83 - Numbering

 Now I am sure those among you who have been paying attention will notice that every post on this blog is numbered, and that today's is #83, and the previous post was #81. So. Where is post #82?

Well... I was looking through my post list on the dashboard of the site and saw that the post count after #81 was 83 posts. Now, this post count includes unpublished drafts, and there is an unpublished draft from a little while back that never saw light of day. It's called "Manifesto", and one day should I summon up the energy to finish it, it'll be published. 

But that still left a post unaccounted for as there was definitely only the one draft... so, looking back through the blog I happened to realise that a little while back I gave two posts the same number... see if you can find which two...

So, I had two choices; go back and revise all the post numbers from that point, or skip the #82 so that the total number of published posts matches the current post number. 

You can see what I've chosen to do. 

Hopefully, there will be no further duplications...!

81 - Language

Well, it's late November so we're now in the annual tedium of the censoring or banning of the Pogues and Kirsty MacColl's Christmas classic single, Fairytale of New York. 

This year it seems particularly notable as it's Radio 1 who have decided to blur our the word "slut" and replace "you cheap lousy faggot" with "you're cheap and you're haggard" whenever it plays it as it thinks their listeners are too sensitive to hear a song featuring the omitted words. Other BBC radio stations have apparently left it to the DJ as to which version of the song is played...

I guess before I go on, I should go in to a bit of a history in to the censorship of the song.

Back in 1987, when the song was first released and was to be performed on Top of the Pops, they had no problem at all with the words "slut" or "faggot", and instead took issue with "Happy Christmas your arse, I pray God it's your last", insisting that "your arse" be replaced with "you ass". It is this performance, with Shane's unique lip-syncing, that is most often repeated on the Christmas TOTP2 compilations. 

Much less seen is the performance shown just after Christmas 1991, just in to January 1992. This is the origin of the alternative "you're cheap and you're haggard" version of the song, where Kirsty sings these very lyrics. And, therefore, how Radio 1 can play a version where Kirsty sings these alternative lyrics. 

There are many people who think this alternative originated with the dreadful Ronan Keating cover of the song; they are wrong. They're not wrong about it being dreadful, though; it is. Though after seeing him speak about it on the terrific BBC documentary about the song I understand why he covered it, his version just doesn't work as to sing Shane's part of the song you have to believe the singer could spend Christmas Eve in the drunk tank... can you imagine that about Ronan? No! Nessa, fer sure... (Now if we could have a release of the full version of the Nessa and Bryn version released I would be very happy...)

It has been noted by many that Shane McGowan himself doesn't care which version of FONY is played; well, yes, he's not daft. He'll be more than aware that whichever version is played he'll still get his royalties. If not played at all, then he gets nothing. Radio airplay of FONY is probably enough to keep him in whisky for a whole year... 

And all that's a load of preamble before I get to the point; what do I think? Well, my opinion is that if you're going to play the song, you should play the song as it was released in 1987, bad words and all. 

"'Cos you know sometimes words have two meanings..." Led Zeppelin, Stairway to Heaven. 

It is the use of the word "faggot" that stirs up much negativity towards the song, and it is an unacceptable slur towards gay people. It's also an old Irish (and apparently Liverpudlian) slang for a lazy person. The question is which definition of the word would the Irish chap Shane McGowan have had in mind when writing the song?

I would certainly suggest the latter as it's the definition of the word that actually best fits the context of the story in the song; that of the ups and down in the relationship of a man and a woman, and there is not a single moment in the song that suggests the male character is gay. Therefore, logically, the "lazy person" interpretation to me would be the correct one. 

(Faggot's also an old word for a bundle of twigs, and a very tasty gravy covered meaty dish; neither of those contexts fits either. Oh, I do miss faggots since I went vegetarian. I used to have them a couple of times a month until then. If only Brains could make a vegetarian version. It'd be brilliant. Piers Morgan would disagree, I expect... )

I know there is also the argument that homophobic bullies use this part of the song to denigrate gay people; but let's be honest, bullies will use anything they can get their hands on to use as a weapon. If not this song, they'd just use something else. It's a nothing argument as to give in to the bullies is admitting they've won, and they can never win. They must never win. 

But at the end of the day it comes down to a personal choice. If I play the song, I'll play the original. Other people will play the censored version. It's not like it's being taken away, and never heard. 

You have the choice. 

And that freedom of choice is oh, so very important. 

Now... what have we all got to say about the censoring of Mel and Kim's Rockin' Around the Christmas Tree and the excision of the line "I haven't had this much fun since Two Little Boys was number one..." 

80 - Single

The thought does sometimes enter my mind as to whether I’ll be single for the rest of my life. I realise this may be a somewhat pessimistic outlook, but perhaps it may be realistic, and with how 2020 has been going, the isolation and all that pandemic related malarkey, makes me increasingly think this is my future.

 

And it’s not even necessarily a bad thing.

I have now spent close to 8 and a half years as a single chap, and I am somewhat used to just doing exactly what I feel like, when I feel like it – subject to restrictions of needing to do pesky things like working, and planning around school days/holidays and the other fun things the kids do. Oh, and of course, traversing the may different rules of the lockdowns this year. But, ultimately, decision are mine, and I am rather used to how life is.

 

I sometimes wonder if I’ve spent so much time single that I’d be no good in any kind of relationship, or that I’d need a lot of knocking in to shape to be even remotely bearable around, and that I’d put off anyone that might even contemplate a date with me? You may think this is, again, pessimism; but precedent set would point in this direction. I mean, of the handful of dates I have been in on recent years virtually all of them I’ve thought have gone well… until the inevitable “nah, not for me” follow up. Even the rarer second dates have failed to lead to a third.

 

Oh. Well.

 

And also I really don’t like dating as a concept much anyway as it’s far too much like a two way job interview with all the questions etc (I’ve been told I both ask too many and too few questions!), and trying to cram as much in as you can in a pretty short amount of time. Sometimes the conversation flows better than others, but I guess that’s a part of how things are; conversations with someone you’ve only just met will never be the same as with those who have been your friends for many years. You don’t yet have the shortcuts, in-jokes, and knowledge of the kind of things the other will find funny etc. These things take time, which is in short supply on a date. Also, to be honest, on a first date I really don’t care what your job is; all that can come later. I mean, chances are it’s not that exciting; certainly mine isn’t. I’d rather be talking about the things you choose to do, hobbies, interests, likes, dislikes, opinions on things. All that is much, much, more interesting. I remember one date was a massive EastEnders fan; she talked for ages about that, and it was great. Can’t remember her job at all.  

 

Of course, you have to get someone to go on a date with you in the first place, and these days that’s mainly the apps; even when you match with someone only a small number will actually bother to message you back. And then it’s hard to know exactly what to say in your first message. I always try to make sure I include something that shows I’ve actually paid attention to her profile, so it doesn’t sound like it’s a generic message that could be sent to anyone (though I admit, I have sent some of these). I mean, I don’t expect a reply within 30 seconds of hitting “send”, but when you look in your inbox and see piles of messages without replies it does get a little disheartening. Almost wish you’d not got the match in the first place.

 

Looking back, I sound like a right moaning old whingebag, and that’s really not the tone I was aiming for here. I do retain at least a little optimism that I might not be single forever, but I am much less worried about it than I might have been in the past. I have far fewer expectations now than I might have had in the past, and I guess whatever happens, happens.

 

No-one knows just what the future holds, and in some ways that’s exciting. The pandemic has put things on hold for a while, but it won’t last forever. You never know, maybe a match or two might work out how to reply to a message and it could be the start of something big? Or maybe the start of something nothing much at all?

 

Either way there’s only one way to find out…

79 - Potter

So, at my advanced age (46) I've finally watched all eight Harry Potter films. I did very much enjoy them on the whole. There were some better than others, some glorious moment, and that cast... so many great actors throughout. Alan Rickman stole the show, though. But then, he always does... Also, I'd have liked to have seen a lot more of Miriam Margolyes, too. 

I can't help but wish we'd got a few more two-part films, though, as I think the last one really benefited from having more room to breathe. I can't imagine how they could have squeezed that in to a 2 1/2 hour film, so it makes me wonder what may have been excised from the other books to fit in to a single film. 

I guess the next thing to do is read the books, to see exactly what was snipped for time. I expect there's all sorts of secondary characters who get more time in the books than they do in the film. And probably all sorts of excised sub-plots. 

After watching, I do have a few questions, though...

1. In one of the films Hermione has a time turner, which enables its wearer to go back in time and undo unfortunate events. Which is exactly what they do in that film. So... why is it when there are further unfortunate events, such as the one at the end of The Goblet of Fire for one? Or the end of Half Blood Prince?
2. What's with the Quidditch scoring? If catching the Golden Snitch means an automatic win, why bother with anything else and just concentrate on that?
3. If the Elder Wand is so potentially dangerous in the hands of Voldemort, and it's so easy to destroy, why doesn't Dumbledore just snap it in half?
4. Why on Earth was David Tennant wasted in a role that was little more than an extended cameo?
5. If Voldemort was unable to kill Harry as a baby, why would he think he is able to when he's a teenager?
6. Why do we see so very little of Hermione's parents? We see the Weasley's all the time...
7. Is it just me or does "Luna Lovegood" sound like a girl from a James Bond movie? I mean, devoid of context you could just imagine Roger Moore's eyebrow raise at the mention of the name.
8. What happened with the Malfoys at the end of the last film? They just seemed to walk away. Are we to infer anything by Draco's appearance on Platform 9 3/4 19 year later?
9. What's with all the, essentially, "baddie" wizards being sorted in to Slytherin? Wouldn't it be safer just to expel anyone sorted in to this house? 
10. Lastly; just how brilliant was it when Neville stood up to Voldemort near the end of the Deathly Hallows?

I could probably think of many more questions, but these'll do for now...

78 - 1984

Sometimes I feel like we're living in 1984. That is, the Orwellian version, not the real life version that happened 36 years ago. I say this because increasingly I see people silenced because of their opinions, bullied for their thoughts, and a general sense that if you do not say that you love Big Brother, and that Eurasia has always been at war with Oceania, you must be some kind of horrible bigot that must be erased from whichever online platform you are using. 

The fact is there is never going to be a consensus about any issue, especially those that cause controversy. Where there may be people with polarising opinions on either side, but also people trying to navigate a middle way. It's often these trying to navigate a middle way that get caught in the cross-fire and before you know it, the cancel-culture idiots are down on them like a tonne of bricks. 

I have for a long time thought that the best way to persuade others that yours is the best path is by reasoned debate. That when concepts which perhaps are quite a leap from the status quo maybe time needs to be taken to gently, and reasonably, persuade people that actually this is the right way, rather than hitting people round the head with a metaphorical sledge hammer. 

Your message may be right, but the way how you deliver it is also very important and can be the difference between people suddenly realising "oh, yes, I see what you mean" or thinking you're an obnoxious shit who's best ignored. 

I see people on places like Twitter who are clearly on the right side of the argument, but the tactics they use end up antagonising many people, and rather than drawing people in to their cause they drive them away. And that's very sad indeed. Similarly, the willingness to insult, and abuse, those who hold rationally thought opinions that don't chime with your own. 

There are always people who will disagree with you. People who do not share your opinion. The question is, how do you react?

Personally, I don't care if you love Big Brother or not...

77 - Cummings

Perhaps Dominic Cummings has been cleverer than many think during all this hoo-ha about him allegedly breaking the quarantine. After all, it is known that he is quite the strategist, and is adept at coming up with techniques to ensure certain outcomes are what happens.

Picture this scenario…

Imagine a situation where the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, wants a way to relax the lockdown greatly, but knows that politically it’s not the right time. So., he needs a way to get more people out and about but can’t do things officially too soon.

Enter Dominic Cummings and his trip up north…

[I’ll not go in to all the details; they’re all out there…]

Now, Cummings could have fallen on his sword, and apologized profusely, and begged forgiveness. But he didn’t. He’s riding it out. Boris isn’t sacking him. And there’s outrage amongst a lot of the country.

Outrage that is manifesting itself by many people thinking that if the rules aren’t applying to Cummings then they’re not applying to them. This is, therefore, leading to an increase in people flouting the lockdown. You can see the footage and photos.

So, Boris effectively gets much of the lockdown relaxed, albeit unofficially.

And when there’s a second peak he can just turn around and say that people shouldn’t have ignored the lockdown. For him, it’s a win-win situation. And you can bet Cummings had a hand in guiding it…

Oh, such an imagination I have…