Stoning in a Tea Cup

I would like to start this post with a joke, what I’d like to say is

What an idiot, can someone please stone Gareth Compton to death? I shan’t tell Amnesty if you don’t. It would be a real blessing,

But then I’d have to make a pathetic retraction saying it was an ill-conceived attempt at humour… and then I’d get arrested. So good thing I’m not going to do that. Does anyone else think that this is a bit of a storm in a tea cup? He is a stupid man and he was making a stupid joke. But should he really have been arrested for it? In my mind that is killing a mosquito with a cannon (when everyone knows the best way to kill a mosquito is by genetically modifying them so they spread a gene that makes their offspring die, but I digress), at most he should have received a slap on his wrist from his party and have been forced to make a more robust apology.

But now I’m going to talk to Yasmin Alibhai-Brown (not that she’ll ever read this), calm down; he wasn’t calling for your execution, he wasn’t trying to validate the views of whomever it is that wants you dead. He was making a moronic joke, probably because you seem like a frustration person.

She claimed on the news that she was shocked because all they were doing was having a democratic debate, but those debates only work if you’re willing to listen to what your opponent has to say, or at least acknowledge that he has a right to say it. But judging from this quote from the debate

No politician has the right to comment on human rights abuses, even the stoning of women in Iran.

She clearly was not willing to do that. Anyways my congratulations go out to the police on catching such a dangerous criminal, I’m sure that was a good use of tax payers money. Also well done to all his colleagues who cut their ties to him and hung him out to dry, what would the world be like without instant condemnation? I’d like to tell you one of the rules I live by, if someone make’s an unfunny, inappropriate or stupid joke; what you should do is call them an idiot and don’t laugh at it. Seems pretty simple. But this is just me, what do you think?

Jobs From Heaven, Jobs From Hell

I really like my job, when it was first described to me I thought I was going to be taking numbers from one column and putting them into another; not the most interesting work but I do enjoy buying things with money so I took it. The point is the job was sold short and I find it extremely interesting my boss(es) are extremely friendly and always teaching me new things which I’m picking up quickly and the reason I say this is because I know what it’s like to have a job that doesn’t have those qualities.

One of my first proper jobs was when I was 18; I got a job working as a dinning room/kitchen assistant at a nursing home. Each morning I had to wake up and go to work a piece of my soul died and seeing as I was working in a nursing home that wasn’t the only thing dying. Not to mention the fact that my boss was one of the least helpful people I’ve ever met, I literally got yelled at because she hadn’t shown me how to do my job and I didn’t ask, of course she didn’t tell me it was part of my job so I don’t know how I was meant to know I was supposed to ask… as you can see just the thought of it still makes me frustrated.

She ended up passing me off onto someone who had only worked there for a month and when that person quit a month later I got to train the new guy. All in all work can be a blessing if the environment is right or I can be a stressful nightmare. I know I’m not the only one who’s been driven insane by unhelpful bosses. Anyone else got a horror story?

Can Violence Ever be the Answer?

The question is can violence ever be the answer? I am of course talking in reference to the students protest to increased tuition fees and cuts to higher education spending which burst into violence yesterday. In wars and revolts violence may well be the answer when you can kill your opposition then install a government of your own design in the place of the current incumbent. But can a government realistically give in to violence. The answer is of course no, ever if there were people in the government who supported the students I believe that their violent eruption will lead to them losing support from those in power. You cannot give into violence when you are in a position of power otherwise it sets a precedent for all others to come.

I would never claim that the protest turned riot is anywhere near as bad as terrorism, but it does have similar tenants. Much like we cannot give into to terrorist threats and intimidation the government cannot now change its mind on tuition fees without looking like it was coerced. Peaceful protests can change societal views and political policies and wars can also do the same, however rioting and threats of violence just loses support from the public and steels the government on their course.

I feel sorry for the protestors who went about their demonstration peacefully as the minority who started wrecking Millibank tower will likely have done irreparable damage to your cause. But maybe I’m wrong. Do you think violence like in the protests yesterday can ever be the answer?

A Brief History of Black Comedy

I have a cruel sense of humour, now I’ll leave it at that to avoid one-up-manship; yes, yes your sense of humour is much crueller than mine. But to me the joke

A horse walks into a bar,

The barman says “why the long face”

Has always been missing this addition

The horse answers “I have testicular cancer”

In recent years the internet has exploded with sites filled with shock and black humour. But before we talk about that I want to talk about a serial killer from the 50’s named Ed Gein. Ed was a murderer and grave robber  who did some extremely crazy things most likely due to his strange relationship with his mother, after his mother died he decided to become a woman so he did what any normal person would do; he started making a woman suit out of  genuine woman skin. He would also make and wear masks made out of human faces and when the police finally came to take him away they found a shoe box filled with vaginas. He was so crazy they actually sent him to a mental hospital for the rest of his life; in 1950’s America murderers just got executed, imagine how messed up he had to be for them to not execute him. The sheriff who arrested him died a couple years later due to stress. Which made me wonder hadn’t he ever seen a horror film. The answer of course is not the ones I grew up with as a child seeing as how Buffalo Bill from the Silence of the Lambs, Norman Bates from Psycho and even Leatherface from the Texas Chainsaw Massacre are all based on Gein. Anyways the point is that the public was horrified, but at the same time a wave of comedians began making jokes about it. Psychologist at the time figured that when people can’t quite deal with the reality of a situation they turn to humour as a way to defend themselves.

Which brings me crashing back to the present, there are many things that are horrible with the world and that is why black comedy is alive and booming, anyone who has heard Frankie Boyle speak knows I’m telling the truth.

We are essentially highly evolved monkeys clinging to a rock that is hurtling through space and the rock itself is dying.

Also the addition of the internet to the mix has given people a consequence free place to say things that they wouldn’t normally say and yet places like 4chan are absolutely packed with people laughing at the suffering of others. Anyways what do you think about black comedy? Is it to cruel to be funny or do you laugh so hard your lungs fall out?

The Violent Minority

One of the best things I’ve watched recently has been the news coverage of the student protests. I love how smart all the students came over whilst trying to justify the violence that erupted as they began to trash the conservative party headquarters; “you can’t blame people for acting this way, when they’ve tried all other options.” Was one of my favourite statements of the night. I might have my facts wrong but I’m under the opinion that they had been peacefully protesting for about two and a half hours before a group decided to smash stuff up, now I’m not an expert but I’m pretty sure that had Ghandi and Martin Luther King tried peaceful protests for a few hours and then got bored and started smashing stuff up the world would be a very different place.


The only way that peaceful protests work in the modern day is if public opinion is won by the protestors. People who have gone and are going to university are still the minority in this country. So destroying buildings in the capital (however amusing it is to watch) doesn’t tend to sway the public in your favour. I realise that there were about 49,000 peaceful protesters spreading their message, but of course the media isn’t going to pay attention to that when a siege is going on down the street. I almost couldn’t breath for laughing when a reporter asked one of the peaceful protestors what she thought about the violence, she responded “It’s a shame as it will detract from our message, I just hope people at home will see that the majority of us are trying to get our point across peacefully.” At which point she got put into a split screen with the footage of four guys kicking in the ground to ceiling window and the rest of her words were drowned out by the sound of shattering glass.


I also found it slightly strange that the PM today claimed that the police who were there did an extremely good job and were extremely brave, but he thought that there should have been more police there. You know, David is probably right about that more police should have been there, I wonder what going to happen then when he slashes their budget (the predicted result of which is a loss of frontline policing power)? When Thatcher brought out her cuts she was at least smart enough to increase the home office’s budget to deal with the inevitable protests and riots.


Anyways now I’ll take a moment to talk about my views on the university cuts themselves. I’m not a student, I did two years of a 3 year course and dropped out (I really hated the course) and now I’m making extremely good money by some quirk of fate. I would actually be willing to pay more taxes to send people to university debt free. I see the intrinsic value of having extremely skilled and educated people in our society. I once saw a plumber on Question Time ask the question why should he have to pay for someone to get their medical degree, I bet when he has a heart attack or gets cancer he’ll be happy that there are well trained doctors in the NHS. However from what I can see I’m in the minority. The fact is most people are not willing to pay higher taxes and the government has no more money left, which means that their only option left is to cut; it’s the world we live in and no amount of smashing buildings up in London is going to change that.


But maybe you disagree, do you think the students were justified? Or maybe it brought more attention to something that would be over looked? Perhaps you wish we were more like France and everyone rioted in the street when they raise the retirement age to 62? Let me know.

Is Democracy Over Rated?

I’m of the opinion that democracy as it is doesn’t work and is slightly worthless. I have a number of problems with it which I will discuss, now I know that his is a strange view to have and it might not be true everywhere so maybe I’ll refine my statement to democracy in the UK is worthless; who actually sees a difference between the three main parties anymore. Back in the 60’s and 70’s there was a difference, labour were for socialism while the conservatives were for capitalism and the lib dems didn’t exist. Which meant when you voted you know there were vast differences; flash to the present and now everyone is fighting over the bland, tasteless middle ground? “But” you all shout out “the middle ground is what the voter’s want that’s why they are fighting over it.” “Oh,” I say “do we really need 3 parties then?” “Of course!” you shout, “that way they can each be held accountable to the public.” “But doesn’t that mean they just pander to the public? Without any true unified hope of putting any long term policies in place? That might cause the public some pain at first but might benefit society in the long run as they are worried about political careers?” I query. “Hmm.” You say, “Hmm.” I say. It worth quoting Socrates (or Plato, who knows where one of them begins and the other one ends), who claimed that the public often doesn’t know what’s good for them, especially in the long term and that it needs strong leaders to look out for their best interests even if they don’t necessarily instantly appreciate them for it.

Let’s say that I was a politician belonging to a political party. I am forced to toe the party line if I want to keep my job. This prevents me from voting in the commons as I would like to because I’ve chosen that my career is going to be that of a politician. If I voted against my party I would likely be kicked out and now I’ve lost my job.

I want to consider something else now, most political parties claim that the family is the basic building block of society, a cliché I know but lets run with it; this statement generally goes hand in hand with the conservatives trying to pass some sort of tax reduction on married couples. But let us consider the family, a family is not democratic; it is hierarchical. Only recently since I hit my 20’s has my opinion started to matter and in retrospect quite rightly so. When I have a family I know my children won’t get an equal say as me, I will decide what is best for them until I feel they can be relied on to make the decisions themselves. So if the family isn’t democratic and it’s the basic building block are we trying to build a perfect sphere out of squares?

The government also claims that the growth of the private sector will be the driving force that will eventually lead to our financial recovery. That shows a lot of faith in the business model on their part doesn’t it? Does that mean the model is more effective? Because last time I checked all good companies aren’t democratic. A CEO isn’t elected, nor does he want his choices ratified by a referendum. He wants what he decided implemented immediately.

However if you absolutely need a form of democracy to run your county, then one form I can see has promise. It’s called a demarchy or election by lottery. When we have trials we have a randomly selected sample of the public to stand in judgement of the accused, why shouldn’t the same be possible for government. What could be a more fair representation of all the different views and beliefs and cultures and ethnicities in a country than to have a randomly select sample from across the board (assuming it was a large enough sample every groups voice would be heard). They could each speak their minds and their voices would be equal, they wouldn’t need to worry about toeing the party line or their political careers as such thing wouldn’t exist and finally they would not need to be accountable to the public because after their term was up they would return without fail to the public. This is of course a system made famous by Athens in ancient Greece, the same guys who killed Socrates for spreading his philosophies (ahem.).

Anyways these are just my opinions. What do you think? Big fan of democracy?

Government Roulette

For the past couple of months all the government seems to be saying is that to now cut now will lead to greater financial trouble down the line. Whereas the opposition is saying that to cut too much and too fast will lead to greater financial trouble down the line. Both sides bring out facts and figures to support their arguments, they bring in experts and financial institutions to back their claims, they quote historical precedents to prove they are right. The thing is they don't know, it's not a sure thing by any measure they are both right and wrong at the same time and it could go ethier way at the moment.

Mr. Blue and Mr. Red walk into a casino (Mr. Blue is obviously accompanied by his girlfriend the beautiful miss Yellow) and they decide that they are going to play roulette. Mr. Blue wants to put all his chips on black while Mr. Red wants to put it all on red, they both are sure sure that they are going to be right but in reality it's all up to chance and the only thing the winner is going to get is bragging rights at the next election.

This might just be me being ignorant. What do you guys think?