April 19, 2006

"Football, innit, wot syndrome" syndrome

I have very diverse social circles. But among some of my friends, there is this tendency to want to show disdain for something purely on the basis of popularity. The general MO is to see that something is popular, not make any effort to understand the thing in question, and at every opportunity criticise the thing, and all those who are interested in it. In particular, it is very popular to associate being a football fan with stupidity, racism, violence, or anything else bad, really.

Can someone explain to me why this is? JCM, I'm looking at you in particular, though you're far from alone. Just what the hell does football have to do with voting BNP?

Posted by James at 00:34 | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Tags for this entry:

December 22, 2005

Partial ban on blankets

It looks more and more like smoking in pubs (or at least some pubs) is going to be banned. Personally I'm in favour of a partial ban — dry-led pubs serving plated, sit-down meals would become non-smoking, and wet-led pubs, which are often "community" pubs, would continue to allow people to smoke1. This means non-smokers taking on bar jobs will be able to find pubs to work in without exposure to environmental smoke, pub food will taste better, and those pubs which would die under a smoking ban get a reprieve. Most of the sort of people who don't like smoking in pubs probably already mostly go to dry-lead pubs anyway. Everybody wins, or at least nobody loses all that badly, I think.

However, recent research from some economists at UCL, reported in the Observer, adds an interesting twist.

Children's health will be put at risk from passive smoking if the government bans smoking in all restaurants and bars, according to dramatic new research out today.

The study, which will provoke fresh controversy over whether a partial ban would be the better option, concluded that parents, particularly poorer ones, who are prevented from smoking in bars tend to smoke more in front of their children at home. Passive smoking has been linked to breathing difficulties and asthma among children.

Source: The Observer, 18/12/2005

Now, I think that these stereotypical poor parents prone to smoking in pubs tend to go to "community" type pubs most of all. Which in my experience tend to be wet-led. So would it be fair to say that, for the sake of the children, a partial ban is actually a better bet than a total, blanket ban on smoking in pubs? Then again, this all flies in the face of research showing that a ban on smoking in enclosed public places is likely to reduce the amount of smoking at home. It's all so confusing.

I guess that if the balance of research shows that public health is best served by a total ban, then I can live with it; I do worry that it marks the beginning of the end for community pubs, though. But then I work in one, I would worry about that kind of thing, wouldn't I?

1 Dry sales in pubs are food sales, generally excluding things like crisps and nuts. Wet sales are everything sold over the bar, roughly. Hence a wet-led pub is one where the focus is on drink, whereas a dry-led pub makes most of its money through meals.

[Update 1: I mean led, not lead, apparently.]
[Update 2: Looks like a blanket ban is now more likely ]

Posted by James at 03:07 | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Tags for this entry:

November 11, 2005

Duelling Davids

He pledged England-only votes in the House of Commons - but ruled out a separate English Parliament. "Only English MPs could vote, let's say, on English education policies or English health policies," he said.

I agree with Mr Davis, given that MPs have no influence on Scottish education policy (which is decided by MSPs), that representatives of the Scottish electorate should equivalently not have influence over English education policy. However, I have to wonder about Davis's reasons for supporting this — after all, it's not as if his party currently has any Scottish MPs...

Asked that most intimate of sartorial questions - what kind of underpants they prefer - David Davis and David Cameron revealed a crucial difference.

It's always nice to see the serious issues being addressed in these campaigns. Don't worry about the legalisation of ecstasy, or constitutional reform, let's ask them about their favourite bands and underwear preferences.

(Incidentally, both Davids said they like Coldplay more than the Scissor Sisters, which I think proves that Coldplay are pants, as I've said all along.)

Posted by James at 15:09 | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Tags for this entry:

September 20, 2005

A revolving gilded statue

I know this Alaskan bridge thing has been blogged to death already, but does anyone else think it's just a matter of Don Young trying to follow in the glorious footsteps of the great Turkmenbashi? I expect to see plans for a revolving gilded statue on the bridge supports any day now, and an ice palace at one end. Although in Alaska, that may be a little too practical...

Posted by James at 23:57 | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Tags for this entry:

September 11, 2005

Drink-sodden Armageddon

In a smidgeon under 3 months time, the law in the UK regarding licences to sell alcohol, to put on various forms of entertainment, and to sell hot food/drink after 11pm (late night refreshment) will be changing. The 6 separate current licensing schemes will be brought under a single banner, and in the process the current statutory limits on when a licence to sell alcohol can apply will be relaxed. This isn't to say a licence won't be needed (it certainly will), or that licences will all be 24-hour (they most certainly won't!), but there will be the potential for 24-hour drinking across the UK. Which for some reason has upset people.

Admirable as upsetting the Daily Mail editors might be, it's slightly scary to think that we might be plunging towards a drink-sodden Armageddon. But are we really? Lots of other European countries trust their citizens with the right1 to drink alcohol at just about any time of day they choose, after all, and we're told they don't suffer from our "yob culture" — I suppose the question is, do we need a shift in our culture before we can have late night drinking, or do we need late night drinking before we can have a shift in our culture? And if it's the former, how else do we go about causing this change?

I personally don't think people in general will drink more at a time, more frequently, or more in general, under the new licensing regime. What they will do is get just as insanely drunk as now at a bigger variety of times to normal (making them easier to deal with?), and perhaps start their nights out later. People also won't feel rushed to squeeze as many pints in as possible between the end of Eastenders and last orders, so we should see fewer people getting drunker than they planned, and fewer people throwing up outside pubs/takeaways. Bonus!

The "late night" part of the new licensing rules is just one aspect of the act, anyway. More significant to me is the reduction in bureaucracy for places that currently need multiple licences, and the introduction of distinct "personal" and "premises" licences, which makes sense in a whole bunch of ways, and ought to save licensees a whole bunch of court appearances in the future. For one thing, anyone working for a pub chain as a "relief manager" will simply be able to have a personal licence, and be the Designated Supervisor for any premises in the chain whenever they need to be. At present, I understand every relief manager would need to make a court appearance to be made the temporary licensee at the new premises every time they went to a new pub, although I'm willing to stand corrected on this one.

Some new licensees will face significant problems of course, since currently kebab shops and burger vans don't need a licence to operate at night, and will soon need one to sell anything hot after 11pm. The reasons for introducing these requirements (as explained in that article) are pretty sound, though.

Something else those complaining about the new laws don't seem to realise is that people can already drink until silly hours of the morning if they so decide — pubs I've worked in have had "lock-ins" previously which extend well beyond the hours they've applied to extend their licence to under the new regimes. I can think of at least 2 pubs locally where drinking to 3am or so isn't unheard of, but I can't think of any that have applied for a licence beyond 2am. I suppose some nightclubs in the city centre may have applied for more hours.

So to conclude, the new licensing laws will piss off Daily Mail editors, reduce city centre violence, reduce occurences of vomiting on pavements near pubs, shut down dodgy backstreet kebab shops, regulate the surviving ones better, and allow people to drink legally later avoiding the need for things like lockins, while reducing paperwork for publicans. Sounds good to me.

1 I don't mean to imply that 5am-drinking is some kind of fundamental human right, here, just that some countries allow their citizens to do it.

Posted by James at 23:05 | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Tags for this entry:

June 06, 2005

Is Bob Geldof dead?

A couple of weeks ago, some scruffy Irish rock star (no, not Bono) announced a series of concerts to coincide with the G8 Summit in Gleneagles, with the intention of increasing his profile on the lucrative after-dinner speaking circuit.

What's interesting about this is that, 2 weeks before the announcement, in a Times article of May 9th, Geldof said such an event would take place only over his dead body.

Mr Geldof said: “To try and artificially reproduce Live Aid would almost be a disaster. I wouldn’t do it and I can’t see a point to it. We already have high awareness of the issue in Britain. Live Aid II happens over my dead f****** body — nor can they use the name Live Aid, because it is a copyrighted brand.”

The record industry and broadcasters are pushing for a 20th anniversary Live Aid concert, which would achieve massive international exposure, but Mr Geldof will not be bullied into participating. He said: “They want Geldof to ring bands up and say, ‘Will you do it?’ Is that going to achieve anything? I didn’t do Live Aid so I could sit there and watch Queen. People don’t want to revisit Bob’ s greatest hits, either.”

So, my question to you is this: does this prove that Bob Geldof has been dead for some time, and his media presence/image is being sustained only by the latest in special effects technology? We should be told.

Update: Bob Geldof is, of course, not dead at all. He's just completely insane.

Posted by James at 14:55 | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Tags for this entry:

May 13, 2005

Gypsy asylum seeker terrorists

Apparently, to apply for a passport in the UK, you need to get 2 identical photographs (so no using those machines that take 4 shots in succession...) of yourself signed by either "a professional person", or someone "of standing in the community", who has known you for 2 or more years. Oh, and they need to sign your form too. For bonus awkwardness points, I can't be related to the person, even as an in-law, nor in a relationship with or living in the same house as them.

Of course, if I was the sort of criminal that wanted to get a dodgy fake passport, I'm sure I could get one of my friends to lie that they'd known me for a bit longer than they have; it's only inconvenient because I'm not willing to break the law. Great security measure there, guys! I'm sure that'll foil those evil arab gypsy asylum seeker terrorists who've come to steal our women/jobs.

Oh, and if you lose your passport, you need to report this to your local police station, however big a waste of your time and theirs you may feel this is.

In other news, if I can get a passport before then, I'm going on holiday on June 2nd! If I can't, I'm, er, not. Tumtetum.

Posted by James at 19:27 | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Tags for this entry:

May 02, 2005

Dubious at best

Sorry, I lied. I've not been posting at all, because I promised to avoid politics, but it turned out I didn't have a lot else to talk about. So here goes...

So this political campaigning malarkey. I've done my bit, delivering and handing out leaflets for my local Liberal Democrats, (on which more in another entry). I don't agree with everything the Liberal Democrats campaign for, but I can forgive their anti-nuclear stance (implied at the end of their policy briefing on the environment, though they don't explicitly oppose new nuclear build in that), and even their somewhat utopian view that even the highest level of education ought to be free (all over their website). I can forgive these things because in return I get a party that I agree with on immigration, on council tax, on health, and on law and order. I also get to vote for the one major party that opposed the Iraq war (the legality of which is dubious at best).

While I'm on the subject of the Liberal Democrats, I found out recently about LibDemPolicy.com, a Conservative site (Are you drinking what we're drinking?) listing some truly appalling LD policies. For instance, "We will put your taxes up" — hardly shocking news, given that they've been talking about a 50% top band (on earnings over £100k) for years now, and an extra penny on the basic rate before that. Worse still, they would "‘introduce fair benefits for asylum seekers'" — damn these lily livered liberals and their sense of social justice! They'll be opposing mandatory sentencing and giving old people free residential care rather than making them sell their homes, next. Bastards.

Remember folks, whoever you're going to vote for, it's this Thursday, May 5th. Unless you're voting Veritas or UKIP, in which case your nominated voting day this year is May 6th.

[This entry was first written 4 days ago, and has been edited slightly to make sense being published today]

Posted by James at 13:46 | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Tags for this entry:

April 13, 2005

Token Election Post

Sorry, this is probably a one off. No more politics until May 5th, I promise.

Apparently there's some kind of election coming up. Inevitably, there are plenty of people out there trying to tell you who to vote for, from the parties themselves ("Are you thinking what we're thinking? Forward, not back!") to allegedly-independent advisory websites. If, like me, you feel you should be voting Labour but can't bring yourself to support Blair, I recommend So Now Who Do We Vote For?, by John Harris — it doesn't offer any conclusive answers, but it's a pretty good roundup of the current options available to the left wing voter.

And of course, if you're not sure if that applies to you or not, there's always Chris Lightfoot's political survey. My results from back in September are still here.

Posted by James at 11:32 | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Tags for this entry:

March 25, 2005

For sale, one comatose body

Via Dan Gillmor, is this possibly the world's coolest living will?

If I am rendered comatose and determined to be in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) for a period longer than one month and if no imminent cure is forthcoming, I do not wish to be kept alive by artificial means including but not limited to nourishment, hydration, etc.

However....

If, due to the absurd political state of affairs in this country, my persistent vegetative state and impending unplugging can be parlayed into some sort of political leverage, I wholly endorse using my predicament in whatever way possible for the purposes of passing legislation favorable to my general political and ethical outlook.

The poster then lists the specific causes they're willing to support by living, and for how long. I think I need to start reading more of craigslist :)

Posted by James at 15:51 | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Tags for this entry:

January 04, 2005

Public Inhalation

On Monday, Toby posted an entry about smoking in public places where he proposed a free-market style alternative to a smoking ban. I fail to see how this proposal is noticeably different from the status quo, which suggests to me that, not only does it not work in theory (as I will demonstrate), but it also doesn't work in practice (as recently demonstrated in East Yorkshire).

The proposal doesn't work in theory because people are not divided neatly into social groupings of smokers and non-smokers. I don't smoke, but one of my housemates smokes regularly, and the others "occasionally". If there were a mixture of smoking and non-smoking pubs here in Beeston, I imagine when we went out we would invariably end up in the former type of pub, so I as a non-smoker would gain nothing at all from the existence of non-smoking pubs. Only pure non-smoking groups would be likely to frequent non-smoking venues, and I would be surprised if these groups are numerous enough to make running a non-smoking venue profitable. I can think of few social groupings I'm in that are exclusively made up of non-smokers, but perhaps I'm atypical — answers on a comment/trackback to that one, please!

So I don't know what to do about the problem of smoking in pubs, and other public places, to be honest. I do know I'm fed up of my clothes stinking of smoke, of my hair stinking of smoke, of coughing up crud after every night out, and of enduring the smell of smoke while I'm out. I also know I'm even sicker of these things happening to me at work1. But while I can't see a solution other than a ban, banning something because some people find it unpleasant doesn't appeal to my fluffy liberal values. Banning something because it's a danger to the health of people nearby seems more justified, but the people in the smoky pub (with the notable possible exception of the staff) are there entirely out of choice, so the number of relevant affected people is relatively low.

So if a ban isn't the right answer, and a purely free market system won't work either, what will work? Anybody?

1 You might choose to argue that I'm entirely free to find a job somewhere else, instead; this isn't entirely accurate, though. When I took on my current job, it was chosen because the hours would fit around my existing schedule, and with no relevant experience any other pub might have been less keen to take me on. I couldn't afford to factor smokiness into the decision as well.

Posted by James at 03:22 | Comments (6) | TrackBack
Tags for this entry: