Twiki speaks

New blog

2007-04-13T09:55:00.000+01:00

Here's my new blog so all those people who read my blog can both move with me.

http://t-wiki.livejournal.com/

Hopefully, they won't disappear for ages and I won't forget my password...

Byeeeeeeeee

Well read

2007-03-01T14:45:00.000Z

Well the big read top ten list is out http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6405737.stm and, what a shock to see Lord of the Rings and Pride and Prejudice battling it out at the top.
Can’t really complain too much as I do actually like both books. Some of the other novels there seem to be high up because they ought to be there rather than everyone really likes them.

OK, I have a thing about Dickens actually being a crap author. Part of me was definitely turned off him by my inept sixth form English teacher but there is something awful about his writing. I think his modern day equivalent would be an Eastenders scritpwriter.

Have to be careful about what I say about the Bible because a) not read all of it, obviously and b) don’t won’t to upset anyone with the mistaken belief that it’s literal truth.
Basically, it’s inconsistent, badly written in parts, tautologic and could do with another severe editing. But it is about the greatest story ever told and John’s Gospel, the Psalms and Song of Solomon make up for everything.

Harry Potter books. What? Yes. They are a good read and it does sound a bit snobbish to point out they’re for children. BUT THEY’RE FOR CHILDREN. They aren’t even the best children’s books – Goodnight Mister Tom and The Silver Sword are miles better. And the films have been crap.

I’m still torn about Lord of the Rings. Yes, it’s a brilliant read, a thrilling, breathless epic. But I can also understand why critics deride them for their lack of analysis and poorly developed characterisation. Tolkien kind of wrote it as a back story for English folklore, seeing that other civilisations had them. Personally, I think he should have just promoted the fantastic stories from Old and Middle English.

1984 – should be higher up, not least because it’s now the New Labour handbook on how to really destory the UK. Everytime I read it, I realise how much closer we are becoming to it, cctv on every corner, Britain regarded as USA’s lackey, paucity of language in Newspeak, problems over health and crime dressed up as good news...

Why To Kill a Mockingbird isn’t higher up than number five I don’t know because it’s the best book I read throughout school and college – and one I’ve gone back to since. Required reading about growing up, tolerance, understanding and ignorance.

Still can't believe I've read eight out of the ten books

My list would be (in any order)

Complete Works of Shakespeare
Bible
Les Miserables
To Kill a Mockingbird
1984
Goodnight Mister Tom
Complete works of the Gawain Poet - Pearl, Patience, Cleanness and Gawain and the Green Knight
The York Mystery Plays
Lord of the Rings (for when I just want to read)
Anthology of my favourite poets - including Larkin, Cope, Christine Rossetti, Robert Frost, James Herrick, Carol Ann Duffy. OK, that's a bit of a cheat but my gaff, my rules

Old comedies that should be on

2007-02-06T13:45:00.000Z

Got a great dvd for Christmas (cheers John) of Joking Apart which was a sitcom in the 90s and is very funny.

Only problem is that the BBC didn't think so and stopped it after two series, never even repeating the second series despite the fact it could show it for free.
It also never released it as a dvd and a fan and tv producer had to go and do it so that the series could see the light of day

Have now just looked up another sitcom that I thought was brilliant. 'If you see God tell him' starred Richard Briers and Ade Edmondson and was hilarious. It only had four episodes of 45 minutes length and was a very dark comedy. I remember the BBC getting loads of critcisms for portraying the police as racist - it was actually a throwaway remark and - of course - the BBC has refused to show the series since. It's also not out on dvd.

ALl of this is such a shame because there are other series that are fantastic and don't see the light of day, yet the BBC see fit to come up with all sorts of crap and release them on dvd and repeat them endlessly (My Family immediately springs to mind).

Anyway, if anyone else remembers If you See God Tell Him', email the bbc and get them told.

Dead strange

2007-02-01T10:30:00.000Z

Went to my uncle's funeral on Tuesday, which was very strange.

Hadn't seen my unclde for 16 years, despite him living pretty close. Therefore, I actually only knew three other people at the funeral - my mum, dad and my aunty, and my mum had to point out my uncle's wife and his children - my cousins.

Felt like a stranger, not helped by the fact that only three of us seemed to making the responses during the service, which was held at the crematorium.

It's the second time I've been to a crematorium and I realise I don't like them. Obviously, I don't think many people will vote for them as their favourite outing but they seem too impersonal and sanitary.

In trying to make the death a more comforting process, they've taken away the mystery of it all and the earthiness. I believe in the idea of ashes to ashes, dust to dust, which lowering someone into the ground signifies. All that happens at a crem is that a curtain goes round the room containing the coffin and, that's it. There's no finality to that.

It all seems a bit processed as well. You go in one entrance, someone says a few words and then we nip out of another exit so as not to bump into the next lot of mourners. There's no real rememberance, celebration of a life, mourning of a death. It's all artificial, intended to dull the senses and lessen the impact, rather than allowing grief to run its course.

The thing about a crem as well is that's its all about death. A church is where baptisms, marriages, celebrations occur. There's life in a church, whereas crematoria seem soulless places.

Anyway, back to work...

Shock news

2007-01-08T13:07:00.000Z

Apparently Stephen Hawking plans to go into space.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/08/nhawking08.xml

That's one hell of a wheelchair...

Bloody TV

2007-01-08T10:52:00.000Z

Was looking foward to watching some of the American Football play-offs (well the first quarter and then I fall asleep) on Channel Five.

However, they're not on the channel, I realise, because ITV have bought the rights to the play-offs, as well as the Superbowl itself.

ANd, in their infinite wisom, ITV have decided not to actually show play-off games on terrestrial tv, thus depriving me of watching any games.

This is typical of ITV. CHannel Four had the Tour de France for many years. They put on a very good edit programme and even had some stages live towards the end. Then ITV came along and promptly stopped showing daily highlights.

Channel Four also had NBA basketball, showed a full match, an hour's highlights and a 30min package every week. ITV comes along, out went the full match, they showed highlights for a bit and then got rid of that as well. Genius. ITV - you are cretins

Thankfully, CHannel FIve have come along and picked up the pieces. Their American sports coverage is excellent - they show games live and regularly with good analysis (the basketabll guy should stop using the word 'literally' all the time though). But, they can't show the NBA Finals or latter stages of the American Football because of rival tv stations.

Another problem is now the emergence of Setanta. At the moment, all Premiership football is on Sky. So if you want to watch the team you support on tv, buy Sky sports package.

Howvere, because this was an effective momnoploy and wrong for your average fan, they got rid of that and now Setanta will soon show various games as well. Good for them but to watch your team now, you will have to subscribe to Sky sports and Setanta, thus costing more money.

All this blog is basiclly about is will tv companies stop fucking about with my sports coverage and a) broadcast it
b) on terrestrial where possible
c) on somewhere that doesn't cost an arm and a leg

BTW, BBC's interactive coverage. We can't all get it. Show some actual live sport on proper tv you no-mark sports-incompetent idiots

Service stations are robbing bastards

2007-01-02T10:51:00.000Z

Can't be bothered with New Year's resolutions. Only made them one year which was to quit my job, make my lunch every day and go to Mass more often. Moderately successful actually but there we go.

Spent Christmas at parentals before going to Claire's parents for New Year. All good except for driving to and from Newcastle. And sleeping in separate bed to Claire at her parents. Still, their house, their rules.

Most pissed off at service stations after having to stop on the way. Don't know why as I know they're crap but still anage to leave there more agry and streessed than when I got there in need of a break and food.

Still don't know why they have to be so sodding expensive. Even Burger King has a massive mark-up of food along with the rest of the crap service.

I've read articles where service station chiefs say they have big overheads as they have to be open 24 hours.

So fucking what? I've been in the early hours and there's sod all people on and bugger all open. And that's still no excuse for charging 50 per cent more for food. Tesco has a 24-hour garage as well and that doesn't give it an excusew to up the price of petrol by a couple of pence a litre.

The other claim is that they get people coming again to service stations. That would be long-distance drivers coming in because there's nowhere else to go.

Other things that piss me off about them is the fact that you often can't get free cash from ATMs there anymore. It's my money. You are robbing bastards.

And the fact that you can now only park for two hours free anymore. My mum used to meet up at a convenient service station, leave the car there and then share a car with other people when going long distance. In that way, share a car, do bit for environment etc. But no longer.

No reason why they charge for parking. Except that they are robbing bastards.

Why we lost the Ashes

2006-12-19T14:01:00.000Z

OK, everyone else will have written about. That won't stop me commenting, however.

Here's my ten reasons why we lost the Ashes

1) Injuries - Since winning the Ashes, (actually even before), we've been unlucky with Simon Jones and Michael Vaughan missing out. Both were absolutely key to winning them, with Vaughan an excellent captain and Jones maintaining the pressure with an old ball. Also, Flintoff was also just on his way back and Trescothick's absence upset the top order in that we didn't have a batsman who couold naturally take the game to the Aussies.

2) Lack of preparation - Basically, when the first Test came, we weren't ready, as could be seen from Harmison's first ball and our bating collapse. To beat Australia, we needed to be on top of our game. We weren't even close at the start.

3) Poor selection. Yep, Panesar should have played. Giles is a better batter but Panesar was the only player that looked like taking wickets with an old ball. You don't leave Harmison out because someone else might score more runs. Ditto Monty.

4) We were too negative. Both in selection and in tactics, we were looking for the draw. That mindset meant we lost the second Test and played Monty rather than Giles.

5) Wrong captain. Flintoff is a brilliant cricketer and an inspriation. But he was coming abck from injury and was expected to bat and bowl. Strauss had not only shown leadership qualities but could step back and make decisions. Strauss could also have Flintoff to turn to for inspiration, Freddie could only turn to himself.

7) Poor tactics. In England, there was a tactic to get every batsman out This time, Ponting and Hussey seemed inpregnable and we looked devoid of ways of getting them out until the third Test.

6) We weren't good enough. We never looked like we could take 20 wickets in a match. Our batting also looked alarmingly suspect at times, with too many off form, notably Strauss and Flintoff

8) We were playing in Australia. We haven't won there for 20 years. No team has won there for donkeys years either.

9) Australia were better than us. In 2005, Ponting and Gilchrist mainly failed to contribute, while the openers were soon separated as well. Bowling-wise, McGrath missed two Tests and their third seamer was unthreatening and easy to score runs from. This time, Stuart Clarke was the pick of the bowlers, McGrath played all the time, while Ponting and Hussey were both brillitan. They have won every Test they have played in this year. They were on form and deserved to win.

10) Australia wanted it more. Since they lost the Ashes, the Aussies have been planning how to get it back. It hurt them to lose it and they were going to do everything they could to win them back. We had relaxed since winning them back, rather than trying to push on. We'd have need to be better than we were in 2005 to retain the Ashes. We weren't as good because we were relaxed.

Still, there's always the World Cup to look forward to. Bugger

Bog standard blog

2006-12-12T09:44:00.000Z

Was watching tv last night and an advert claimed your toilet seat was cleaner than your chopping board and work surfaces.

That's quite a claim - notwithstanding the fact that they don't know how clean my toilet seat is. Also, considering the fact I'd just cleaned the kitchen, an erroneous one.

But that's not the first time the poor old toilet seat has been sued for comparison. Apparently, it's also cleaner than your work station, dishcloth most of your house, car seat, which makes you wonder whether the toilet seat is where you start eating all of your meals (no it isn't) or maybe there's one toilet seat in a research factory that they keep in absolute pristine condition so they can make up all these bullshit claims.

Christmas dinner today with work. I don't know whether I'm more pleased about a good old meal with people or the fact I didn't have to make my lunch the night before. And by the way, when I do, I clean the breadboard first

Yeh me

2006-11-29T13:07:00.000Z

I just realised I got a comment from someone I don't know, re windy turbine stuff.

And it was a comment to what I'd written, rather than rubbish spam. Go me!

One day, I will be a columnist paid squillions for writing garbage while all other journos have to suffer in poverty in order to pay me shedloads. Hurrah!

Went to a meeting on Saturday. Very dull. When will people realise that meetings are not there for discussion? They are there to inform people of what's been done and by whom, and what's going to be done and by whom. Once that has been agreed, it's off to the pub.

Also, do not hold meetings in a pub as there is no incentive to finish the meeting.

Bit random that. Never mind.

Big Brother is Listening to you

2006-11-28T13:05:00.000Z

Was driving back hom on Sunday evening when a strange event happened - I found myself agreeing with David Blunkett.

At last, the police have managed to come with something even the bearded former home secretary thought was too much.

Apprently, the police want to use high-powered microphones alongside cctv cameras. They can't pick up ordinary conversations apprently but can distinguish whether a person is talking in an aggressive tone.
Brilliant, it means we don't need to fear terrorists anymore, unless, of course, they're not talking agressively.

I am wondering whether police are playing a game among themselves of how many ridiculous suggestions they can come up with before the government says no.

'90 days without having to charge anyone.' That's a good one. They'll never swallow that'

'No-one can protest without giving the police good notice. And then we can disperse them if there's more than two people.' Brilliant.

It is amazing how the police have been desribed as 'institutionally racist', had a programme where officers have been seen to be racist, have the crappest relations with newspapers and therefore poor relationships with communitites, increase their share of the council tax every year and still get away with it.

I have no idea how much I pay for the police every year (generally includes a bit extra for when I've been caught speeding again. Anyway, I digress) but I know even less of what I get out of it as the police are so unwilling to publish any meaningful statistics.

The last time I remember it happening was when the police gave local crime figures and clean-up rates to an area forum in Bucks. The sergeant admitted the clean-up rates were very poor and he then got bollocked when this was reported. Next time the forum was on, there were no crime statistics given. Genius. We keep getting told that we crime isn't as common as we think. The only problem is that police are unwilling to give us actual statistics because their clean-up rates are so poor.

(add disclaimer here. Most police are doing a great job in trying conditions with a lack of rsources to do the job properly and if I wanted protection,t hey'd be the first to put themselves on the line etc)

Writing something at last

2006-11-24T13:29:00.000Z

Three month sabbatical - now I'm back.

Lots to talk about. Just couldn't be mithered writing anything - though that isn't helpful when writing a blog, I suppose.

Got a new car last week. After five years, the Saxo got just too expensive to repair. Didn't help that the exhaust fell off for the second time, this time round the Stoke area. The good thing is that the road recovery people have their depot a whole two minutes away.

Amyway, I am now the slightly less flustered owner of a Honda Civic that has five doors, automatic gearbox, air conditioning and lots of boot space. It's also relatively clutter-free so poele wanting lifts don't need to spend ten minutes removing my crap from the back seat. The casette player works too, which is a bonus going on long journeys. Now I don't have to listen to crap FM with its same songs. (currently Scissor Sisters, Paper dreams - which should rhyme but doesn't and AN other, possible Suagrbabes)

Other things pissing me off at the moment -
BBC making a song and dance of having cricket highlights, then plonking them on after 11pm.

England's rugby team being worse than useless.

Having no money.

After more than 18 months of going out, still living nowhere near my girlfriend

Letting agency charging more than £50 for a renewing of my contract, which consists of them fielding a phonecall from my landlord, photocopying a contract and then writing a letter to me. It also took them two weeks for them to do this. I will get my revenge though. When I buy a house and they want to know why I don't use them, I'll explain that charging a lot of money for doing sod all is not what I count as good service.

That's enough now, I'm off to play Poker on-line. Or maybe work. Who can say?

More hot air

2006-08-16T13:50:00.000+01:00

IT’S another miserable day, which means all the head in sand people can go on about how scientists are wrong about global warming.

Still thinking of siding with the scientists though as, while they don’t know the effect it will have on Britain, they do know that global warming is a) happening, b) is bad and c) will get worse before it gets better.

To me, it seems fairly bloody obvious that the rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has heated the earth and that will mean the melting of the ice caps – which is happening at an alarming rate. Already, coastal areas in Britian are having major problems holding back the tide, with some areas set to disappear.

At the moment, drought also seems a problem though that might change if our mild weather because of the jetstream disappears because the jetstream moves away.

Of course, knowing this seems to be doing sod all of any good because USA can’t be arsed cutting carbon emissions and if they don’t, we’re all stuffed.

Doing our own bit in Britian would be a good idea though. At last, people are waking up to the fact that recycling is not a good thing – it’s a necessity. Though it would help if councils actually made it easier to recycle.
The sooner someone invents a workable clean car, the better as well.

Sadly, nimbyism rears its ugly head everytime someone proposes a windfarm. These are basically great ideas because they produce no carbon emissions – unlike gas, coal and oil stations – are sustainable and don’t rely on exports – unlike gas, coal and oil – and don’t require their waste to be buried for thousands of years – unlike nuclear.

However, these facts are nothing compared to the horrible thought that a windfarm might be placed near where you live. For get that it doesn’t actually blot the skyline and doesn’t really produce noise, it’s just not on.
And how many times must protesters say: “It’s not that I object to windfarms in general, it’s just that it’s not appropriate to be sited here.”

Yes, very inappropriate to have it on a hill where there’s lots of wind.

Protesters should be given the alternative of a windfarm, nuclear power plant or waste disposal ground. Then watch them realise windfarms aren’t a bad idea. Cretins.

Off on a tangent

2006-08-08T13:48:00.000+01:00

Just been wondering about Tony Blair’s Arc of Extremism speech.

Is it me or did he have a look at George Bush’s Axis of Evil speech and just get out a thesaurus?

Either way, I think it’s pretty harsh on the mathematicians. They get a bad press already what with it being a very dull subject at school. Now they’re having graphs and circles associated with terrorism – that surely can’t help.

I wonder whether Blair passed up other neat phrases – I quite like tangent of terror, though that does sound like a Theme Park ride.

It was nice of Blair to recognise that the world would be a better place if we talked to each other, rather than trying to blow each other to bits. Shame he realised that after he took us into an illegal war with Iraq that has put the chance of World peace back a couple of decades.

What’s scary is that all the things I thought would happen if we went to war have pretty much come true. Increase in extremism, bombings in Britain, more intransigence against the West rather than an increase in democracy and absolutely nothing done about Al Qaeda because all the focus is on Iraq.

What’s even scarier is that if I thought this would happen and I would not qualify myself as an expert on world affairs or the Middle East situation, than how come no-one told Blair this would happen? Or maybe Blair didn’t heed the warnings because his head was too far up George Bush’s bottom to hear…

Was going to write about the Israeli-Lebanon crisis but, I can’t be arsed to honest. It’s like watching a younger brother squabbling with his older brother. (He started it. But there was no need to hit me with a stick. Well I’m going to keep hitting you until you stop. No you stop first. No you etc)

If everyone just grew up, stopped bothering about pride and applied some humility and common sense, then it could get sorted. Sadly, that ain’t going to happen anytime soon.

Coupe de Moribund

2006-07-10T13:31:00.000+01:00

So the World Cup is over. And yes it hasn’t been the best but my mind is busy thinking what on earth is there to watch now there’s no football on tv.

The final itself was a microcosm of the tournament. It started really promising and then fell away with the main talking points being the illegal play and controversies rather than the exciting football.

Which makes the Italians worthy winners of this tournament. They had the ability to light up the tournament as they did against Germany, instead, chose the pragmatic route to glory.

There were no real heroes this time round and no great teams, with too much diving and cheating going on to lift the tournament.

Referees did not help the tournament, too keen to brandish yellow cards for mis-timed tackles but unwilling to crack down on the cheating that was going on. And that allowed the players to continue to cheat, connive to get opponents sent off and dive around.

As for the broadcasters, some solid performances but nothing special.
This was the BBC’s worst performance at a World Cup. Generally, you expect them to rise to the occasion but, by the end, I was more thinking of how they’d cock this one up.

Read previous blogs for what I think about Motty being past it a long time ago but Mark Lawrenson was a huge disappointment, concentrating on what went wrong, rather than what went right. He also seemed to have his own agenda, such as blaming Paul Robinson for a mistake by John Terry.

In the studio, Alan Shearer wasn’t too bad but didn’t have much original to say, Ian Wright’s still an idiot and Gary Lineker forgot that’s he’s a presenter. He’s actually to blame for a lot of the poor punditry because he led the way in it being an old pro’s reunion rather than an expert analysis.

On the plus side, Martin O’Neill’s stock rose with everyone wondering why he was discounted so quickly by the FA, while Adrian Chiles showed how you present a programme that we can all watch.
The sooner Jonathon Pearce is made the chief commentator the better as well.

BBC’s poorness opened the door for ITV and I actually watched the World Cup Final on ITV.
Some people don’t like him but I like Clyde Tyldesley and, despite detesting his style, David Pleat had a good World Cup and was a better summariser than Lawrenson.
But I still feel ITV didn’t capitalise on BBC’s ineptness. They had good pundits in the studio like Terry Venables and Ruud Gullit. They had presenters who knew what their job was, like Steve Ryder and Jim Rosenthal. But, while they were solid, they didn’t do enough.

Their bigest problem is that at half time in the final, I turned over to BBC because ITV were showing adverts.

And that’s the crux. Gary, Alan et al might not be very good but they’re still better than the same adverts for Guinness, Sony and Budweiser.

Come the next World Cup, I hope that football and coaches realise their job is both to win and to entertain and that the broadcasters actually have a clue about what the public wants, which is to be informed and entertained, not put off by general ineptitude.

If music be the food of Mass, strum on

2006-07-06T11:41:00.000+01:00

So I write about the liturgy being awful and the next news is that old Pope Bennykins wants rid of guitars in church.

Not a surprise because the story’s been mentioned before. It’s still a disgrace though that one of the best things about a Mass - ie decent music - is the cause of so much controversy.
I’ve never got the Gregorian chants or choral music. For a start, I don’t speak Latin so I don’t know what’s being sung. Also I can’t join in.

To me, that’s the crux. Mass should be a participatory event. For that, it needs to be in the same language so people can understand and join in the responses. The music must also be simple enough for everyone to join in and feel they are part of the Mass.

And that’s the problem with choral music – you’re not meant to join in. I’ve been to high Masses like that and I get very little out of them. Yes the music is lovely but if I want that, I go to a concert. Mass is about praising God and a feeling of belonging to a community united by Christianity and faith. Sitting there bored while listening to some chanting in a language I don’t understand doesn’t fill the whole remit.

That’s not to say guitars and the like are always right. I’ve been to churches where the music group has taken over too far and it becomes more of a performance rather than a Mass.
Music groups are there, pure and simply, to lead the congregation through music. That’s the first and foremost consideration and should always be borne in mind.

Obviously, it’s clear I like guitary folk Masses. I think there’s still a part to play with organ music - a lot of them can be really uplifting crowd-pleasing hymns that you can belt out. But, just like there are crap guitar hymns (Bind us together anyone), there are some really naff Victorian hymns that make dirges sound good (All Nations that on earth do dwell... The next line is ‘ Sing to the Lord with cheerful voice’ which is pretty sodding difficult when you’re singing this apology for a hymn)

BTW, why are most hymns on Songs of Praise crap? There’s occasionally a decent one but, for God’s sake, stop singing turgid old ones and equally crap new ones.

Also, the congregation aren’t muppets. So, while it’s advisable not to change the mass parts every week, don’t keep the same ones for ten years. Same with hymns. Add to the repertoire – more often than not, people in the congregation appreciate new music. As long as its good.
And also liturgically correct. At university, I did spend every week vetoing hymns on the grounds they ahd nothing to do with this week’s liturgy (singing Alleluia during Lent for example)

If the lay community is going to be involved more in the Mass, as I believe we should, we need to show we have the ability to do it.

Apto vel intereo

2006-06-28T13:28:00.000+01:00

What’s the difference between a terrorist and a liturgist?
You can negotiate with a liturgist...

Considering the range of liturgy there is for the Mass, it’s amazing how rubbish so many parish Masses are.
OK, I’m a bit spoilt. I go on a pilgrimage called Student Cross and, here, the liturgy - for the most part - is amazing.

This is what a church should be like. Services are by the people and for the people. The lay community are allowed to use their talents and their ideas to add variety, inspire, question and provoke people’s faith, as well as coming up with different ways to praise God.
The priest still has a very important role to play - without him Mass could not be said.
But the liturgy does not begin and end with the priest. He adds to it with his own knowledge and experience but in a way that it is part of the shared input from the whole community - and in that way, making Mass far more valid and worthwhile than other times.

Sadly, too many parish Masses start and end with the priest. There is a growing clericism in the church, with the lay community being moved back to the role of sheep.
Obviously, this is wrong. The Church was created by God, for the people and of the people.
Undoubtedly, priests have a vital role to play, through their dedication to God, as well as their knowledge and learning.
But the current promotion of the clergy is coming at the expense of the lay community.

It’s no longer the case that the lay community can’t participate because they are illiterate, as was the case for hundreds of years, or that they have no knowledge of Latin - as was the case less than 50 years ago.

The congregation now have undoubted skills, ideas and thoughts that are extremely worthwhile within the context of the parish - and the Mass.

But still their role in Mass is too often confined to the collection, reading and communion - and the Vatican is even trying to take that away.

The lay community is often its worst enemy when it comes to change - the priest often has to twist arms when it comes to volunteering.

To me, there needs to be a change in attitude, from one of passive participation to active involvement. I just don’t get anything out of Mass when I’m just sitting there, mouthing responses and going through the motions.

The lay community should not just be allowed, they should be encouraged to develop the liturgy of the Mass, what the theme of the Mass should be and how it should be interpreted, writing the prayers of the Mass - not just bidding prayers - but offertory prayers, prayer after communion etc.

Music should be a fundamental part of the Mass - more of that in another rant, while the ministry of reading and Eucharist should be continued and promoted further.

We shouldn’t have to depend on what Rome and the Bishops have set out the Mass to be like. Yes, the Mass needs to be liturgically correct but there is no reason why it cannot be opened up to allow more interpretation and more to be done by the lay community, while ensuring that new people to the parish don’t feel left out when going to Mass.

There is a wealth of talent available in the congregation. It’s not a sin for them to be involved in the celebration of the Mass. It’s more of a sin that they are denied that chance by a cabal of cardinals in the Vatican scared of relinquishing power they shouldn’t have in the first place.

My Jerry Springer moment

2006-06-14T13:44:00.000+01:00

So I was at Mass when the parish notices were being read.
One of them was that Jerry Springer the Opera was coming to the area and that we should write to the theatre owner to persuade him not to put it on because it was a blaspehmous piece of work.

My initial reaction was one of annoyance. Almost undoubtedly, the priest hadn't watched it, so how did he know it was blasphemous.

I have real issues with people quick to judge without knowing the full facts. I found it most amusing when Brasseye was broadcast, satirising the hype of the media's portrayal of paedophilia. Immediately came the bandwagon politicians denouncing the programme before admitting that they hadn't seen the programme and were therefore exactly the kind of people Brasseye had portrayed.

When the Passion of the Christ was released I was initially against it. I'd heard it was anti-Semitic and I'm not a fan of Mel Gibson and his pre-Vatican II stance.
However, I realised I couldn't criticise it without having seen it or I would be as bad as the people that annoy me and I would be a hypocrite.

So I went to see it and it was actually very good and gave me a different outlook to Christ's suffering for us.

Back to Jerry Springer though. I have watched it, mainly on the back on authoritarian Christians wanting it banned. To be honest, not a fan of opera and there are some moments of discomfort if you are a committed Christian. However, that's probably exactly what writer Stuart Lee intended.

I did think, though, should I protest against it. Did I find it offensive? Should we be like other religions in protesting at any slights of hallowed people.

My answer is No. I don't think we will be turned away from Jesus because he is portrayed as wearing a nappy.
We've been around for 2,000 years and we should be bigger than that by now.
Instead of looking to ban, we should be looking to teach and explain, just as the Passion of the Christ was used to explore the Christian faith.

I do have a problem with the people that campaign against Jerry Springer the Opera. Where were they when the talk show was on?
To me, the Jerry Springer show was immoral, sinful and wrong. It was like a Victorian peep show where we looked in on other people's lives getting fucked up and we enjoyed it.
We shouldn't be prying into people's lives like that, taking enjoyment from their misery and sadness and yet that is what happened.
Where were the protesters then?

Sometimes, we have a warped view of what is right and wrong. Maybe we should try and remember that before we take to our soapbox and preach.

And, yes, I'm painfully aware of the irony of that last sentence.

Big business is bollocks

2006-06-13T12:37:00.000+01:00

I've been having fun recently after moving house.

I say fun, what I mean is stress-inducing, aneurysm-popping hell that is trying to sort stuff out with companies who couldn't spell customer service, let alone practise it.

My main annoyance is with my car insurers who, to protect their identity, I will call Lirect Dine.
I've already been peed off with them after they charged me more than £100 for moving from a dodgy estate in Oxford to a quiet cul-de-sac in High Wycombe where there was zero chance of getting my car keyed or broken into, as was attempted in Oxford.
So when I moved to Bury, I was expecting my postcode not to be as expensive as the £100+ hike, only to find out when I rang that my premium wasn't going to change.
That is until I got the form back, where it said that, although I had moved, my car was going to be stationed at my previous address.
???
Just what kind of idiot would think that, yes he's moved but he might leave his car behind?

So another phone call to tell them that I was controversially taking my car with me, only for them to inform me that to do that would cost an extra £60.
I couldn't believe it either.
It then got worse when I complained about the £160+ rise and it making no sense, only to be told that my premium hadn't gone up by more than £100 when I last moved. Either that's a downright lie or the system records crap data.
Either way, it doesn't exactly lend yourself to having confidence in the company. Anyway, I've changed my car insurers now. After six years of my loyalty to them, I've got a deal that's more than £600 less than what they were offering. Obviously, I was a valued customer.

Next on my list. Estate Agents. Now the ones I used were OK I suppose but why, after it taking a week to go through credit checks, do they insist on being paid the first month's rent and deposit by cash or banker's draft? Isn't the whole point of a credit check to prove I am both able and willing to pay them. And if not, why the hell do we have them?

Then there's NatWest who, at the beginning of the year, kept ringing me to arrange a financial review.
To be honest I didn't really want a review as it would go something like this:
- How are your finances?
- Fine.
- Do you want any of our services?
- No.

Anyway, they kept pestering me so I said I would have one over the phone. They arranged a time to ring, and then nothing.
A week later, someone rang saying I needed a review. I said I'd agreed but no-one rang. They apologised and said someone would get in touch about arranging a review.
No-one rang.
Then they rang again saying I needed a financial review. I pointed out the previous calls. They apologised profusely and arranged a time for me to have a review over the phone.
Have a guess what failed to happen.
At least they have stopped ringing me. Maybe they heard my telepathic thoughts that the next time this happened, I was going to close my account with them. Who can say?

And finally (for now), good old BT. I phoned them more than two weeks ago and the woman was pretty helpful. The phone call took quite a long time but it was free and I knew exactly what I was getting.

Or should be getting.

For, as yet, I still don't have my landline. I do have a landline belonging to the previous tenant who had a contract with another company. That works fine but BT haven't got round to changing it round for me. They were meant to sort it on Friday, two weeks after I first phoned (earliest time the engineer could come round), but he failed to show. I did get an apology but, this is three weeks later now. All someone needs to do is pretty much flick a button at the exchange and it's sorted.

How can it take so long? Answers on a postcard (and not by phone coz it's not sorted)

Integrated transport system my arse

2006-06-06T13:35:00.000+01:00

I've been traveling on the train quite a bit recently - mainly because I've racked up so many points on my licence that I try and avoid traveling by car.

To be honest, going by train is pretty good. I've been stuck in jams so many times over the years, which makes you very cross - and very hot in the summer.
Driving is also very boring. You have to concentrate and all there is to do is listen to tapes/ cds or the radio. And you could have the music collection of a radio station and you'd still be bored after a while.

Train journeys can also be boring but at least you can wander around, read a book, sort out stuff, eat and drink. You aren't trying to work out when it's best to travel as well because you might get caught up in rush hour round Nottingham or there's roadworks on the M6.

Train travel should be the way forward. So why don't I do it more often? The answer, of course, is cost and also reliability. And the fact that the other passengers can be a tad annoying at times. And it can take longer getting from door to door. But mainly cost.

I got a cheap deal the other day of £20 to go to Hull and back from Manchester. That to me is a good price. So why does it cost £55 to get a return to Newcastle? I don't know whether it's GNER or Virgin to blame but I'm going for both of them.

What really pisses me off is he fact that it's so tricky to park near stations. So many more people would use the trains if they could getoot the stations in the first place. But, try and park there and it costs a bomb. I used to live near the Underground, which was great for me to get into London. But there was nowhere for anywhere to park if they lived further away.

Newcastle has a great Metro system. But now they're charging people to park. Why? Even an idiot would realise charging people to park stops commuters from using the metro and getting into their cars.

In Radcliffe, there is free car park for the Metrolink. Each day, it is packed, as are the trams which are quick, efficient, reliable and not dependent on traffic.Expensive though) And that's the end of my story of how free car parks near stations and reliable transport makes sure that public transport is well used.

More World Cup moaning

2006-06-02T09:22:00.000+01:00

And another thing...

This year is going to be probably the worst in terms of the coverage of the bloody thing.

It's bad enough watching England play in the pub when you've got crowds of people getting in the way of the screen and spouting the most bollocks possible. Any bad pass and the player is deemed to be rubbish.
There's also the cry of "Why didn't he pick so and so?" "Because he's crap" is the usual answer.

My big problem, however, stems from the coverage by BBC and ITV. It used to be automatic that you'd watch BBC. They had the best commentators, best analysts and also Des Lynam.
But now...
Motty is years and years past his sell by date. For some reason, BBC think he's an institution and everyone loves him. We don't. Give us a decent commentator. At least Graeme Le Saux and Peter Schmeichel went off in huffs but Garth Crooks? Do me a favour. He's terrible and the worst thing about that is he's improved from being execrable.

Then of course we have Ian 'I love England but never did anything for them when I was a player' Wright. The man's an idiot. He adds nothing to the analysis except for making a prat of himself every time he opens his mouth. BBC claim he's the man on the street-type figure. I get enough of them when I'm watching the game in the pub. And they annoy me too.

What the BBC should be doing is providing analysis of why the game has gone like it has and what the teams need to do to improve. Instead, we get Motty complaining about the offside law (It isn't that difficult, John. Just try keeping up with the game and learn what's going on - that is your job after all), Wrighty spouting bollocks and Garth rambling on and on until he comes to a question.

At the last World Cup, ITV actually had the better panel, though they still suffer from really bad adverts and whoever is sponsoring their coverage having the most annoying ads by week two.
They at least had people who knew what was going on and, in Gary Neville, someone who knew the England boys and could report on how they would approach the game etc.
But they seem to have got up their own arses as well. Andy Townsend and Ally McCoist are pretty good individually. Not as a team so stop putting them together. I like Clyde Tyldesley as a commentator but David Pleat? Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhh.

Of course the other problem will be the phrase ' press the red button for...' I don't have a red button. Sod off and give me good stuff on proper tv. And stop asking for people's emails. They really add sod all to the broadcast.

And reasons for not listening to matches on Radio Five? Two words. Alan (I can't help being opinionated)Green. Yes you can. All the other commentators can do it and I bet you could as well.

The World cup should be a great tournament. But all the peripheral things just turn me off.

World Cup madness

2006-05-30T13:11:00.000+01:00

I used to look forward to the World Cup.
One of my earliest memories is from World Cup 1982, followed by Mexico 86 and then Italia 90, when I could get home from school and there would be football on immediately.

One of the things I like best is watching the games involving two non-entities and finding the game to be fascinating. Wall to wall football as well - it couldn't get better.
My favourite World Cup was USA 94 when I'd just finished my GCSE's and therefore had nothing to do except watch football matches.

But since then, the World Cup has generally fallen a bit flat because of all the hype. It gets worse with every tournament to the effect that it almost turns me off. Yes I do want England to do well but it seems like everyone must yell and scream and talk about it like it's the most important thing ever.
It seems that the less you follow football generally, the more you must show that you're a true fan. I can't stand all the faux followers, with people in the media trying to get all hyped up about it and pretending they actually have a first clue about what's going on. Rooney's injured? Big deal - talking about it incessantly isn't going to do anything and, by the way, nothing much is going to change between now and the next scan, so why is so much going to be published about it.

There seems to be no sense of perspective about England. In World Cup 98, we were knocked out because we took all of our penalty takers off and then tried to play for a shootout - not the brightest of things to do tactically. 2000, we weren't good enough in the Euros and then we were too negative in 2002 against Brazil. 2004 - the same problem of trying to hang onto a one-goal lead. And the disallowed goal by Sol Campbell was right to be disallowed - I couldn't believe that anyone thought it was a goal - let alone so many delusional people.

This year, the hype has got bigger and bigger and I wish it would the World Cup could come so we could all get on with it.

World Cup 94 was my favourite World Cup, not despite the fact England didn't qualify but probably because they didn't. Less hype, less idiots jumping on the bandwagon, letting me enjoy my games in peace.

Twiki

General Introduction

2006-05-29T15:13:00.000+01:00

Erm, hello everyone.

Have no idea whether this is a blog for me to let off steam or for other people to view. I'd like it to be the latter but I can see it as being the former.

That is, of course, if I have steam to let off. I have lots of things I get annoyed about but whether I can articulate them into words is a lot harder.

It would of course, be more productive to go into what I believe in agree with, rather than descend into a rant against issues. It's easy to criticise but there must be an alternative where you expound your own beliefs.
I'm also not trying to foister my own thoughts on anyone but explaining my own position. You may not agree with them but as long as you read them and allow my beliefs then that's fine.

So here's the thing about me. I'm a catholic, I've a girlfriend, I support Manchester United and I love all sports. I'm a pedant, live in the north of England and like playing the guitar. I work in the media, eat meat and like drinking good ales and fine wines - generally red.
And I'm liberal.

It's difficult being a liberal and ranting - though recent events have made it easier, sadly, as the current government become more and more authoritarian.

Over the weeks, there'll be general rants over issues I feel strongly about (if I bother updating this). But this will do for now.
Thanks for reading this

Twiki