You First

For reasons that will forever be a mystery to me, The Algorithm has recently decided to deluge me with coverage of the "return of conscription" in the UK - supposedly something that's coming with the inevitable war with Russia.

Now, to a large extent, this is abject madness - the modern battlefield is one of drones and guided missiles, with very little place for masses of barely-trained and unwilling infantry. Plus, our country has a growing problem with angry young men who are feeling increasingly disenfranchised; the last thing our betters should be doing is training and arming them.

But our government is not exactly renowned either for its intelligence or its sanity, our military is sufficiently antiquated that "HMS Victory" is officially the flagship of the First Sea Lord (and, indeed, we have a First Sea Lord), and our print media, who are the source of this nonsense, are read primarily by people with extreme nostalgia for rationing, the Blitz Spirit, and a war that ended twenty years before they were born.

All of which suggests they might actually float it as a possibility.

In which case, I feel rather fortunate that I'm now too old to be conscripted, and both Funsize and Surprise! are too young. But we have nephews and nieces who are in the age range.

But...

The truth is that, despite our fellow feeling and inherent sense of justice, Ukraine aren't allies towards whom we have treaty obligations, and nor is Russia inherently a nation against whom we have any inherent animosity. The Cold War has been over for decades, and the ideology that supposedly threatened us is gone - Putin is very much not Stalin. So if our leaders choose to antagonise Russia and take us into war, that is a matter of their choice. (Most damningly of all, they would probably be doing so at the behest of the USA - a nation that has displayed through their recent actions that they very much do not have our interests at heart. They are, rightly, motivated by their own interests.)

So if our leaders want to take us to war, and think they want to drag our children into it, my answer is very clear: You first. If you want a war, you pick up a gun and go. And if you are absolutely desperate to send someone's children off to be senselessly slaughtered, start with your own. Can't bear to do that? (Not surprisingly - it's a downright psychotic thing to want to do.) Then stop your warmongering and leave us alone.

Reciprocity

Around Easter, we spent a week away in Portugal. It was a good holiday. However, customs was a massive pain - being non-EU citizens we were (rightly) shunted into the "other passports" lane, which then proceeded extremely slowly. Given that we had a car booked for a particular time, and that time gradually inched past, this was a real nuisance.

And yet, all of that was entirely reasonable. As I said, we're no longer EU citizens, and so it was appropriate that we were required to use the lane for non-EU passports.

But imagine my annoyance when we returned to the UK, specifically Edinburgh airport, only to find ourselves shunted into a lane for UK passport holders... and also holders of EU passports. And so we again found ourselves in a very long queue as the team there (who were, of course, short staffed) had to deal with all the passports.

A few weeks ago I had a trip to the US. This one was somewhat easier, in that I was traveling on my own, and so was able to make use of e-gates when available.

However, on arrival to the US I was (rightly) shunted into the "other passports" lane, which then proceeded fairly slowly. Given that I was tired and hungry by this point, that wasn't ideal... but, again, it's absolutely right and fair that the US prioritize their citizens.

Flying back to the UK, I was struck by the fact that I was on an absolutely full plane, and was going to b properly shattered by the time we landed - I've never been able to sleep on a plane, so had been awake 25 hours by the time we landed. Still, I consoled myself with the thought that most of the people on the plane were from the US, so at least I'd have a much shorter lane, for UK and EU citizens, waiting for me at passport control.

But no! Because it turns out that, at Edinburgh at least, US citizens can again use exactly the same lane as UK and EU citizens. (And, actually, it was worse even than that, because just as we arrived at passport control a large cadre of passengers from the EU also arrived.)

Oh, and also, Edinburgh does have an "other passports" lane, but there were such a tiny number of people in that category at that time that they sailed through faster than everyone else!

It's fair to say I have found a new pet peeve!

The thing that most annoys me about this is reciprocity, or rather the lack of it. I would very much prefer to be part of the EU, but we're not. Nor are we part of the US. So I have absolutely no problem with them requiring us to use the "other passports" lanes. Though it would be no bad thing for our leaders to agree a mutual deal whereby we can each use a faster lane - that would be really good, with no real downside I can see.

But in the absence of such a deal, surely we should apply the same rules as are imposed on us?

(Having said all that, I was struck, again, how life in the EU is just a better deal than in the UK. And, likewise, life in the US is also a better deal, although in a very different way, than in the UK. So maybe it's appropriate that this aspect of the UK sucks appropriately. But that's a whole other rant...)

Dear Political Parties...

Yesterday I received an election communication from Reform. Amusingly, it came in an envelope - I can only assume they were worried that if they sent these things out without they would somehow get 'lost' along the way.

Anyway...

At the outset, I need to note that there is no world in which I was ever going to vote for Reform, so I barely glanced at the card before dropping it in the "to shred" pile. But that glance was enough to catch my eye.

Because the headline on the thing was something along the lines of "only Reform can stop the SNP". In other words, exactly the same claim every other party is making - you need to vote for us, not because of any virtue we might claim or any policy we have to propose, but because you want to stop them (whoever "them" are).

It's hard to think of a more dispiriting approach to politics. Every party, it seems, has given up on actually arguing why we should vote for them. Instead, they're all more concerned about stopping the other guy.

I suppose that makes sense. In terms of policy, none of the big four have any meaningful differences. Labour and the SNP, in particular, are functionally identical - the only difference is on the topic of independence, where Labour are opposed (of course), and the SNP are in favour (in the same way as I'm in favour of becoming a billionaire - it's never going to happen, I have no power to make it happen, and I'm not going to take any meaningful action to make it happen). Basically, Labour just want to do exactly the same things in exactly the same way, but somehow better and with different names on all the people. The Lib Dems are slightly different, but not so you'd actually notice, while the Tories are slightly different in the other direction - mostly wanting all the same stuff but with lower taxes that they won't deliver.

Since there's so little between them, and essentially no difference in terms of the quality of their candidates (or, really, the lack thereof), I can well understand why they're just focusing on stopping one another - it's all they have.

But Reform are actually proposing something that's actually different. It's awful, hateful nonsense, of course, but it does in theory mean they have something to advocate. And yet they choose exactly the same pointless attack - only we (a party who have never won a seat in a Holyrood election) can stop the SNP (who will almost inevitably form the next government).

In fact, the only party that I give any credit in this utter mess of an election are the Greens, who at least are proposing some actual policies and suggesting any reason why we should actually vote for them. It's just a shame that they're utterly insane... but even that's a step up from hateful. So, small mercies, I guess.

(The summary for those who can't be bothered to read the preceding: stop telling us we should vote against the other lot. Tell us why we should vote for you. And if you've got nothing, go away and have a long think about why that is, and then change it.)

How To Do The Big Shop

Over the weekend the Algorithm saw fit to inflict on me several instances of an awful video by an influencer (female) complaining about another awful video by an influencer (male) talking about doing the Big Shop. I'm reasonably sure that the latter of these was either a parody, or perhaps someone advocating for deploying weaponized incompetence, while the former was a rant about the horrors of the mental load.

Anyway, as someone who is well-versed in the arts of the Big Shop, I thought I'd offer my advice.

Step One: Plan the Meals

The first step in the Big Shop is actually nothing to do with shopping, and is instead a matter of deciding what you're going to eat in the time covered by said Big Shop (in our case, that's the next week, but your timing may vary). This includes four things: breakfasts, lunches, dinners, and snacks of various sorts.

(I should note at this point that for us three of those are pretty straightforward - we maintain supplies of some staples for breakfasts, lunches, and snacks, and add only a few "specials"; that is, maybe a different breakfast for one weekend morning, or something for a lunch, or whatever. The only thing I really need to note is which days I need to make sandwiches for packed lunches.)

By and large, the person who is going to actually do the cooking should take the lead on this. Ideally, they should review their choices with the others in the household, just in case everyone is sick of pizza every night.

Step Two: Prepare the List

Now that you have the meals decided, the next step is to prepare the list for the Big Shop. Mostly, this involves working around the key rooms in the house and seeing what's coming to an end: if you're on your last tube of toothpaste, add that to the list; if you have plenty of mouthwash, maybe skip it this week. And so on and so forth.

I generally start upstairs with the bathrooms, then work through the cleaning products downstairs, and then add foodstuffs last. When it comes to the meals decided on in the previous step, dig out the list of ingredients, check what you have, and add anything you're missing.

Once complete, double-check the list. Then it's quite important to review it with others: firstly, with the person who is doing the cooking (as above), in case there's some implied accompaniment you've forgotten, and also with the other adults in the house. That extra check is definitely worthwhile: there's a good chance you've forgotten something, and there are potentially other things that need bought that you might not know about (I don't, for example, keep track of when LC is going to run out of shampoo and conditioner).

This is also the time for people to express any key preferences that they have: if there's a particular brand of toilet paper that they simply have to have, or they would like green apples instead of red this week, or whatever else, now is the time to say! (And if you're not going to be able to remember, write these preferences on the list!)

Quite important: The person who is actually going to do the Big Shop should also be the person who takes the lead on putting together the list. (Just as the person who does the cooking should usually be the person who cleans up afterwards...) That feels counter-intuitive, as people naturally want to split the labour, and this seems like a good place, but trust me on this one - as I mentioned above, there's a good chance you've forgotten something, and there's also a good chance that the review won't catch it. But there's a decent chance that you'll see the item when going around the shop and realize you need it... and that only works if you were the person who made the list.

(The reason for the cooking/clean-up thing is that it encourages efficiency - if you know you're going to have to do the clean-up, this provides incentive to only use those utensils you actually need and to clean as you go. Lacking that incentive the "occasional cook" is likely to leave a disaster area.)

Optional: Reordering the List

Having done the Big Shop a few times you should have the layout of the store memorised. So take a few minutes to rewrite the list in the order in which you'll find them in the shop. Especially if you have the list in an electronic format, this will save a disproportionate amount of time in the shop.

(That said, there's an even higher level of mastery where you transcend the need to do even that, and can simply mentally reorder the list as you go.)

Step Three: Shop

So, you've made a list, you've checked it twice, and so it's time to go to the shop.

This is actually the easiest bit of the job: go, put the things in the trolley, check you've got everything from each zone before you move to the next (to minimise backtracking), and once you've got everything, you're done.

Now, here's the bit that those two awful influencers got themselves in a mess with: supermarkets have a wide range of products, so how do you decide which of the dozen types of apples is the right one, or which of the fifty bottles of fabric softener is just right?

Here's the answer: either at the review at the end of Step Two, or perhaps at some time in the past, a strong preference may have been expressed on exactly what is wanted - as noted, it may be green apples this week; it may always be crunchy peanut butter instead of smooth. If so, that's the thing to get.

If there is no expressed preference, or said preference can't be fulfilled (because they don't have crunchy peanut butter), the person doing the Big Shop makes the choice. That may mean getting an alternative (a small jar of smooth peanut butter, or the store's own brand instead of the "good stuff", or whatever), or it might mean not getting anything ('cos you'll manage without, or pick it up somewhere else later).

Step Four: Take it Home

Once you've got all the stuff, paid for it, and packed it, it's time to take it home. You then get the joys of unpacking and putting it away. All of which is pretty easy: it's just work.

Responsibility of the Other Person

Where it seemed to go wrong for both of our awful influencers was a set of unreasonable expectations: on the one hand, the male influencer was apparently heading to the shop with a list, but also with a knowledge that his partner expected each and every item to be exactly the preferred one, necessitating a constant cycle of phoning home to check every decision. Meanwhile, the female influencer was complaining that their partner didn't have that exact list of preferences memorised - she objected to the mental load of having to maintain that knowledge.

Which, in both cases, is fairly idiotic.

In a sensible environment, here's how it works: where there are a reasonably small number of Important Preferences, the person doing the shopping should be able to memorise and apply those. Or, failing that, get them written down somewhere so they can be checked. If you partner hates Chardonnay, it's reasonable to expect that you'll know that and shop accordingly (I make no comment on how reasonable, or otherwise, that preference is - people are allowed to like or dislike things).

Beyond that reasonably small number of known preferences, it needs to not matter - if the choice of diluting juice isn't one of the Important Preferences, then when faced with the choice between "Summer Fruits" and "Apple & Blackcurrant" the person doing the shop should just make a choice (because it doesn't matter), and when they get back that choice shouldn't even warrant a comment (because it doesn't matter). Chances are the difference won't even be noticed.

However... If it is actually the case that one person have a large set of Important Preferences (because they must have green apples, and they must have "Apple & Blackcurrant" juice, and they must have a particular type of cheese, and and and...) then the solution is this: that person must be the one to do the Big Shop.

In short, then, the main responsibilities of the person who is not doing the job are to clearly express their Important Preferences beforehand, and then afterwards to accept that the person who is doing the job will then act independently on everything else.

(And, incidentally, that applies to just about everything else. The way I pack the dishwasher won't be exactly the same as the way you pack the dishwasher. Or batch clothes up for the washing machine, or wash the car, or whatever else the task is. But as long as the job gets done, the finer detail over preference doesn't really matter... and indeed needs to not matter. If for some reason it does really matter to one or the other, then that person needs to be the one doing that job.)

Two Last Notes:

1. I feel the need to reiterate that this post is entirely motivated by the two awful videos I referenced at the outset. Funnily enough, we more or less manage to get the Big Shop done without LC and I passive-aggressively sniping at one another. (Basically, I'm hoping that this will clear a bit of headspace that those videos have been filling over the past couple of days.)
2. Yes, pretty much everything here is, or should be, the bleeding obvious. I do hope that at least one of those videos was intended as a joke, because I'm increasingly finding myself wondering how supposed adults actually manage to get through the day.

How to Create a Shortage

Here we go again: with the US attacks on Iran we now have the Strait of Hormuz closed, and some disruption to the global supply chain for fuel. And so now we have rumours of petrol shortages, which will no doubt be followed up with panic buying, actual shortages, and all the troubles that that entails.

And, as usual, there's no need for it. We actually have plenty of fuel (for now, at least), so if people just keep calm and carry on things will sort themselves out. (Now, if the disruption carries on too long, that would no longer be the case. But that's a longer-term problem.)

But of course, that's not what's happening. Instead the media are playing up that fear (since it's the story), which means everyone needs to act (because you can't afford to be the one person who runs out), which means that there's a run on petrol, which means there's now a shortage.

Which is really frustrating - the issue isn't a lack, but rather that the rate at which people consume is faster than the rate at which the pumps can be restocked, and so we run out. At least for a while. And then there will come a period where the pumps are restocked and everyone has a full tank and egg on their faces.

In the meantime, though, we're still stuck. As I said, you can't afford to be the one person who runs out, so you need to play the game the same as everyone else. And so we create a shortage. Great.

Thanks Donald

Two years ago, we found ourselves coming to the end of our fixed mortgage deal just as there was a spike in interest rates. So we took our a two-year fix, in the hope that they'd come down again in that time. And that was fine.

And, indeed, the plan looked really good until about two weeks ago - the base rate had dropped to 3.75% with a further reduction expected this week and then, hopefully, at least one more in the months to come. Which would have been good.

Right on cue, therefore, this situation with Iran kicked off. Which has of course disrupted the oil supplies, leading to an immediate spike in prices, and in turn a rise in inflation. So the expected rate reduction didn't come, any prospect of further increases has evaporated, and indeed it's likely that the Bank of England may well start raising the rate again (because of course the thing to do in an impending cost of living crisis is to pile on a load more misery - that'll teach the plebs to want such fripperies as petrol to commute and food to eat).

And, just for fun, we're also coming to the end of our current deal on gas and electricity...

Oh well, I guess things could be a lot worse.

The Starbucks Incident

I'm not a fan of Starbucks on several levels. However, in this case, my issue is not with them...

I was traveling to Barcelona from Edinburgh, and due to a combination of travel times and company policy, I was using BA flights with a stopover at Heathrow. Which was fine - arrive at the first airport at silly o'clock, fly to Heathrow for a tight-but-doable transfer (I had an hour, and they claimed I needed an hour), and then to Barcelona just after lunch. And, it being a BA flight I could reasonably assume I would get something to eat, and maybe a coffee, on the flight...

Silly me.

I got to Edinburgh at silly o'clock and got onto the flight. So far, so good. And then the pilot came on to announce that we were delayed by ten minutes... That was far from ideal, but there should still be time. Then I discovered that BA no longer provide any meaningful food or coffee on their "short" flights - I received a tiny flapjack and a small bottle of water.

Never mind - I didn't actually choose them for the food.

At Heathrow it transpired that we had a little more time than was expected, and so by the time I had found my transfer gate and visited the toilets I had all of a few minutes before having to board. So I visited Starbucks and bought a croissant and a medium coffee. Said coffee was almost thermo-nuclear in temperature, but never mind as it would cool down on the plane.

Oh, and the croissant was very dry, but would also be fine with the coffee to wash it down.

Oh, and it was stupidly expensive, being a Starbucks not only in an airport but in Heathrow Terminal 5.

Anyway, never mind - that was me sorted for something to eat and drink on the second flight, which would tide me over until a late lunch in Barcelona. Huzzah!

Then I went downstairs to board my plane, only to be met by an instruction that we were boarding using a bus and that no hot drinks were allowed on the bus.

And so I now found myself, having very grudgingly spent over-the-odds on a mediocre coffee that was currently burning my fingers through the cup, having to throw almost all of it into the bin because I couldn't take it onto their bus. I then found myself having to eat a fairly dry croissant without the coffee to wash it down that would make it palatable. And then on the second flight I was given two small biscuits and a small bottle of water as the 'food' offering.

All in all, that was just a rubbish experience. And I absolutely blame Heathrow for this one - at no point is there a sign saying "by the way, you can't take your coffee on your plane". I consider the whole thing an horrible, and deliberate, rip-off of customers.

(And yet, somehow, the food offering was still better than the flight back, which was a "BA" flight operated by one of their partners, and where for three hours there was nothing at all. It's fair to say I have very little intention of using them, or Heathrow, any more than I absolutely have to in future.)

#5: "The Specimens", by Mairi Kidd

That Rarest of Things

Somehow, the Guardian managed to publish that rarest of things: an actually astute article on Scottish and Welsh independence in a unionist-leaning paper. It takes as its central thesis that it's likely that the upcoming Scottish and Welsh elections are predicted to lead to pro-independence majorities, while the largest party in the Northern Ireland Assembly is already in favour of leaving the UK. It then argues that this should serve as a major wake-up call to Westminster that things need to be done differently.

It won't, of course, but never mind.

Probably the key statement, though, and one that seems to have sailed blissfully behind the commentators (who are rehearsing the usual pro- and anti-independence talking points), is this: "This doesn’t work for Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, but it also doesn’t work for many parts of England." (emphasis mine)

That is, the UK fundamentally isn't working for any part of the UK.

I've spoken about this before, more than a decade ago, and it's even more true now: for a very long time, voters in the UK have had the choice of a Labour (or Labour-led) government, or a Tory (or Tory-led) government. Worse, the Labour and Tory parties actually agree on the vast majority of their policies, disagreeing in a fairly narrow range of areas and on some implementation details.

This has manifested itself in a massively-unpopular Tory government getting voted out and replaced with a Labour landslide that has collapsed to even worse levels of unpopularity in an unprecedentedly short period of time.

Look to the future and the next election has one of three possible outcomes: either Labour somehow manage to turn this around and get a second term and we get more of the same (as far as I can see this is the least-worst option, but I really can't see it happening), or the Tories somehow manage to recover in the polls and come back into power and we get more of the same, or (horror of horrors) we end up with a Reform government, probably elected on a fairly narrow subset of the electorate.

That's a horrifying prospect, and it's probably just as horrifying for a great many people in England, just as it is in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

The only real difference? Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have (at least in theory) the option of leaving the UK. England don't have that option - in theory, they could eject the rest of us, but that still leaves them with the same broken Westminster system of government.

So what is the solution?

The answer to that is actually the same, whether the question is now to stop the rise of Reform or countering the pro-independence parties in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland: make the UK actually work for the people of the UK.

That includes, but is not limited to, a better voting system, a better caliber of MPs (of all parties), an end to the cozy consensus that leads to all our parties agreeing on almost everything. And it mean finding a way to improve the economy... but not just "the economy" (which typically measures things that are only important to the very rich) but the economy as it is felt by regular people - jobs, wages, inflation (especially food inflation)... we need to find a way to end the dependence of so many on food banks (it's good that they're there, but they should also be a mark of shame for a supposedly-rich country).

And all of which needs done before the next election. Which means two things: firstly, the timescale is absurdly unrealistic such that it's almost certainly too late.

Secondly, it means that only Labour can stop Reform. Not as an election slogan (which is almost certainly will be), but because they're currently the only ones with the power to actually do anything.

Wee Guys

LC has a group of friends who have (mostly) stuck together since her school days, and each year we get together for a meal in the run up to Christmas. As can be expected, most of the original group were girls (now women, of course), and although there are a few partners now there are still twice as many women as men. Additionally, the families now number six children between them (one 17 year old, and the rest Funsize's age and below), with Surprise! being the only small boy among them.

All of which may seem odd context, but is fairly important to what I'm getting at. So, to recap: there was Surprise!, one teen, and three older men present.

Anyway, as the meal was winding down, I noticed that there came a point where Funsize had rushed off to play with the other girls, and LC was with most of her friends at one of the tables, leaving myself, one of the other men, and Surprise! at a second table. I was on one side of the table, with Surprise! and C on the other.

Anyway, C and I were chatting, and as we did so I gradually noticed that Surprise! was occasionally glancing across at C, and then carefully mirroring him - as C moved his arms or adjusted his posture, Surprise! did the same things.

This very closely matches the experience when he's with his cousins: despite being the youngest of five boys, Surprise! always wants to get involved as best he can in the games, and very much takes his cue from the older, bigger boys. (And, finally, it's worth noting that he fairly idolizes his childminder's son - another older boy.)

It's hardly an epiphany, but: wee guys look up to bigger boys as their guide for how to act.

And that doesn't really change - whether formally or informally, men seek out those they perceive as successful in whatever milieu they want to thrive, try to identify the behaviours that those role models exhibit, and copy those.

That, unfortunately, creates something of a problem, because positive male role models have become rather thin on the ground: our politicians are a fairly unimpressive bunch (not to mention being mired in various scandals along the way), religion has lost almost all its sway (not to mention being mired in various scandals along the way), our civic authorities are viewed with skepticism at best (not to mention being mired in various scandals along the way), and our media and sports stars often seem more interested in the trappings of fame than in providing good examples (not to mention being mired in various scandals along the way).

It's also the case that a great many boys are now being raised by single mothers. (At this point I need to stress that is in no way a criticism or a value judgement; just a statement of fact.) And our education system is run by women, and increasingly for women.

All of which adds up to an awful lot of wee guys having no positive male role models who they can look up to.

And that's why the likes of Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson are so dangerous. Because wee guys will look up to bigger boys as their guide for how to act, and if they have no positive male role models, they will look up to negative ones.

So, what is to be done?

Well, firstly, we men need to up our game. Whether we like it or not, we are the role models for the next generation - there isn't anyone else. So it's important to be aware that at any time, any one of us may find ourselves being observed, looked up to, and copied. You may find that you are the role model, so be a good one.

But society has a part to play as well:

• We need to see an end to the casual misandry that has wormed its way into much of our media - particularly egregious examples are the blithering idiot that is Daddy Pig and the oh-so-funny 'jokes' in Doctor Who. The mainstream media no longer make equivalent jokes about women, and that's a good thing; they need to stop the reverse.
• And I'm afraid there's a degree of casual misandry in our education system at all. A few months ago, I was fairly horrified to see our local university holding a 'debate' with the topic "We submit that masculinity is inherently toxic". Again, reverse the sexes and there would have been outrage; it absolutely would not have been allowed. This needs to stop. (Indeed, if I never again hear the word 'toxic' being used in reference to people, it would be too soon.)
• We need to stop viewing initiatives and groups aimed at men, and even those aimed exclusively at men with suspicion - very often, the moment any such group or initiative is started it is immediately the subject of a pile-on from accusations of misogyny, or demands that it be 'inclusive'. But women-only groups are accepted and celebrated.
• Perhaps most important of all: we need to stop demanding perfection from role models. I've spoken about this before, in the context of politics - absolutely nobody is perfect, so if you tear down and drive out any largely-positive-but-flawed role model for falling short of perfection, the alternative isn't perfect exemplars; it's the ones who you can't tear down, whether because they're too powerful, too entrenched, or they just don't care. In politics if you can't tolerate Tim Farron the alternative isn't a better Tim Farron, it's Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage. In role models, if you're going to tear down anyone who is less than perfect, you'll be left with Andrew Tate.
• Much as I have agreeing with Tory blowhard politicians, the ones who periodically lobby for a Minister for Men and Boys are right - the specific problems of boys falling into addiction and crime, of them taking their own lives, and of them falling under the sway of the Tates and Petersons of this world probably need a dedicated person in government to focus on them.

Why does all this matter?

Society has long taken the view that there is such a thing as "male privilege" - that women have been disadvantaged in society simply by virtue of their sex while men are not. And there's historically a great deal of truth in that. But it is emphatically not true for the current generation of young men and boys, who are struggling in a great many ways. If the goal is equality, there is a great deal to be done - and not all of it in the direction that you'd expect.

But maybe you don't care. Maybe you're of the view that men had it all their own way for centuries, and now it's time for payback.

Okay, fair enough. But consider this: none of those young men and boys who are struggling is entirely isolated. Every one of us is connected to a web of other people: families, friends, colleagues, acquaintances, 50% of whom are women and girls.

So when a boy goes off the rails and spirals into the manosphere and misogyny, the women and girls around them suffer. When a boy is driven to despair and falls into addiction or suicide, the women and girls around them suffer.

The bottom line is that if we fix the problems being faced by the current generation of young men and boys (and, yes, the problems being faced by the current generation of young women and girls - I'm not blind to these; they're just not my topic for today), then we all of us benefit, and all of us will be the happier for it.

Which should be obvious, but presumably isn't.

Punitive

A few days ago we received a card from the Royal Mail saying someone had sent us something and failed to attach postage - if we wanted it, there was a charge to pay. Of course, there was no indication of what the thing actually was, so...

Anyway, I ended up paying the fee and arranging for a redelivery for yesterday. The item therefore arrived this morning.

Anyway, it turns out to be a Christmas card, and it looks like a straightforward mistake. At a guess, they wrote a whole bunch, stuck stamps on them, checked them, managed to miss one, and then posted them. (I hope that's it, and not that they completely forgot to stamp all of them!) No big deal; it happens.

Except for one thing: the charge to receive this item was £5. The item in question was just a card, which would be £1.70 for first class delivery or 87p for second class (both of which are already outrageous, but that's another rant). That's a mark-up of between 3 and 6 times the regular cost, which frankly seems punitive - especially since this was not, in fact, our mistake.

Given that the postal worker in question had to visit twice (once for the original card and another for the revised delivery), I would have thought a fee of double the original might be reasonable, but surely no more than that?

All of which amounts to nothing, of course. Royal Mail are now a private company responsible for their own charging patterns, and if we don't like it we get to go to the (non-existent) competition. That's the joys of privatization for you. Oh well.

Just one thing though: please do remember to stamp your cards before sending!

Celtic's Management Woes 2025, part two

Just kidding.

Back when Brendan Rodgers left Celtic and they appointed Martin O'Neill as interim boss, I thought that was an inspired move - O'Neill is the only living Celtic manager who can be placed in the same quality bracket as Rodgers, and so he was the safest of safe pairs of hands. And so it worked out - eight matches, seven wins, and an all-around improvement in their form was the result.

But it was only ever going to be an interim appointment. Martin O'Neill wasn't going to take the job long-term, which meant that a permanent manager needed to be found. And while there was no rush, it needed to be done in time for the new guy to assess the squad in good time before the January transfer window opened. All of which meant that they had reached the point where it really had to be done.

And that in turn meant that Wilfried Nancy was always going to face a baptism of fire - the fixture list in December is absolutely packed, so he was always going to have a match within a couple of days of arriving, and a 'crucial' match within a week at absolute most. This week, with a top-table clash, a must-win European match, and then a cup final, is perhaps more crazy than most... but only a little.

So the first match was always going to be difficult.

Additionally, given that Nancy was hired, at least in part, because he has a very clear, distinct style, he needs to assess the squad not just in general but also in terms of how they fit that style - if that's why he's here, that's what he's going to play, so he needs to players for it. He basically needed to make the change right away, and accept that it led to a rough start.

So the first match was always going to be difficult.

The outcome of that match was not what would have been wanted by Celtic, but the immediate knee-jerk response by their fans has been quite a thing to behold.

But the harsh reality of things is this: Martin O'Neill is gone. It was fantastic to see him in action once again, and he left Celtic in a much better place that he found it, but he's gone now. Time to stop looking back and move onwards: Wilfried Nancy is the manager now, for better or worse, and he needs the support to actually give him at least a little time to get bedded in.

Of course, maybe it really won't work, and he'll have to be removed. But the time for that is 4-5 months after he arrives, not 4-5 days.

(And, actually, the more important thing is what happens in January. Celtic have had a couple of remarkably poor transfer windows, and can't afford another. So the key determinant of the destination of the title is really about who Celtic bring in, rather than the identity of the man bringing them in.)

Microsoft!!!

I very seldom (though not never) make use of cloud-based storage solutions such as Google Drive, Dropbox, or OneDrive. After the Fappening many years ago, I concluded (or was reminded) that you should never put something online, including in the cloud, if you wouldn’t want malicious people viewing it. (I should note that that’s not to victim-blame. Those responsible for the leaks in the Fappening were very definitely the villains in that piece. But I still advocate taking reasonable precautions.)

I should also note that I have a small number of files on my PC that I have made a declaration that they won’t be backed up online (for data protection reasons). So this isn’t just an idiosyncratic quirk or a mild preference.

On a related note, when I first purchased my PC, I spent a fair amount of time getting it set up and making sure the settings were as I prefer. It’s not a wildly bespoke system, but it is my system that I know better than some random developer at Microsoft.

So I rather object to the tendency of Microsoft, after every “major” update, to bring up a number of screens hectoring me to accept Microsoft’s recommended settings. If I wanted to use those, I would be using those. And I really object to their position of “assumed consent” – if you don’t explicitly opt out of their suggestions, they’ll “helpfully” go ahead and do it for you.

And so it was this morning that I discovered that Microsoft had moved (not even merely copied) all of my key files off my PC and into their OneDrive service. Meaning that any security concern, real or imagined, was now in play, meaning that my data protection obligations were compromised, and indeed degrading the experience of using my PC (because some files were no longer in the location the system required – though I should be glad of that, I suppose, or it might have taken much more than two days to discover).

And so it was that I immediately had a task to undo all of this and make sure the files weren’t any longer online and were back in the locations I expected. And reconnected the library files. (It also probably means that my automated backup for this week may well be a monster – it’s all the same files with all the same content, but they’ve all been “touched” since the last backup).

Thanks guys.

How to Lose a Customer

LC was out on Saturday, and so I decided to order Dominos pizza - it has been a pretty long time, but it's always quite enjoyable, and after an afternoon of rushing around it was good not to have to cook. Or so I thought...

The order was placed for 5.30, and the pizza tracker was opened. It promptly "went to sleep" until closer to the time, and then never seemed to wake up. But at exactly 5.30 there was a ring on the doorbell, and Dominos delivered our order. Huzzah!

Or not, as it turned out. Because while the two sides ordered were correct, neither of the pizzas were those we'd ordered.

Now, at this point I must stress that this is a very simple mistake that could easily happen to anyway (especially at it looks like their label machine was probably out of order) - the driver grabbed the wrong two boxes, and so there was a mix-up of orders. It happens; not a problem.

But then it's how you fix the problem that matters. And it really matters.

So, firstly I checked but there wasn't any obvious "we've screwed up your order, let us make it right" button on either the webpage or the email confirmation. That would be extremely useful, though I guess open to abuse.

So, onto Google I went to find the store's phone number. I called, and was answered promptly. I explained the problem, only slightly painfully, at which point she needed to speak to her manager so put me on hold. Which was fine. Moments later, she returned to say her manager was on another call so would be a few minutes... and then hung up.

Sigh.

So I called back, and got the same assistant. She apologised, and correctly put me on hold this time.

Ten minutes later...

After getting no response for ten minutes, I gave up, hung up, and called again. This time the call was answered by a different person (who turned out to be a driver who was helping out due to staff shortages). Unfortunately, he couldn't hear me very well...

I explained the problem again, this time rather more painfully. At which point he went and grabbed the manager, who came to the phone immediately. I then explained the problem for a third time (by now feeling really irate, and dealing with two very hungry and very disappointed children). After a few goes around, he grasped that all I wanted was for them to make the two pizzas that I'd actually ordered and deliver those to us - I wasn't demanding a replacement of the full order, or a refund in whole or in part, or compensation, or anything of the sort. Just give me the thing I wanted, please?

The replacement pizzas finally arrived at almost exactly 6.30, a mere hour after they were due.

(On the plus side, we did then end up with the two incorrect pizzas, which provided lunch for LC and I on Sunday, and then a dinner of sorts for LC on Sunday. So it wasn't all bad, I suppose.)

The upshot is that they made a real mess out of what should have been a fairly simple fix.

The way I think it should have worked:

• Firstly, the means you use to order should also provide the same means for dealing with issues, especially simple issues like this. Things like "why hasn't my order arrived", "I've received the wrong thing", or "it's been damaged" are pretty straightforward, and could easily be resolved by an automated system - and would probably cover 90% of all issues right there.
• Assuming that isn't possible (and given that it could be abused, maybe it really is not possible), then the person who answers the phone really needs to be empowered to solve the problem directly. And if that's not possible, then the second-line staff who can solve the problem need to be available to jump in and help right away.

As it is, this was very much a case where their service very much did not delight me. It will now be a very long time, if indeed ever, that I order from Dominos again. It's one bad experience after almost 20 years of otherwise fine service, but the experience was sufficiently bad as to sour all those others.

Stung!

It has been many years since I was last stung by a wasp. I can't say the experience has improved any over the intervening time.

Perhaps the most galling thing of all, though, is that the awful provocation I made to be stung was to open the window, that the wasp was nowhere near, in order to let the wee beastie escape from our office. Grr!

#22: "Dragons of Eternity", by Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman

An Addendum to the Previous Post

My view, when allegations of the sort faced by Neil Gaiman are made, is firstly that these are serious matters and must be taken seriously (investigated properly, and appropriate action taken), and then secondly that the position of “innocent until proven guilty” is not only legally vital but also socially important.

The problem in this case is that the nature of the alleged offences, coupled with where they are alleged to have taken place, makes any such investigation nigh-impossible – “this happened, in an isolated location with nobody else present, and sufficiently long ago that any evidence that once existed is long since gone.”

The upshot of that is that while the allegations must still be taken seriously, they can’t meaningfully be dealt with. That’s not justice, whichever way it falls – if Gaiman did indeed do what was alleged, there’s an appropriate punishment but no way to apply it; if he did not then he has no means of clearing his name.

As for myself, my feeling is that I won’t now be buying any further books he publishes (where previously I certainly would have done so) and won’t be watching any new shows based on his works. I will watch the end of “Good Omens”, as we’re already well into the story at this point, but have removed (or will remove) “American Gods” from my watchlist, and won’t be adding anything else. I don’t like that that’s the position, but that feels about as close to ‘right’ as I can manage.

Hera

I mentioned a few posts ago that I had finished reading “Hera”, the fourth novel by Jennifer Saint. I’ve read all four of her novels, and mostly enjoyed all four, but this is probably the best (closely followed by “Elektra”, with “Atalanta” and “Ariadne” following some way behind, in that order). It’s also perhaps the best novel I have read so far this year, though “The Labyrinth of the Spirits” runs it close. So, good stuff.

However, I’m distinctly troubled by the recasting of Hera as some sort of feminist hero, or indeed as any kind of a hero at all. The thing is, you don’t need to read far in Greek mythology to conclude that Zeus is a real baddie – a capricious tyrant interested only in his own glory and pleasure, and a menace to women and females of all species. And it’s even more clear, and especially here, that Hera is very much wronged by Zeus – partly by his siring so many children by so many others, and also in some other ways.

But it’s also true, both in the mythological sources and here, that Hera spends vast amounts of her time wreaking her vengeance not on Zeus, but rather on those aforementioned children and the women who bore them – women who were, by and large, themselves victims of Zeus’s actions. A great many of those women were unwilling in one way or another – be that through sex by deception, a supernatural impregnation while in some other form, or indeed outright rape through simple brute force.

So what we have, therefore, is the queen of the gods, the patroness of wronged women, spending her time inflicting punishments on women who were themselves wronged.

(This is, of course, not the only example of this in Greek myth – one of the origins given for Medusa casts her as a priestess of Athena who was raped by Poseidon. Athena then responds to this attack on her priestess by cursing Medusa. I’m not entirely sure that that was a fair assignment of the blame in that case.)

Anyway, it’s just a small burr of annoyance in an otherwise very enjoyable book. Like all her others, this one proceeds along at a pleasant pace, covering a great deal of story efficiently. Good stuff – recommended.

Oh Dear

Much to my disgust, I find myself concluding that I preferred Rishi Sunak's disastrous government to the current lot. Yes, they were absolutely awful, but at least they offered the possibility of hope - that the government would one day change and could potentially be better.

Unfortunately, the current government is pretty much the best that could be put together by the shambles that is our current political class. They're to the right of Thatcher, hampered only by there not being any mines to close down (though Grangemouth might compensate somewhat for that), and seem intent on moving further in that direction.

And there's no hope of improvement - the Tories are as bad as ever and are in utter disarray, and they're looking increasingly likely to be overtaken and replaced by Reform who are (or should be) a joke of a party.

Basically, this is the worst government of my lifetime. And I suspect it may be the best government of the rest of my life.

One Week Only

Since the start of the year, my commute to and from work has just been awful - it has seemed that every single road has had roadworks on it, with the inevitably lengthy delays. Though I did find one that didn't just after Storm Eowyn - largely by virtue of the roadwork-infested route I would have usually taken being completely closed.

Anyway, last Friday was a banner day, because finally, finally all the key roads on my main route to work were blessedly free of roadworks. Oh the joy of being able to travel to and from work in a less than hellish manner!

Spin forward to today, a scant four commutes later, and the roadworks are back. Because of course they are.

Boiling a Frog

I don't generally watch a lot of shows on Amazon Prime - we're mostly subscribed for other things, and most of what I do watch is elsewhere. But as it happens I have recently found myself watching two shows in sequence ("Rings of Power" and then "The Rig" - the latter I recommend, by the way), and the adverts have been bothering me.

For a long time, Amazon Prime didn't have any adverts, and that was good. Then they introduced the adverts, along with a surcharge to get rid of those adverts. But at that time the adverts were few and far between, and often they put the adverts at the start of the show and so once you actually got to watching you could watch without interruption.

And that was fine.

But what has been very obvious while watching these two shows is that things have been getting worse all the time - there are now more adverts, more interruptions, and those interruptions seem to be worse integrated into the show, sometimes even seeming to cut in the middle of a sentence.

I would assume that this is mostly about Amazon really wanting us to pay the surcharge to get rid of the adverts. And I'm quite sure that they do indeed want that money.

Except that I'm reasonably sure that it won't stop there - I fully expect them to start having people sponsor their various shows, meaning they get a dedicated advert before the show starts (or, perhaps, even during the show). And one of the conditions for that sponsorship, and one of the things done with other streamers where you pay to "skip the adverts" is that the sponsorship is not considered an advert, and so can't be skipped.

Basically, they're looking to boil the frog, to gradually turn up the heat to extract the absolute maximum amount of money they can from all sources.

But there comes a point where instead the frog jumps out of the pot. Amazon Prime is one of the weakest of the streamers (as I said, we're subscribed for other reasons), so maybe it's time to let it go.

Entropy

Our kettle died on us on Sunday. On the one hand, this was a mild inconvenience - kettles aren't exactly either very hard to get or very expensive. On the other hand, it's just annoying adding one more job to the list.

And, of course, it's unfortunate having to run out to get a kettle and spend the money just to end up back where we started. Multiply that by, well, everything and it's a constant annoyance of having to maintain everything, all of which gets in the way of making anything better.

Oh well.

In other news, and especially annoying, my car has developed yet another fault - after the type pressure sensors now finally seem to be fixed, it is time for the parking assist mechanism to fail. Another function that I don't make much actual use of, but which is installed and therefore needs to be working.

Sigh.