A Tale of Two Scouts

As a scout leader of any sort you should never have favourites. It's unfair on all the other kids and doesn't do that individual any favours if they don't have to work as hard at things. Take that as read. I am however a human being and I'll admit that I do have a favourite cub (about whom more later). I would never allow that fact to cloud my judgement on anything they did or allow myself to cut them more or less slack on anything, that would be wrong. However I do allow myself to mentally warm to that individual a little more than the others.

So why come out with this now?

Well I thought I'd mention it because we have a leaders planning meeting tonight and on the way home I spoke to another leader and it transpires that at the moment he is feeling a bit under appreciated, both in scouting and in various other voluntary roles that he does. In some ways he feels taken for granted. Now he is relatively new to scouting, he's been at it a couple of years as opposed to yours truly who first got involved when he was 8, some 22 years ago and never left. I didn't have the heart to tell him that if he wanted thanks he was probably in the wrong job. I think very few people appreciate just how dam hard volunteers like me and him work. Trust me, unless you do some kind of voluntary role that you fit around the rest of you family, friends and work you can have no idea, no idea whatsoever. I don't want that sound to grouchy because it wasn't meant to, it was just a statement of fact.

Anyway speaking to him made me think of this favourite cub and why she is my favourite. It's quite simple, because she says thank you. She throws herself into everything with wild abandon and daft grin on her face and gets others to do the same. And then she will turn to me and the other leaders and say thank you. A couple of weeks ago we borrowed a leader from another pack on camp and this child specifically approached me for her email address in order to write to them and thank them. She's that sort of kid.

And her parents are the same, they always say thank you, they are always appreciative, if they can do anything to help the group they will and if they can't do what wants doing they will always be very apologetic.

The whole family show their appreciation of how hard we, as volunteers work. And if more people did that maybe I wouldn't have a leader who is loosing the enthusiasm and zest that he used to have.

Having a Laugh

At the moment yours truly and Mrs Akela are looking to buy a house and it is a process that is exposing to that most obnoxious of breeds, the estate agent! We've encountered them before of course when finding somewhere to rent and have had the inevitable rows about deposits and grubby carpets etc but this time round they are trying to obtain the better part of quarter of a million from us, and given the standard of what they are trying to get away with giving us in exchange for said quarter of a million I am beginning to believe that they are all, quite simply, arseholes.

Lets go through some of the description of the one we went to tonight shall we? And bare in mind this is just a few of the issues!

"Renovated High Spec." High fucking spec? Are you having a laugh? They've converted the loft and the new floor doesn't reach the walls. They've re pointed some brick work and left holes in it. They've left bare bricks in one bedroom and asking for more money if we want it plastered.

"Entrance Lobby". Entrance fucking lobby? Are you having a laugh? You can't get more than 1 person in it, it's the tiny little gap at the bottom of the stairs (which are just bare boards by the way).

"Three bedrooms". Three fucking bedrooms? Are you having a laugh? 1 decent bedroom (with the famous brick work with holes in) and 2 large cupboards is nearer the truth.

Lounge and dining room and kitchen? No, a lounge with a kitchen at one end.

Walking distance to city centre? Look at a map and tell me what you think.

And they want £225K for this? They can fuck off!

NB - This is an edited and slightly more descrete version of what I originally posted. Biting the hand that feeds you is not always the cleverest of things to do!

Breath Taking

Regular readers may recall my recent post about the shambolic organisation and policing of the Chelsea v Burnley game earlier this month, where once again the lessons of Hillsborough had clearly not been learned. Today more griping about policing at football matches, although this time not a safety issue it still shows the bewildering attitude of some parts of the police force to football fans where we are still treated like animals.

Lets be clear, football fans are not a perfect breed. While we have come a long way since the dark days of the early 80s, while women and children and black and Asian fans are now happy to come to football again and while the fanzine and supporters trust movements have provided a constructive voice for fans, there is still a small element among football fans who behave like neanderthals and cause trouble.

However there is still no need to treat fans the way a group of Stoke City fans were treated by Greater Manchester Police prior to their recent game against Manchester United as reported by the Football Supporters Federation and The Times.

I wont regurgitate the contents of these articles here although I would urge you, whether you are a follower of football or not, to go and read them because their content makes quite chilling reading. 80 law abiding people were removed from a pub by police, a number of them were threatened, the opportunity to identify the police involved was denied, they were then put on coaches to Stoke, even those who had travelled from elsewhere and all without having done anything. These were not rowdy fans causing problems, they were not singing or shouting or abusing passers by, there was no public order situation, they were simply out having a drink before a football match, something thousands of people do every week.

The power to do this is given to them by Section 27 of the violent crime reduction act 2006 which when you read it is, as well as pretty draconian, clearly not designed to empty a pub of 80 people and have them sent a hundred miles away. While it is clear that the police gave the notice under the second example on page 8 of the guide linked to I would like to know how the fuck is Manchester to Stoke removing someone from a "locality"? And what gives the police the right to refer to 80 people as scum? Why did they believe that they were going to cause trouble? Why was everyone treated the same? Why were they not allowed the dignity of using a toilet? How the hell is this sensible policing? Is this really the society that we live in now? I fear it is.

The powers given to the police are strong and the public need to trust the police to use them only in appropriate circumstances, the example here suggests that some police are completely incapable of being trusted with those powers and that is to the detriment not just of them but everybody.

Making it up!

As well as plans falling through for cubs tonight we also had a bit of a leader crisis with all my experienced pairs of hands vanished for one reason or another meaning cubs was run by me, a 15 year old Explorer Scout and 2 students who have been to cubs 8 times between them. So we pretty much made it up as we went along and, as so often happens it was one of the best nights we've had in ages.

It was brilliant! Loads of noise, loads of fun, loads of mess and of course the obligatory wide game in the dark on a field like Ypres circa 1917 and a casualty rate to match, 3 bumped heads, a cut finger and a touch of frost bite between the 29 of them there. Only fly in the ointment were two little horrors who are treading a tight rope. One is a probationary seconder who will not be getting his stripes based on tonight's performance.

Next week we have something completely different. My most experienced assistant is very pregnant and she and her mid wife are running an evening all about pregnancy. Now don't worry we are not teaching 9 year olds about the birds and the bees, more something a bit more practical, like how to help pregnant women and listening to a baby's heart beat. No idea how it will go but I'm looking forward to it!

Genius!

Look I know I wrote to say that I was uncomfortable with the release of the BNP membership list but sometimes you've just got to laugh.

Enjoy!

It's all gone Pete Tong!

Cubs on Monday was all nicely planned, last part of the Fitness Challenge Badge, but unfortunately the plans have all fallen through and it looks like yours truly needs to come up with something different a but sharpish. Thankfully it doesn't have to be fitness related as it looks like we've covered it all elsewhere anyway.

However, I do need to entertain 30 kids for 90 minutes, on next to no budget, making it fun, making it constructive, making sure they learn something. I've been making this stuff up (as well as beg borrowing and stealing other people's ideas!) so why has my mind gone suddenly very blank?

AAAARRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!

Taking the piss

Look we know the Daily Mail doesn't like the BBC. And we know they don't like it because firstly they aren't a bunch of racist/sexist/homphobic twats like Paul Dacre but also because the Daily Mail General Trust happens to own a 20% stake in ITN, a direct commercial rival. We know all that ok? That's a given.

However, when they reach the point where in the desperation to attack the BBC they have to make this story the top story on their website it stops being a hate campaign and becomes work of such utter comedy genius that I am left breathless.

Mr Dacre, normally my posts attack you, tonight consider this blog to have metaphorically pointed and laughed. You really are pathetic.

The cloud inside the silver lining

A list of BNP members and their contact details has found its way onto the internet. Like many others I am some what lacking in sympathy for those listed. This party has persistently sought to victimise minorities and seek to focus the justifiable anger of many in deprived areas at completely the wrong target just for the sake of promoting their own agenda. They are a vile bunch of utter arseholes and anyone that has supported them will get short shrift from me should they suddenly find themselves rather unpopular. In fact it rather says something about the party in general that they would want to keep their membership secret at all.

Obsolete and the Enemies of Reason both give similar views on this however the whole thing does leave me rather uncomfortable.

In this country we have freedom of speech. I may not like what some people have to say however I think that the situations in which anyone should be censored or in anyway prevented from saying what they believe are few and far between and should in pretty extreme situations. Hence the BNP is a perfectly legal organisation, and in my opinion quite rightly. I believe that the way to deal with nasty bits of work like Nick Griffin is through open and reasoned debate and not through censorship.

Similarly while their are certain jobs that I think are incompatible with membership of the BNP such as the police and military (would you want a BNP member trying to reach the hearts and minds of Afghans?) I think that anyone losing their job over because they are a member is not justifiable and neither are threatening phone calls etc. Yet these things are happening. I may struggle to come up with sympathy but there are also very practical reasons, over and above the head over ruling my hearts desire to point and laugh, for these members not to be victimised.

If we end up with a situation where BNP members are now outed, sacked, attacked etc we could end up with a massive wave of sympathy being directed towards them. Can you imagine if say an elderly man or woman is suddenly beaten up by a lynch mob? A single mum loses her job? Can you imagine if these incidents mount up? It will cause a wave of sympathy. You must remember that the BNP has gained in popularity less because of racist views of those that are members or vote for them but more because the popularity has become increasingly alienated from main stream politics. People are leaning towards them to hurt the major parties as they all look increasingly the same. And if BNP supporters end up being victimised because of something that is, or more importantly is perceived as, the result of the actions of the main stream it is going to entrench extreme views and lean more people towards them.

So while I will have no great sympathy for those being outed on an individual basis I do worry that this sliver line is hiding a very dark cloud.

Things Akela learned at the weekend

1. Being in charge of 33 cubs and brownies on a trip into central London by public transport is the most mentally taxing thing you can do. Stuff relativity or atomic physics, try keeping track of a bunch of 9 year olds in a crowded place.

2. The message still hasn't got across to the great British public that scouting is available to girls across the entire age range from 6 upwards. Hence the constant points and comments of surprise at me having a bunch of girls in cub uniform.

3. Some people in London are very very rude indeed.

4. London turns your bogies black. What is ever doing that cannot be healthy.

5. In the 16th century it was considered unlucky to wash while at sea.

Respect

I have many female friends, in fact more of my friends are women than men. I'm not sure why that is, perhaps it's the working with the kids, but nevertheless it is a fact. And, with the exception of one none of them are Daily Mail readers.

And yet the Daily Mail is, apparently, the most widely read paper amongst women.

So why don't I know any of these women?

The women that are my friends are, as a general rule, intelligent, thoughtful, compassionate, funny with plenty of drive and get up and go. And that doesn't necessarily mean career women, although some are. One of my closest friends is a full time Mum and very happy to be so. Another commits much of her time to doing aid work in war zones when she could be earning money at medical research, and is very happy to do so. So they are a varied bunch but all united in that they have a brain, and they use it.

So maybe that gives us a clue as to why only one of this varied bunch buys the Mail (and even she doesn't take it seriously) because I think we need to take a look at the "Femail" (d'ya see what they did there) section of the Mail website and take a look at those stories that they have particularly picked out for women. Those flashign pieces of journalistic brilliance that may appeal particularly to the fairer sex. One warning though, do try not to let your brain crawl out your ear as we go through them.

"Why i hate being photographed in my bikini by Leona Lewis"

"Policeman Paddick takes on I'm a celebrity bikini babes"

"WAG Nicola wolfs down eyeballs and silk worms to win trial"

"RIP VPL, the curse of women throughout the ages"

"Riddle of the missing belly button for Victoria's secret model"

"Exhausted Angelina Jole breaksdown as she pays tribute to her late mother"

"More embarassment for Jonathan Ross as he gets looked out in his pyjamas"

"Terrie dumped me by text says Simon Cowell"

I could go on and on and on but you get the picture. Yes, that is the reading matter that the Mail sees fit to serve to the women of Britain. Not for them is the crisis in the Congo, or what went wrong in the baby P case, or the threat of deflation, or anything else that might remotely require the use of a brain.

No, the women of Britain are there to be patronised and force fed brain numbing rubbish. And it leaves me confused because women are buying this brain numbing rubbish as well. Why? Maybe it's the obverse of why an astonishing number of men by Nuts and Zoo, magazines aimed at men but so lacking in anything that may require a thought process that I do wonder if their titles are a reference to whatever creature actually wrote them.

Crap like the Mail or Heat for women, crap like Nuts and Zoo for men.

Stuff like this, in my opinion, shows a total lack of respect.

An open letter to IPP.

By way of explanation IPP is an individual with whom I have crossed swords on the comments section of “To Miss With Love”. Below is my response to some of his recent comments to me.

I await his response with interest.

IPP

I guess the question is where to start?

Lets begin by returning to a specific question, and that is the story about the family on benefits and why I dismissed it because it is in the Express. And it’s going to need me to take you back a while to when I was at the tender age of 16. At that point I needed to chose my A levels. I had a pretty good idea that I wanted to study Biochemistry at university so Biology and Chemistry went straight on the list. The question the was what to do with number 3? I loved science and I also loved history (and indeed still do) so would I go for physics or history? In the end I quite literally tossed a coin for it and came up with physics although I have also remained an amateur historian ever since.

Now what the hell has this got to do with the Express?

Both science and history have given me the skill of critical reading. Science works on the basis not of proof, but of disproof. You read a paper in a journal and set out to disprove its conclusions. Whether you prove or disprove you publish the results and so a body of evidence builds up one way or the other and someone carrying out research will seek to read as much of that body of evidence as possible. They will however read them only from reputable sources. Science, Nature, Scientific American and the BMJ are probably the top of the tree in that respect. There are others the bottom of the tree that scientists will point and laugh at because they have a history of printing, to be blunt, bollocks.

Similarly history has taught me to read about the same subject from a variety of sources. To consider the perspective of the writer. Who were they? What did they have to gain? What was their bias? In short, take nothing at face value.

And so we come to the Express and news papers in general. I place broad sheets in the category of historical sources. The bias is to be questioned at all times. As is their accuracy of course, they have been known to be wrong. They have however a tendency to be factually inaccurate a lot less than the tabloids.

The number of times that the tabloids tell stories that are not simply biased but outright lies is staggering. The “Tapas 7” and Robert Murrat smears are probably the most famous lately from the Express but it goes on and on and on. It’s a constant stream of lies and inaccuracies. It’s particularly striking when it is a subject that I know a lot about. A couple of weeks ago the Express printed a story saying that the scout association was to give sex education to 6 year old Beaver Scouts. Nothing could be further from the truth. There wasn’t even a grain of truth in it. It was totally wrong. So when this paper prints stuff that to an outsider could sound plausible but I know to be wrong it makes me ask what else is wrong in the paper? What else have they made up?

These are just examples. If you want me to give you a more comprehensive list you only have to say and I will happily do so. Trust me though, you think this post is long you should wait and see what that list would look like.

There is also of course the hypocrisy of the paper. It recently launched a “clean up tv” “crusade” in the wake of the Ross/Brand incident. Lets not forget the Express Group is part of the wider Northern and Shell group which also runs the porn channel “television x” and publishes Asian Babes and Readers Wives.

And you expect me to take this paper seriously?

And so the tabloids I tend to place in the category of crap scientific journals. It is possible that there is some truth in there. The broad facts may be accurate. What though has been omitted? What has been totally fabricated?

In terms of the particular stories benefit claims and the cost of those claims is confidential and so neither I, you or the Express have access to the full facts. So when I am asked to take a story seriously where the full facts are unknown and it is reported by a paper with a

1. A history of dishonesty
2. A history of hypocrisy in its editorial stance
3. A history of strong political bias

Then I am inclined to take my historian and scientist approaches of pointing and laughing.

And so let us turn to the nanny state.

It’s a phrase I love because it is such a wonderful example of how tabloid journalism works. I hope you have read Animal Farm, a book that in my opinion is the greatest political satire ever written. While being principally about the Communist Russia many of its themes can equally be applied to many other situations. A recurring theme in the book is the idea of “keeping it simple”. No matter what you are doing, no matter how complex the concept, whether it be an honourable cause or a total deceit, if you give the masses a simple phrase to trot out then they are easy to manipulate. If you are the pigs trying to control a farm you use “four legs good, two legs bad”. If you are a tabloid trying to convince its readers not to vote for Labour (incidentally I wouldn’t vote for the current Labour mob anyway) or Lib dems or Greens etc you use things like “nanny state” or “political correctness gone mad.” You simplify it, you patronise people.

So when I refer to not being for the nanny state I mean not in terms of this mythical “nanny state” created by the tabloids that is trying to molly coddle us all. What myths you may ask? An example is one well meaning but misguided head teacher bans conkers in the play ground. The papers tells us it’s the nanny state or health and safety etc trying to stop us doing what we want. No it’s not, it’s one well meaning but misguided head, nothing more and nothing less.

I would go into more detailed argument and examples however I think that would be pointless as what you mean by nanny state is clearly something quite different judging by your reference to the health service and education. My assumption is that you think that as little as is humanly possible should be spent on public services and we should all be left to make our own choices as to what we do with our own wealth.

Here we must company all together as I simply don’t believe in that.

The world in which we live in and the basic rules of economics mean that will always be winners and losers. Leave everyone to it and there will still be those flipping burgers and still be those working as lawyers and stock brokers and everything in between. There will still be that pyramid. You can not have a system where the most talented are (and quite rightly in my opinion) allowed to better themselves and not have those who fall behind. People are not all alike, they come in different forms with different talents. Some with very few talents. There will always be the pyramid.

In the state you believe in the people at the bottom would have no health care because they couldn’t afford it. If we all had to go private then the likes of me, and maybe you (I have no idea of your financial situation) could afford it but the man flipping burgers couldn’t. Hence I do believe that we should all contribute to an NHS so that we can all get health care free at the point of contact.

Of course the NHS is far from perfect. I know enough people that work for it to know how bureaucratic it is and how there is a lot of dead wood management that could be trimmed from it. That’s a given but that doesn’t mean it should be abolished.

My final point is that I am somewhat confused by your stand point. Do you believe that “drugs, prostitution, incest, smoking, fox-hunting and bestiality” should be legalised? However to comment on those particular subjects,

On drugs I don’t think the argument is about whether things like heroin or crack should be legal but how do you limit the damage caused by them. Does that mean a hard crack down on them? Or enforced rehab? Or legalisation and regulation? I don’t know the answer to that question and am open to suggestions. However their legalisation or otherwise should be the answer not the questions.

Prostitution is different to drugs. Someone taking crack of their own volition can turn very violent. They will often steal for their habit. As such I think it is the place of state to take the most effective course of action to limit its use. Prostitution however is simply about what two consenting adults get up to. It’s not my thing personally but I see no reason why I should interfere. So yes, legalise it.

Incest, given the serious risks of genetic defects and the psychological effects of the incest taboo on any child from that relationship I think it should remain illegal.

Fox hunting and bestiality result in pain suffering and cruelty to sentient beings for no good reason. Again it should stay illegal.

Smoking, I think it is correct to stay as it is. By removing it from public places the dangers of passive smoking have been removed. However it still means that adults can get up to an activity that brings them pleasure without me interfering. Tobacco duty also contributes far more to public services than it costs in excess health care. So leave it how it is.

You may still not like my thoughts, you foolishly continue to read the Express with out making use of your own critical thinking skills but I feel that I have made my position clear and I look forward to your thoughts.

Best wishes

Akela

Lessons not learned (Part god knows how many now)

This is one of those rants that I get tired of having to repeat at regular intervals. I get tired of having to say it till I'm blue in the face. I get tired of once again having to point at the emperors news clothes and state something so obvious. I will though, because it needs saying.

Despite all the lessons of Hillsborough, despite those 97 tragic deaths, lessons have still not been learned and despite shiney new all seater stadiums having been built, many of them are simply not safe. This time I need to add Stamford Bridge to that list.

I was there last night to see Chelsea v Burnley in the Carling Cup. The last time I was there was 1994 to see Barnet play there and at the time it was about half the size it is now and very different indeed. This time the crowd was double what it was then and I simply don't understand how so many people are being allowed in and out of that stadium with such blatantly inadequat access and egress areas.

Stamford Bridge is located in a rabit warren of residential streets, hemmed in by houses and with only two main approaches off the Fulham Road and a further one, I understand, to the North just off some very narrow streets indeed. Through these three gates some 42,000 people are expected to pass. If one of these was to have serious incident there would quite clearly be problems, and that's before we even get to the turnstile areas.

These were absolute bloody chaos. 6000 Burnley fans (who I was in with) were asked to pass through just 6 turnstiles. That is totally inadequate. In addition queing for these broke down because the police (in their infinite wisdom) hurded evereyone into one queue not bothering to say that there were seperate entrances for the upper and lower tier which were seperated by a metal fence. End up on the wrong side of it and you were in trouble. Fence to one side, mounted police the other, wrong turnstile in front and a huge queue behind you.

Nice one inspector knacker.

One harrassed steward (who did not appear to speak English) was trying to sort this mess out.

Piss poor organisation like that is how accidents happen.

I wont go into detail about the tiny corridors and exits, I'm sure you get the picture by now.

Many stadiums are so much safer than they were 20 years ago, there is no doubt about that. Wembley, Old Trafford, Villa Park at the top end and examples all the way down. But death traps do still exist and I believe it is only a matter of time before some one gets seriously hurt.

A minor disagreement

I fear that I have tweaked the tiger by the tail a little in the blogosphere! I’m a regular reader of To Miss With Love and a fascinating read it is as well.

It’s the regular rants of an inner city teacher. She’s probably what you’d called a moderate conservative, Edward Heath or Ken Clarke as opposed to Margaret Thatcher. I.e. in some things we agree and on many we disagree but nevertheless they are still views that I am able to respect.

Anyway take a look at the posts from her entitled Panorama and Damn White People and the comments that follow and you will see that perhaps I have managed to drive her (and some of her more interesting readers) round the bend this time! Ah the joy of the blogosphere!

Make of it what you will.

Anyway, tonight yours truly is off to Stamford Bridge to join one of my old house mate sin supporting his beloved Burnley against Chelsea in the Carling Cup. An interesting day awaits!

RESULT!!!!

Now yours truly is not a fan of crap tv. I like to think I'm fairly discerning in my viewing habits and so "reality" tv is not normally my thing. However, this year, it appears that I have been blessed. I have had something presented to me that is quite simply unmissable. What is so unmissable oh good readers? It is the chance to see that utter berk, Robert Kilroy-Silk on "I'm a celebrity get me out of here".

This loathsome, band waggon riding cretin will be subjected to rats, snakes and eating insects!

*Leaps around the room laughing and dancing*

Memories Part 2

Earlier today I had reason to be going through a cupboard full of old photos. Many of those photos were from trips away with the cubs, both my current lot and my former band of horrors in Durham. And it's a strange feeling going through them, seeing all those old faces that come and go. The oldest cubs photo was taken, I think, in 1998. That means the oldest cubs then will (hopefully!) now be in their final year at university or have jobs, or maybe be married or have children. When I last saw them they were at primary school, and it seems like just yesterday.

I was pleased with how many names I could remember given the hundreds of kids that have passed through my hands in the 14 years I've been at this. It was also strange to look at the faces that I couldn't put a name to. Would they remember me if they saw me in the street tomorrow? Would they care? I hope they would, but the choice is someone elses. Even when I couldn't put a name to the face I could still remember what each kid was like. Who was loud and who was quiet. Who was the joker, who was the brave one, who was the natural leader, who was trouble, who had the wicked grin. They all stay with you.

It's a strange carry on this working with children lark. They come into your life for that short space of time and then fly off in what ever direction life takes them. You can never know what happens to all of them. I just hope that they all make the best of it that they can.

Sorry, suppose that was a bit personal compared to my normal rants, just feeling a bit funny today.

Memories - Part 1

So it's remembrance Sunday and this year it has been a little more significant than others. This year our scout group has had a former leader serve in Afghanistan with the army. Thankfully she got through her 6 months out there in one piece although she will be heading back there in the spring for another tour. She's just 20.

We have also just had our group war memorial restored. It's a farely simple affair with the names of seven leaders who died during the second world war. And they died tragically young, the eldest of them was just 23 and another died just before the end of the war. So it's created a certain amount of interest in who these young men were and what they did. So I am starting up a project to try and track down some information on them. A quick bit of googling is showing that this may be easier said than done, particularly when dealing with names like "Brown" and "Cook". It's the kind of thing that I think the group should know about.

So I'll keep you posted!

Thick as 12 board feet of wood

This season it's started early. Far earlier than usual. Oh yes.

What am I talking about you may ask? I'm talking about the total inability of my fellow Barnet supporters to get there head around the concept of ticketing for football matches. And it drives up the wall, it drives me to distraction, it makes me want to hit their head, and mine, repeatedly against the nearest hard surface.

Usually it takes the coming of a big game such as last seasons FA cup 4th round game against Bristol Rovers. Back then people could not get their heads around the idea of a game selling tickets both in advance and then selling those remaining on the gate. How hard is that to get your head around? I mean really? But no, in the build up people were insisting that this must mean that some were being held back for the day and when they found there were only standing tickets on the day got the right hump. Why? What was so difficult about the fact that some areas of the ground might be more popular and so might sell out in advance?

This year we have a cup 1st round game. It's never going to sell out, no area of the ground will sell out. And yet people are getting in a right tiz. They can't get their head around the idea of the fact that tickets can be bought in advance and still on the gate! They keep asking when the ticket office will shut, when is the latest they can get one. For fucks sake! It's Barnet v fucking Rochdale! And then they struggle with the idea that the voucher in the back of season tickets that quite clearly says it gives you a £2 discount on cup tickets gives you a er..... £2 discount on cup tickets. What is so hard to understand? Where is the problem?

In short, why are there so many thick people in the world?

I'm alive, awake, alert enthusiastic!

Or so goes one of my prefered camp fire songs. And it's quite appropriate because yours truly is feeling irritatingly chirpy and cheerful today. The sun is shining, the trees are wonderful colours, my boss is out the office for the day and its the FA cup tomorrow. Yes the Mail is still telling lies, yes I'm still having to harrass cub parents to hand over subs and camp permission slips but over all it feels rather good to be alive today!

So yes tomorrow is round 1 of the FA Cup. Probably the only football competition that no one has managed to trash so far. They've had a go alright, Arsenal still wont play a first team come third round day and there is the nasty after taste of sponsorship to it, but over all its still a grand old competition. Two teams drawn randomly out the hat slug it out, if they draw, and I absolutely love this, they play the game all over again! Isn't that so wonderfully English? Shame it doesn't go to second and third replays these days but you can't have everything.

So I shall be at Underhill tomorrow to see Barnet v Rochdale. It's not glamorous, it's not sexy but it's the game I love and I can't wait.

Shameless, disgusting hypocrisy of the absolute highest order

It's quite something when the Mail goes far as to actually make me choke on my diet coke mid morning, but this morning's article on Jeremy Clarkson making jokes about the Suffolk strangler hits a whole new level of hypocrisy. It takes it to levels I thought it was incapable of.

Now JC remarks may have not been in the best of taste, indeed I'm not a fan of the man full stop.

Yet lets stop for a minute and pause to reflect on what the Mail, that bastion of taste, decency and respect had to say about the victims of the Suffolk Strangler. Let's just remind ourselves of the exact words printed shall we?

"Mother Teresa, they weren't."

"the deaths of these five women is no great loss."

"The only kind of missionary position they undertook was in the back seat of a car."

"disgusting, drug-addled street whores"

You scummy, hypocritical little fucks. Go fuck yourselves.