I Love 50's Rock And Roll (and oh how I wish I had a jukebox, baby...)

Spot the girl not quite dressed for the right era...

For as long as I can remember, I've had a big soft spot for 1950's culture.  The big skirts, the emergence of rock and roll, the jukeboxes and the diners with their malt shakes and chequered floors...  I love it all.  

It all began when, as a child of around 8 or 9, I stumbled upon a cassette tape that belonged to my parents.  It was a collection of 50's rock and roll tunes, featuring classics such as Blueberry Hill by Fats Domino, Hound Dog by Elvis Presley, Chantilly Lace by The Big Bopper and of course, Chuck Berry's Johnny B. Goode.  I unashamedly used to "borrow" that tape and play it over and over in my room.  Whilst my friends were listening to New Kids on The Block and Crowded House, I was trying to perfect my Elvis impersonation; not easy when you're a pre-pubescent girl.

Of course - and I'm trying not to sound pretentious here, so forgive me if I accidentally do - I was raised on all kinds of music and I loved a huge variety.  I'm still the same now; I can go from listening to the Manics, to crooning along to The Carpenters, to attempting to Irish Jig to B*Witched in the space of a few minutes.  And then I need to lie down, because I'm not as young as I used to be...

By the time I was 10 or 11, my parents had become fans of the TV show Heartbeat, with Nick Berry starring as handsome police officer, Nick Rowan.  The show was set in the 1960's and featured music from the period, as well as several songs from the 50's, too.  The show's theme song was a version of Buddy Holly's Heartbeat, which excited me, because I was already familiar with his music, thanks to my love of 50's rock and roll.  Although I quickly grew out of the TV show, my love of the music of the 50's and 60's never dimmed and when the popular musical film Grease was re-released in cinemas back in 1998 (if memory serves me right), I rushed to see it and fell in love with the fashion and the music of the era all over again.

Oh, the dresses...  Did I mention the dresses?!

Recently, I told a friend that La Bamba by Ritchie Valens has never ever made me not want to stop what I'm doing and dance like a mad thing.  Even if I'm driving in the car and it comes on (which it frequently does, because I purposefully put it on a CD...), I break out my in-car moves and I couldn't give two hoots whether people stare at me when I stop at the traffic lights.  Similarly, if It Doesn't Matter Anymore by Buddy Holly comes on, you will see a ridiculous grin appear across my face and a sigh escape my lips, because frankly, that's not only my favourite Buddy Holly song (nudging That'll Be The Day into a close second place), but one of my favourite songs of all time.  Indeed, today I bought a new car and have already named it Buddy in his honour.

Anyway, when I mentioned this to said friend, she simply shrugged her shoulders and replied "nah, that kind of music isn't my thing at all."  And I did this:

I looked better than usual, yes.

How?  I wondered, in all seriousness.  How can these songs not be to someone's taste?!  Rock Around The Clock?  Reet Petite?  And what about songs that I consider to be early prototypes for today's boy band-esque love songs - classics such as All I Have To Do Is Dream and Dream Lover?!  These are utterly inoffensive songs, with simple harmonies and an endurance to them that has made them sound fresh and fantastic half a century later!  How can you not LOVE them?!

And then of course, I remembered that music taste is subjective and that I was being an arse by forcing my tastes upon someone else.  Still, I did spend quite some time musing on it for several days afterwards.  And I reached the conclusion that - and yes, this will sound a bit pretentious to some of you and I can only apologise - the reason I love music from the 50's and 60's is because it feels so much purer than what we have today.  Yes, I love the Manics.  I adore Blur and I like the Kaiser Chiefs.  And yes, I love some modern pop music - Katy Perry, for example and of course Lady Gaga.  But listen to something simple like That'll Be The Day by Buddy Holly & The Crickets and you'll find yourself listening to something unadulterated - a couple of guitars, a bass and a drum.  No auto tune.  No modern-day special effects.  No hiding place.  The songs back then had to be good, because there was less to polish it all up with.  It was instruments and voices.  It was a short - I have a CD of songs from the 50's and 60's that is only 55 minutes long, but has 22 songs on it.  That averages out at around two and a half minutes per song.  Short and snappy - no room for ridiculous histrionics or unnecessary over-production.  And yes, that's somewhat ironic coming from someone who also counts Guns 'n' Roses' November Rain as one of her favourite songs of all time (a whopping nine minutes long).

Of course, there were some bloody awful songs released in the 1950's and 60's too, just as there are today.  I'd be lying if I said I liked everything from the era.  But for me, the excitement of rock and roll in its infancy has never dulled.  Without Elvis or Buddy Holly, The Beatles might never have been the band they were.  Without The Beatles, we wouldn't have had Oasis, one of the most important bands of the Britpop era - another musical period important to me (although I was a Blur fan!).  The songs from the 1950's and 1960's influenced music for decades to come and continue to inspire bands and artists right up to the present day.  Why?  Because back then, people were taking chances, creating something new and exciting and yet keeping it relatively simple at the same time.  You listen to the songs now and they're so evocative of the time that you're immediately transported back to the days of shiny Cadillacs and big skirts.  It's still fresh.  It's still exciting.  And honestly, I do wonder how much of today's music will be held in the same high regard fifty years from now.

Given a choice between One Direction and Elvis Presley, for me there's no contest.  I know which is a bigger heart-throb and whose music I'd rather be dancing around to.  So whilst I'm happy with my Manics albums and I still love a wide variety of bands, artists and genres, classic rock and roll will always have a very big, very special place in my heart.  Rave on.  ;-)

I'd Rather NOT Vote Than Vote UKIP

Once upon a time, UKIP were a joke party; derided as racist and given very little thought when it came to election.  Now, however, they are gaining support and are looking increasingly likely to top polls in May's European election.  They may not yet have any MPs in the House of Commons, but with more and more people becoming frustrated with our current immigration system, there is a real danger that that could change.  And yes, I mean "danger."

UKIP are not a party for the people.  I understand political frustration.  There are marvellous benefits to living in the UK, but our country hasn't been fantastically run in recent years, to put it mildly.  So it's easy to see why people, sick of the Tories, disenchanted with Labour and no longer trusting the Lib Dems, might think "ha, I'll vote UKIP.  That'll show 'em."  But that protest vote, which was once merely that, is now becoming a genuine tick in the box for a party who have been embroiled in more accusations of racism, misogyny and homophobia than any other in recent years.

When people think of UKIP, the word "racist" crops up a lot.  Whether it's their supporters insisting that the party is not racist, or their detractors arguing the opposite, there is no getting away from the issue.  This is because, whatever Nigel Farage wants to claim, the party is known for one "policy" and that is its stance on immigration/our membership of the EU.  

The party's website claims that "anyone in the EU can come to the UK and...claim welfare."  In fact, it's a bit trickier than that.  Here's a quick screen grab from the Citizen's Advice Bureau's website:

If you're having trouble reading that, I can tell you it says that if you're from a country in the European Economic Area and you move to the UK to work, having never worked here before, you will not be able to claim income support, income-based jobseekers allowance, child benefit, housing benefit or council tax reduction.  There are also currently plans afoot to ensure that as of July, any immigrants to the UK will have to prove that they've lived here for at least three months before they can apply to claim child benefit at all.  So...  No, UKIP.  It's simply not the case that anyone can come to the UK and claim welfare.  To say as much plays upon the fears many people have regarding immigration.

Do we need tighter controls on our borders?  Quite probably, yes.  I passionately believe in helping those who come to this country for asylum, but I also am aware that we can't have an open-door policy to absolutely everyone who wants to move to the UK; we're a small island, after all.  But what UKIP have done is feed upon the concerns people already have about immigration, in order to sway those people into voting for them.  That's in spite of having precious few other policies and a rather skewed version of the facts when it comes to this policy, as the above screen-shot proves.

And that's not the only warped version of the truth UKIP has been harping on about, when it comes to the EU.  Just last month, The Sun newspaper had to print a correction, having published a letter from UKIP, stating that thousands of UK MOT test-centres were being threatened with closure due to EU proposals which would force motorists whose cars failed their tests to go to a different garage for repairs.  Following publication, the paper were forced to print an apology, after it turned out that "no such EU proposals exist."

Indeed, UKIP's obsession with the need for the UK to leave the European Union has led to them rather childishly voting against almost all proposed laws from Brussels.  Whilst I believe that - most of the time - a country is best governed by laws made by those living in the country itself, several of the laws UKIP have voted against prove that they are not considering the people living here, nor are they considering basic decency or compassion.  For example, in the past few months, UKIP have voted against:

• A resolution to combat the illegal ivory trade, to work towards wild elephants no longer being at risk of poaching.
• Updated rules on cab design and safety, enabling lorry drivers to spot cyclists and pedestrians more easily.
• Higher level of protection for people who buy package holidays.
• New legislation to prevent money laundering.
• Greater public access to EU documents.

Lest we forget, several UKIP members voted against equal marriage, too.  Oh and they want to scrap the Human Rights Act.  I know.  Pesky bloody rights.  I can't wait to get rid of mine!  Oh, wait...

So, if we know that UKIP stand against the EU and immigration, what do they stand for?

Well, according to their website, they would like the scrap the 2008 Climate Change Act.  You know, the act that aims to avoid dangerous climate change and hopes to cut carbon emission by 80% by the year 2050.  Because hey, who cares what happens to the planet, eh?

Almost every other policy on their website - and there are very few - is linked to their desire for the UK to leave the EU.  In other words, they are a one-policy-party, with almost nothing to say beyond "EU BAD.  UKIP GOOD."  Even their local election manifesto is littered with references to "unlimited numbers of people" coming to the UK from Europe and putting a squeeze on local services as a result.

And for all their "we're not racist!" protestations, in the face of comments about "Bongo Bongo Land" or telling Lenny Henry to move "to a black country," it's in UKIP's refusal to campaign on any other issue that the really worrying question of whether or not the party is racist is brought into harsh light.  For example, they feel the need to tell us on their website that "28,000 Romanians are held for crimes in London."  It won't shock you to learn that this was also a statement gleefully reported by The Daily Mail.  However, it may surprise you to learn that the Metropolitan Police - stunned and disappointed by the way the information in their recent presentation on fighting crime in London had been manipulated and distorted - contacted the Romanian Embassy to apologise after reading the Mail's report.  You see, in reality, only 13 in every 1000 Romanians living in London are arrested for crimes in the city.  In case you're wondering, the figure for British people is 26 in every 1000.  Twice as many.  Indeed, the Home Secretary has confirmed that crime from foreign nationals is in line with their representation in the population.  ie, there is no Romanian crime spree.  It's just more scaremongering from UKIP and this, even without the revolting comments from their supporters and party members, is why people refer to the party as racist.  Because they're manipulating facts in order to scare people into being more concerned about immigration than about anything else.  And to do that?  They need to make the immigrants "the baddies."

The party also claim to care about the environment and our loss of green spaces (ironic, seeing as they want to scrap the Climate Change Act), which they also attribute to... You guessed it, immigration.  And yet, whilst housing for those who move to this country from the EU and beyond does factor in the need to build more homes, so does the fact that there are many schemes being put in place in order to try to help people buy their first home (touchy subject for me, seeing as I still can't afford to even rent by myself, but hey ho). According to a report in November 2013, the UK is well over halfway towards meeting its target of 170,000 new affordable homes - to enable British citizens to get onto the property ladder - by 2015.  We are a growing population and by that I don't mean due to immigration; people are living longer and having big families.  There need to be homes for those people to live in and of course, new housing developments mean jobs for builders, plumbers and electricians in the area.  Yes, we should be concerned about the loss of green spaces, but that UKIP can take a genuine concern such as this and attribute it solely to immigration is deeply distressing and shows little beyond a totally blinkered attitude.  Again, it's "EU BAD.  UKIP GOOD."

Yes, UKIP say some good things on their website (I know, I was shocked too), such as a declaration to save our public libraries and to upgrade public transport and maintain British highways, but there's no explanation of how they intend to do this, beyond their claims that being members of the EU costs us "£55million a day" and of course, that's a cut they're desperate to make (conveniently ignoring the fact that the £55million may be the "fee" we pay for being members of the EU, but we get over £20million back in rebate which is distributed to various sectors, including the agricultural sector, meaning that we wouldn't suddenly be "£55million a day" richer if we left, however hard UKIP try to convince us that we will.

Essentially, UKIP have very few real policies beyond wanting to leave the EU and any suggestions of policies they may have are almost exclusively centred around using money from our potential EU exit, rather than looking at real ways to change things in this country, should the people of the UK decide not to leave the EU.  Because after all, if we ever do leave Europe, it should be as a result of a national referendum in which the people have their say, not as a result of UKIP enforcing it on us, regardless of whether we've voted for them or not.  Their website doesn't say they'll hold a referendum should they become elected.  It simply says "we'll leave the EU."

Wanting some control over immigration in this country isn't racist in itself.  Manipulating data and distorting the facts in order to suit your anti-immigration agenda is.  Yes, there are things wrong in this country.  No, they are not all down to immigration.  As I said earlier, we do need to have a sensible discussion on immigration and our membership of the EU, but that needs to be done without UKIP sensationalising the subject.  We need facts, not propaganda.  

No other political party feels the need to refer to itself as "non-racist."  UKIP does.  Consider why.  One of the party's latest posters reads: "Twenty six million people in Europe are looking for work.  And whose job are they after?"  The picture onto which this words are embossed is of a hand, pointing out at the reader.  The British reader.  So, no racist scare-mongering there... 

UKIP are affiliated with a group called Europe of Freedom and Democracy.  The EFD may have a charming sounding name, but they are a far-right organisation, whose members described Anders Breivik (the Norwegian mass murderer who blamed feminism and multiculturalism for the breakdown of society) as a man whose "ideas are in defence of Western civilisation" and a man with "excellent ideas."  Whilst Nigel Farage threatened to cut ties with the EFD unless an apology was issued, no apology was forthcoming.  Instead, one of the members who'd spoken positively about Breivik's anti-multicultural ideals went on a rant, saying "long live the whites of Europe."  Nigel Farage did not cut ties with the EFD when no apology was given.  He is co-president of the group.

UKIP, particularly with their insistence on voting "no" on perfectly reasonable proposed laws to help make life easier and safer, simply because those laws come from Brussels, are not a party who care for the people of this nation, regardless of the flowery words in their campaign material.  They are twisting one very divisive issue and using it to their own ends.  And every now and then, the mask of "respectability" slips and one of the party's members says something that shows the unpleasantness at the heart of the party.  Even their campaign material hints strongly at scaremongering and racism:

Although this section of UKIP's manifesto has been removed thanks to the bad publicity it generated, note the final part:  UKIP will end support for multiculturalism.

Let's get personal before I end this rant.  My grandfather came to this country as an immigrant.  He was Greek Cypriot.  He worked hard, paid taxes, married a British woman and was very much a British citizen.  But he was proud of his roots.  Now, two generations on, I am proud to be a quarter Greek Cypriot.  It is our family traditions - our differences - that make us so unique as a nation.  Yes, there is a British identity, if you want to stick to a stereotype.  But we are a multicultural society, made up of people who, on the whole, are accepting of those who are different and enjoy learning from them and adopting aspects of their lifestyles. We are a modern society, in which all cultures and religions are given the space to thrive; not at the detriment of any of us, regardless of what the right-wing press would have you believe.  One, common British culture?  Does anyone else think that sounds like something from 1984?!

UKIP, particularly with their insistence on voting "no" on perfectly reasonable proposed laws to help make life easier and safer, simply because those laws come from Brussels, are not a party who care for the people of this nation, regardless of the flowery words in their campaign material.  They are twisting one very divisive issue and using it to their own ends.  And every now and then, the mask of "respectability" slips and one of the party's members says something that shows the unpleasantness at the heart of the party.

UKIP are a one policy party.  They have precious little to say, beyond "close the borders."  Well, no.  They do have a few things to say.  Such as...

"Muslims are breeding ten times faster than us.  I don't know at what point they'll reach such a number we are no longer able to resist their demands."

UKIP peer, Lord Pearson.

"The apologists for Islam are really very similar to Holocaust deniers."

Oxford Council Candidate, Julia Gasper.

"No employer with a brain in the right place would employ a young, single, free woman."

Godfrey Bloom, MEP.

"(we need) Compulsory abortion when the foetus is recognised as having Down's, Spina Bifida or similar syndrome which, if it is born, could render the child a burden on the state."

Council candidate Geoffrey Clark.

"As for the links between homosexuality and paedophilia, there is so much evidence that even a full-length book could hardly do justice to the subject."

Oxford Council Candidate, Julia Gasper.

"Eastenders is so unrealistic.  A Paki family planning to actually go home..."

Maggie Chapman, agent for UKIP candidate Peter Hollings.

They have a lot more to say besides, but to be honest, writing this stuff is making me feel rather sick.  Whatever protestations UKIP may make, I believe there is a rotten core at the heart of the party and their ability to turn every issue around and make it about immigration - with "foreigners" the "baddies" of course - does nothing to change my point of view.

I will of course be using my vote when it comes to both the next local elections and the national ones.  But I will never tick the box for Farage's party.  I'd rather not vote at all than vote for a toxic, nasty party like UKIP.

Why boredom is no excuse for anti-social behaviour

Photo "borrowed" from Wadebridge police. Please don't arrest me.

A week or two ago, Wadebridge Police shared the above photo on their Facebook page, along with the message that the driver responsible for these tyre tracks had been issued with a "Section 59" warning - ie. a reprimand for anti-social driving.  This covers careless or inconsiderate driving, as well as driving in any kind of manner that may cause distress or alarm to nearby residents.

I'm going to state here and now that I fully support the police in this.  I've been scared witless when driving alone, thanks to idiots who think overtaking on a blind bend is a "cool" thing to do, or who tailgate you when you're travelling at 30mph in a 30mph zone, because they somehow think the speed limit doesn't apply to them.  The comedian Jon Richardson once said that being in a car can make you feel brave, because you're encased in metal and that basically means you're Robocop.  But too many people take that "bravery" to a ridiculous level and forget that a car is a machine capable of great speed and that when they crash, they can cause severe injury and even death.  Or perhaps they don't forget those things and they just enjoy taking risks.  Who knows.  All I know is that people who drive in a deliberately aggressive, careless manner are, in my opinion, total arseholes.

My opinion aside, inevitably people began to comment on the photo once it had been shared on Facebook.  Some praised the police for their actions, others suggested that they should find "better" things to do.  Of course, few things would seem more important to those people, had the driver of the car hit a child, but hey...

Then one comment started to surface over and over.  The same argument, being used as an excuse.  "I bet whoever did this was a kid.  And I bet he was just bored.  There's nothing for kids to do around here, so you can't blame them for kicking off."

Wadebridge: Nothing to do.  Except go to the cinema, or travel to the beach, or play football in the park, or...

Here's the thing: that's bullshit.

Boredom is a horrible thing, I agree.  And I agree that sometimes, being in a small town and feeling as though you have nothing to do can make you angry or fed up and more likely to want to act out.  But it's not an excuse for doing so.  Taking it as such is ludicrous.  Would you allow a murderer to stand in court and say "sorry I killed that pensioner your honour, but I was bored"?  Of course not.

The Manic Street Preachers are famously from a small town in South Wales where, by their own admission, there was nothing to do.  So they read books, watched films and, in their own words, "stayed in and dealt with the boredom."  Eventually, they decided to learn instruments and form a band.  The rest is history.

The fact is, whilst feeling bored out of your brain is lousy, it can pave the way for things.  When I was bored as a teenager (before I could drive and get out for the day), I'd write stories.  Some people choose to paint or draw.  Others might take up sport; going for a run is a known way of getting the adrenaline pumping and ceasing that feeling of dullness that we all get from time to time.  We can read a book or a magazine.  We can go for a walk or arrange to meet our friends.  We can mess about in the kitchen, cooking something from scratch.  We can find something  - anything - to pass the time, without resorting to dangerous driving or other forms of anti-social behaviour.  

To suggest that people are almost forced into criminal activity through boredom is to entirely ignore their potential for creativity and imagination.  To use boredom as an excuse for anti-social behaviour does nothing but take responsibility away from a person and that's ridiculous; we must all take ownership of our actions and face the consequences that they may bring.

My opinions on this haven't always made me popular.  Saying that boredom is a lousy excuse for anti social behaviour causes some people to suggest that I've not checked my privilege.  My answer to that is that you don't have to be privileged to see know that petty vandalism isn't nice and will more than likely end you up in trouble.  You don't have to be well educated to realise that deliberately driving at high-speed, zig-zagging across the road in a built up area with a speed limit of 30mph is dangerous and illegal.  You don't have to be rich to know that going for a walk with your mates might be better than staying indoors and cyberbulling someone online.  Boredom sucks and the frustration that a lack of money or ideas creates can make you want to rail against the injustice of it all (believe me, I know from experience of being a totally broke, deeply hormonal teen, living at one point on an RAF base with just one shop and literally nothing to do and nowhere to go because there were barely any buses out), but it doesn't excuse any of those things.  That's what I'm saying; not that boredom isn't lousy and frustrating, but that it shouldn't be used as an excuse for crime or anti-social behaviour.  We all feel bored from time to time.  How we choose to deal with that boredom is up to us.

For what it's worth, I think more money should be put into services for young people.  A decent youth club, an Am Dram group, a cafe/meeting place aimed at younger members of society...  All those things would be welcomed and would make a difference to the lives of young residents of small towns across the UK.  We need to listen to younger people and ask what they want and how they'd like to be spending their free time.  We need to encourage them to use their creativity and skills and we need to show them that they are all valued members of society; too often young people are discriminated against because of a minority that do commit anti-social acts.  We should never tar an entire group of people with one brush.  People come from all walks of life and they should be listened to and appreciated equally.

Shows like Educating Yorkshire prove just how important it is to remind the younger members of society that they can achieve whatever they want to and they can be whatever they choose.  Let's give them those positive messages, rather than lumping them all in with negative press.  These could be the teachers, doctors, actors, musicians, mothers and fathers of the future, after all.  Let's not insult them by suggesting that they can't help but commit crime because they're bored.

When a person commits a crime - petty or otherwise - there could be a dozen reasons for it and we should listen to those reasons, because doing so may help prevent further crimes in the future.  But having nothing to do doesn't make it okay to rob an old lady, or steal a car.  It wouldn't stand up in a court of law, would it?  Boredom isn't an excuse for anti-social behaviour and frankly, I'm bored of it being used as one. 

REAL Women Don't Tell Others What REAL Women Are.

Citizens of Internet Land,  I have a problem.  Well, actually, I have several: My hair rarely behaves and I'm not married to Matt Smith, to name but two.  But currently, I have a problem with pictures like these:

Here's the thing.  I'm a UK size 10.  I have curvy hips, wobbly thighs and, frankly, something of a pot belly at times. Being only five feet tall means that any excess weight I gain is noticeable pretty quickly and I won't lie; I've struggled with my body image.  That's in no small part due to walking past shops with magazines filled with pictures of celebrities no bigger than I am, with captions like: "Celebrity's shocking weight gain" and "Supermodel displays not-so-super cellulite."  These women, some of whose bodies are not that dissimilar to mine, are then subjected to the "red circle of doom," highlighting their physical flaws.  It's humiliating and it's depressing.  Why?  Because that person is more than just a body.  She's a woman with feelings, ideas and aspirations and who are we to reduce her to nothing more than her looks?  Not only is it depressing for the person in question to be so publicly criticised for the most trivial of reasons, but it's dangerous, too.  Young girls read glossy magazines.  There's already far too much pressure on youngsters to look a certain way in order to feel that they fit in.  I went through a phase when I was in my late teens where I would barely eat a full meal because I was so convinced I'd be fat and disgusting if I did.  I got over it, thankfully and now I'm back to my usual, greedy self, but too many girls don't.

So, you'd think that perhaps, given all of that, I might approve of the "real women have curves" movement and the "motivational" (if it's possible to type a word with sarcasm, I just did) images popping up online, telling us that real women are curvy, rather than all skin and bones.

I don't.

The implication in those images is one I'm uncomfortable with.  It suggests that a thin woman - a girl who perhaps has a flatter chest than others - is somehow not real.  It also subtly tells us that there is a specific way that we're supposed to look, in order for us to be considered attractive.  How is that any better than what the magazines are doing?  The fact is, it isn't any better.  It's no healthier for a naturally slim girl with a slightly boyish figure to be desperately munching on crisps in order to try to make herself curvy than it is for a curvier girl to be starving herself in order to be thin.

Here's a question:  Do you identify as female?  If the answer to that is yes, then congratulations!  You're a woman.  Your body shape has utterly no bearing on that, whatsoever.  I could go up or down a dress size and I'd still be just as much of a real woman as I am now.

Most of my curves are doughnut-related.  Go to Prague, everyone; they have doughnuts as big as your HEAD.

There is, of course, something to be said for encouraging healthy attitudes to our body shape.  It's right that we try to encourage young girls to look after their bodies by eating relatively healthily and being active (yeah, I know - the irony of me saying that after posting a photo of myself with a MASSIVE doughnut is not lost on me).  But it's also vital that we teach them to love themselves.  AS THEY ARE. 

It's time we stopped judging others for not fitting into some warped societal idea of what a woman should look like.  It's time to stop suggesting that a girl won't find herself a partner if she's too skinny, because "real men like curves" one minute, then making her paranoid by telling her that "men don't like fat girls" the next!  Beauty comes in all shapes and sizes. 

So do women.

In Praise of My New Tattoo

I have a Doctor Who tattoo now.  Doctor Who tattoos are cool.

Today I went and had a new tattoo done.  For a while, I've wanted a quote from Doctor Who inked somewhere about my person, but I hadn't entirely settled on what or where until I happened upon this one.  It's taken from Matt Smith's 11th Doctor's quote:

"I am and always will be the optimist,

The hoper of far-flung hopes

And the dreamer of improbable dreams."

There are several reasons why this is the perfect Who quote for me, but it can mainly be whittled down to this one: I'm not afraid to dream big.  I'm often found daydreaming about something or other and when I have a dream or a goal that I'm passionate about, I reach for it, however barmy others might think I am for doing so.  I guess that's a quality I share with the Doctor and it's something I'm quite proud of.

And of course, it's a Matt Smith quote, for goodness sake.  My Doctor.

Hello, sweetie...

I'm absolutely thrilled to bits with my tattoo; it says something that is important to me, whilst also referencing my favourite show - a show which continues to astound and delight me, years after becoming the fan I am now.  The tattoo is also beautifully delicate and feminine - I especially love the shooting star!

So I'm using my blog to give a big shout-out to Chaos Custom Tattoos in Wadebridge.  It's a fabulous place and I can't thank Lorraine enough for my gorgeous artwork.  Not only did she create this tattoo, but she designed the Manics one on my back as well, which I also absolutely adore.  Both are original pieces that had talent and care poured into them and as a result, I am thrilled with how they look.  If you're in Cornwall (or fancy a trip down!) and you're after a new tattoo, I really cannot recommend Chaos highly enough.

Why The Voice & The X Factor are NOT Responsible for "The Death of Music."

Pictured: My favourite band.  Partly for reference.  Partly because... I just wanted them there.

Last night saw Jermaine Jackman win the third series of The Voice UK.  Millions watched his emotional rendition of And I Am Telling You I'm Not Going as the tears streamed down his face, moments after his name was announced.  And whilst those who watched and enjoyed the series were cheering (or debating whether their favourite act should have won instead), hundreds, if not thousands of angry people were bashing away at their computer keyboards, insisting that shows like The Voice are killing music.

Now, I'm not going to lie to you.  Whilst I really enjoy The Voice, conversely I hate The X Factor.  And it wasn't all that many years ago that I would have been one of the people ranting about how its dominance really is killing music.  But then I matured - because yes, I believe that the "TV singing competitions are killing music" argument is an immature one - and I came to realise that music is still very much alive.  And the only people capable of truly killing it?  Is us.

Hear me out on this.  Yes, I know how insanely irritating it is that we've reached a point where having the latest X Factor winner bag the Christmas number one spot is almost inevitable.  And yes, I see that the largely bland cover versions they churn out as their debut singles aren't exactly inspiring.  But I also see the kids watching those shows from a young age and developing an interest in music.

Taste in music, to borrow a Doctor Who-ism, is not something that necessarily travels in a straight line.  It's a ball of wibbly wobbly, music-y wusic-y... Stuff.  Take me, for example...

That is me, wearing the uniform of the obsessive Manics fan...  The hippo is optional.

I was about to say that my music taste has its roots in late 80's and 90's pop, specifically boybands.  However, that's not entirely true.  Whilst the first music I "discovered" for myself were the likes of Take That (okay, they were hugely famous, so it wasn't hard to "find" them), the first music I loved was the stuff I had grown up listening to as a very young child.  To put it another way:  It was the music my parents listened to.  Consequently, I loved Abba, The Beatles, Elvis, The Carpenters and Queen long before I was into anything else.  Then I got into 90's pop - probably because I became a teenager in the 90's - followed by Britpop, followed by the Manics and various other guitar-based bands.  I also love a lot of classical music.  In fact, when it comes to music, I'll give most genres a try, even if I don't end up liking them much (with the exception of most modern club/dance music - to HELL with that noise).  What I'm trying to say is just because it could be argued that I spent a lot of my adolescence listening to generic pop music made by manufactured bands, it doesn't mean I was then tied to only listen to that for the rest of my life.  The same goes for the youngsters watching The X Factor and The Voice; they may hear a song covered by a competitor on either show and like it.  Since we live in a much more digitally advanced age than when I was growing up, they may instantly google the lyrics to see who sang the original.  It might get them interested in a genre - Motown or soul, for argument's sake - that they had never even heard of before.  And that is definitely not a bad thing.  That marks the regeneration of music, rather than the death of it.  After all, those kids could well be the artists of the future.

Still, it's not the idea of formulaic pop being pumped into our youngsters' ears that bothers most people.  It's the thought that singles from X Factor competitors dominate our charts - from One Direction to Olly Murrs, it's hard to find a weekly singles or album chart that doesn't feature someone connected to the show.  And if they're selling thousands of copies of their music, what's happening to independent bands and artists?

Well yes, they might be struggling more to gain recognition and radio play, what with so many of Simon Cowell's protegees taking up the airwaves and getting all the sales.  And that's undoubtedly a bad thing.  But their music isn't dead.  New bands are out there, playing little pubs and clubs, doing all they can to be "discovered," just as they always have been.  They're on the road, supporting more established bands and artists.  They're recording videos and putting them up on YouTube.  They're giving away free downloads on their websites; the digital age is, if anything, making it somewhat easier for new bands and artists to make themselves heard, in spite of the reality TV juggernaut.

And that's where we come in.  You see, if you're vehemently against reality music shows and you don't see the artists they produce as making real music, then you've got to support the artists that do.  You need to be at those pubs and clubs, supporting your local, unsigned bands.  You need to be buying albums and encouraging your friends to do the same.  You need to be supporting independent radio stations, who champion music that the mainstream so often miss.  

Reality TV caters to a certain genre of music.  You'd never discover a new Manic Street Preachers on The X Factor.  It's mainstream music for the masses and yes, I get frustrated at times, seeing how low risk it all is.  How generic.  But it's not the only music that's out there and believe me; it won't be the only music that the kids who consume anything that falls from the Simon Cowell production line will end up listening to and enjoying in their lifetimes, even if it feels like it is.  All shows like The X Factor and The Voice are doing is providing the kind of music that a vast majority of people want to listen to.  They're not challenging their audience or giving them anything new, but then their audiences aren't really asking them to.  And whilst critics of the shows may not agree with me, I think it's fair to say that - whether you like the music they sing or not - both TV programmes have discovered people with genuine singing talent, who may otherwise have gone unnoticed.

Reality TV isn't responsible for the death of music.  Music is alive.  We just have to encourage people to look for it in more than one place.

Finding The Balance Between Freedom of Speech and Respecting The Feelings of Others

Let me get one thing straight before we start this...  I am pro free speech.  I believe that we all have a right to be heard, no matter what we're about to say.  I think that the freedom to express ourselves is important and it should be a human right, not a privilege only bestowed upon the lucky.  

HOWEVER...

...In recent weeks, I've seen more and more evidence of people using their "right to offend" thanks to free speech.  And guess what?  It offends me.

None of us want to live in a Nanny State, in which we're so politically correct that we feel the need to censor our every sentence, lest we anger or upset anyone.  To be forced to live like that would be restrictive and an attack on not only freedom of speech, but the art of debate.  Indeed, those of us lucky enough to live in a country where freedom of speech is a right given to all should exercise that right whenever we choose; there's nothing inherently wrong in doing so.

But what I personally believe is wrong, is when people stubbornly cry "free speech" whenever their words are criticised.  Because, as I've mentioned before on this very blog, self-analysis is key to being a functioning adult in society and frankly, if we're unable to look beyond our own words and actions to see how they might affect others, well that's a sign of arrogance, with a side order of immaturity thrown in for good measure.

Yesterday, a friend posted something on Facebook, asking those who might be thinking of making a fake pregnancy announcement as an April Fool's joke to consider how the "joke" might be taken by anyone who is struggling to conceive or who has lost a baby.  It's a subject close to my heart at the moment, seeing as I'm 31 and single and really rather devastated at the idea that my chance for motherhood might never arrive.  I knew I wouldn't find it funny if someone flippantly declared that they were going to have the one thing I desperately want, only to reveal it was a joke.  But that's not the issue, here...  One of this person's Facebook friends then commented, implying that their freedom to make jokes was being impeded.  They went on to suggest that we should be able to make "rape jokes" and "black jokes."  Later, when I shared the same picture, one of my friends played the "freedom of speech" card too, quoting Stephen Fry's "I am offended by that," Well so fucking what" line.

Now, I respect Stephen Fry enormously.  But I can't tell you how much the "so fucking what" quote pisses me off.  Still, I'm going to try...

You see, the thing about saying "so fucking what" is it instantly suggests that you don't care.  And that's fine on one hand; we're not legally obligated to give a damn about anyone else's feelings, particularly if we believe the person to be upset over something trivial.  But on the other hand, just because we don't share a person's feelings, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to understand them.  After all, when we are upset by something, wouldn't we hope that others might at least try to accept our view, even if they don't share it?

Yes, we live in a world in which certain people will take offense to literally anything.  Those people annoy me as much as they annoy Stephen Fry, believe me.  Like I said, I would hate to live in a world in which we had to censor everything we said, lest we upset anyone.  For a start, in that kind of world, being the gobshite I am, I'd be screwed.  And not in a fun way.

But freedom of speech works both ways.  You can't expect to be able to voice your opinions - however contrary - and never accept anyone's right to respond, even if that response is simply "I find that offensive."  Or, to put it another way, I have just as much right to be offended as I have to offend.

When we put our thoughts out into the world, be it in the form of a real-life conversation, a blog, a joke or a simple comment on Facebook or Twitter, we have every right to put them there.  That's what freedom of speech is.  But when we do so without any thought for how those words might affect the listener/reader, we show a lack of compassion that makes me uncomfortable.  Being free to say anything we like shouldn't mean that we do so without a second thought for anyone else.

Would you do a stand up comedy routine at a women's shelter and perform nothing but jokes about domestic abuse?  I love black humour - it's got me through some seriously lousy times in my life - but I sure as HELL wouldn't do that.

It's about respecting other people's feelings, rather than censorship.  When someone says "actually, I find that upsetting," they're perfectly within their rights to do so.  And if we tut and shake our heads and say "pah, political correctness gone mad; I'm just using my freedom of speech and if you don't like it, so fucking what," we're not respecting that person. 

I would have every right to find a Fifty Shades fan forum and leave endless messages, saying what abuse-glorifying, badly written crap the trilogy is.  But I don't do that, because whilst I passionately believe those things and I am very vocal about it, I also respect people's right not to feel that they're being attacked.  

What I'm saying (in a rambly way, hence the title of my blog!) is that whilst freedom of speech is a beautiful, brilliant thing, so is consideration for others.  So when someone says "actually, I don't find that funny and here's why..." perhaps we should listen to them, instead of rolling our eyes.  And when we choose to exercise our right to free speech, we need to accept that those who take offense to our views have just as much right to exercise theirs.