I’m not actually putting house moves into the Shitopedia. In fact, seeing new places and having a change of scenery can be an inspiring thing to do and enrich the soul. What I do have a problem with, is the several months of being “on hold” that goes with it. A certain British telecommunications company seemed to have a lot of trouble with the concept of moving house. At one point I considered whether I was their first customer to venture the idea. Maybe other users of telephones and broadband prefer being manacled to their homes for the security it gives them. Why see the world when you can spend £60 a month chatting to your gas provider or playing bingo online?

The best bit was when the woman on the telephone sighed audibly at the suggestion we shouldn’t have to pay for a service we don’t receive and that the contract we signed might work both ways.

Likewise the banks shuffled nervously like birds on a wobbly telephone line.
continue reading "Moving House"

An obvious entry, but really, nobody likes them, do they?

Traffic wardens per se are not a bad thing. The fundamental problem with a Traffic Warden is their inability to see anything other than black or white (or lines of yellow) – “I’m just stopping for three minutes to unload my car” – TICKET.

Couple that flaw with an appetite for power somewhere on the anti-social side of Genghis Khan, and you see that we have a real social ill developing.

Enough said.

Traffic Wardens: ‘nobody likes us, we don’t care.’

Fuel boycotts are utterly useless.

Here’s the premise: fuel (petrol, gasoline) is too expensive, what can we do? Boycott fuel for a day (or a week, or, as the French enjoy so much, block all the fuel trucks in with tractors/wagons)! Then they’ll surely reduce the price. Cash back for all!

Except the issue just isn’t that simple, now, is it?

1. Not buying your fuel for one day, or one week, or even a month, does not reduce the reliance we, as a society, and as individuals, have on petrol and other oil based fuel;
2. Oil is a dwindling resource, basic economics would dictate that an ever increasing demand (more and more people requiring more and more fuel) will lead to an increase in price whether you wait until Tuesday to buy your gas or not;
3. The burning of fossil fuels is a leading contributory factor in climate change (global warming) – this is scientifically proven FACT, despite what some people still try to argue – making fuel cheaper would not help the situation improve (and, no, simply pointing the finger at China, or America, does not absolve YOU from responsibility).

If all the people who get so indignant every time the fuel price increases by a marginal, affordable, amount actually put their heads together to lobby, in some way, for a viable alternative to fossil fuels, perhaps human society could develop in a more sustainable fashion.

Instead, we make knee-jerk reactions and attempt to fight an impossible battle: against time, and market forces.

Am I the only one who sees this as crazy behaviour?

It is precisely the same people who moan and groan the loudest about the price of fuel who will say things like “well the Chinese are the worst greenhouse gas emitters, and they’ll never stop, so I don’t see why I should have to pay £1 per litre.”

A hideous argument, that smacks of the type of selfishness which has seen the world hold back development in the name of profit and the bottom line. Think about it.

Do these people really think we could not have developed a carbon neutral car if we’d put any real effort or thought into it? We have split the atom. We have developed nuclear weapons that have the capability of destroying the Earth, and probably the rest of the solar system too. We have the technology and skill to clone human beings. Do you really believe that we could not have developed a simple electric car?

So this is an open message to anyone who is still suggesting a fuel boycott in order to reduce the price of petrol (gasoline / any other type of fossil fuel):

Shut your mouths. Get some perspective.

What has happened to Pluto?

And I don’t mean the lovable dog belonging to Mickey Mouse.

How many people does it take to demolish a planet?

Only 424.

Turned to a dwarf

Pluto has been downgraded to the status of a dwarf planet and no longer counts as our ninth planet of the solar system.

This was decided on the last day of the International Astronomical Union in August 2006, late and after most of the delegates had left.

Alan Stern, leader of the NASA New Horizons Mission to Pluto, said: “Less than five per cent of the world’s astronomers voted. I’m embarrassed for astronomy.”

I am obliged to the Observer Book of Space, published with the Observer newspaper on 11 November 2007, for all this information, as well as for a piece on the 1974 Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence message sent from Arecibo, Puerto Rico.

This was, in brief, a numerical message which would form a picture explaining who we, human beings, are. It included a representation of our solar system.

With nine planets.

As it should be.

Let’s Get Together

Surely we can find more than 424 people who wish to BRING BACK PLUTO and reinstate it as a planet, returning it to the fold.

Join me in the quest by joining the Facebook Group, Bring Back Pluto.

My father, an American born in 1901, insisted that we four children learn the names of the planets from the sun outwards and he was only 29 when Pluto was discovered. He would tell us how exciting that discovery was. In his memory, I hope to re-instate our ninth planet to its full glory.

After all, in his lifetime he learned of the first flight at Kittyhawk and of the first discoverey Pluto and watched the first men walk on the Moon and even worked in the space industry himself. From horse and buggy, to space travel in one man’s lifetime. BRING BACK PLUTO to honour him and all those who have lived in that amazing 20th century.

• For those wishing to know, Pluto the Disney character was named after the planet on its discovery.

Recently the good old Middlesbrough has been labelled as the worst place to live in Britain, with Edinburgh top of the poll.

I work in Middlesbrough and was most amused to see this rant by good old Jeff Stelling, he backs up our office sentiment entirely!

We’ve all experienced them at one time or another, pavement crawlers are people who walk so slowly that we have to overtake them in the street, on foot.

There are many problems associated with pavement crawlers, not least the problem of actually overtaking people. It is quite bad for me, being a man, if the pavement crawler is a lone female, for example – I am in a rush, but there is little to tell her that I am not, in fact, an assailant of some kind. She begins to get worried and looks over her shoulder a lot as I begin to catch her up – little does she know that I don’t want to attack her, she’s just walking far too slowly to get anywhere in a reasonable time. However, still she will not speed up. I have even on occassion crossed over the road to avoid an embarrasing overtake maneuver.

Other types of pavement crawlers that are particularly annoying are those in groups. Teenage girls are quite bad, as they tend to link arms whilst dawdling up the side of the road, thus blocking the ENTIRE walkway.

Those who stop, without warning, to look in a shop window, should also be banned, as the knock on effects of the swerving and braking all those in the vicinity have to do reaps havoc on pavement proceedings.

There should be some sort of lane system, where tourists and shop browsers can dawdle around in the slow lane, without getting mown down by all the busy people. Failing that, some kind of indicators, or arm signals would be good, e.g. Signal when stopping; wave people round (it is safe to pass); put a yellow light on your head (slow moving object), etc.

Slow moving objects, such as pavement crawlers, are pretty shit.

Let’s get things straight from the outset: I don’t mind children, and I quite like planes. Plane flights are a Good Thing, they allow us to travel great distances in a relatively short period of time. Children are also fine by me, as long as they are under control. I don’t even mind if you don’t control your children, just don’t inflict them on other people. This is where the trouble starts.

It is within the confined environment of a long haul plane flight, that unruly children become a problem to me.

Being around six and a half feet tall, I struggle to get comfortable on aeroplanes at the best of times. With a malevolent six year old kicking the back of my seat every thirty seconds for eight hours, this becomes impossible.

It should also be illegal for children to recline their seats. They simply do not need to. Their legs don’t reach the floor anyway.

On one flight I took from Egypt to the UK, I had managed to get a seat with some legroom, right at the front, which had no passengers behind either, so I had nothing to worry about. Unfortunately, the most precocious child on earth decided that she wanted to sit in the row behind us, and brought her whole menagerie with her. A five hour irritation.

On a flight to Australia, myself and the affable Adelaidian gentleman next to me (who coincidentally had three extremely well mannered children) had our meal ruined when the unattended seven or eight year old in front of us decided to recline his chair. At meal time. When we had full drinks. Thanks for that. The child’s parents had the audacity to ‘have a go at us’ when the guy next to me asked if they could stop their child from being a pest.

And this is the problem – people don’t like being told how to handle their children.

If you allow your children to wander a flight as if they are in a playground, causing discomfort to everyone in their path, at least be prepared to accept that they are, in some way, annoying to others.