Grumpyhatlady and Chums

I tried to buy a birthday card for a male acquaintance today. It’s not someone I know terribly well, but he is a good friend’s partner. The card had to be appropriate given the relatively new development of our platonic relationship.

Have you noticed how hard it is to buy decent birthday cards for non women?

I went into a shop that was once guaranteed to have me spending a fortune buying funny and original cards, even if there were no birthdays coming up. Today I went in looking for a 30th card for a male and couldn’t find anything suitable. All the cards in the shop were doused in pastel pink or pretty pastel flowers and bunnies. He’s not really a pastels type or a bunnies type. At least not in public.

The so-called humorous cards mainly contained 1950s housewives making sarky or sexist comments while undertaking household chores, because y’know after decades of fighting for gender equality, ironic sexism shared between women in humourous greetings cards is the ultimate in social freedom. No harm whatsoever. Gosh, I’m being a spoilsport by even suggesting they could be considered sexist…

Forgive me if I can’t be arsed with this equality regression…

Then there were a few googly eyed wooly creatures with “hysterical” slogans such as “I love ewe” – not knowing his opinion on bestiality and not wanting to hint at mine, I felt such cards were best left on the shelf.

The self affirming and motivational quotes seemed a little twee, especially when most were quoting, and aimed at women discussing traditionally women’s issues. I don’t think he would appreciate a card affirming his womanhood or having his ovaries motivated to explode with eggs at the sight of a baby dressed as a flower.

I didn’t think it appropriate to comment on the size of his genitals, his sexual prowess or stamina, unlike a large majority of the greeting cards on sale. As I stated at the start, this is a new friendship and given his girlfriend’s known psycho possessive streak, they were just a bit too suggestive for a new platonic relationship.

There were no cards strictly for males that weren’t ‘Congratulations It’s a Boy’, not pictures of the Fallen Madonna With Ze Big Boobies or pints of beer with allegedly witty ‘you’re almost an alcoholic’ style comment. Not blue pastel cards with bunnies or even green or lemon or just plain white. There were no gender neutral cards at all that didn’t suggest he was a giraffe or gorilla for every and any occasion.

I’m not entirely sure what this shop expected us to do for the birthdays of our male friends and family, perhaps they expected to sell only to women who feel that emulating a sarky 1950s housewife bemoaning her list of household chores is the way of the future.

I’m not averse to abolishing gender stereotypes in the greetings industry and giving a man a card appearing ‘girly’ but I am averse personally to pastel colours, gender based humour and bestiality. Where were the gender neutral cards? the truly funny without taking gender or disability or vegetables pretending they’re humans into account?

They weren’t in that shop!

So I thought I’d have a look in the local Oxfam bookshop, they usually have some funny birthday cards but it was more of the same. Oh wait! there was a difference, the housewives were replaced by ageing women from the 1920s and 1930s in a variety of allegedly hysterical poses with allegedly witty, and ageist and sexist, comments. The few that contained men were again discussing his sexual prowess.

I just wanted a ‘happy birthday I don’t know you very well and don’t care about the size of your manhood’ card but it seems such things don’t exist.

In the end we left with nothing. We saved a tree today.

Interesting scenario.

Child makes ignorant comment on twitter. Thousands have a go at said child. Child, like all children displays bravado and keeps going instead of backing down. His trolling a sportsman is in turn trolled & flamed by thousands of angry twitterites. His bravado escalates to versions of I’m gonna kill you… Most people believe this is a ‘look mum I’m on the telly moment’ but continue fuelling the original trolls ego. Let’s face it, he’s finding the attention and power of the outrage he’s caused fun. All children love attention and power.

Original troll gets arrested. Those who flamed him and escalated the situation feel a sense of pride and duty at their involvement in getting ‘scum off the net’. Well done moral society you must be proud. I wonder what would have happened had you not fed the troll, ignored him completely and gone about your business… No point wondering as you didn’t. Game set and match to flaming en mass.

Police will have to take any potential death threat seriously. Should they not and the Original Troll follow through on his threats, there would be hell to pay.

Bad police make society angry. You wouldn’t like society when angry, except now storm in the usual suspects, moaning about freedom of speech and how ridiculous it is to arrest someone for saying something stupid on twitter. Remember twitter joke trial? The problem is, there’s a huge difference between OT’s first stupid tweet and the barrage of death and rape threats that followed. That isn’t freedom of speech, it’s harassment, its malicious, it’s illegal. Just because the medium is relatively new doesn’t make this kind of behaviour acceptable or an HRA article 10 issue.

The difference between the twitter joke trial tweet and these death threats is semantics. The joke trial recognised the use of language to suggest humour. This troll used threatening language with no indication of humour and persisted in using threatening language in tweet after tweet directed to many different people. There is no ambiguity in his meaning, regardless of whether he intended to carry through with the threat. He intended fear and alarm. No one could doubt that from his language.

Freedom of expression is being able to state an opinion, impart information or share ideas without repercussions. It is not and never has been the right to harass or threaten people’s lives or safety. I suggest reading the HRA for exceptions to each article.

I get annoyed when people say but he has the right to say it and if police arrested every person for being an idiot we’d all be doomed. And I agree with the latter but if police didn’t investigate and said sportsman or any number of the flaming trolls were discovered dead, or raped, there would be more of an outcry. Can’t have it both ways…

Written on phone will likely have glaring autocorrect errors.

Whodda thunk it? The opening ceremony of the Olympics has healed ALL our problems for the next fortnight and everyone has gone soft on the problems so very prominent prior to the moment the Queen jumps out a ‘copter.

Suddenly in a huge wave of nostalgia the majority of the population think Britain is great again. Tugging at the heart strings of the most cynical has worked well. Instant criticism seizure. Crimes of past and present forgotten. We are one big happy family again. Anyone who disagrees is disowned.

While the media are awash with stories of Danny Boyle’s lefty ceremony, the British public left and right have pulled together in patriotic solidarity. Only the most radical extremists haven’t fallen for its message; Don’t dare criticise the Olympics, the ceremony’s message or the new holy land of great Britain. A better result the coalition couldn’t have hoped for and they just sat back and let it happen.

Aside from outrage at MPs Burley and Mensch, nothing negative is being discussed by the public regarding the our political and economic states today. “But now is not the time for it” I’ve been told. “Now is our time to shine and show off our talents” apparently.

Put global problems on hold for a few weeks, some fit people need to do some exercise!

In one evening the government’s much desired WWII spirit has returned to the public and don’t you dare criticise it! Go learn the words to god save the queen and knees up mother brown now. You’ll need them soon to prove you’re patriotic and proud.

The government have hoped for this sense of patriotism and pride for years and we’ve willingly handed it to them on a plate.

We couldn’t pull together to save the NHS or the Welfare State, two things celebrated in the opening ceremony, yet we can do so over a dramatic reenactment and a hugely restrictive and expensive corporate sporting event.

This time yesterday no one believed the Olympics would improve national wellbeing statistics, let alone unite such a broken nation.Yesterday we were cynical enough to see the attempts at wool being pulled over our eyes. Last night in a highly impressive and entertaining show, it happened. Our vision was obscured by subtle ovine fabrics while we were dazzled by the pretty lights, bouncy music and nurses.

All the lefties feeling warm and fuzzy as Boyle allegedly sticks it to the destructive coalition. The coalition feeling warm an fuzzy because it believes it has managed to do what no government has in almost 70 years; brought back the great British community spirit.

But what happens when the Olympics are over? Do we automatically revert to the cynicism, albeit less convincingly knowing how quickly people shallowly change their minds on public outrage? Or do we continue with our keep coalition and carry on attitude the opening ceremony seems to have developed among us?

While so many are now claiming the tens of millions of pounds spent on the 3 hour theatrical extravaganza were more than worth it, people in Britain are still starving and struggling to survive, the disabled are still being penalised, there are no jobs, the NHS so celebrated last night is being privatised, schools to follow, the libraries housing the children’s stories so prominent in the show are closing, economy is in a worse state than it has been since before the war, and peaceful protesting is rapidly being criminalised.

The latter one disturbs me. As people watched an impressive performance outside, those who didn’t care for it outside were being violently arrested. This morning, those who dared to criticise it, or at least not celebrate the Olympics and Britishness, online were being violently attacked.

This hasn’t solved any pre-existing problems. It hasn’t cured all ills. It was a piece of fantastic entertainment pure and simple and people are so blinded beaming with patriotism and pride in response, they’ve forgotten what’s really going on, if even just for a fortnight. It’s all been very similar to The Braveheart Effect seen when an Australian actor wielded the strength of an American film studio to create a dodgy xenophobic patriotism among Scots.

Tens of millions of pounds spent on a pantomime is small change to effect the kind of societal atmosphere the governments have been craving for the past 4 1/2 years. And we swallowed it without question. Good thing really, might be the only thing for some they eat all week.

I wish the athletes all the best, it’s their moment. I commend Boyle on a great show… But I’m not going to forget the real world either.

**random words are due to ayephone autocorrect**

BBC News just had a feature saying the Joseph Rowntree Foundation undertook their annual survey into minimum income standards derived from the minimum acceptable living standards in the UK. The findings, taken from research among the general public, say that a family of four must earn £37,000 before tax to meet the minimum income standards. A single parent with one child (and childcare costs) would need to earn almost £24,000 to meet the minimum standard, while a single person with no children must earn £16,400.

1 in 4, or 17 million people living in Britain today, do not meet this standard

What bothers me about this study is, that it is the general public determine what the minimum income standard is to be considered acceptable. That the costs that go towards devising this perceived standard are for the things people are deemed to be unable to participate appropriately in society without. The necessities. This is the very same general public who believe benefits recipients are receiving far too much from the state, and are living extremely comfortable if not luxurious lifestyles thanks to the great british taxpayer. Yet a family of four surviving on benefits will most likely not be seeing £37,000 a year and if they are, guaranteed the vast majority of that will go to Landlords in the way of Housing Benefit.

With restrictions on the income of families existing on benefits to be set at a maximum total of £26,ooo per year, including housing costs, it appears the country is contradicting itself. When the scarily influential Daily Mail is saying that families on benefits of considerably less than £37k a year are living in luxury, yet society believes we need far more to live to a basic acceptable standard, what does that say about a society who accepts and celebrates in reducing the quality of life for people on benefits?

When the minimum income standard is based on things that are considered essentials, what of those who cannot meet this standard? In a family with 2 children, the parents must earn an average of £18,500 each which is only just below the national average. This means the multitudes of families surviving on minimum wage jobs (£11,065 per year at 35 hrs a week) or zero hours contracts (no guaranteed hours a week) will be nowhere near meeting the minimum acceptable standards for living in the UK in 2012, even with tax credit top ups and child benefit.

Studies like this are interesting and important to gauge public perceptions of acceptability and income, but it is important to highlight the inequality in Britain and the growing gap between those who have acceptable living standards and those who do not. I’m not just talking about the gap between the very rich and the very poor but the gaping chasm between minimum acceptable standards according to the general public and the minimum amount the government say people existing on benefits need to live on.

The Minimum Income Standards as decided upon by the general public are far more than millions of people surviving on benefits can even hope for.

How is it right that one man gets a £20,000,000-30,000,000 golden farewell for being at least partly responsible for the latest banking scandal and my family of 3 have to live on only £100 a week before bills and food? The reasons behind why we have to live on such a small amount at the moment are personal and complex but we’re not eligible for benefits and we can’t find work. Anywhere.

On twitter people were stating what £20m-£30m could do for their workplaces. People claiming it would fund their project or department for X amount of years. I decided to work out how long my family could live, on our current income, if we had £30m to draw from.

Turns out we could survive for 5769.2 years.

YES! FIVE THOUSAND, SEVEN HUNDRED AND SIXTY NINE YEARS TWO AND A HALF MONTHS

Or it could support 5769 families on £100 a week, for one year

If he is unfortunate enough to only get £20m, that meager amount would keep my family on our current weekly income for 3846.2 years or keep THREE THOUSAND. EIGHT HUNDRED AND FORTY SIX families on £100 a week, for one year.

And this is only his golden farewell. It doesn’t take into account his previous bonuses, his salary and his shares.

How is it fair that one man, responsible for what most people are calling FRAUD and everyone is calling immoral business practice, can be given such a handsome payoff, when there are families forced to live on £100 a week?

We were so greedy in the good times we didn’t care what the bankers were doing as long as we could get easy access to money and the material possessions it buys. Well aren’t we all suffering for it now. Welcome to Capitalism – Hell Mend Us!

So I’m watching the big debate on BBC Scotland. I’m not impressed.

I’m not impressed with the blatantly unionist audience members who don’t present a balanced approach to the independence debate.

I’m not impressed with the poor debate skills and manners of the “panelist” politicians who are persistently talking over each other making it impossible to hear what they are all saying, losing potentially important and valid points being made.

I’m not impressed with the inability to move from a purely political approach to independence rather than a wider social and personal implications of independence.

And most of all, I’m not impressed with how little Scotland’s own citizens think of their country and it’s prospects.

This last point has me wondering why these people who seem so disillusioned with Scotland’s prospects are happy to continue with a poor (wo)man’s status quo. Why accept this second best as a continuum? Why let people so far removed from our lives make important decisions for us that are damaging to us and do nothing about it when we are being given the opportunity?

What are we so scared of?

Political apathy in this country is shameful and the big debate audience are highlighting the problems with a continued national apathy. People are sitting back and letting others decide our future for us based on half truths, fears, lies and rumour. The people of Scotland need to take the power back from the Eton Toffs. The people of Scotland need to decide their future without external and nationally damaging political pressures. The people of Scotland need a balanced input and output in such important debates and they are not getting any of it.

The Big Debate was less of a debate and more a case of highlighting yet again BBC bias and fear of presenting alternative points of view. And things can only go downhill from here

This isn’t a particularly well written or thought out blog post, just more than I can fit into a tweet.

Dear Prime Minister David Cameron,

It appears you have a problem with elders of parliament, and your bullying behaviour witnessed by many today on the television means the evidence is there for all to see; for all time. This does not bode well for the company.

If I may just point out to you The Citizens Advice guide to Age Discrimination at Work where you will find some handy hints on how not to be breaking the law, written in very plain English, so you should understand it.

If I could firstly, just lead you towards this paragraph

your employer isn’t allowed to bully or harass you because of your age. They must also stop other colleagues, and in some cases clients or customers of the business, from doing this. For example, they must stop other people if they make offensive jokes about your age in the workplace

Now I know there are small technicalities around you not being Dennis Skinner’s employer and while you may not be fighting for the same team, you are most definitely colleagues working in the same or similar roles and in the same building for the same company (that’s us, the UK population, in case you didn’t know) and you have, on more than one occasion made offensive “jokes” about his age, in the workplace.

As the head of the government you should be setting a positive example to other MPs and indeed the entire country’s workforce. Instead you have shamed yourself and the UK, with your hysterical, bullying and downright impertinent responses to an elderly MP trying to do his job. In most cultures, elders are revered and respected, in Britain, the head of government bullies and puts down the elders. Complete lack of respect, class or manners. I do hope your mother kept the receipt for that expensive Eton education, it wasn’t fit for purpose.

As you don’t seem to pick on the age of (m)any other MPs, I’m assuming this behaviour towards Dennis Skinner is a targeted campaign of bullying and harassment, and I feel it important to highlight another paragraph from the CAB site:

your employer isn’t allowed to treat you worse than other colleagues at work because of your age, or the age they think you are, unless they have a very good reason

Small matter of not being the employer aside, you have absolutely no reason to treat Dennis Skinner worse because of his age. And with this in mind, it goes further:

your employer isn’t allowed to force you to retire or dismiss you just because you’ve reached a certain age, unless they’ve got a very good reason. If they do, you can ask a tribunal to decide whether you have been unfairly dismissed, and whether you have been discriminated against because of your age

Suggesting someone should “take his pension” and then say that you “advise him to do so”, after being asked a pertinent question during an official parliamentary debate, is in my laypersons mind akin to pushing retirement and discrimination. It is definitely workplace bullying and according to the Equality Act 2010 is against the law. I should also point out there is a health and safety at work issue, should your continued bullying behaviour cause the recipient stress or mental ill health.

You may be the Prime Minister but you are not above the law. Some legislations may be suspended by the privilege of parliament but I’m not entirely sure whether or not this does (or even should) extend to workplace legislation or equality legislation. You, just as any other worker in the UK should be held accountable for your behaviour while at work and to be caught on camera being so blatantly arrogant and disrespectful to a colleague, does not please your employer.

David Cameron, in my capacity as one of your employers, I am dismissing you with immediate effect from your role as Prime Minister, due to your demeritorious behaviour and for bringing shame upon the company that is the UK.

I am also dismissing your party (including the LibDem turncoats) from their role in government for general incompetence, inability to perform the duties expected of them to an acceptable standard and for causing huge offense to our customers, who also happen to be your employers.

With the above in mind, you better’ hope Mr Skinner doesn’t see fit to take you to court over your illegal behaviours. God knows I’d be happy to put a few quid in the litigation fund to see that happen.

Absolutely no love whatsoever,

Grumpyhatlady and Chums

Tea Parties with The Guys go on all night

So I come downstairs this morning to discover The Guys (the official term for Jr’s soft toy collection) sat in the same position we left them last night having a tea party. Now I don’t know if you condone this kind of all night partying in your house, but if I’m not invited it’s not on.What kind of disrespectful bunch sit up all night, on a school night while the rest of the house are asleep?

It all started off innocently enough yesterday afternoon

L-R LucyPussy, Miffy & Dotty Bunny, Molly, Scruffy, Moo & Sigmund

Things started to heat up a little by early evening

L-R Old baby Annabel, Moo, Big baby Annabel & Siegfried

It was all very amicable and polite when we went to bed. Let me share with you what I witnessed as I entered the living room this morning.

Moo is slumped in her high chair obviously reacting to the downers she must have popped to counteract last nights uppers.We’ve had words about this kind of behaviour in the house before, but it doesn’t stop her. I’m at a loss as to how to deal with this upper/downer cycle. It appears she’s dragged Old Baby Annabel back into her drug induced ways. Annabel has to be careful though, after her experience of “accidental” overdose last year landed her in hospital. Last year Jr was called to many meetings with child protection services over her lapse in parental judgement with baby Annabel’s drug use. You’d think a then 18 month old child would know better than to allow her baby Annabel to get mixing with dealers, pimps and hookers, but you just can never tell with people these days. She had 9 months of rehab to sort herself out. Poor Miffy bunny seems a bit bemused by it all. That or she’s stoned. It’s hard to tell with those eyes. Maybe she’s not poor Miffy at all, maybe she’s the ringleader of this outrageous behaviour.

Alfie the dog appears to be groping at Molly Teddy. I’m not comfortable with this overtly sexualised behaviour in front of some of the younger toys. He’s older than the rest and a bit of a cad. Molly is a bit too innocent. I’m sure he’s trying to break her. We’ve had words about this before but he’s like a dog with a boner.

Dotty Bunny passed out hours ago in front of her teacup, If I didn’t know better I’d say she looks dead. Not wanting a scandal at the house (what would the neighbours say?) I won’t investigate her life status and hope she’s just in a K-hole. It’s not looking good. *hears theme tune from Dr Who in background*

LucyPussy, well, she’s a little creepy. She’s sitting there with a huge grin while guarding her saucer, hasn’t moved a muscle all night. I’m scared to try to clear up for fear she pounces. She may look like a cute, fluffy soft toy but she’s a vicious killing machine with retractable claws. It’s best not to take on such a reprehensible beast

It appears scruffy the dog fell asleep molesting bonny the teddy. Are these toys having swinging parties as we sleep? This is totally inappropriate behaviour by toys belonging to a 2-year-old girl. Scruffy still has his tongue hanging out. At least the lipstick is out of sight. And I’m disappointed with Bonny. I thought she was a little more respectable than that. And not a condom in sight! I hope she’s on the pill.

Strangely, it seems @siegfriedzebra and Sigmund zebra weren’t part of last night’s festivities. This is unusual but as the pair of them are preparing for a new baby (Dipitus), perhaps they’re reigning in their wily ways. Dipitus currently has no head and when Jr introduced her to Sigmund, the response was a little frosty to say the least, it his does not bode well for bonding. Dipitus still has to have her head knitted and attached.

I’m not sure if I should point out that Siegfried was pictured in a compromising position with Alfie Dog at yesterday’s tea party. I’m unsure how Sigmund would react if he found out. At least they haven’t yet gone through with the civil partnership, despite their impending parenthood. Will they be the first  male zebra civil partners in the UK? I do hope so.

So now I’m left wondering, do I attempt to wake the toys up and get them to clear their own mess, or do I just leave it and book myself in to see a psychologist for all this drivel I took the time to write?

Why are people so interested in what my opinion may be on any given matter?

As Plato said, “Opinion is the medium between knowledge and ignorance.” I like that. I claim ignorance far more often than knowledge.

I find I am asked for my opinion on things quite a lot. I’m pretty sure it’s not because I am some kind of social influence, and more often than not I end up getting trolled if I do reveal my personal opinion when asked directly.  I don’t think my opinions are particularly controversial. I don’t believe they should have any bearing on any person I communicate with. It may well be that they are different to yours, his, hers or theirs but they are only one virtual person’s opinions.

That said, if my opinion happens to be different to yours, is it a deal breaker? Does social communication cease? If we all had the same opinion, the world would be a very very dull place. I like difference in opinion. I learn from it. It expands my mind, it shifts me slightly towards knowledge from my position of ignorance.  Often, I will give my opinion on something, whether it is wanted or not. That does not mean I am open to abuse or accusation for not providing an opinion when directly asked. It is mere politeness (ok, maybe a bit of mischief too) not to reply with “none of your business”. This response is one I often wish to give, even when the person asking holds the same opinion as me.

Why? Because it is none of their business.

If someone communicates with me merely because we hold the same opinion on a matter and is willing to cease communication when we do not hold the same opinion on the matter, I will have little time for said person. And that is my opinion.

Only after the last tree has been cut down,
Only after the last river has been poisoned,
Only after the last fish has been caught,
Only then will you find that money cannot be eaten.

American Indian Prophesy

When I bought my flat as a student, the couple who owned it previously left a picture with this written on it in the bathroom. I loved it, but I don’t think the sentiment they were trying to portray was the way I took it. I looked much younger than 18 at the time, despite being 23. They assumed mummy and daddy were paying for the property and treated me not like a purchaser of their home but a spoiled brat. They assumed wrong, I bought it all by myself without borrowing any money from my family.

They were a horrible couple in their 30s who left behind a mountain of debt that I had to sort out by proving they did not live there anymore and that I wasnt actually the previous owner pretending to be someone else. The irony of their message and behaviour was not lost on me.

I have to thank them for leaving it behind. It is something I think of often. It taught me that money isn’t everything at a crucial time in my life. It made me realise that if I worry about money, I will end up with money worries. It taught me to be self sufficient and not to get into debt. As soon as I was in a position to grow my own food, I did, always with the prophesy in mind.

It is as important a message today as it was back then and it will be as important tomorrow as the day it was originally made.