Month: <span>April 2002</span>

Erk, I’m at odds with some recent readings in the papers. Before I start let me say that I fully support the NSPCC FULL STOP campaign. Child abuse of ANY form is evil and, personally, I think the people who perpetrate it should be subjected to the same emotional and physical abuse they dole out to children (the punishment fits the crime).

However when you read that the NSPCC are stating that ALL forms of ‘violence’ should be outlawed, I begin to worry. They state that by spanking your child, you are sending the message that love and violence are acceptable, intertwined. That children are better served to be punished in other ways. I kind of agree with this, but one thing rankles.

There has been a rise of instances reported in the news of children (8-16) involved in stealing, threatening behaviour, violence etc. In every aspect, through my eyes, I see a lack of respect, a lack of realization that they will be punished, and I can see no other reason than the lack of punishment they received at a younger age. The softly, softly approach does work on occasions, but there are still occasions, and they will remain, where a smack is more effective. Yes it should be a last resort, no it shouldn’t be a violent act, often the shock of a smack is enough, whether it actually inflicts pain or not. I am aware that not everything is black and white and that there is a thin line between punishment and violence, but a balance must be found. This kind of thing is a waste of resource, and surely discipline should be installed in the home. As members of the older generation are apt to say “It never did me any harm”.

I often wonder what it is about our society that has lead to this kind of situation. Where have we gone wrong? Answers on a postcard please.

Comments closed

Comments closed

With the Queen’s Golden Jubilee imminent, the press has been focusing on all things royal. As usual this includes discussions and commentary about the role the monarchy play as part of British society. One particular piece on this morning’s BBC Breakfast News suggested that the only thing that needs to change is moving the monarchy from a constitutional basis to a figurative one. Retaining the monarchy as a symbol and recognised figure of the United Kingdom, performing ceremonial duties, and moving any authority and legislative duties to parliament.

This seems to be an ‘ideal’ solution. I see no reason, and no way of just abandoning the monarchy, whether you agree with the principles they are part of our history, and in today’s ‘instant’ society, we might well do ourselves a favour to ensure they survive.

Having read an article at hydragenic, I too have also repraised my thoughts about Prince Charles, particularly in light of his recent initiative. Maybe it’s time to support our monarchy instead of constantly barraging them.

Long live the Queen!

Comments closed


Comments closed

The joy of mobile phones.

They have single handedly added a new line to conversations.

When you are talking on the phone to someone, it is now feasible for them to say to you “Hang on, my phone is ringing”.

Comments closed

Life Cycle of a Weblog and I couldn’t agree more, can you imagine someone reading anything like that…. 😉


Comments closed

This site is mine.

I write what I like.

I answer only to myself.

OK, which of the above statements are true? Well you’d think all of them, wouldn’t you. At the very least the first two. Surely?

When I started this site, it was merely a placeholder for my thoughts and rambles. The bulk of the content was longer ‘pieces’, either about me directly, or about a topic or article I’d recently read.

I moved to a ‘blog’ format and the bulk of the content now sits there. I react to articles and feelings, without much forethought in many cases, but I still fight the desire to write exactly what I think. Why?

Why should I censor myself?
“The views expressed here are my own and do not represent those of any other party mentioned within or by this site.”

If I choose to lower myself to the level of name calling, that is surely my right. If I want to complain about a current situation at work, that is surely my right. If I want to spout forth about the way I see things and how everyone else is wrong, that is surely my right.

It’s obvious that the main issue here is not the possiblity of what I write upsetting people, but a matter of appropriateness. I try NOT to comment on anything about my work, there are well documented and previously mentioned cases of people losing jobs over comments made on their personal website concerning work conditions or colleagues. It is sorely tempting, especially with the current climate in the I.T. industry, and, as with every place of work, there are plenty of problems. The ability to rant about these problems, to ‘no-one’, is ever present, and I am constantly fighting the base desire to speak out.

From a professional point of view, any comments I post here would be pointless anyway, if the problems lies within the company, then I should be tackling the problem directly, so is it cowardice that makes me want to turn to my website? I don’t think so, and hopefully anyone who has sat in a meeting with me would agree, I am usually very vocal, and I’ll quite happily be the person who speaks out, even if it is to the detriment of my own standing. (Never liked office politics, and try and stay out of them if I can).

Personal issues are a different kettle of fish. Mainly because I see them from a differing viewpoint. Professionally criticism is a necessity, and I understand that if someone has a dig at me in a meeting, I can still share a joke and a pint with them afterwards. There is rarely a personal agenda at work.

So how do I handle personal issues? Things I feel passionately about – prejudice, particularly rascism, my thoughts about religion, particularly catholicism – all fall into my field of vision, but rarely do I bite. I have made a few acquaintances through this website, and my views differ from theirs on a few things. That’s only to be expected, I’m very much a believer in live and let live, but only when you apply it to others, I don’t seem to be able to extend the same philosophy to myself. I am constantly aware of what I say sounding obnoxious, contrite, or insulting to someone, so I don’t say it. Is this denial worthwhile?

The essential problem seems to be the difference between what I would say and what I would write. I’ve always found it easier to write down my thoughts and feelings. This can easily be attributed to avoidance of conflict, and a lack of confidence in how others perceive me. This appears to be a common problem, with many others, venting/ranting/moaning online, on a multitude of topics, many of which I doubt they would take up with the people they are talking about.

So why do I self-censor?
Is it healthy, where else can I release this? Friends, family and work colleagues know about this site, and a few may be reading this (hello!), are there things I would say about them that I wouldn’t say to their face(s)? Of course there is, if the internet didn’t exist I would still self-censor myself, it’s part of who I am.

I self censor to control my thoughts. I self censor to ensure what I say accurately reflects what I am thinking. I self censor for that’s who I am.

World leaders take note, it actually works.


Comments closed

Busy week ahead, preparation is key, so I’m off to wind down, read a bit, and catch an early night. If your life depends on me posting daily, then I warn you now, it may not happen every day this week.

Mind you if your life depends on me posting daily, you really should be seeking help, shouldn’t you..


Comments closed