You couldn’t make this sort of thing up. Level after level of complete stupidity.
On one side, you have Katie Hopkins – anything she says or writes is usually complete bollocks, and with her unique way of putting it across, it is frequently even more bollocks than that. Back in 2015, she made a mistake (not a unique phenomenon for her) and got someone mixed up with someone else, made one of her trademark asinine and highly offensive comments to the innocent party, then followed it up with her trademark refusal to admit her error and apologise to that person once the error was noted. Indeed, even after the subsequent libel case went against her – leaving her with a legal bill likely to top £300,000 – she is still shit stirring.
On the other side, you have the person she offended – listed as a “food blogger” who goes by the name of “Jack Monroe”. Something that struck me in all the media stories this week was that it wasn’t possible to pin down whether Monroe was male or female. The name implies one thing, the photos are ambiguous (which is the only reason the question occurred to me in the first place), and none of the stories I read used the relevant personal pronouns. But I think I can now see why that was. That Huffington Post article starts off confusingly by using the possessive pronoun “their” to refer to Monroe in the singular. I initially assumed it was a typo or bad editing – something which is now standard in most media outlets – since “he” and “she” are singular, and the only grammatically correct asexual alternative is “it”. But it clarifies a few paragraphs later:
Monroe, who identifies outside the binary construct of gender and prefers the gender-neutral pronoun ‘they’ and title ‘Mx’…
I wonder how long it took to come up with that pile of crap? I mean, you could say quite simply “he or she is writing a blog article”. It would appear that “it is writing a blog article” is not acceptable for some reason. Monroe apparently expects it to be rendered “they is writing a blog article”. And what the f*** is wrong with “Ms” if you live your life on a high horse, free from any sort of reliance on a filthy, putrid male? How the hell is “Mx” any different, other than requiring a brand new construct?
Any sympathy I originally felt has wafted away on the winds, along with grammatical correctness, and I now consider the match to be a draw. Mind you, it does mean we get two nominees for the 2017 Darwin Awards instead of just one.
Andrew Jackson had an interview with Greater Manchester Police for a job in their IT department. The problem was that he stank of alcohol, and when casually questioned about whether he had found the interview location easily enough, commented that he’d had a job finding somewhere to park.
Alarm bells duly rang, he was breathalysed after the hour-long interview, and still blew positive. Proper tests even later at Bury police station still gave a reading of 46 mcg (the legal limit is 35 mcg). He had apparently been drinking the night before, though he denied drinking before the interview. He pleaded guilty in court.
He was banned for a year, and fined £235. I am assuming he didn’t get the job.
Definitely an early contender for the 2017 Darwin Awards (that’s my version, not the official ones).
Over the last week or so I’ve noticed the sudden appearance in my stats of visits to the blog using the search term “applied coach approach”. Until the first one last week no one has EVER used that term before, now it is appearing multiple times per day.
I should also point out that – so far – I have not been spammed with it, but after a quick search it would appear that the DIA is selling a coaching course with this title, costing a little under £100. Better still, as well as being a standalone course, it apparently “builds on” the original Coach Approach course, which no doubt also cost somewhere around £100. I bet there are some dipsticks out there who have done both, as well.
You know what they say about a fool and his money.
Coaching is coaching. Once you’ve done one course and are using the techniques as necessary, unless it turns out that you’re desperately crap at it, any further courses only benefit those who are pocketing your cash. Incidentally, the coaching clip art I found for this article struck me as being very appropriate. It looks like someone trying to coach someone else up on to a toilet seat.
Hot on the heels of that last story about companies employing retards and allowing them to make business-shaping decisions, Sainsbury’s appears to have done it again with one of its Valentine’s Day crapola range items. They’re called Hugging Bear Mugs, and they come in pairs. You will note that – if you make the obvious connection based on visual appearance – they are both male.
Assuming that it’s true (a lot of fake news around now that fake news is in the news), you have to wonder any of the following:
who would be stupid enough to buy one?
who would be stupid enough to THINK someone would be stupid enough to buy one, and that they should become a stock item?
who would be stupid enough to think you could sell enough of them to make it a profitable line?
who would be stupid enough not to see the overt visual reference to male genitalia?
who would be stupid enough not to realise any of the above at any stage of the buying process, and allow the product to end up as an SKU?
Who would be stupid enough to recruit – and to continue to employ – people who made or failed to spot these crass decisions beforehand?
Apart from a few students – and admittedly, probably a few more than would have before, now that this has been in the media – you’d need the mentality of a Brexit voter and no class whatsoever to buy one.
What’s more, I would suggest that having it on display – in full view of children – is a breach of the UK’s obscenity laws.
It’s obvious what the mugs are supposed to be showing, and the covert message they are obviously trying to convey. It is unbelievable that Sainsbury’s could have got so many decisions so wrong in order for these to go on open sale.
I was on a lesson with a pupil today and I asked her how she was getting on studying for her theory test. I asked her to identify a pedestrian crossing we had just passed, and it was clear she was a little confused. Next time we stopped, I got my sketch pad out and went through the different types to show her how understanding them made answering theory test questions much easier than just trying to remember the answers.
We talked about Pelicans, Puffins, and Toucans. I mentioned how they’re named after various birds, but that in spite of people trying to make the connection, Zebra Crossings are much older and are named after Zebras and not Zebra Finches. That brought us to Equestrian Crossings, which I mentioned using the common name of “Pegasus Crossing”.
Who do you think would use a Pegasus Crossing?
I don’t know.
Think about it. What was a Pegasus?
A flying horse.
Good, and half of that might explain who uses them. Who might that be?
Flying cars.
My ribs are still hurting now. She realised immediately, but – at the time – she meant it.
Edit: Incidentally, she was one of the best drivers I’ve had, and a very pleasant pupil. She passed first time in May, having started in January with no previous experience.
I picked a pupil up for a lesson tonight from his house. He’d already asked if we could finish at his girlfriend’s place over in Cotgrave, which I had no problem with. Well, I say that, but I did have some small reservations, which grew as the lesson went on.
I enjoy this job immensely, but there are two particular things which I have to admit I have nightmares about. One is to do with steering. I’ve been teaching for long enough to know that pupils can do things you’d think that no sane person would ever do. For example, a few months ago a girl who was a bit unpredictable behind the wheel in the first place was steering almost full-lock around a tight mini-roundabout to turn right when the ball on her nose ring (which she fiddles with incessantly) fell off at the precise moment she needed to steer left into the exit road. Who would ever have thought that a rational human being would instantly decide to let go of the steering wheel with both hands and plunge head-first into the foot well to try and catch the ball before it hit the floor in this situation? And in another example some years ago, a pupil was driving at 50mph down a long, straight, well-lit 60mph road, with other cars visible several hundred metres in front of us doing the same, when he suddenly decided we needed to make a 90° turn to the left. There was no left turn there anyway (not even anything resembling one), and even if there had been we couldn’t possibly have managed it at that speed, and nor should we have attempted to do so. He could never explain why he had tried (I remember his exact words: “I honestly don’t know why I did that”).
The second thing that gives me the heebie jeebies is when a pupil asks to be dropped off somewhere different to the pick up, and before I’ve had time to look it up. This is made worse when I attempt to identify the location with them and they can’t tell me anything other than “I know the way”. Those four simple words convey an absolute encyclopaedia of possible meanings, such as:
I’ve only been once
I was asleep on the back seat at the time
And I was only four
My mum (or dad) normally drives
My mum (or dad) think they might have once heard of something called The Highway Code
My mum (or dad) think that they once passed their driving test, but now they can’t remember
I usually walk there
I usually ride my bike there
I’m aged 17-25 and beyond the end of my road (less if it’s a long road) I get lost
I got lost the last two times I came here on my own
I usually catch the bus
Young drivers are often so poor at navigation that they think 5cm on a map “isn’t very far” – even though they’re looking at a World projection printed on A4. With a big border. And cornering on two wheels with no signals (just like mum or dad) comes naturally. With all of this in mind, the conversation at the start of today’s lesson went something like this:
Where in Cotgrave do you need to be?
I know the way
Yes, but I don’t. What road does she live on?
Ummm.
[Groan] You don’t know the name of the road?
But I know the way
At this point, I jokingly explain much of what I’ve written above.
I don’t know how you “usually” get to Cotgrave, and there’s more than one way. Where is she near?
Ummm.
Is she near Ring Leas?
[A light seems to come on] Umm, I think.. ummm.
OK, we’ll head for Ring Leas and you can tell me where you’re going from there
It’s near Sainsbury’s
[I pause for a moment] But Ring Leas is nowhere near Sainsbury’s
I’ll know it when I see it
Yes, but I want to get there alive. We’ll head for Sainsbury’s then
We carry out the bulk of the lesson. Once we’ve done it, we strike out for Cotgrave along the A606 Melton Road. Just after the Wheatcroft Roundabout the conversation proceeds:
I normally take the next turn left
I know how to get to Cotgrave, just concentrate and you can tell me where you think you want to go later
I assumed that he meant he’d normally drive down Tollerton Lane (which is actually the fourth left from where we were), even though that would be a pointlessly longer way to get to Cotgrave. As we turned into Cotgrave Road (fifth left):
Yes, this is the way we come
But this isn’t “next left” like [I decide not to pursue it]… now concentrate on the road, it’s dark and narrow [and it’s snowing now]
As we approach Cotgrave:
It’s left at the Church
But Sainsbury’s is on the right
No, it’s this next road [pointing right at Mensing Avenue]
But the Church is a bit further down, and Sainsbury’s is on the right at the end of this road
No, there’s one here [Scrimshire Lane, second left, and on the right]
That’s the graveyard, the Church is on the left down there, and you said it was on the left. But this is the road she lives on, yes?
Ummm. Yes. I meant on the right.
[We turn into Scrimshire] Where does she live?
On the left just here [points]
What, down here? [Cherry Orchard]
No, down here [points left again]… where that car’s going [actually, into someone’s driveway]
You mean Ring Leas, then [which is just past it]?
Ummm.
So it’s down here? [I point at Ring Leas as we approach it]
No, it’s down here on the left
Several possible left turns later, we finally arrive – albeit about 1km beyond the point where our destination was “just here on the left” the first time.
Promise me you’ll buy a sat nav as soon as you pass.
I knew where it was
No you bloody didn’t. Not one of your directions was correct, and what do you think you would have done if you’d been driving on your own? You’d have taken that first turn back on the A606 and ended up in West Bridgford if you were lucky. Then you said it was “near Sainsbury’s” – it’s nowhere near.
It is
Sainsbury’s is over a mile away. Have you any idea how difficult it is to find an address when you don’t know a road name or house number, and are searching in a one-mile radius based only on visual recognition – in the dark? Your idea of this house being “near Sainsbury’s” is like saying “Nottingham is near Derby”. In global terms it is, but not if you’ve got to walk it wearing a blindfold!
Society is doomed, I tells ya!
And this is why I sometimes have those recurring nightmares.
Something made me smile today. I was at the Trent University for a driving test and while my pupil was out I went to one of the cafes on the campus to get a coffee, as is my wont.
It was lunch time, so the place was full of students (God, was I ever like that?) While I was waiting to order my coffee I was semi-fuming that the two people in front of me both seemed unable to complete the simple task of ordering a drink and sandwiches without necessitating a complicated discussion with the counter staff, nor of paying the couple of pounds (student subsidies) cost of their meal without the need to use a credit card and take at least two tries to get the PIN right.
The girl immediately in front of me was… erm… quite chunky, and – these were students, remember – clearly operated on the premise that it’s OK to stand in line, then go and look for something else in the cool cabinet, then push back in, then go and have another look, and so on. Her last trip to the cool cabinet resulted in the selection of a very healthy carton of courgette and carrot sticks (probably around 50 calories).
I noticed that her coffee, though, looked like the one in the picture above.
Until recently, ASA was a battlefield for BT, Virgin, and all the other broadband companies to keep trying to discredit each other over claims made in adverts. Every week without fail, BT would have a complaint about Virgin, then Virgin would have a complaint about Talk Talk, then BT would complain about Virgin again, who would then complain about BT. However, this has pretty much stopped now, and although no one ever admitted to it, I’d lay odds that it was a conscious decision on someone’s part to stop the practice once and for all.
ASA frequently reverses some of its previous decisions based on appeals from those it has ruled against (or those who won’t let go, if the decision was not to uphold a complaint). ASA is not government funded, is non-statutory, and it is self-regulating.
Every ruling against someone concludes with the phrase: “The advertisement must not appear again in its current form. We told [company] not to [make whatever claims it has been accused of]”.
Some of its rulings are extremely petty. Most complaints seem to be equally as petty, and it is obvious that they are raised by professional complainers in the majority of cases. What irks me is that some of the companies ruled against may well have spent a lot of money on the ad campaigns in question, and all that money is effectively wasted thanks to an organisation whose CEO, Guy Parker, is on a salary of £120,000 a year.
A ruling in this week’s bulletin against Heinz is a prime example. Heinz has a series of adverts centred around tapping on empty baked beans cans. Now, if ASA had banned it on the strength of how annoying it is, I’d have had some sympathy (anyone remember the Heinz Tomato Soup ads?) But their decision to ban this one is on health & safety grounds!
Heinz is a multinational company with annual revenue of more than $10 billion, and over 30,000 employees worldwide. Any advertising campaign it launches is likely to cost hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars. Heinz Baked Beans are a staple food, and Heinz sells more than 1.5 million cans per day in the UK alone. Nearly one billion people eat Heinz Baked Beans at least once per year. Two million people eat them each day (not necessarily the same people).
The ASA’s ruling came about as a result of just nine complaints.
That’s right. Nine arseholes whose brains have turned to jelly as result of whatever happens when you have children complained that the ad promotes dangerous practices which might cause little darlings to cut themselves. Where have these idiots been living?
I was brought up on cans which looked like this when you opened them. They were sharper than razor blades, especially if you used one of those lever-type openers which had a longish blade and effectively sawed through the metal. And we used to play games like Tin Lurkey with these things – but I’m still around.
In fact, I’m not aware of anyone having had their lives changed or snuffed out as a result of the most horrendously sharp edges on the cans I used to know, so I find it even less likely now that most cans are ring-pull types with no sharp edges of note.