 770 injured people across Catalonia after being attacked by armed riot police, whilst participating in the referendum for independence from Spain.

It is a sad day in many ways as what started broadly as a protest against an austerity government and endemic corruption has descended into a constitutional crisis that has blown up spectacularly. It must be said that both sides have been stubborn and unable to form a dialogue to help serve everyone (with pro and anti-independence opinion being pretty split down the middle) but

In what was an utterly tone deaf response to the threat of secession from Spain, the Madrid government led by Mariano Rajoy effectively threw petrol onto a small bin fire by allowing national police in riot gear to seize ballot boxes in polling stations across Catalonia leading to images and videos that could be compared unfavourably with countries like Venezuela, Russia or Turkey.

The footage makes for uncomfortable viewing as the police attacked elderly voters, women and younger members of the public, all of whom were unarmed, with vicious force. Not at any point were any of the voters aggressive which of course has led to quite a negative view worldwide on sites like Twitter and Facebook.

One has to wonder where the situation will go from here as Madrid has most likely burned any bridges for negotiation but may have also inadvertently showed a dangerous side to it's manner of reacting to crises. Spain has had a difficult time over the last decade with a deep unemployment crisis and growing political apathy in the face of cuts and widespread corruption. There's also been a subtle tightening of many laws (such as the Citizen Safety Law of 2014) on the rights to demonstrate, although public demonstration hasn't gone anywhere since then. One also has to wonder what the rest of Spain will think of this and whether these echos of the Franco era will cause further unrest.

The ramifications of this independence referendum gone wrong could harm more than just the public image and of Spain. If for example the European Union turns a blind eye to this kind of repression in one of its constituent members then it opens up the question of whether the EU really stands by and defends the standards it claims to uphold.

Trying to explain Catalan Seperatism

2017-09-30T20:30:00.000+01:00

What's happening?

A large proportion of people in Catalonia want independence and the Catalan regional government has called a referendum on 1st October 2017 and the Spanish government has refused to let it happen, claiming it's illegal under the Spanish Constitution of 1978.

Who are the Catalans?

They are people from Northern Spain with their own language, culture and (some) of their own public institutions.

How did it get to this?

The short version is that after various rebellions and civil wars Catalan autonomy has been curtailed over time. The worst being the most recent episode where under Franco (a Spanish arch-nationalist) Catalan culture was basically driven underground as the language was banned in public.

It's complicated because...

Since Franco's death in 1975 there has been democracy and a new constitution however, the transition happened in a strange way. Basically, democracy was reinstalled by King Juan Carlos I (Franco's anointed successor) trolling Franco by promising to maintain his authoritarian form of government. When crowned the King then rescinded on leading to a new constitution and elections. Now the constitution of Spain is where this whole thing gets interesting. It was written collaboratively by legal experts all over Spain before being put to the public in a referendum which was widely supported and then ratified. The nation overall (including the Catalan people) voted 97% in favour of it. This is the biggest factor against the Catalans as they actively participated in forming the very barrier to their aspirations as it states explicitly that no action can be taken to break the unity of Spain. The constitution can only be changed with a two thirds majority government vote on an amendment. That is very unlikely to happen.

How did it get to this?

There are various reasons that some people want Independence from Spain. Mainly it comes down to not feeling Spanish. It also can't be denied that in recent years Madrid has tried to scale down Catalan autonomy in favour of more centralised government starting from 2006. This has led to a breakdown of communication and relations between the two entities. This has been further exacerbated by large-scale corruption cases in both the Spanish and Catalan government and the 2008 financial crash. The most recent situation is the result of a standoff between Mariano Rajoy's government in Madrid and Carles Puigdemont's Catalan Genrealidad in Barcelona.

What's happening now?

Well, in Barcelona where I live there's a noticeable sense of tension. It's mostly in the background but it's there mostly in the shape of posters encouraging people to vote on the 1st of October as well as daily cacerolazo (banging pots and pans in the street to signify civil indignity).

What should happen next?

Realistically the two sides need to reach a consensus. People like Puigdemont should back down a little but so should Rajoy. Realistically it needs to be recognised that due to Catalonia's unique nature they should have a deal similar to the Basque country which grants autonomy to the region to collect its own taxes which it then pays a stipend to the central government. This is rather than the current system where the government collects the taxes first before delivering the cut it feels necessary to the region (a major point of contention for many Catalans who feel they don't get enough investment locally for the higher taxes that they pay). That said Catalonia is still part of Spain, a very distinct and unique part but part of it all the same. Spain is already a diverse country with individual style and traditions in all of the 17 Autonomous communities but they all have a shared history and have worked together for over 500 years. It is also very telling that the current issue of independence only really gained traction after the 2008 crash when before Catalonia seemed comfortably part of the country.

What will probably happen next

I have very little faith in the diplomatic abilities of Mariano Rajoy, Soraya Sáenz de Santamaría and other members of the right-wing Partido Popular (People's Party). They are not only poor diplomats but are also obstinately stubborn when it comes to issues of Spanishness and national identity. This is why the government of Spain and Catalonia have often been at odds in the last 8 years. However, while I've criticised Madrid it is fair to say that Puigdemont is playing a game with Rajoy by being just as stubborn and capitalising on the poor public perception the Catalan people have of Rajoy's government, who they see as corrupt and autocratic or even fascist at times (the PP was founded by some key Francoists, most notably its founder Manuel Fraga)

Who's right?

That's a very difficult question to answer. To give my own opinion, both the mouthpieces of the two sides are wrong for very different reasons. Now to state my own bias: I am not in favour of Catalan independence (in so far as becoming an independent sovereign republic). That said, however, I do have some sympathy with some of the separatists due to their current treatment by the Spanish govt and I think fundamentally there should be a referendum to let people voice their opinion but it should be done right and not in the way that Puigdemont is pursuing it. Rajoy could have sorted the issues at the beginning of his premiership quickly and there wouldn't be so much bad feeling between the two sides.

As you can see it's a truly messy situation with both sides having justifiable grievances. I tend to believe that some type of common sense usually prevails and that will probably involve a half-way house deal being agreed. A very simple solution would be to hand more powers to Catalonia restoring the pre-2006 statuses. However, I can't always be sure of such things. Despite being mostly on Spain's side I am disappointed and agog at Spain's terrible terrible handling of the situation and feel that this will only seed more division over time.

Disclaimer:
This is by no means a totally in-depth or expert look at the matter. I am not myself an expert in Catalan history or politics but over the last 3 and half years of living in Catalonia, I have been able to learn quite a lot about the issue at hand from a little of my own superficial research and talking to locals on the matter. For full disclosure, I am also primarily against the idea of an Independent Catalan republic as I feel it's unnecessary and probably wouldn't work as well as people think (keeping consistent with my views on Scottish independence and Brexit where I'm very much in favour of the maintaining the status quo). This is my bias and while I have tried not to let it influence my description I can't completely discount it from affecting my account.

One year on: Britain is still in denial

2017-06-23T12:09:00.000+01:00

The rusty cogs of government have finally begun to creak into life as the Brexit negotiations begin, and people finally have to put their money (some say £350 million for the NHS and some say a £100 billion EU divorce bill) where their mouth is.

A lot has happened in just a year since the shocking result. Of course, there was division and anger and then just confusion over what Brexit means. There was a new Prime Minister in Theresa May, who promised not only Brexit but Red, White and Blue Brexit, which would surely give the EU stationers some minor headaches finding the right colour paper. Finally, there was another twist in the tale as May then called a snap election expecting the kind of majority that Thatcher would have licked Michael Foot’s arse on TV to get.

Then another shock, May lost her majority after fronting one of the most lacklustre campaigns in living memory, maybe only tying with the kind of complacency of Hillary Clinton’s Democratic campaign. Rupert Murdoch then voided his bowels (he’s at that kind of age now) and the increasingly divided Britain was left with a hung parliament just over a week before the big bad negotiations with the wicked sneaky Europeans.

Of course, the brave white haired Knight, David Davis whose blood actually pumped red white and blue (a medical condition I’m told), lured the wicked foreigners into a trap by handing them exactly what they wanted on negotiating a trade deal only after the terms of divorce were set. Little did they know they were now exactly where he wanted them….

Or so some people would like to believe because despite the shocking incompetence shown by the leaders and negotiators Britain has still not accepted that it’s not going to get a better deal than what it has. Britain was already a privileged member of the EU with a lot of bargaining clout and was seemingly a leader considering its voting record on EU legislation often came out in its favour. However, of course, a lie repeated enough times about unelected democrats, angry fishermen, complaints from people who just could not get their heads around the metric system and “something, something those Polish are stealing our money, jobs and benefits”, here we are just as clueless as we’ve ever been.

Now we will lose all that influence we had, and we’ve already pretty much lost any reputation we had for being cool-headed and calculating. Britain will only get a deal where it has to lose something and not this tailored appeasement some Brexiters believe in. “They need us more than we need them”, they say showing a flimsy level of understanding of cooperation that Britain has been famous for in recent times and also of the nation’s diverse and globalised economy. Either way, concessions are going to have to be given back to the EU to secure our future relationship, which begs the question, is there really any point to all of this?

Of course, now some people are starting to catch on slowly as prices rise and businesses start to stall their decisions, waiting for an outcome. Unfortunately, Britain hasn’t realised it’s about to waste a huge amount of time and money that it’s ironically really going to need once the costs and effects of Brexit really hit home.

Strong and stable chaos

2017-06-10T13:36:00.000+01:00

They say a week is a long time in politics and this week more so than usual.

A lot has happened if you think that last Saturday there was very sadly a terrorist attack in central London. Theresa May the Prime Minister then made an authoritarian-sounding speech about dealing with the terror threat, talking about clamping down on the Internet and seemingly throwing out the traditional liberal values of British society in order to secure (at least the perception of) safety.

Then came the election on Thursday and the message seemed to be clear. It was a monumental error to call a vote at this time (and so close to the Brexit negotiations). The Labour party surged in the polls and the Conservative majority was wiped out. The PM’s party despite still being the biggest in parliament now doesn’t even have enough seats to form a government in its own right and a coalition or deal is necessary to rule.

This then brings us to the present moment, where despite her no-nonsense approach to terrorism and desired crackdown on the public to prevent all terrorist activity she is prepared to do a deal with the Democratic Unionist Party, which has a very dubious history. The DUP was founded by the firebrand evangelical preacher the Reverend Dr Ian Paisley and has had strong connections to the Ulster Defence Association a violent unionist terrorist group in Northern Ireland. The Party also holds truly antiquated and bigoted views on social issues in society.

To say this is an ironic twist in these strange times is, of course, an obvious conclusion, but it takes some serious cognitive dissonance to be able to preach zero tolerance to all terrorism one week and then do a deal with terrorist sympathisers before the week is up. It’s made even more ridiculous by the fact that the cynical and lacklustre campaign by the Conservative party heavily criticised Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn for having a dialogue with the IRA in the 1980s (which as it turns out a lot of politicians on both sides of parliament were doing, albeit mostly in secret).

Obviously, it’s clear that principals are out the window and that power and holding on to the premiership are more important to Mrs May. This is probably only temporary as even her own party look like they’re about to turn on her and moderate conservatives (including the openly gay Ruth Davidson and David Mundell) will most likely be cringing at the backward views their new partners have on homosexuality amongst other things.

It’s been said a lot that the biggest irony is that the strength and stability that May parroted at the beginning of the campaign has led to chaos and weakness and of course it is true. Nevertheless, it has been a source of schadenfreude after hearing so many lies and so much cynical posturing for the last couple of months.

The question is of course what happens now? There are many things still to do such as deal with the issue of austerity going forward and the gigantic thrashing dinosaur in the room (luckily for the Tories the DUP allegedly don’t believe in dinosaurs) is of course Brexit. It’s hard to know how these will progress going forward as the blinkered view of a hard Brexit seems to have proven to be poison at the polls and there can be no doubt that people are tired of austerity after 7 years and a spluttering asthmatic economic upturn as a result of it.

I’m certain of one thing. Theresa May is finished as the Conservative leader. Like them or loathe them the Tories do not tolerate failure and I’m sure they are warming up the iron and sharpening their knives for a good old ousting. As for where this leaves Britain, that is unclear. The country obviously is experiencing something of a shift even from last year as the much-maligned youth vote actually came through for once.

Brexit hasn’t even started yet and it’s looking shaky as the hard-line rhetoric seems to have failed and the EU seems at least passive to any threats of walking away with no deal. It’s not really clear who is even in charge of that anymore with May and her inner circle looking like lame ducks. A final question hangs over Northern Ireland which of course could be greatly affected in the upcoming negotiations and what a deal with the DUP means for the Good Friday agreement. Who knows, we might even end up with another election this year.

It’s not sure how it’s going to pan out but I think that luckily we’ve seen the end of Strong and Stable as a mantra for government campaigning.

And now for your amusement: Some alternative facts

2017-01-22T22:22:00.000+00:00

A new era started on the 20th January 2017 with the Inaugaration of the 45th President Donald "big hands pussygrabber" Trump.

So far it's taken less than 48 hours for something stupid to happen as Sean Spicer Trump's new press secretary chastising the gathered press for reporting the fact that Trump's inaugural address had worse attendance than Obama's eight years ago, accusing the professional journalists of false reporting.

Later Kellyanne Conway one of Trump's senior White House aides later rushed to the aid of Spicer claiming that the flustered Press secretary had been reporting "alternative facts." Of course the fact that outright newspeak was now part of the White House's official press policy didn't go down very well.

This of course has been better reported elsewhere so here follows a few alternative facts of my own as we now live in a world where anything is true if you believe it hard enough:

Donald Trump isn't president #alternativefacts
— David Jani (@Astronomicus) January 22, 2017

Pizza is one of your five a day #alternativefacts
— David Jani (@Astronomicus) January 22, 2017

Thomas Edison invented the elephant #alternativefacts
— David Jani (@Astronomicus) January 22, 2017

Jet fuel can melt steel beams #alternativefacts
— David Jani (@Astronomicus) January 22, 2017

The fat controller is the CEO of @SouthernRailUK #alternativefact
— David Jani (@Astronomicus) January 22, 2017

Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Micky mouse attended Trump's inauguration #alternativefacts
— David Jani (@Astronomicus) January 22, 2017

Micky mouse has a twin brother called Mucky #alternativefacts
— David Jani (@Astronomicus) January 22, 2017

Ringo Starr wants to have his ashes shot through a steam engine's funnel when he passes #alternativefacts
— David Jani (@Astronomicus) January 22, 2017

Peppa pig is a mormon #alternativefacts
— David Jani (@Astronomicus) January 22, 2017

The last episode of Everyone loves Raymond involves Raymond converting to Islam and changing his name to Rahman #alternativefacts
— David Jani (@Astronomicus) January 22, 2017

Reading Donald Trumps tax records will cause your face to melt like in Raiders. He withholds them out of mercy for the IRS #alternativefacts
— David Jani (@Astronomicus) January 22, 2017

What does Brexit mean?

2016-12-07T00:01:00.000+00:00

What does Brexit mean?

Brexit means Red White and Blue because, you know, the flag and that.

Brexit means Cricket. The EU is just not cricket, whilst Britain is and literally invented cricket. This should be a self explanatory reason for leaving it. The EU is more like petanque or Korfball.

Brexit means British self determination. That's right no silly French or Belgian people and their soft smelly cheese will start telling you what shape your bananas will be anymore. In fact you will have no representation in European affairs at all! Who can be bothered with boring MEP elections anyway and the hideously undemocratic EU commission? No instead everything will be checked over by our wonderful House of life-term Lords and the hereditary monarch as it always has been. God save the Queen!

Brexit means Exacting control over our borders. That's right! No more can immigrants come and exploit soft touch Britain by stealing our jobs and claiming benefits at the same time. No more Europeans coming here and stealing our healthcare! Although it seems that the rest of Europe has universal healthcare too, but you can never be too careful! But still despite paying taxes when they work here we can block them from claiming any benefits. That'll teach them for being foreign!

Brexit means dig for victory! Like our plucky grandparents during the Blitz we're going to have to grow our own fruit and vegetables because we sure as hell won't be getting any from stupid old Europe. Oranges could prove a challenge.

Brexit means Exit. From the EU of course. Finally now Britain can stand tall uninhibited by such restraints as free trade, freedom of movement, EU subsidies, zero tariffs on exports and imports, access to a crisis relief fund etc.

Brexit means Independence. That's right now the EU may not be a state as such but by leaving it we want a special day with colourful balloons, fireworks etc like they have in the USA and Latin America. I know most countries now celebrate independence from us but we want balloons and a parade too!

Brexit means block up the Channel Tunnel. What can I say, the people have spoken and quite a few favour this. Sure immigrants might then take to using boats but we can probably build a wall around the south coast. Walls are a popular immigration control today. After all we've got all those old World War II forts just sitting there doing nothing.

Brexit means Bulldogs. Yes that's right bulldogs, tottering wheezing inbred national animals of Britain that they are.

Brexit means the Blitz! We showed Jerry what for in 1941, so we can do it again. How dare they insist we play by the rules of their club! We withstood the firebombs of the East End, so we shall endure their crafty German negotiation. Oh and we beat Germany in the world cup in 1966! Never forget!

Brexit means street parties. Because Britain loves a good street party. Let's hope the council don't mind, but I fully expect the civil servants after being freed from EU red tape will transform back into the life loving productive and helpful characters we remember before 1975. Right? Because they were different before we joined the common market? Weren't they?

The people have spoken. Does that mean they're necessarily right

2016-12-06T20:22:00.001+00:00

Having worked in PR and before I've seen a lot of liberties taken with statistics. "100 people say this." "10,000 people can't be wrong," etc. Suddenly when you add a number bigger than 50 that takes on a suddenly more statistical credibility, whether or not its right or not. I think this group forget 11,339,446 voted for Hitler, 17,410,742 voted for Brexit, 59,000,000 voted for Trump (ok I'm not saying Brexiters or Trump supporters would have voted for Hitler, well not a large majority of them anyway) which is significantly more than the average PR story sample but in these cases we're often met with a coverall excuse to implement the tactic. The people have spoken.

Let's put this into context.

Democratic engagement is huge within social media and online polls. Sure they are open to abuse if not managed properly but they are showing more and more of an idea of what people in a certain group actually think no matter how biased or socially undesirable that might be due to anonymity. For too long what was once a mythical goals the 'real thoughts of the public'. While public opinion is starting to be understood better whether we like it or not, there is of course a darker side.

What started with trivial things like Ed Balls on Strictly come Dancing and Boaty McBoatface has gradually escalated into a Neofascist baby being elected to the White House and an impossible request from the British electorate for a more sovereign country (I'd like to remind people Parliament is already sovereign in the UK) out of the common market which somehow makes as much if not more money, oh and to run everything just as well and cheaper without any immigration. Huge numbers voted for this but does that mean that they're right or justified in making this kind of decision or wrong but in an earnest way.

People have been used to getting exactly what they ask for in the media for a long time and it's become the expectation. You don't like someone you vote them out the big brother house or Xfactor or jungle or whatever. However it's done impulsively for instant gratification, with entertainment. And yes now I am comparing voting for Trump and Brexit as a way to get instant gratification.

We don't let children vote because they'll vote for someone who'll promise them ice cream for every meal. We all know that wouldn't work out well in the long run but if someone is promising you something you want right now the temptation is very high. Also there is no consideration that the person might be lying. What worries me is that a lot of people seem to be doing this although of course not for something as crude as this example. There's also desperation where a group has to vote for something bad because there is no other choice which is a big confounding factor.

So if the people have spoken, do they fully know necessarily what they are asking for? Now this is where I have to add a caveat. I have supported direct democracy for a long time and I have been taken a little aback by how quickly things have moved in that direction in 2016 and at the erratic results, although I still remain optimistic that this is the way things will work. However there are conditions to how this should go.

Firstly education. To vote on important issues you need to understand the subject inside out. No, just reading the papers is not enough. Understand biases and try to see things from the perspective of the other where possible before making your final decision. Critical thinking is important.

Secondly foresight. If you make a big decision that changes the country, world or lives of millions you need to live with the consequences. How will that affect you and everyone else (only focusing on your social, political and economic familial group is not enough)

Thirdly not to take every political promise at face value. Maybe they're lying about that £350 million for the NHS? Is what they're saying achievable or feasible despite appealing to something heartfelt that you want? Can they meet this promise?

Is this doable? Right now no I don't think so. We live in the so-called post-fact age where people see following IFLS (I Fucking Love Science) as legitimate science cred despite having the scientific depth of an edition of Cosmo and using Tasty quizzes where they claim to know which tattoo you'll get based on a McDonalds order as something to show off to people about. We have some work to do it's fair to say. However the potential is there. We just have to slow down and accept that making decisions is hard and political decisions have to be less unilateral

Ultimately in a perfect world the people will speak and it will lead but at the moment the people are perhaps making those in charge wonder if asking the people and letting them speak is in their or anyone's best interests. And that surely will lead us backwards.

The Apprentice: Proving grounds of the new elite?

2016-12-06T12:14:00.004+00:00

We say we're tired of experts and of people who claim to be smarter than us. So why do we have so many commentators like this and why did we elect someone like this to the White House (I said claim remember).

To put this in context let's look at a couple of examples.

I was thinking about the weird connection between Katie Hopkins and Donald Trump, besides the anti-Muslim rhetoric. Both were in fact involved with the Apprentice a topic I've written about more than once on this blog. A program where cocksure blowhards are brutally put in their place by failing spectacularly at simple but convoluted business tasks, with Hopkins representing an example of a contestant and Trump in fact portraying the big boss. Why have we given people from the Apprentice (a show which openly mocks the big headed bravado of smarmy business idiots) such influential positions in society. Just because Trump got to smack down the ego-maniacal sales-people doesn't mean we should put him in charge of the world's largest economy, just so he can smack down some slimy career politicians, right? Also we probably shouldn't give Katie Hopkins (a literal embodiment of an internet troll) hotline access to mass media through newspaper columns or mainstream radio surely? Well we have and that's where we are today. Why have we given these big headed although straight talking clowns the highest and most influential positions?

Surely we've proven the most cynical sociologists right by elevating reality TV stars like this. Say what you want about how out of touch and elite academia and experts may be but at least they have a bit of statistical credibility to their claims of expertise. Besides which the other so-called experts, the career poltician class have spent years basically ignoring advice they don't like because it doesn't carry good political currency (David Nutt anyone?)

In fact it's worse than just the irony that we claim to hate experts but then elect people claiming to be experts or learned who have even fewer qualifications than the boring but probably otherwise practical political class we've come to hate. Say what you want about Donald Trump and Hopkins but you'd probably have a more interesting conversation with them than perhaps Jeremy Corbyn, Philip Hammond or Hillary Clinton. Yes you'd be spitting out your drink in disgust at the poorly thought through "common sense" bile they spew but you could probably have a cracking argument with them. The others would probably just not talk to you because you're a member of the great unwashed or would bore you silly. However that's not the point of a politicians. They are there to run the country, state or whathaveyou. This is a boring technical job and whilst charisma can turn the wheels of politics its not enough on its own.

I think when it comes down to it people get frustrated with politics because it's slow and indecisive but now with a lot of governments suddenly thrown into panic by the geopolitical and economic situations, with no time to think through the long term, we are seeing just how erratic people and politicians can be. Surely we shouldn't be promoting people who favour heart over head.